[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1716

       (Purpose: To provide for the best coordination of 
     disbursements for Indian set aside grant funds for the Alaska 
     Native villages, and for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for himself and Mr. 
     Murkowski proposes an amendment numbered 1716.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 12, line 1, add a carriage return immediately after 
     ``Direct Grants.--'', indent the text thereafter through line 
     8 as a separate paragraph, and insert ``(1) In general.--'' 
     immediately before ``The''.
       On page 12, line 8, strike the period and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``; and''.
       On page 12, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Alaska native villages.--In the case of a grant for a 
     project under this subsection in an Alaska Native village, 
     the Administrator is also authorized to make grants to the 
     State of Alaska for the benefit of Native villages. An amount 
     not to exceed 4 percent of the grant amount may be used by 
     the State of Alaska for project management.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this is a first of two amendments that 
I have proposed on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator 
Murkowski.
  This one deals with the working relationship of the State of Alaska 
with the Native communities in Alaska. That is a very good working 
relationship. We have put in place a program now to deal with bringing 
sanitation systems and clean water to the Alaska Native villages. I 
described this to the Senate last week.
  I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair has listened to me on 
several occasions concerning this program.
  In January 1992 Governor Hickel convened a sanitation task force to 
meet regarding the dire problems of rural villages in Alaska. State and 
Federal agencies and the Native organizations of Alaska participated in 
that task force. The problems were outlined and a consensus was reached 
on how to best try to deal with the problems.
  Basically, the cooperative effort has facilitated delivery of Clean 
Water Act funds to villages in Alaska. This amendment makes sure the 
cooperative relationship is maintained for funds authorized under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Our amendment does so by ensuring that grants for village safe-
drinking water projects go through to the villages in the same way as 
the clean water grants. This will allow for an even greater level of 
coordination in the delivery of drinking and wastewater projects to 
these areas.
  It is a very difficult problem. We are trying to cooperate across the 
board. As I have said, this is the first of the two amendments that we 
have discussed with the managers of the bill and the staff.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, am I correct that the Senator now is 
taking the first of these two amendments to S. 2019?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct; the amendment on page 12, lines 8 and 9 
inserts a new paragraph.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct. That is entirely agreeable on this side, 
Madam President.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, both amendments being offered by the 
Senator from Alaska have been cleared on this side. We support them.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the managers. I ask the adoption of this first 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1716) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1717

(Purpose: To clarify regional status for small water system technology 
                    centers, and for other purposes)

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask that the clerk present the second 
amendment.
  This amendment is for Senator Murkowski and me. It is his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Murkowski, 
     for himself and Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1717.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, between lines 10 and 11, insert the a new 
     subparagraph:
       `` `(I) For purposes of this subsection, the State of 
     Alaska shall be considered a region.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this is a technical amendment that 
modifies a provision concerning small public water system centers which 
provide training and technical assistance for small public water system 
operators. Under the bill's present criteria, it is unclear whether 
universities in Alaska could qualify to house small water system 
centers.
  The pending amendment, which my colleague from Alaska and I have 
worked out with the committee, ensures that the training and technical 
assistance centers can be located in our State. It does so by making 
sure that Alaska is a region for purposes of this Act with regard to 
the small systems centers. Our universities must still compete for the 
centers.
  Alaska has characteristics of a region--we are one-fifth the size of 
the United States; the Southeast is a temperate rain forest, the North 
Slope has an Arctic climate, and parts of Interior Alaska are dry 
enough to be a desert. Thus, a center serving the diverse regional 
needs of Alaska is justified as being classified as being a region for 
this purpose.
  I am very pleased the managers have agreed to this amendment that was 
presented by my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the Senator is exactly right. It is a 
good amendment and we certainly agree with him on this side.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, in Alaska, the problem is clear.
  Residents of rural villages in Alaska do not have either adequate 
drinking water or human sanitation facilities in their homes and 
communities. As a result, sickness and disease, comparable to many 
Third World countries, are major problems for many communities.
  In over half of the villages in Alaska, water is hauled to the home 
by hand from washeterias, watering points, or from a creek or river--a 
washeteria is a centrally located building within a community where 
washing and drying machines are available. Washeterias also contain 
public showers.
  In many of the homes where water is hauled by hand, a trash can is 
used as the water storage tank. Water for drinking, hand washing, and 
doing the dishes comes from this household trash can.
  Of existing water service levels in rural Alaska:
  Only 40 percent of rural Alaskans have piped water to their 
residence; 30 percent use a washeteria; 20 percent use a year round 
watering point; 7 percent have individual wells; and 3 percent have no 
system.
  According to these figures, less than half of the residents living in 
rural Alaska villages have the basic water supply system we all take 
for granted, piped water to their homes.
  Imagine half the residents in Washington, DC, living without running 
water or toilets that flush.
  The results of having inadequate water and sanitation facilities are 
tragic.
  Hepatitis A runs rampant among villagers--causing death in some 
cases.
  Hepatitis A is a viral infection causing nausea, vomiting, abdominal 
pain, and in some cases a yellowing of the skin or eyes. Deaths from 
hepatitis A occur at a rate of approximately 1 to 5 deaths per 1,000 
cases.
  The water and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska must be 
addressed.
  The water and sanitation conditions in these rural communities are 
considered worse than in many Third World countries.
  The Alaska congressional delegation is committed to improving water 
and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska.
  Last year, on May 5, 1993, the Indian Affairs Committee held a 4\1/
2\-hour hearing on water and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska.
  The committee received hundreds of pages of testimony from Federal 
agencies, State agencies, and Alaska Natives which described the 
deplorable water and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska.
  The lack of basic safe water and sanitation services in rural Alaska 
has been well documented.
  We have thousands of pages of testimony that document the 
unacceptable water and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska.
  As a result of the May 5, 1993 hearing, the Environmental Protection 
Agency took the lead on this issue and formed what has become known as 
the Federal field work group.
  The Federal field work group's goal was to determine methods by which 
the Federal Government could work with and assist the State in 
addressing the water and sanitation conditions in rural Alaska. It is 
my understanding that the Federal field work group has made significant 
progress.
  The Indian Affairs Committee will soon hold a hearing to receive 
testimony from Federal agencies, State agencies, and Native 
organizations on what progress has been made over the past year and 
what will be done in the future to address this problem.
  We will continue to work to see that safe drinking water is provided 
to the residents of rural Alaska and that the honey bucket is 
eliminated from village homes. As the country moves toward the 21st 
century, Alaska's rural residents should not be living in Third World 
conditions--they should not experience the disease and inconvenience 
they face because of inadequate sewer and water systems.
  The amendments offered today will help solve some of these problems. 
I understand these amendments will be accepted and I thank the managers 
of this bill for their kind assistance.
  The first amendment we offered allows the EPA Administrator to make 
grants under the 1.5 percent Indian set-aside directly to the State of 
Alaska for the benefit of Native villages, and the State of Alaska to 
use up to 4 percent of each grant under the Indian Set-Aside Program 
for administrative purposes.
  This amendment would allow grants to be made directly to the State of 
Alaska and clarifies that set-aside funds may be used for 
administrative purposes. This amendment is helpful for purposes of 
management and coordination with ongoing State efforts.
  The second amendment we offered would require the Administrator to 
consider the State of Alaska as a region when determining eligibility 
for grants under a provision of the bill requiring the Administrator to 
make grants to institutions of higher learning to establish and operate 
not fewer than 5 small public water system technology assistance 
centers in the United States.
  This amendment assures that Alaska will not be excluded from 
considered for a grant.
  Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to comment on 
an amendment offered yesterday by my colleague Senator Stevens from 
Alaska which I cosponsored and worked on with the senior Senator. The 
amendment allows the Governor of a State to reallocate unobligated 
State revolving funds in the form of direct grants. Under the 
amendment, the EPA Administrator may reserve and allocate up to 10 
percent of the remaining unobligated funds under the Indian Set-Aside 
Program.
  This amendment would redirect unused funds into needed rural 
community projects to improve drinking water systems.
  The State of Alaska strongly supports the establishment of a drinking 
water State revolving fund and the set-aside for Alaska Native villages 
and Indian tribes. It is necessary to reserve significant funds to 
improve the public water systems of Indian tribes and Alaska Native 
villages.
  The amendments that the senior Senator from Alaska and I offer will 
help the ongoing efforts to address this unacceptable situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1717) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, may I take the time to thank the 
managers of the bill for their consideration of these technical 
problems for our State.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1718

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Bradley, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Metzenbaum, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1718.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7 of the manager's amendment, after line 20, insert 
     the following:
       (iv) the effects of the contaminant upon subpopulations 
     that are identified as being at greater risk for adverse 
     health effects in the research and evidence described in 
     section 1442(j).
       On page 18, line 13 of the manager's amendment, strike 
     ``.'' and insert after ``water'' the following:
       ``In characterizing the health effects of drinking water 
     contaminants under this Act, the Administrator shall take 
     into account all relevant factors, including the margin of 
     safety for variability in the general population and the 
     results of research required under this subsection and other 
     sound scientific evidence (including the 1993 and 1994 
     reports of the National Academy of Sciences) regarding 
     subpopulations at greater risk for adverse health effects.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today with 
Senators Mikulski, Baucus, Lautenberg, Bradley, Kerry, Lieberman, 
Metzenbaum, and Leahy would change the drinking water standard-setting 
process by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to consider 
sound scientific evidence, including two recent studies by the National 
Academy of Sciences, indicating that our children and other vulnerable 
groups may be at greater risk from environmental threats such as 
drinking water contamination than average healthy adults.

  While in some cases, such as in issuing its standard for lead, EPA 
has considered the health effects of a contaminant on children or on 
other vulnerable populations, it has not done so systematically. My 
amendment builds upon the Kerrey-Hatfield amendment approved last week 
that requires that research on sensitive subpopulations be conducted.
  This amendment takes the next step and requires that scientific data 
on vulnerable groups be considered consistently and systematically.
  Mr. President, a few days ago, I had the privilege of joining the 
First Lady as we listened to a group of very special children tell 
their stories. These children are fighting for their lives. And as they 
bravely face life-threatening illnesses with their families, they are 
discovering an unfortunate truth about America--we do not always do a 
very good job of protecting our most vulnerable citizens from illness 
or caring for them once they get sick.
  Mr. President, if you were to look at this bill before this amendment 
and you were a 170-pound man, you would feel very comfortable that your 
health was being protected because the standards that are set for 
drinking water are basically set to make sure that a 170-pound man is 
protected.
  But many of us are not 170-pound men. Many of us are a little weaker 
than that. Many of us are women; some are pregnant women; many of us 
are children; many of us are frail; many of us are elderly.
  And that is why this amendment is so important, because what we say 
in this amendment, Mr. President, is that in setting all the standards 
for contaminants, we want to make sure that these vulnerable 
populations are considered.
  We have many studies that have shown this is very important. The 
National Academy of Sciences has clearly said that. My amendment would 
clarify and strengthen EPA's authority to provide that margin of safety 
for these vulnerable populations.
  The amendment does not alter the legal requirement that standards 
must be technically feasible, which explicitly includes consideration 
of costs.
  Mr. President, a few days ago I had the privilege of joining the 
First Lady as we listened to a group of very special children tell 
their stories.
  These children are fighting for their lives, and as they bravely face 
life threatening illnesses they are discovering an unfortunate truth 
about America--we do not always do a very good job of protecting our 
most vulnerable citizens from illness, or caring for them once they get 
sick.
  As we debate health care reform, and talk about how we can improve 
coverage, it is important that we do everything we can to prevent our 
people from getting sick in the first place. This is particularly true 
for children, infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and other 
vulnerable groups who are more susceptible to illnesses and whose 
bodies are less able to fight off illness once it strikes.
  Mounting scientific evidence indicates that children, infants, 
pregnant women, the chronically ill, and certain other significant 
groups are at substantially greater risk than the average healthy adult 
from environmental contaminants.
  Indeed, most of the more than 100 people who died as a result of 
drinking contaminated water in Milwaukee last year were from these 
vulnerable groups.
  Yet we continue to look at the health effects of contaminants on the 
average 170-pound male when setting drinking water standards.
  The scientific and public health community, and the National Academy 
of Sciences have been clear that infants, children, and other persons 
who are especially susceptible must be evaluated in setting public 
health standards.
  For example, in its recent report entitled ``Science and Judgment in 
Risk Assessment,'' the National Academy of Sciences stated that EPA 
should better account for ``differences in susceptibility among humans 
in estimating individual risks.'' The Academy urged that EPA improved 
and account for its understanding of such differences in 
susceptibility, exposure, aggregate risk from multiple contaminant 
sources, and potency, in setting standards.
  The Academy also concluded that ``EPA should assess risks to infants 
and children whenever it appears that their risks might be greater than 
those of adults.'' The Academy report states that ``human beings vary 
substantially in their inherent susceptibility to carcinogenesis,'' 
which must be more fully taken into account.
  And in its 1993 report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and 
Children,'' the Academy found that there are ``both quantitative and 
occasionally qualitative differences in toxicity of pesticides between 
children and adults,'' and that exposure to many pesticides was 
substantially different for children than adults. The Academy 
recommended that EPA consider these facts in regulating pesticides.
  The Academy stated:

       A fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children 
     are not ``little adults.'' Profound differences exist between 
     children and adults. Infants and children are growing and 
     developing. Their metabolic rates are more rapid than those 
     of adults. There are differences in their ability to 
     activate, detoxify, and excrete [toxic] compounds.

  The National Academy of Sciences' recommendations are reinforced by 
the recommendations of the World Health Organization. WHO's 1986 
report, ``Principles for Evaluating Health Risks from Chemicals During 
Infancy and Early Childhood: The Need for a Special Approach,'' for 
example, points out that:

       Generally speaking, chemicals, both organic and inorganic, 
     are absorbed more readily by the infant than by the adult.

The report notes that infants and children are less able to detoxify 
many chemicals than adults, and that exposure of young children cannot 
only cause immediate effects but also can disturb maturation of organ 
systems. Thus WHO recommends,

       When health risks from chemicals are evaluated, the special 
     characteristics of infants and young children must be 
     recognized.

Moreover:

       variations that exist in the health and nutritional status 
     of children reared in different social and cultural 
     environments may influence exposure and modify response to 
     chemicals in the environment.

  Although under current law, many believe EPA already has the 
obligation to consider these groups in evaluating whether there is a 
margin of safety in developing the maximum contaminant level goals 
[MCLG's], the Agency has not always done so in a systematic fashion. 
For example, in issuing its rule for lead contamination of drinking 
water, EPA did specifically evaluate the risks of lead posed to young 
children, but in evaluating the risks of other chemicals, EPA has not 
always considered the special threats to children.
  My amendment would clarify and strengthen EPA's authority to provide 
a margin of safety. The amendment would require EPA to do what the 
National Academy of Sciences and World Health Organizations have 
recommended: Consider the special susceptibility and exposure of 
infants, children, and other persons who are more vulnerable than the 
norm when exercising its authority to set drinking water standards.
  Sound science dictates that such evaluations be conducted and the 
committee's new section 1442(j) requirement that EPA develop better 
data on these subpopulations will enhance our understanding of these 
issues. In the mean time, EPA should consider the scientific evidence 
and recommendations available, such as those presented by the Academy 
and WHO, and other sound scientific evidence.
  As I noted earlier, this amendment does not override the existing 
statutory provisions requiring, for example, that maximum contaminant 
levels be feasible, based upon a consideration of the technology 
available in the field and considering relevant costs. It merely 
requires EPA to do what the Agency already should be doing anyway, and 
sometimes has done in the past--evaluate the impacts of drinking water 
contaminants on those individuals most at risk from contamination, like 
children and infants.
  This is not only sound science, it is sound public policy, America's 
mothers, children, elderly, and other vulnerable people deserve to be 
considered and protected from drinking water contamination.
  Mr. President, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of 
government is to provide safe drinking water to all Americans, not just 
to 170-pound men. I believe this amendment helps us meet that 
responsibility. I am proud this amendment has the support of a wide 
range of groups including the American Public Health Association, the 
Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Physicians for Social 
Responsibility, the National Association of People With AIDS, the 
League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 
the Sierra Club, American Oceans Campaign--whose president, Ted Danson, 
was here today working in behalf of this amendment and another I will 
offer later--Friends of the Earth, the U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group, and Clean Water Action.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I commend the Senator from California for this amendment. 
I ask if I could be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side. It is a good amendment and we are pleased to accept the 
amendment.
  As the author of the amendment has indicated, some of us are more 
susceptible to adverse health effects from drinking water than others. 
It may be a matter of age or because of a pre-existing illness or a 
difference in metabolism or because of other factors, but it appears 
that some Americans are more sensitive--more likely to experience an 
illness from drinking water contaminants--than others.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act already allows EPA to consider these 
differences. For example, EPA has set a standard for nitrate in 
drinking water designed to protect infants. Children younger than 6 
months lack certain enzymes in their digestive system which break down 
nitrate. As a result the nitrate may enter the bloodstream and 
interfere with the blood's role in carrying oxygen. The illness is 
called blue baby disease. An infant with the disease turns blue for the 
lack of oxygen in the bloodstream.
  The standard for nitrate set under the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
established to prevent this adverse effect. It is set to protect this 
specific subpopulation--children under 6 months of age. So, the law 
already fully authorizes the Administrator to set regulations intended 
to protect sensitive subpopulations. The purpose of the Senator's 
amendment is to assure a more systematic review of these potential 
effects when characterizing the illnesses that may be caused by 
drinking water contaminants.
  Mr. President, I want to make one other point with respect to current 
law. When setting the health goal under the current act--the maximum 
contaminant level goal--the Administrator is to establish a goal at the 
level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of 
persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety. That is 
the statutory language from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

  In using this authority the Administrator has usually included a 10-
fold margin of safety when setting the health goal to reflect the 
natural variability in the susceptibility to adverse health effects 
among the general population. This safety factor is in addition to 
other safety factors that may reflect the use of data from animal 
experiments or for other reasons.
  The consideration of sensitive subpopulations as provided in the 
Senator's amendment is not intended to replace this traditional margin 
of safety for variability in the general population. Recent studies by 
the National Academy of Sciences and others indicate that some 
subpopulations may be 100-fold or 1000-fold more sensitive to some 
contaminants. This amendment would assure more careful review of these 
sensitivities without eliminating the existing margin of safety for 
human variability that is known to exist in the general population.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the ranking member of the committee on which I am 
proud to serve. I also thank chairman Baucus who has worked so hard. 
Many people worked hard on this. This was controversial in the 
beginning, we worked it out, and that is the way the legislative 
process should work.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from Carol Browner, of 
course the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, be printed in 
the Record as well. She is in support of this amendment.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1994.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I applaud your efforts to assure that 
     all Americans are protected when they turn on their faucets 
     for drinking, bathing, or cooking. I share your belief that 
     the Federal government should protect the elderly, infants, 
     pregnant women and other sensitive subpopulations when 
     setting drinking water standards.
       A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that some 
     subpopulations may be disproportionately affected by some 
     contaminants. For example, it is well documented that high 
     levels of lead exposure contribute to learning disabilities 
     in children. The National Academy of Sciences recently 
     published two reports confirming the need to consider 
     differing effects on subpopulations when performing risk 
     assessments and in regulatory decisionmaking.
       You and I share the same goal--the strongest Safe Drinking 
     Water Act that provides flexibility and financial assistance 
     to states, and sets tough standards to protect the health of 
     all Americans. Your amendment is crucial to achieving that 
     goal and it has my full support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Boxer in 
offering an amendment which will ensure that we protect infants, 
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and other groups from the 
threats posed by contaminants in water. I appreciate the work of my 
good friend from California in taking the initiative on this important 
issue.
  Scientific evidence is developing showing that certain groups in our 
society like infants and children are at greater risk from 
environmental contaminants than the average adult.
  Two recent National Academy of Sciences' reports conclude that 
children are at greater environmental risk from environmental 
contaminants. In its 1993 report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants 
and Children,'' the NAS concluded that there are ``both quantitative 
and occasionally qualitative differences in toxicity of pesticides 
between children and adults.'' Since the exposure to many pesticides 
was substantially different for children than adults, the NAS 
recommended that the EPA consider these differences in regulating 
pesticides.
  And earlier this year, in ``Science and Judgment in Risk 
Assessment,'' the NAS recommended that ``EPA should assess risks to 
infants and children whenever it appears that their risks might be 
greater than those of adults.'' So it is clear that in order to carry 
out the goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect our citizens 
from the health threats posed by contaminants in drinking water, EPA 
must characterize the risks posed to groups like infants and children.
  Under existing law, the Administrator of EPA first establishes a 
maximum contaminant level goal [MCLG] which would protect public health 
from drinking water contaminants with an ample margin of safety. In 
establishing this goal, EPA is required to consider the risks posed to 
those sensitive subpopulations which may be more at risk from the 
contaminant. Unfortunately, EPA has not always conducted the research 
necessary to determine whether these groups are subject to additional 
risk.
  The managers' amendment which was adopted last week requires EPA to 
conduct research on the effects that drinking water contaminants may 
have on groups like infants and children. The amendment we are offering 
today requires the EPA Administrator to take into account the results 
of this research and other evidence in characterizing the health 
effects of drinking water contaminants when establishing the MLCG.
  Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Administrator establishes a 
maximum contaminant level as close to the level necessary to protect 
public health as can be achieved using feasible technology and taking 
costs into account. The managers' amendment also allows the 
Administrator to establish an alternative standard under certain 
specified conditions. But the language of the managers' amendment does 
not require the Administrator consider the health risks to sensitive 
subpopulations in setting this alternative standard. This is a 
significant flaw which threatens the health of these groups from 
drinking water contaminants.
  The amendment we are offering today corrects this flaw. It requires 
EPA to consider the effects of the contaminant on groups like infants 
and children at greater risk for adverse health effects in establishing 
an alternative standard.
  Mr. President, this amendment deals with the health of our children. 
Children represent the future of our country. Yet they have no 
political clout.
  We should take great pains to preserve their young bodies and minds, 
not only because we are a caring society, but because in this ever 
increasingly competitive world--our Nation can afford no less.
  I hope that my colleagues will join with Senator Boxer and me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Boxer today in 
cosponsoring her amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which would 
ensure that safe drinking water standards provide protection for even 
sensitive populations.
  Too often in passing legislation to protect public health, we 
overlook the needs of our most sensitive populations. When children 
drink from the school water foundation, when the elderly or people with 
immune system deficiencies turn on their own tap, they expect the water 
they are drinking to be safe.
  Unfortunately, our public health protection standards do not always 
account for these, more sensitive members of society.
  On June 29, 1993, I held a hearing of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to review the results of a 
National Academy of Sciences report on pesticides in the diets of 
infants and children. I requested this study in 1987 out of concern 
that our pesticide and food safety laws were not adequately protecting 
sensitive populations.
  The report concluded that current policies do not adequately protect 
America's children from exposure to pesticides in food and in drinking 
water. I am working with the Administration and Senator Kennedy to pass 
legislation in the Senate that will correct this focus in our laws 
regulating food safety and pesticide use.
  Senator Boxer's amendment extends this public health protection to 
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I would like to congratulate Senator Baucus for crafting a bill that 
addresses concerns about the cost and regulatory burden imposed by the 
Safe Drinking Water Act without weakening the law's strong health 
protection standards. Senator Boxer's amendment builds on these 
improvements by ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency 
considers the needs of even our most sensitive populations when setting 
drinking water standards.
  Parents should not have to wonder whether or not the water from their 
own tap is safe for their children. Sensitive populations have the same 
right to safe drinking water as the rest of us.
  I applaud Senator Boxer for introducing this amendment to ensure that 
that right is protected, and I am proud to join her in that effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. FORD. I am in support of the Senator's amendment, do not get me 
wrong. I want it very strongly and feel we are moving in the right 
direction and I will not object at all. But I come from a State where 
80 percent of our water systems serve 10,000 people or less. Those 
people are becoming very concerned about the pressures that are being 
placed upon them for testing the water and the scientific research that 
has to be done. The list of particles they are looking for is expanded 
every year. It is getting to a point where they are almost unable to 
pay for that and keep rates reasonable.
  What does the Senator's amendment do as it relates to the smaller 
water systems, as it relates to funding? Does this put additional 
restriction on them? I am just trying to figure out some way, so when I 
am questioned about this we will have the answers and it will be part 
of the Record, I say to the good Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased the Senator would ask this question as 
he fights for his State and the people in his State. This amendment 
does not alter the legal requirement that standards must be technically 
feasible, which explicitly includes consideration of costs. This 
amendment does nothing to change that. It just says they should also 
look at the effect of the contaminants on these vulnerable populations, 
but still does not do anything to do away with the feasibility clause 
in the bill.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator. That is the explanation I needed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Hatfield and Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, both were very closely 
involved with this likewise and worked with the Senator from California 
in coming to this excellent conclusion.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I add that. I was remiss in not stating that. I 
appreciate that. We were in fact working on this for days and I am very 
pleased we have had this unanimity here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1718) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________