[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.
____________________