[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin forms one 
of the largest natural estuaries in the continental United States. The 
basin drains an area of almost 5,000 square miles from 16 Louisiana 
parishes and 4 Mississippi counties. The ecology of the basin provides 
the diverse essential habitat that supports countless species of fish, 
birds, mammals, and plants. It's extensive wetlands provide the primary 
nursery for much of the seafood harvested in the gulf coast.
  Urbanization, increasing population growth, explosive development 
combined with intensive land use have resulted in dramatic threats to 
the environment and ecology of the basin. Sewage and septic tank 
discharges, animal waste from farms, herbicides, pesticides, 
fertilizers, stormwater runoff, sediments from construction, and sewage 
from fishing camps are among the many mounting threats to the basin. 
These are threats to economics, health, safety, and quality of life for 
1.5 million concerned citizens that live, work, and play in the basin.
  Discharge of contaminants has been the major cause of the water 
quality degradation that has: closed Lake Pontchartrain beaches, 
recreation areas, and rivers to recreation; diminished shellfish and 
finfish harvest; and caused significant habitat destruction.
  I am particularly concerned that this pattern of destruction has put 
continuing and mounting devastating pressures on the numerous species 
of animals, fish, and plants that are so essential to a productive 
basin.
  Mr. President, in fiscal year 1991, funding was earmarked in EPA's 
Abatement, Control, and Compliance budget as a grant to the Lake 
Pontchartrain Basic Foundation for pollution abatement projects. This 
initial funding has allowed the foundation to provide technical 
assistance to affected parties in identifying and implementing 
pollution abatement projects in cooperation with local and community 
interest groups. However, without sufficient funding to continue these 
important voluntary grass-roots pilot projects, effective restoration 
plans cannot go forward.
  My amendment is designed to provide continued funding for those 
programs devised to reverse the detrimental and destructive trends 
associated with Lake Pontchartrain. Continuation of the implementation 
of projects that will restore and preserve the water quality and the 
essential habitat in the basin is a very high priority to me.
  I believe--and I have informed the chairman that I believe--that the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, might be an appropriate 
vehicle for us to include this legislation that I have proposed to deal 
with this problem, legislation to grant authority to the Administrator 
of EPA to provide funding and oversight to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin 
Foundation to carry out restoration projects for the Basin. I ask the 
chairman to comment, if he would, on the prospects of moving ahead with 
this amendment and for any thoughts he has as to the appropriateness of 
our going forward. I have not offered the amendment to the legislation 
at this time, but I wanted to explore with him what course of action he 
recommends at this point.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am keenly aware of the interest of the Senator from 
Louisiana in this amendment. The Senator has contacted me early and 
repeatedly on this subject. I think that the Senator has a valid point, 
the degradation in the Lake Pontchartrain basin is a problem that must 
be addressed.
  The difficulty in facing this problem at this point, however, is that 
this is a Safe Drinking Water Act. It is not a Clean Water Act. There 
are many other Senators who have come to the committee with similar 
requests; that is, requests for provisions for their own States that 
much more appropriately lie with the Clean Water Act, not with this 
bill. I have requested of all these Senators that they defer and take 
up these issues on the Clean Water Act, which I have every intention to 
bring up in the next couple of weeks.
  When that bill comes before the Senate, I expect that the Senator 
from Louisiana will then urge the Senate to accept his amendment. I say 
to the Senator that we will very carefully consider the amendment at 
that time and we will make a good faith effort to find an 
accommodation. I recognize how important this project is to the Senator 
from Louisiana and I understand the merits of the program.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the chairman very much for his words of 
support. I look forward to working diligently with the chairman on 
trying to legislate this amendment. If this is not the proper vehicle, 
I am willing to accept that and defer until the Clean Water Act. 
However, I do feel that we must move ahead with this issue. Needless 
delay will only exacerbate a situation direly in need of continuing 
corrective measures.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I delivered the substance of the 
first five pages of this statement in slightly different form earlier 
in the debate on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, but I 
would like to deliver the entire text of my statement at this time.
  I support passage of S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
of 1994, and I commend my chairman, Senator Baucus, and the Environment 
Committee's ranking member, Senator Chafee, for the extraordinary 
diligence and patience with which they have brought this bill to the 
Senate floor.
  The mood surrounding the reauthorization of this important law has 
been largely one of frustration. We have heard a lot in the last year 
or so, Mr. President, about how the 1986 reauthorization of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act--which passed almost unanimously and was signed into 
law by President Reagan--imposed overly burdensome requirements on 
small drinking water systems. We were told as well that some larger 
systems felt they shouldn't have to invest significant sums of money to 
achieve what they believed to be minimal gains in the prevention of 
deaths by cancer.
  At the same time, Madam President, we have seen cases like 
Milwaukee's, where people died because they drank the water from their 
kitchen tap. The culprit, a contaminant called 
cryptosperidium, was not even regulated. Unfortunately, 
Milwaukee is but the most tragic and dramatic example of a nationwide 
public health threat. EPA tells us that one-third of the 200,000 
drinking water systems in the United States exceeded their allowable 
limits of contamination last year. The Natural Resources Defense 
Council identified more than 250,000 violations of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act in 1991 and 1992, affecting 43 percent of the Nation's public 
drinking water systems serving an estimated 120 million people.
  The NRDC report that this statistic comes from, Danger on Tap, is 
instructive. According to the report, the Centers for Disease Control 
in Atlanta estimates that waterborne organisms cause nearly 1 million 
cases of intestinal illnesses and 900 deaths annually in the United 
States. Between 1989 and 1990, 16 States reported 26 major waterborne 
disease outbreaks affecting more than 4,000 people. By 1991 and 1992, 
17 States had reported 34 major waterborne outbreaks affecting more 
than 17,000 people.
  But these statistics only account for impacts on Americans who get 
their water from public water systems. According to Health magazine, 
July/August 1993, ``an estimated 8 percent of Americans--more than 20 
million people--still rely on unfiltered water from mostly ground water 
sources; this water is not part of any public water system and hence 
excluded from official statistics.'' The NRDC report further tells us 
that ``one study group assembled by the EPA and the American Water 
Works Association concluded, `by the time microbes are detected, the 
water has been consumed.' Thus many experts believe that the true 
extent of waterborne illness in the United States remains largely 
unknown.''
  That is the statistical reality as we understand it. The perception 
is even worse. One of the most telling statistics of all is this, 
bottled water is a $2.7 billion industry. Americans are paying to avoid 
having to drink from their kitchen taps. More to the point, a recent 
survey concluded that only 4 percent of Americans believe that drinking 
water standards are too stringent. Nearly 84 percent believe they ought 
to be tougher. This is underscored by a 1993 American Water Works 
Association-Research Foundation study which found that 74 percent of 
water system customers were willing to pay additional costs in order to 
raise drinking water quality above Federal standards.
  All of the recent studies on the efficacy of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act program--whether done by EPA, GAO, the American Water Works 
Association, the Natural Resources Defense Council, all agree that 
there are certain elements critical to running a program for drinking 
water that will protect the public health: a strong State-run program; 
the prevention of new nonviable systems and the authority to 
consolidate existing ones or force them to find alternate sources of 
water; stronger research funds and technology development particularly 
for treatment technologies suitable for use by small systems; training 
for operators of those new technologies; more directed monitoring 
programs.

  They also all appear to agree that until now there have not been the 
financial resources to help make that happen. States have the authority 
under current law for example to relieve small systems of certain 
monitoring requirements, if the State can demonstrate that the 
contaminant to be monitored for has not been used in that particular 
watershed. But States do not, as a rule, have strong enough State 
programs to be able to make that assessment. With most drinking water 
programs being run by State departments of health, perhaps it is 
because their resources have been drained by other pressing health 
protection or awareness programs.
  This is unfortunate, particularly as now is the time that the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act are increasing. The 83 
contaminants that the 1986 law instructed EPA to set standards for are 
coming due. This in itself was apparently enough to panic a lot of 
States and particularly those with a lot of small systems. How in the 
world were those systems going to be able to comply with additional 
monitoring and perhaps treatment requirements when they were struggling 
to meet those already required?
  Clearly, we needed to find a way to address real compliance problems 
while not compromising public health protection. We needed to make sure 
that we were using the best available science upon which to base 
contaminant monitoring choices and frequency. We needed to find a way 
to help States mount strong State-run programs so that they could help 
their own small systems protect the health of their customers. We 
needed to recognize that the cheapest way to control drinking water 
contamination was not to treat it, but to prevent it, at its source.
  S. 2019, reported unanimously from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee did all of this. It established a new State revolving loan 
fund of nearly $6 billion dollars to assist States with compliance with 
Federal law. It set up a system by which small systems could meet safe 
drinking water standards without going broke, a process by which they 
could achieve a variance if there were no way to either combine with 
another system or seek an alternate source of drinking water. States 
would be able to substitute their own monitoring programs for EPA 
regulations.
  S. 2019 would also require some efforts from States, namely that they 
have the legal authority to prevent new nonviable systems from forming, 
and that they establish a strong State program to encourage the 
restructuring of existing nonviable systems. In addition, S. 2019 
required States to develop a process by which the State could review a 
source water protection plan should one be developed and presented to 
the State.
  We are faced with a serious public health concern and a public health 
threat. At the same time we are faced with increased costs--for smaller 
systems. It is important to keep in mind here that, according to EPA, 
``the total annual cost of all 84 [drinking water] standards now on the 
books is expected to reach $1.4 billion nationally by 1995.'' The fact 
is that approximately 80 percent of households pay $3.00 to $13.00 per 
year for compliance with all SDWA regulations.
  The truth is that large systems find it relatively easy to spread the 
costs of compliance among a large rate payer base. Small systems, 
obviously, do not. The key is to deal with the legitimate economic 
needs of the small systems while not compromising the public health of 
Americans who get their drinking water from large systems and can 
afford the better water. No where has this conflict come into greater 
relief than in the area of how to set a drinking water standard. While 
the committee, rightly, was willing to go a long way to ease the 
financial burden on small systems, and on large systems for that 
matter, it was not willing to stray far from the current standard 
setting process for contaminants. I think that is right. Almost 90 
percent of the American public is served by large systems, over 10,000 
customers. Conversely, almost 87 percent of all systems are small, less 
than 10,000 customers. The drinking water standard under current law 
requires that the EPA Administrator set the standard or the maximum 
contaminant level using best available technology economically 
achievable. In the case of carcinogens, where any exposure could result 
in a tumor, the Administrator is constrained by a maximum contaminant 
level goal of zero exposure. So the standard or maximum contaminant 
level is set as close to zero as possible using BAT economically 
achievable. For noncarcinogens, there is a more easily identified 
threshold. Above a certain amount of a particular contaminant, people 
get sick; below, they do not. The goal is set at that threshold. The 
standard or the MCL is in almost every case also at that threshold 
because EPA has been able to identify the best available technology 
economically achievable to get us there.
  The trouble is that the term ``economically achievable'' is set based 
on the circumstances under which 90 percent of Americans get their 
drinking water--from a large public system. That leaves the remaining 
10 percent with a big bill for drinking water--if they want to meet 
Federal standards. How do we address their economic need?
  Some suggested we lower the standard by defining ``economically 
achievable'' as that technology which a small system could afford. This 
would have had the effect of lowering the health protection of 90 
percent of Americans--even though they could afford it. The committee 
rejected this solution.

  Then it was suggested we have two different standards, one for people 
who were served by a large system, and another, less stringent for 
those who lived in rural areas, trailer parks, those served by 
hospitals, perhaps; the drinking water on trains, in prisons. That 
wasn't acceptable either.
  Finally, it was suggested that we substitute a cost/benefit analysis 
procedure for the technology based standard economically achievable. 
That sounded benign until one took a closer look.
  Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, both sound like good 
principles, and they are. Risk assessment is a tool used throughout the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, as is cost/benefit analysis. But we need to be 
very careful about how we use these tools because they may not be 
benign.
  If we were to take away the best available technology standard and 
replace it with a directive to the EPA Administrator to develop a 
process by which she would determine whether the amount of money spent 
to treat a particular contaminant was worth the additional cancer 
deaths it prevented or, in the case of noncarcinogens, the intestinal 
distress it prevented, we would be shifting the basis upon which the 
Administrator sets a drinking water standard. We would be requiring the 
Administrator to determine--not what a system could afford to do--but 
how much a life is worth.
  That is a cost/benefit analysis. It is risk assessment in its way, 
but it is not determined by science. It is a value judgement, 
ultimately, as most risk assessments are. And in the case of drinking 
water standards, where such value judgements will result directly in 
impacts on human health and mortality, I believe it ought to be the 
elected representatives, the Congress, and not the officials who work 
in the government agencies, who should be required to make that 
determination. Largely, this is a matter of accountability. We as the 
elected representatives of the people, must accept the responsibility 
to be accountable for these value judgements and their health impacts.
  The truth is, Mr. President, we made our value judgement, our cost-
benefit analysis, our risk assessment in 1986. And the committee, with 
some modifications and some new flexibility for the Administrator, has 
reaffirmed it. Our assessment is that it is worth what you can afford 
to avoid an additional death by cancer as a result of contaminated 
drinking water.
  Unable ourselves to assign a dollar amount to that additional cancer, 
to say for example it's worth $10 million or $1 million or $100,000 or 
$1,000 to avoid an additional cancer, we didn't buck the decision to 
the EPA and tell them to make the value judgement. Instead we made it, 
we said, ``it's worth what you can afford.''
  Now, the committee, under extraordinary pressure to ease the 
financial burden on small systems in every single possible way, and 
being responsive and responsible, met with those who advocated a 
different standard. Ultimately, I believe, an effective and defensible 
compromise was reached.
  The committee's bill as reported would still require in the case of 
carcinogens that the standard be set as close to zero as best available 
technology economically achievable will take us. But it did recognize 
that sometimes science is not as exact as we would like and that 
sometimes there might be technologies significantly less expensive that 
would deliver essentially equivalent health protection. In those cases 
we ought to allow the Administrator to back off a technology based 
standard economically achievable and embrace the less expensive 
version, if you will.
  The managers' amendment offers a further refinement. Rather than 
making the health test what is ``essentially equivalent,'' the managers 
propose that the alternative standard ensure ``health risks not 
significantly different from.'' I think this is an improvement. This 
language makes the measurement a bit more precise when we're comparing 
cases of lifetime exposures to cancer.
  The managers' amendment also seeks to extend this flexibility to 
standard setting for noncarcinogens. This is more problematic, as there 
does not appear to be any sound scientific methodology for applying the 
same process to contaminants which render acute rather than chronic 
effects. To account for that, the managers' amendment directs the 
National Academy of Sciences to establish whether or not there is a 
sound scientific basis for the change and if there is, to recommend it 
to EPA. Upon such recommendation, and the establishment of appropriate 
scientific guidelines by the EPA Administrator, published in the 
Federal Register, the Administrator will have the option of choosing a 
less expensive technology if it poses a reasonable certainty of no 
harm.
  The new language also calls for a study on the potential impacts on 
so-called sensitive subpopulations, such as pregnant women and infants 
or those more disposed to adverse reaction to contaminants present in 
drinking water. It was, for example, those with impaired immune systems 
who died as a result of the cryptosperidium outbreak in Milwaukee. 
Personally, I prefer the language that the committee had in the bill it 
reported to the floor, that which would require the EPA explicitly to 
consider these subpopulations when setting standards. I think both 
measures are warranted. A study to determine in what instances and for 
which contaminants we can identify sensitive subpopulations, and a 
corresponding direction that the Administrator consider the results of 
the research when setting maximum contaminant level goals. It is my 
understanding that while the Administrator currently has that 
authority, phrased in the statute as authority to ``ensure an adequate 
margin of safety,'' this authority is not used consistently. This may 
be because the data on sensitive subpopulations is so limited. Senator 
Barbara Boxer's amendment would remedy that, and I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor.

  There is one other area I would like to comment on. That is source 
water protection. If we take a step back from the drinking water 
program and the problems that beset it for a moment, the elements of a 
truly protective program are clear. In addition to setting acceptable 
levels of exposure to particular contaminants and monitoring for their 
presence and treating them when necessary, we would want to make sure 
that we were doing everything possible to prevent their occurrence in 
the first place.
  Sometimes we call this pollution prevention. Sometimes we call it 
watershed planning and management. My own State of Connecticut is a 
leader in this regard, taking what I feel to be a pragmatic approach. 
Connecticut is the only State to prohibit absolutely any direct 
discharge into surface water drinking water supplies. In order to 
prevent the contamination of underground sources, it has instituted an 
aquifer protection planning process, run out of the State's Department 
of Environmental Protection. The Department of Health, which 
administers the drinking water program, requires additional 40-year 
water supply plans from its major water utilities. To make this more 
manageable, the State was divided up into service areas, and these 
areas were assigned to existing utilities. These utilities are to use 
their planning process to coordinate individual water system plans and 
avoid the creation of new systems unable to meet safe drinking water 
standards.
  If you take a step back and think for a minute about where drinking 
water sources get their contamination, source water protection programs 
make even more sense. The sources are varied and can only be identified 
within the course of a watershed and in many cases can only be 
controlled voluntarily or by agreement among the community. Sources 
range from leaking septic tanks, combined sewer overflows, the runoff 
from feedlots and dairies, to construction sites and city streets.
  Looking at these threats, EPA's latest biennial water assessment 
concludes that, ``44 percent of assessed river and stream miles and 32 
percent of assessed lakes acres that are designated for drinking water 
are degraded or threatened.''
  The American Water Works Association concluded from a 1991 study that 
``The primary pollutants of concern for raw water supplies were 
turbidity, excess nutrients, microbial contamination, pesticides, and 
trihalomethane precursors, a potential carcinogen formed when organic 
materials react with chlorine.'' The study went on to conclude, ``On a 
nationwide scale, nonpoint sources are responsible for most of the 
contaminant loading but their effective control is hindered by 
regulatory, institutional, and financial barriers * * * [W]ater 
treatment and in-reservoir management practices are not substitutes for 
effective watershed management.''
  If you want to lower the cost of monitoring for contaminants and 
treating those present, the best option may be to protect your drinking 
water source from the contaminants in the first place. In many cases, 
you will save money and protect the public health.
  Unfortunately, Connecticut is the exception and not the rule. States 
are generally not using watershed planning and source water protection 
as a means of protecting public drinking water supplies. A General 
Accounting Office study in April 1993, stated that ``of the 49 States 
that have `primacy' for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act, 34 
States do not regularly include the `watershed's management' as an 
element in their community water system surveys.''
  It is important enough that we should consider requiring States to do 
this kind of planning and management. But the committee took a more 
modest step. The committee bill would have only required that States 
have a procedure by which to evaluate the quality of a watershed or 
source protection plan, should one be presented to them. The bill did 
not require that such plans be prepared nor that they, if prepared, 
they be implemented. Unfortunately, in my view, the amendment to this 
provision accepted earlier in our deliberations weakened even this 
provision. It merely authorizes States to set up such procedures should 
they wish to do so and should a utility or community wish to present 
them with a source water protection plan. I hope we will be able to 
improve upon this in conference with the House.
  Madam President, this is an important bill and an important test for 
this Congress. Senators Baucus and Chafee have done the Congress and 
the public an enormous service by setting the course for public 
expenditure and public health at a time of fewer available dollars and 
rising health risks. I am lucky. I live in a State that has fought hard 
to put a strong drinking water program in place. The residents of my 
State were the winners from this effort. That is not the case for every 
American. And wherever you think the responsibility should lie for 
protecting public drinking water supplies, if the people in your State 
get sick because of contaminated drinking water, you are going to hear 
about it. I think that is as it should be. It is in the national 
interest to ensure consistently safe drinking water for all Americans. 
Senators Baucus and Chafee have made that possible with their work on 
this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when 
Senator Dole offers his takings amendment, that the first amendment in 
order thereto be one offered by Senator Mitchell or his designee; that 
upon the disposition of that amendment, the next amendment in order 
thereto be one offered by Senator Dole or his designee; that both of 
these second-degree amendments be relevant to the subject matter of the 
first degree; that no other amendments to the Dole amendment be in 
order; and that upon the disposition of these amendments, the Senate 
vote on Senator Dole's first-degree takings amendment, as amended, if 
amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1727

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I send to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Hatch an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the two pending 
amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1727.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam 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 82, line 8, after ``(D)'' insert ``and notices 
     submitted by public water systems serving Indian Tribes 
     provided to the Administrator pursuant to subparagraph (B) or 
     (C)''.
       On page 82 line 10, insert the following after the period:
       ``The report shall include information about public water 
     system compliance on Indian reservations and about 
     enforcement activities undertaken and financial assistance 
     provided by the Administrator on Indian reservations, and 
     shall make specific recommendations concerning the resources 
     needed to improve compliance with this title on Indian 
     reservations.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, my amendment to the pending legislation 
addresses a persistent problem afflicting States regarding the subject 
of addressing monitoring and water quality issues of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act [SDWA] incurred by a public water system operated on an 
Indian reservation. This is a situation that has been raised by the 
Utah Division of Safe Drinking Water, and I am pleased to offer this 
amendment to address this situation.
  There are many public water systems that are located within the 
borders of this Nation's Indian reservations. The entity with primary 
authority to administer the provisions of the SDWA is the Federal 
Government, or more specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA]. The States do not have this responsibility, especially when it 
comes to the area of enforcement.
  Many of these systems located on Indian reservations provide service 
to municipalities and other communities that are located outside the 
reservation boundary and that are regulated by the States who have 
primacy. Various distribution monitoring tests are conducted by 
officials of these cities, and these tests have in the past resulted in 
abnormal readings regarding certain contaminants. This distribution 
monitoring may flag source monitoring problems which may originate with 
the system located on the reservation. If this scenario were to happen 
to a public water system not located on the reservation and not 
regulated by the State, an immediate enforcement action would be 
undertaken by the applicable State agency, which in Utah's case would 
be the Utah State Division of Drinking Water. Appropriate action would 
be undertaken by State and local officials to address and correct the 
abnormal condition of the water.
  Unfortunately, this prompt action is not always undertaken by the EPA 
when monitoring and water quality concerns arise with a public water 
system operated on Indian reservations. In no way should anyone point 
the finger at local tribal officials; they are innocent parties. My 
comments should not be misconstrued to suggest error or neglect on 
their part on this issue. The problem is with EPA and its unwillingness 
to take corrective action in a timely fashion.
  The situation is such that EPA will stridently enforce the provisions 
of the SDWA when the entities over which the agency has responsibility, 
the States, have monitoring and/or water quality problems that the 
States must correct. However, when the tables are turned and the 
problem originates in an area where the EPA has direct 
responsibilities, the agency is not as quick to react. The EPA holds a 
hammer over the heads of the States, which hold smaller hammers over 
the heads of the cities. Who holds the hammer, large or small, over the 
EPA? No one other then Congress. That is the reason for this amendment.
  The amendment will require the EPA to include a summary of violation, 
enforcement, and compliance activities on Indian reservations in an 
annual report to Congress. This report, which will also include a 
summary of similar activities by the States, will provide 
recommendations concerning the resources needed to improve compliance 
by the States and, with this amendment, Indian reservations, with the 
SDWA.
  The purposes of the amendment is to provide a mechanism by which the 
States can obtain information from the Administrator to be kept abreast 
of the operations of these systems located on Indian reservations. I 
also believe this will have a benefit to EPA. If the States are 
receiving information from the agency on monitoring and water quality 
issues involving public water systems on Indian reservations and 
discussing these issues with agency personal, then EPA officials will 
be reminded of its regulatory duty over these systems. I hope that 
future water quality issues related to public water systems located on 
Indian reservations will be effectively and efficiently addressed so as 
not to overburden the States and municipalities serviced by this 
systems.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for their 
willingness to review this amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I will just comment about the amendment 
which has been cleared on both sides. It deals with a persistent 
problem afflicting States trying to monitor addressing the monitoring 
and water quality issues of the Safe Drinking Water Act incurred by 
public water systems operated on an Indian reservation.
  This is a situation that has been raised by the Utah division of safe 
drinking water, and this amendment addresses the problem.
  This is an amendment that we have examined on this side and think it 
is a good one.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the committee has reviewed this 
amendment. This amendment will provide useful information about serious 
environmental problems on Indian reservations, particularly in Utah.
  The amendment has been reviewed and approved by the chairman of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs. I urge the Senate to approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1727) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam 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. GORTON. Madam President, for the past several days the Senate has 
debated legislation to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. But 
prior to this debate, communities across Washington State--and the 
Nation--have debated the merits of the current act and its affect on 
small and large communities alike.
  Washington State has over 14,400 public water systems and of these 
systems 11,800 are small systems serving 2 to 100 customers--in 
Washington State all water systems, except those serving one single 
family residence are considered public water systems. But the problems 
with the existing act impact both small and large systems alike. From 
the city of Chelan to the city of Seattle, I have heard from hundreds 
of local officials about the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the message 
was clear: ``It's time to fix the Safe Drinking Water Act.''
  After listening closely to the concerns of Washington State, I 
cosponsored S.1920, a bill to reauthorize the SDWA. S.1920 was written 
by the national associations representing mayors, legislators, 
regulators, and cities across Washington State and was the starting 
point for a successful series of negotiations with the Environment and 
Public Works Committee's bill to reauthorize the act.
  Supporters of S.1920 from Washington State include: Governor Mike 
Lowry; city of Everett Public Works Department; Washington State 
Department of Health, drinking water division; Mayor Earl Tilly, 
Wenatchee; Mayor Joyce Stewart, Chelan; Mayor Steve Jenkins, 
Bridgeport; Mayor John Huselton, Entiat; Seattle Water Department; 
Tacoma Water Department; city of Moses Lake; city of Walla Walla; 
Washington Association Water Systems, Ferndale; Mayor Pat Berndt, city 
of Yakima; Washington Public Utilities Districts Association; 
Woodinville Water District; Mayor Hartman, town of Coulee Dam; and the 
list goes on.
  Madam President, I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of a Seattle 
Times editorial on S.1920 be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)


                    gorton safe drinking water forum

  Mr. GORTON. During the Senate's Easter recess, over 100 people 
gathered together--mayors, utility representatives, council members, 
and concerned citizens--in Moses Lake, Washington to talk with me about 
the Safe Drinking Water Act Chuck Clarke, EPA Region 10 Administrator, 
and David Clark, director of the drinking water division of the 
Washington State Department of Health, were on hand to answer technical 
and policy questions.
  I convened this forum after hearing from so many mayors and local 
officials across the State about the high cost of compliance with the 
current act. Not surprisingly, the forum was packed with folks who 
spent nearly 3 hours sharing with me the impacts of the current act on 
local residents, and one by one they made a strong and persuasive 
argument for overhauling the current act.
  Public utility representatives shared with me the troubles they face 
as they try to consolidate small systems together and the capital 
problems which this poses for the utility and the ratepayers. Access to 
State revolving loan funds and flexibility is a key element of SDWA 
reform.
  Mayors told me about the arguably tough time they have selling their 
ratepayers on increases--some of which were 100 percent increases--to 
their monthly water bills to pay for water officials to monitor and 
treat the water supply for contaminants which do not even exist.
  Smaller water system operators told me that they cannot afford to 
have a staff person sit in an office all day to file the paperwork 
required by the act, and that their time is better spent in the field 
helping small systems effectively monitor their supply.
  Several themes emerged from my forum as the key elements of reform 
for Washington State, namely--risk assessment, costs, flexibility, and 
funding. My goal throughout this process was to ensure that these 
predominant concerns were met--and I am comfortable that the majority 
of the concerns of my constituents will be met within S. 2019, as 
amended.


           baucus-chafee-hatfield-kerrey amendment to s. 2019

  I commend the efforts of Senators Hatfield and Kerrey who worked very 
hard, together with the Environment and Public Works staff, to amend S. 
2019 to make it a good bill for small and large communities alike. In 
addition, Senator Domenici deserves a great deal of credit for 
introducing S. 1920 and for providing the vehicle for a good series of 
negotiations and compromises.
  In particular I am pleased that S. 2019, as amended, will throw out 
the one-size-fits-all approach of the current act, and replaces it with 
flexibility for our States. In my opinion this is the key to the reform 
of this act. By definition each of our 50 States is unique, and 
consequently our water sources and systems need flexibility to provide 
safe water to communities.
  Madam President, I believe that upon final passage, S. 2019, as 
amended, will be a bill which will help small and large communities 
across Washington State provide safe, affordable drinking water to 
their customers.

                               Exhibit 1

                 [From the Seattle Times, May 1, 1994]

             Safe Water, Superfund Wait for the Green Light

       Somewhere back in the dark days of James Watt, some 
     environmentalists lost their ability to compromise.
       Twelve years of unfriendly administrations, including 
     Watt's tenure as Secretary of Interior, conditioned the 
     greens to sink their heels because they were likely to lose 
     anyway. Now that environmentalism has returned to the White 
     House, it's time for the hardliners to unsink those heels and 
     engage in the democratic process.
       Two examples, Superfund and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
     languish in congressional committees, held up at least in 
     part by environmentalists obsessed with puritanical virtue.
       Superfund already has spent billions in a largely futile 
     effort to clean up toxic waste sites across the nation. The 
     law failed because it focused on fixing blame for the dumps 
     instead of cleaning them up. And it requires that each site 
     be returned to a virtually pristine condition, never mind the 
     cost.
       Rep. Al Swift, the Bellingham Democrat, has led the effort 
     to rewrite the act, relaxing the liability clauses and, where 
     appropriate, the clean-up standards--all based on realistic 
     costs and benefits. But his efforts have been stymied by a 
     range of stubborn interest groups, including 
     environmentalists who resist the effort to relax clean-up 
     standards.
       Similarly, the well-intended Safe Drinking Water Act over-
     reached by requiring local water districts, big and small, to 
     test for every conceivable contaminant and remove them, 
     regardless of cost, and even if they pose no risk to people's 
     health. The new standards would cost billions; Seattle's 
     price tag alone would be as high as $400 million.
       And for what? Washington has 14,000 public waster systems, 
     most of which have no problem delivering safe drinking water 
     to their customers.
       Senate Bill 1920, co-sponsored by Sen. Slade Gorton, 
     introduces some flexibility to the act, including an 
     assessment of costs and benefits before imposing costly 
     requirements. The bill has attracted bipartisan support 
     across the state.
       Yet some environmental groups insist the bill is a step 
     backward.
       Swift warns against painting everybody the same shade of 
     green. Some environmentalists--the Environmental Defense 
     Fund, for example--have shown a willingness to compromise on 
     Superfund.
       But other groups, from the Sierra Club to Greenpeace, 
     remain entrenched in the mistaken belief that political 
     purity will lead somehow to ecological purity. Nature doesn't 
     work that way, and neither does politics.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________