[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. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I might call up an amendment of my own.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1715

(Purpose: To require a review by the Congress of any regulations issued 
                under the authority of this legislation)

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I would like to call up amendment No. 
1715.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1715.

  Mr. WALLOP. 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:
       At the end of the bill, and the following language:

     SECTION 1

       (a) Any rule proposed pursuant to authority under this Act 
     shall during the period after publication and before the rule 
     becomes effective be subject to review by Congress as 
     provided in section 2.
       (b) Disposal Required.--If a rule is reviewed pursuant to 
     section 2, the rule shall not take effect unless a review 
     resolution is disposed of as required under Section 2(b)(4) 
     and Section 2(b)(5).
       (c) If Congress adjouns sine die at the end of a Congress 
     prior to disposition of a Review Resolution as provided in 
     Section 2, the regulation will not become final.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       (a) Petition of Review.--If one-fifth of either House, duly 
     chosen and sworn, sign a petition requesting congressional 
     review of a regulation described in section 1, the Congress 
     shall consider a joint resolution (referred to as a ``review 
     resolution'') as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Congressional Consideration of Review Resolution.--
       (1) Terms of the resolution.--For the purposes of 
     subsection (a), the term ``review resolution'' means a joint 
     resolution that--
       (A) is introduced within the 2-day period beginning on the 
     date on which a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (a);
       (B) does not have a preamble;
       (C) states after the resolving clause ``That Congress 
     disapproves and repeals the regulations promulgated on XX'', 
     the blank space being filled in with the date on which the 
     regulations were promulgated and a description of the 
     regulation; and
       (D) is entitled a ``Joint resolution disapproving the 
     regulations promulgated on XX'', on the blank space being 
     filled with the date and agency.''.
       (2) Referral.--(A) A review resolution that is introduced 
     in the House of Representatives shall be referred to the 
     committee of jurisdiction.
       (B) A review resolution that is introduced in the Senate 
     shall be referred to the committee of jurisdiction.
       (3) Discharge.--If the committee to which a review 
     resolution is referred has not reported the resolution (or an 
     identical resolution) by the end of the 5-day period 
     beginning on the date on which the petition is filed, such 
     committee shall, at the end of that period, be discharged 
     from further consideration of the resolution, and the 
     resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be.
       (4) Consideration.--(A)(i) On or after the first day after 
     the date on which the committee to which a review resolution 
     is referred has reported, or has been discharged (under 
     paragraph (3)) from further consideration of, such a 
     resolution, it is in order (even though a previous motion to 
     the same effect has been disagreed to) for any member of the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively, to move 
     to proceed to the consideration of the resolution (but only 
     on the date after the calendar day on which the member 
     announces to the House concerned the member's intention to do 
     so).
       (ii) All points of order against a review resolution (and 
     against consideration of the resolution) are waived.
       (iii)(I) A motion to proceed to the consideration of a 
     review resolution is highly privileged in the House of 
     Representatives and is privileged in the Senate and is not 
     debatable.
       (II) A motion described in subclause (I) is not subject to 
     amendment, to a motion to postpone consideration of the 
     resolution, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business.
       (III) A motion to reconsider the vote by which a motion 
     described in subclause (I) is agreed to or not agreed to 
     shall not be in order.
       (IV) If a motion described in subclause (I) is agreed to, 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may 
     be, shall immediately proceed to consideration of the review 
     resolution without intervening motion, order, or other 
     business, and the resolution shall remain the unfinished 
     business of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as 
     the case may be, until disposed of.
       (B)(i) Debate on a review resolution and on all debatable 
     motions and appeals in connection therewith shall be limited 
     to not more than 5 hours, which shall be divided equally 
     between those favoring and those opposing the resolution.
       (ii) Am amendment to a review resolution is not in order.
       (iii) A motion further to limit debate on a review 
     resolution is in order and not debatable.
       (iv) A motion to postpone consideration of a review 
     resolution, a motion to proceed to the consideration of other 
     business, or a motion to recommit the resolution is not in 
     order.
       (v) A motion to reconsider the vote by which a review 
     resolution is agreed to or not agreed to is not in order.
       (C) Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a 
     review resolution and a single quorum call at the conclusion 
     of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may 
     be, the vote on final passage of the resolution shall occur.
       (D) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the 
     application of the rules of the House of Representatives or 
     of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure relating 
     to a review resolution shall be decided without debate.
       (5) Consideration by other house. (A) If, before the 
     passage by one House of a review resolution that was 
     introduced in that House, that House receives from the other 
     House a review resolution.
       (i) the resolution of the other House shall not be referred 
     to a committee and may not be considered in the House that 
     receives it otherwise than on final passage under clause 
     (ii)(II); and
       (ii)(I) the procedure in the House that receives such a 
     resolution with respect to such a resolution that was 
     introduced in that House shall be the same as if no 
     resolution had been received from the other House; but
       (II) the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution 
     of the other House.
       (B) Upon disposition of a review resolution that is 
     received by one House from the other House, it shall no 
     longer be in order to consider such a resolution that was 
     introduced in the receiving House.
       (6) Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. This 
     subsection is enacted by Congress.
       (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed to 
     be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a review resolution, and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       (B) with full recognition of the constitution right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to 
     the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, 
     and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of 
     that House.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I might call up and qualify 
another amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I inquire of the Senator the nature of his 
amendments, so we have a sense of what they are.
  Mr. WALLOP. Yes. I think the Senator knows what they are. One of them 
calls for a congressional review of regulations issued under the 
authority.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Is that the first amendment?
  Mr. WALLOP. That is the first one.
  The second one is to make the provisions of the act a matter of State 
compliance, rather than Federal compliance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1715 is set 
aside.


                           Amendment No. 1721

    (Purpose: To permit each State to determine the drinking water 
               regulations that shall apply in the State)

  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1721.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1721.

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

       On page 139, strike lines 2 through 6 and insert the 
     following:

     that the State determines are appropriate or applicable in 
     the State;''.
       On page 143, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (i) Applicability of Primary Drinking Water Regulations.--
     Section 1411 (42 U.S.C. 300g) is amended by inserting ``to 
     the extent that the State determines that the regulations are 
     appropriate or applicable'' after ``in each State''.
  Mr. WALLOP. Madam President, I will, at the convenience of the 
managers, be prepared to debate them. I was told we needed to qualify 
them by 3. I thank them for their consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and that I be allowed to offer an amendment 
listed by Senator Gregg which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might the Chair inform the Senate how many amendments we 
now have that are being laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are currently four amendments that have 
been set aside.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1728

 (Purpose: To exempt from the labor standards requirements assistance 
            derived from repayments to the State loan fund)

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Gregg and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendment is set 
aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1728.

  Mr. SMITH. 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 22, line 17, insert ``but not'' before 
     ``including''.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I inquire of the Chair or managers 
whether or not they wish to have this amendment debated at this time or 
just offered?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is my hope the Senator will press his 
amendment now so we can deal with it at the moment.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleague. I am prepared to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Gregg to the Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization that will free States from the Davis-Bacon requirements 
when the Federal commitment to State revolving funds, better known as 
SRF's, has ended in the fiscal year 2000. This amendment will also free 
the States from the Davis-Bacon requirements when these funds are 
relent by States from SRF under this act.
  This is a new SRF program established under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act and the bill authorizes seed money to set up revolving loan funds. 
Loans are repaid and then funds are reloaned. Current practice, as is 
the case in the Clean Water Act, has been to apply Davis-Bacon only to 
the initial pool of money receiving a Federal contribution.
  This bill as it is now written applies Davis-Bacon to subsequent 
loans, future loans, made out of the revolving funds 5, 10, 15, 20 
years later, after the Federal Government has stopped contributing any 
funds. This far exceeds current Davis-Bacon requirements. No matter how 
you voted on the Faircloth amendment yesterday, this exceeds the 
current requirement for Davis-Bacon.
  Revolving funds are administered by State agencies. They are matched 
with State funds. They are loans based on State and local assessments 
of need. Obviously, over time these revolving funds, SRF's, become 
State money more and more, and Federal money less and less. That is the 
whole purpose of the SRF's. So money repaid into SRF's, all of those 
dollars, are State dollars.
  As an obvious example of this written right into the bill, States can 
decide whether or not to forgive loans to disadvantaged communities. 
They can make that decision. It does not make sense to apply Davis-
Bacon to a subsequent loan that was made possible solely because the 
State collected a loan repayment it could have forgiven.
  The bill contains a provision which essentially expands the Davis-
Bacon coverage to all drinking water projects funded by the SRF's 
created in this bill--expands. This Davis-Bacon provision amounts to 
just one more Federal unfunded mandate on local communities. After the 
year 2000, the SRF will be capitalized solely by repayments into the 
loan fund.
  So the Davis-Bacon provision currently in this bill would apply the 
law's requirements, not just for the first few years of the program, 
not just when the Federal Government is making a financial 
contribution--that is bad enough for those of us who do not like Davis-
Bacon--but it also applies when the SRF is fully capitalized with 
States' funds.
  This language is very significant. It is an unprecedented expansion 
of the Davis-Bacon Act, which will eventually place the full burden of 
the associated inflation costs on the States. This is very, very 
unfair. It is an unprecedented expansion which should not be allowed. 
It is not in any way justified under the whole concept of Davis-Bacon, 
whether you support the existing concept or not.
  A study released by the GAO estimates that the Davis-Bacon Act raises 
the cost of Federal construction by an average of anywhere from 5 to 15 
percent--a big range, but there are a lot of numbers out there in terms 
of what this means. A University of Oregon study estimated the inflated 
costs in rural areas, like most of my home State of New Hampshire, to 
be as high as 38 percent. And the Davis-Bacon Act currently impacts 
States and localities because it often applies even when the Federal 
Government makes only a nominal contribution and the project is 
primarily funded by the State and local authorities and by the private 
sector.
  Where do we get off having Davis-Bacon apply? We know it applies to 
Federal, unfortunately, but where do we get off having it apply to 
State and local community money? It is simply unfair. The inflated 
costs and other problems associated with Davis-Bacon can virtually 
nullify the Federal Government's assistance--and it does frequently. 
The language in this bill imposes this type of burden on the States, 
but it also goes a step further by applying Davis-Bacon indefinitely, 
even when Federal dollars comprise no part of the SRF's.
  So we are now going to look into the future when no Federal money is 
being placed into the SRF, yet they are going to be governed by the 
Davis-Bacon provisions. That is wrong. It is unfair, and it was not the 
intention of the statute.
  I do not think there is a Member in this body who is opposed to the 
overall goal of safe drinking water--I hope not. But what concerns many 
of us is how we reach this goal.
  Supporters of this legislation have spoken on the additional 
flexibility that the bill provides. While this may be true in some 
areas, the Davis-Bacon provision in this legislation is entirely 
contrary to the whole intent of the statute. In my State and that of 
Senator Gregg, the State of New Hampshire, the State legislature 
unanimously repealed the prevailing wage law in 1985 by a voice vote in 
the House and by a 17-to-6 vote in the New Hampshire Senate. The State 
legislature in New Hampshire as well as 17 other States has clearly 
stated they do not want to pay these inflated costs, especially on 
environmental projects like this. They want to put the money into 
cleaning up the environment, in this case safe drinking water.
  If this bill is truly flexible and intent on the goal of safe 
drinking water, it would not have an unfunded mandate that shifts the 
purpose of the bill from the purity of our water to a labor issue. That 
is what we are talking about here, a labor issue. It is a labor issue, 
ironically, that costs jobs and takes money away from the cleanup.
  The bill authorizes $600 million in fiscal year 1994 and $1 billion 
per year over fiscal year 1995 to the year 2000, or $6.5 billion total. 
Davis-Bacon costs, depending on whose estimates you use--if you use as 
little as 1.5 percent of the total, that is $100 million. It could go, 
if you use the GAO estimates, to as high as $1 billion.
  So $100 million to $1 billion--that is a big range. You pick a 
number, and whatever number you pick that money is not going to be used 
to make drinking water safer. It is not going to be used for that at 
all. It is going to be used to pay more to people to do the work than 
the prevailing wage rate is. That is what it is going to do. And it 
will cost people, especially in urban areas, jobs.
  The result: less capital improvement, less safe drinking water, more 
money. It does not sound like a good deal to this Senator.
  We rejected the Faircloth amendment yesterday. The Senate spoke very 
clearly on that. I happen to agree with Senator Faircloth, but the 
issue now is far beyond the Faircloth amendment. I want my colleagues 
to understand that. This amendment takes Davis-Bacon well beyond that 
and into the realm of the States and the localities who in good faith 
contributed money to this fund which then becomes self-sustaining so 
those dollars can be used to take Federal dollars out of the equation 
down the road. And what are we doing? Imposing the long arm of 
Government into those SRF's with the Davis-Bacon provision. It is 
wrong.
  Let me conclude by saying this. My colleagues should be very clearly 
aware that the SRF provisions in this bill are not just a traditional 
application of Davis-Bacon requirements on Federal construction 
projects. That is not what we are talking about here, but an expansion 
of Davis-Bacon requirements to any assistance derived from repayments 
through the SRF. This represents an entirely new application of Davis-
Bacon to construction work not directly funded by Federal money.
  So in voting on this amendment, you must ask yourself: Do you want 
the Federal Government to reach into these SRF funds and dictate the 
prevailing wage on State and local money? State and local money, not 
Federal money.
  Whether you like Davis-Bacon in its current form or not, Senators 
should at least be able to support this amendment because it stops an 
unprecedented, unintended--unintended--expansion of the law to the 
States. Davis-Bacon was not intended to expand to State moneys. The 
Federal Government should not be in the business of telling States how 
they must spend their scarce resources. Not only that, they should not 
be in the business of telling States how much money to pay to clean up 
a particular environmental problem--in this case, safe drinking water--
when that money could be used better to provide for the actual cleanup 
rather than for labor costs that are unnecessary.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to look at it, to 
review it, not be prejudiced by previous debate, but look at the 
essence of this amendment and what it does.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I think the point he made is that in the revolving fund, 
pretty soon they are entirely State funds, there are no Federal funds 
in there. What he is objecting to is that a Federal law requiring a 
higher wage than is the normal wage right in the vicinity must be paid 
for any work that is done under the revolving fund. I share with him 
that is not appropriate.
  I think that the local water company, once they get some funds from 
the revolving fund, should be able to put it out to bid and get the 
lowest bid. But that is not true under the law, under the provision 
that is now in this bill.
  I might say that applying Davis-Bacon to this fund is new. It also is 
true that the State revolving fund itself is new, but applying the 
Davis-Bacon to the Safe Drinking Water Act is a new proposal. It was 
not in the prior law.
  So I think the Senator's point is well made, and I congratulate him 
for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we had essentially the same issue before 
us yesterday. It is a little bit different. But it is essentially the 
same issue. The Senate voted overwhelmingly against the amendment to 
delete Davis-Bacon from the Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving 
fund. I forgot the vote, but the Senate rejected this amendment--not 
exactly this amendment, but a similar amendment yesterday. This is 
basically the same issue.
  The question is, should Davis-Bacon apply not only to loans from the 
State revolving loan fund in the first instance, but also to loans from 
the State revolving loan fund that are loaned back out of the fund 
subsequently to other communities.
  There has been some illusion on the floor that somehow these funds 
become State funds. They do not. It is still principally Federal money. 
In fact, by and large, it is always--about 80 percent--Federal funds 
and only about 20 percent State because it is a Federal 80-percent 
grant to the State revolving loan fund and 20 percent matched by the 
States.
  From that grant, States then loan funds out to communities to install 
treatment facilities through the revolving loan fund under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. Every year, the process is the same. Every year, if 
this legislation is enacted, Uncle Sam will contribute 80 percent more 
to the State revolving loan fund, and every year the State will 
contribute its match of 20 percent.
  In the first year, the State revolving loan fund will be about $600 
million, 80 percent Federal, 20 percent State. Then the authorization 
next year under the bill is up to $1 billion and each year thereafter. 
Each year there is essentially 80 percent contribution of Federal 
dollars, 20 percent matched by the States.
  That is why I say this is essentially the same issue because we are 
talking about loans from the State revolving loan fund which is, by and 
large, 80 percent Federal dollars and 20 percent State.
  There are all kinds of studies on this issue and the studies go in 
all directions. Some of the proponents of this amendment say, ``Gee, 
prevailing wage under Davis-Bacon is wrong. It is unfair because it is 
too costly to communities to pay prevailing wage.''
  There are a lot of studies that show just the opposite, Madam 
President; that is, the prevailing wage provisions tend to lower costs 
in many instances because there are fewer cost overruns, there are 
fewer stoppages, fewer slowdowns, higher quality of construction. So it 
is not clear.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts [Senator Kennedy] made the argument 
quite eloquently yesterday--we are not talking about a lot of dollars 
to the ordinary working men and women who get paid prevailing wage, 
which is not high. It is not glamorous; it is not massive. These are 
not high wages. These are ordinary wages paid to ordinary people. I do 
not think that we in the Congress today--certainly we in the Senate 
today--should break suddenly and say, ``OK, these payments out of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act revolving loan fund should not be according to 
prevailing wages.'' I think it should.
  It is for those reasons I urge the Senate to reconfirm the vote we 
did yesterday. It is not exactly the same amendment, but for all 
intents and purposes, it is the same. I urge us to continue the same 
vote and disapprove this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH. Will the chairman yield to me briefly for a response?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Sure.
  Mr. SMITH. I know there are other Senators who want to offer 
amendments. I will be brief. I will say to the chairman, with all due 
respect, it is not a reconfirmation of the Faircloth vote. It is quite 
different. It does go far beyond the existing Davis-Bacon.
  The chairman has admitted at least--I do not agree with his numbers 
on the other 80 percent--he has at least admitted 20 percent of the 
funds minimally are State funds. So I do not know how you can justify, 
even on that basis, that 20 percent being under the restrictions of 
Davis-Bacon.
  I think, finally, even the Federal dollars that are in the fund that 
are provided to the States, they are provided so that the States can do 
the best job that they can to do the environmental work that needs to 
be done; in this case, to clean up drinking water. And we are tying 
their hands by saying to them you have to pay more money for wages to 
do that than what you have to pay. That is not good for the environment 
certainly. It certainly is not going to help clean up the water and it 
is certainly not good for the taxpayers of America.
  So I think a vote in favor of the Smith amendment is a vote for the 
taxpayers and a vote for environmental cleanup. Let us keep the record 
straight on that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, one point I want to make regarding the 
provisions in the committee bill. Applying prevailing wage to projects 
as a consequence of loans out of the State revolving loan fund under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act is entirely consistent with the provisions 
that currently apply under another revolving loan fund, the Clean Water 
Act State revolving loan fund.
  In fact, we in the committee addressed this very issue under the 
Clean Water Act for loans to communities for sewage wastewater 
treatment plants. We decided in the committee that the prevailing wage 
should apply in all cases. I just think for the sake of consistency 
that we should apply the same principle today. Again, the committee has 
voted on this.
  The committee, frankly, I might add, Madam President, voted this bill 
out unanimously, which included provisions that prevailing wage would 
be provided in all cases.
  Basically it comes down to this: We in the Senate just should make a 
clear decision: Does Davis-Bacon apply or does it not apply? If it does 
apply, it applies. If it does not apply, it should not apply. We in the 
Senate have stated very clearly, a significant majority has stated that 
Davis-Bacon should apply to Federal projects. This is a Federal 
project. This is a Federal project because at least 80 percent of the 
funds loaned out are Federal.
  I think that we should affirm our earlier position, and I urge the 
Senate to do so; to disapprove the amendment offered by the Senator 
from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?


                           Amendment No. 1729

 (Purpose: To propose 1st degree amendment to require Federal agencies 
   to prepare private property taking impact analyses, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily 
laid aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is set aside. 
The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. 
     Heflin, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Burns, Mr. Brown, 
     Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Gramm, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1729.

  Mr. DOLE. 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 138, insert between lines 16 and 17 the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 16. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Private Property Rights Act of 1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the protection of private property from a taking by the 
     Government without just compensation is an integral 
     protection for private citizens incorporated into the 
     Constitution by the Fifth Amendment and made applicable to 
     the States by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (2) Federal agencies should take into consideration the 
     impact of Governmental actions on the use and ownership of 
     private property.
       (c) Purpose.--The Congress, recognizing the important role 
     that the use and ownership of private property plays in 
     ensuring the economic and social well-being of the Nation, 
     declares that it is the policy of the Federal Government to 
     use all practicable means and measures to minimize takings of 
     private property by the Federal Government.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and--
       (A) includes the United States Postal Service; and
       (B) does not include the General Accounting Office; and
       (2) the term ``taking of private property'' means any 
     action whereby private property is taken in such a way as to 
     require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United 
     States Constitution.
       (e) Private Property Taking Impact Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--The Congress authorizes and directs that, 
     to the fullest extent possible--
       (A) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 
     United States shall be interpreted and administered in 
     accordance with the policies under this section; and
       (B) all agencies of the Federal Government shall submit a 
     certification to the Attorney General of the United States 
     that a private property taking impact analysis has been 
     completed before issuing or promulgating any policy, 
     regulation, proposal, recommendation (including any 
     recommendation or report on proposal for legislation), or 
     related agency action which could result in a taking or 
     diminution of use or value of private property.
       (2) Content of analysis.--A private property taking impact 
     analysis shall be a written statement that includes--
       (A) the specific purpose of the policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (B) an assessment of whether a taking of private property 
     shall occur under such policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action;
       (C) the effect of the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action on the use or value 
     of private property, including an evaluation of whether such 
     policy, regulation, proposal, recommendation, or related 
     agency action requires compensation to private property 
     owners;
       (D) alternatives to the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action that would lessen 
     the adverse effects on the use or value of private property;
       (E) an estimate of the cost of the Federal Government if 
     the Government is required to compensate a private property 
     owner; and
       (F) an estimate of the reduction in use or value of any 
     affected private property as a result of such policy, 
     regulation, proposal, recommendation, or related agency 
     action.
       (3) Public availability of analysis.--An agency shall--
       (A) make each private property taking impact analysis 
     available to the public; and
       (B) to the greatest extent practicable, transmit a copy of 
     such analysis to the owner or any other person with a 
     property right or interest in the affected property.
       (4) Presumptions in proceedings.--For the purpose of any 
     agency action or administrative or judicial proceeding, there 
     shall be a rebuttable presumption that the cost, values, and 
     estimates in any private property takings impact analysis 
     shall be outdated and inaccurate, if--
       (A) such analysis was completed 5 years or more before the 
     date of such action or proceeding; and
       (B) such costs, values, or estimates have not been modified 
     within the 5-year period preceding the date of such action or 
     proceeding.
       (f) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to--
       (1) limit any right remedy, or bar any claim of any person 
     relating to such person's property under any other law, 
     including claims made under section 1346 or 1402 of title 28, 
     United States Code, or chapter 91 of title 28, United States 
     Code; or
       (2) constitute a conclusive determination of the value of 
     any property for purposes of an appraisal for the acquisition 
     of property, or for the determination of damages.
       (g) Statute of Limitations.--No action may be filed in a 
     court of the United States to enforce the provisions of this 
     section on or after the date occurring 6 years after the date 
     of the submission of the certification of the applicable 
     private property taking impact analysis with the Attorney 
     General.
       (h) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. DOLE. We are not going to debate this amendment at this time. It 
is the so-called takings amendment in which I know a number of Members 
on each side have an interest. And this just protects me; so I have 
offered the amendment prior to 3 o'clock. I understand we have worked 
out some agreement. There will be two second-degree amendments.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Right.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the managers. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank the Senator, too, for being 
accommodating in working this out. We have worked out an understanding 
that three amendments will be laid down, two second-degree amendments, 
one offered by either Senator Mitchell or his designee and, pending 
disposition of that, the Senator will offer his second second-degree 
amendment, so essentially depending on how the votes come out----
  Mr. DOLE. One way to shorten that would be to accept the amendment I 
sent up.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I could think of other ways to shorten it, too.


                           Amendment No. 1730

  (Purpose: To exempt contracts entered into by the United States or 
District of Columbia for construction, alteration, or repair work that 
  is performed in disadvantaged communities and that is necessary to 
 comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act from the requirements of the 
                            Davis-Bacon Act)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thought that was an excellent suggestion parliamentary 
wise. Hopefully, that will be the same with mine, but I see 
it is not. Therefore, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming, [Mr. Simpson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1730.

  Mr. SIMPSON. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF 
                   THE DAVIS-BACON ACT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Act of 
     March 3, 1931 (commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act; 40 
     U.S.C. 276 et seq) shall not apply to a contract entered into 
     by the United States or District of Columbia for 
     construction, alteration, or repair work that--
       (1) is performed in a disadvantaged community (as defined 
     by the State in which the disadvantaged community is located) 
     in a State; and
       (2) is necessary to comply with the requirements of title 
     XIV of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).

  Mr. SIMPSON. The managers are well aware of this amendment, and if 
someone should come to the floor during my remarks, I will certainly 
yield to those persons so that they might submit amendments which must 
be in before 3 o'clock. With that, unless the managers have some 
different view, I will just make brief remarks.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senator has made a good suggestion. 
As far as we are concerned, he should proceed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I have heard the phrase used in 
legislating called fine tuning. It sometimes can be overdone, but I 
think this is a modest change in some of the requirements of the Davis-
Bacon law as it relates to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  What this amendment does is exempt only disadvantaged areas as are 
defined by the States from the prevailing--which, of course, are always 
union--wages as contained in Davis-Bacon. The EPA tells us that it will 
cost small, disadvantaged communities nearly $3 billion to comply with 
current Federal drinking water regs, and another $20 billion to repair, 
replace, and expand the current drinking water infrastructure to meet 
future needs. Davis-Bacon requirements only increase, of course, the 
financial burden.
  I have heard the debate. This is not about Davis-Bacon in its own raw 
skeleton form. This actually affects the smaller communities. It keeps 
the smaller contractors from competing. In addition, it increases the 
cost of water systems for disadvantaged communities.
  Remember, this does not affect anybody but a disadvantaged community 
as defined by the States under this bill. And I want to commend the 
managers, Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee, for their fine work to 
date with regard to the efforts to accommodate so many of us from 
different regions of the country. That has been truly exemplary, and I 
thank them and deeply appreciate it.
  But this amendment is simply an attempt to level the playing field 
for contractors in small communities that simply cannot afford to meet 
expensive safe drinking water requirements and principally, of course, 
includes communities in rural and also in urban locations.
  When it comes to rural areas, anyway you look at it, Davis-Bacon is 
often a raw deal. And the more rural you get, the more raw it gets. The 
act is failing miserably when it comes to preserving jobs for local 
rural communities. In fact, contractors on public projects are much 
more likely to come from outside the community than they are from 
within, and the culprit is Davis-Bacon. It is about wages. It is about 
rural sections of the country. Wages in the rural sections are not as 
high as wages in the urban sections of the country. There are good 
reasons for that. So I think it is senseless for the Government to be 
paying the Denver union wage rate for a project in Wamsutter, WY. It is 
not appropriate. Not only does Davis-Bacon raise wages, it makes it 
more difficult for local firms to compete.
  According to a 1982 report by the Department of Economics at Oregon 
State University, and I quote, ``Davis-Bacon increases the cost of 
public non-residential buildings in rural areas.'' That will also be 
true for public drinking water system construction costs. The report 
shows how construction costs in rural areas are as much as 40 percent 
higher than in other locations thanks to Davis-Bacon. Davis-Bacon 
illustrates well the plight of rural localities in trying to spur 
economic activity, and it is certainly one reason why the deck is 
stacked against us.
  In this situation, recall, please, that it is only to the 
disadvantaged areas. I might add that minority contractors have told us 
that, and I quote now from the National Association of Minority 
Contractors--Minority Contractors:

       Davis-Bacon is poison to minority contractors. It has a 
     terrible effect on minority employment. Davis-Bacon stifles 
     the introduction of minority laborers into the construction 
     industry. And, it is clear that the requirements of Davis-
     Bacon serve to discourage fair minority participation in the 
     Federal construction market.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for 
one question here?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I would yield for a question.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator would agree that one of the 
problems with Davis-Bacon is not just the additional cost but Davis-
Bacon is a great favor to the large construction companies. They have 
dealt with it. They are used to it. They have these jobs. But Davis-
Bacon is poison to the small contractor. He cannot bid on the job 
because he does not have that history of having paid the prevailing 
wage within the area--the so-called prevailing wage, which we all know 
is a synonym for the union wage.
  Am I not correct in saying that one of the people who loses out 
because of Davis-Bacon requirements is the small contractor?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, my friend from Rhode Island is saying 
it as crisply as possible. Indeed, those are the people most affected. 
The people we try to affect the least are the most affected by Davis-
Bacon.
  Let me just conclude that our party met in Philadelphia in conference 
several weeks ago. The topic of inner-city job creation came up. And we 
were told by persons in Philadelphia that they are losing 1,000 jobs a 
month.
  Now, the mayor of that city, Ed Rendell, a Democrat, a very able and 
very impressive man--at least to me he is--has been working on it. And 
it may startle some to know that his principal job to do something for 
his city is to target a portion of Federal procurement to businesses 
situated in distressed areas or disadvantaged areas. If we want to make 
the mayor's dream come true, we should get rid of Davis-Bacon.
  For too long, cities have operated on the premise that crime, 
welfare, and drugs are the cause of their problems. These social 
problems are actually symptoms which are directly related to an eroding 
economic base. We need to start hearing that one in Washington and help 
promote policies which promote commercial activity and job creation in 
our inner cities, rural fringes and, for that matter, the entire 
country.
  I would also address the issue of quality. Many who support this law 
give credit to Davis-Bacon for creating higher standards of quality on 
construction projects. This is a myth that was pretty effectively 
shattered this past winter in our Nation's Capital. I ask my colleagues 
to recall how only months ago this city was shut down for several days 
because of a drinking water facility disaster. I have since learned 
that this facility was constructed under Davis-Bacon requirements. 
Enough said. The structure collapsed downtown. Davis-Bacon on that one 
too.
  Davis-Bacon has been harshly criticized by most rural and inner-city 
business groups. Those include, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 
National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, National Association of 
Counties, National League of Cities, National School Boards 
Association, National Association of House and Redevelopment Officials, 
National Taxpayers Union, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
  I would argue that this amendment does not go nearly far enough, and 
I have always believed that an outright repeal is really the best way 
of dealing with Davis-Bacon. The law as a whole has helped to severely 
weaken employment in this sluggish economy by increasing costs.
  The Congressional Budget Office has told us on more than one occasion 
that Davis-Bacon has an inflationary effect on private construction 
costs. And if you are still not satisfied, the Government Accounting 
Office [GAO] has called for a complete repeal of Davis-Bacon--because 
we waste a billion bucks each year as a result of this law.
  While I would concur with the GAO's conclusion, my amendment does not 
even come close to repeal or attempt it. I think it is important to 
point out that this amendment would only affect--at a maximum--30 
percent of all safe drinking water contracts because only 30 percent of 
the revolving loan fund is available for loan forgiveness to 
disadvantaged communities. So the other 70 percent of the funding would 
still be open to all Davis-Bacon requirements.
  This is a fairness issue. Why should we penalize those communities 
that need the financial assistance most? If we want to give them more 
bang for the buck, we should exempt them from Davis-Bacon requirements 
as another means of financial assistance. Seventy percent of the safe 
drinking water compliance costs will be incurred by disadvantaged small 
communities which account for 10 percent of the population. These 
communities need our help.
  So, with that in mind, I would expect that each and every Senator may 
find it appropriate to support this reasonable and modest attempt to 
induce some economic stimulus into our most distressed rural and urban 
communities.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  I had an amendment I would like to get in. It will just take a 
minute, if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you very much, Madam President.
   Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to elevate EPA to 
Cabinet-level status.
  This amendment passed the Senate just over a year ago as a free-
standing bill--S. 171, the Department of Environmental Protection Act. 
That legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 79 to 15. 
Unfortunately, the House has failed to pass a counterpart bill, so we 
have not been able to go to conference. My hope is that by attaching 
this amendment to Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization, we will be 
able to conference a bill and enact it this year.
  I would note that this amendment incorporates S. 171 as passed and 
amended, so it includes all amendments, except one, that were offered 
and agreed to last year--amendments from Members from both sides of the 
aisle. The only difference between this amendment and S. 171 as passed 
is that I have dropped section 123--the Johnston risk assessment 
provision. I have dropped this provision because a Johnston-Baucus 
compromise on risk assessment has already been debated and will be 
adopted as a separate amendment to Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization.
  We will debate it, and take action on it at a later date.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 1731

  (Purpose: To establish the Department of Environmental Protection, 
  provide for a Bureau of Environmental Statistics and a Presidential 
    Commission on Improving Environmental Protection, and for other 
                               purposes)

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

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] for himself, Mr. Sasser 
     and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1731.

  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I thank the managers for their 
cooperation and assistance.
  I hope that the Senate will find it appropriate to support this 
reasonable and modest attempt to do something, knowing that only 30 
percent of the money under the revolving fund is going to be available 
for loan forgiveness to disadvantaged communities. So the other 70 
percent of the funding will not be affected in any way, and will still 
have Davis-Bacon apply to it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, several points with respect to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming.
  First of all, this is one of I think three so-called Davis-Bacon 
amendments that have been offered here on the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
It strikes me that because we are getting different variations of the 
same issue that a lot of these Davis-Bacon questions would be much more 
appropriately handled in a more appropriate process, and I would submit 
that would be the Labor Committee; a very able committee that can deal 
with the Davis-Bacon questions.
  I think it is more fair to all concerned to take up these variations 
on an orderly basis. I therefore suggest that for that reason alone all 
of these Davis-Bacon amendments not be approved here at this time. In 
fact, I do not think they should be approved at all. But at least that 
is the orderly process in the Labor committee.
  The second point that strikes me is this: I do not see why employees, 
workers in disadvantaged communities should be further disadvantaged by 
their inability to be paid prevailing wage. It just seems to me that 
would layer disadvantage on top of disadvantage. The problem we are 
talking about is not all of the communities, but in cases it may be a 
large community. At least it is a disadvantaged community.
  It seems to me that if prevailing wage applies to the 
nondisadvantaged communities, but is not available for disadvantaged 
communities, that is discrimination against local workers. It does not 
make sense to me. Therefore, I do not think this amendment makes much 
sense.
  In addition to that, there are a lot of studies that show that a 
prevailing wage does not increase costs. It does not increase costs 
over the long run. There are a lot of data, a lot of studies, which 
very definitely show that the prevailing wage reduces cost overruns. It 
also tends to increase the quality of construction.
  There are a lot of reasons why it enhances stability. It enhances 
certainty. It enhances reliability so that the contractor, the 
employees, the union, and the community know what the base is to build 
upon.
  I am not going to get into any great debate about this right now. But 
I do think those are considerations we should all have in mind when we 
consider this amendment. And, therefore, I oppose it.


                           Amendment No. 1732

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have an amendment, the managers 
amendment, which I submit to the desk, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1732.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 47, line 3, strike ``is identified in an intended 
     use plan developed by the State pursuant to section 1474 and 
     the assistance'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``pursuant to 
     part G or any other Federal or State program''.
       On page 48, as amended by amendment No. 1699, strike the 
     following:

     ``requirements established by the State are based on--
       ``(I) occurrence data and other relevant characteristics of 
     the contaminant or the systems subject to the requirements; 
     and
       ``(II) the monitoring frequencies are no less frequent than 
     the requirements of the national primary drinking water 
     regulations for a contaminant that has been detected at a 
     quantifiable level during the 5-year period ending on the 
     date of the monitoring.''
       and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     ``requirements established by the State--
       ``(I) are based on occurrence data and other relevant 
     characteristics of the contaminant or the systems subject to 
     the requirements; and
       ``(II) include monitoring frequencies for public water 
     systems in which a contaminant has been detected at a 
     quantifiable level no less frequent than required in the 
     national primary drinking water regulation for the 
     contaminant for a period of 5 years after the detection.''
       On page 51, before line 2, insert the following:
       ``(iv) Other states.--The Governor of any State that does 
     not have primary enforcement responsibility under section 
     1413 on the date of enactment of this clause may submit to 
     the Administrator a request that the Administrator modify the 
     monitoring requirements established by the Administrator and 
     applicable to public water systems in that State, and the 
     Administrator shall modify the requirements for public water 
     systems in that State if the request of the Governor is in 
     accordance with each of the requirements of this subparagraph 
     that apply to applications from States that have primary 
     enforcement responsibility. A decision by the Administrator 
     to approve a request under this clause shall be for a period 
     of 3 years and may subsequently be extended for periods of 5 
     years.''.
       On page 67, line 9, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       On page 71, line 1, strike ``the issuance of the order 
     assessing the penalty'' and insert ``the proposed issuance of 
     such order.''
       On page 76, line 23, strike ``1432''.
       On page 78, line 9, strike ``to a private entity''.
       On page 83, lines 11 and 12, strike ``and Prohibition on 
     Certain Return Flows.''
       On page 84, line 21, insert ``, except manufacturers,'' 
     after ``supplies''.
       On page 86, strike lines 21 through 25.
       On page 103, line 24, strike ``approved pursuant to section 
     1429'' and insert ``pursuant to section 1420''.
       On page 105, line 7, strike ``(including travelers)'' and 
     insert ``endangerment,''.
       On page 116, line 12, strike ``subparagraph'' and insert 
     ``subparagraphs''.
       On page 116, line 22, strike ````;'' and insert the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) State cost adjustments.--The Administrator shall 
     revise cost estimates used in the resource model for any 
     particular State to reflect costs more likely to be 
     experienced in that State, if--
       ``(i) the State requests the modification;
       ``(ii) the revised estimates assure full and effective 
     administration of the public water system supervision program 
     in the States and the revised estimates do not overstate the 
     resources needed to administer such program; and
       ``(iii) the basis for the estimates are used consistently 
     under this title, including for purposes of section 
     1474(a)(2) in each fiscal year for which such section is 
     applicable.''''
       On page 130, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (4) cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment should be 
     presented with a clear statement of the uncertainties in the 
     analysis or assessment;
       On page 130, line 14, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 130, line 20, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 131, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 131, line 11, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Beginning on page 132, line 25, strike all through line 1 
     on page 133 and insert ``estimate the private and public 
     costs associated''.
       On page 133, strike lines 6 through 9 and insert the 
     following:
       (3) Evaluation of other federal actions.--In addition to 
     carrying out the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     Administrator shall also estimate the private and public 
     costs and benefits associated with selected major Federal 
     actions chosen by the Administrator that have the most 
     significant impact on human health or the environment, 
     including the direct development.
       On page 138, line 4, strike ``establish'' and insert 
     ``establish, not later than 24 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act,''.
       On page 138, strike lines 18 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Definition of Public Water System.--
       (1) The first sentence of section 1401(4) (42 U.S.C. 
     300f(4)) is amended by striking ``piped water for human 
     consumption'' and inserting ``water for human consumption 
     through pipes or other constructed conveyances''.
       (2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following: ``A connection for residential use 
     (drinking, bathing, cooking or other similar uses) or to a 
     facility for similar uses to a water system that conveys 
     water by means other than a pipe principally for purposes 
     other than residential use (other purposes, including 
     irrigation, stock watering, industrial use, or municipal 
     source water prior to treatment) shall not be considered a 
     connection for determining whether the system is a public 
     water system under this title, if--
       ``(A) the Administrator or the State in which the 
     residential use or facility is located has identified any 
     treatment or conditioning necessary to protect human health 
     if the water is used for human consumption and the 
     residential user of owner of the facility is employing such 
     treatment or conditioning at the point of entry; or
       ``(B) the system certifies to the Administrator or the 
     State that an alternative source of water for drinking and 
     cooking is being provided to the residential users or using 
     the facility.
       An irrigation district in existence prior to May 18, 1994 
     that provides primarily agricultural service through a piped 
     system with only incidental residential use shall not be 
     considered a public water system, if the residential use 
     complies with subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
       (3) The provisions of this subsection shall take effect 1 
     year after the date of enactment.
       On line 9 of Amendment No. 1709, strike ``shall'' and 
     insert ``may''.
       On page 143, after line 23, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (i) Prevention and Control of Zebra Mussel Infestation of 
     Lake Champlain.--
       (1) Findings.--Section 1002(a) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 
     Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 
     4701(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the zebra mussel was discovered on Lake Champlain 
     during 1993 and the opportunity exists to act quickly to 
     establish zebra mussel controls before Lake Champlain is 
     further infested and management costs escalate.''.
       (2) Ex officio members of aquatic nuisance species task 
     force.--Section 1201(c) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 4721(c)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, the Lake Champlain Basin Program,'' 
     after ``Great Lakes Commission''.
       (3) Aquatic nuisance species program.--Subsections (b)(6) 
     and (i)(1) of section 1202 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 4722) is 
     amended by inserting ``, Lake Champlain,'' after ``Great 
     Lakes'' each place it appears.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 1301(b) of 
     such Act (16 U.S.C. 4741(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, and the Lake 
     Champlain Research Consortium,'' after ``Laboratory''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4)(A)--
       (i) by inserting after ``(33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.)'' the 
     following: ``and grants to colleges for the benefit of 
     agriculture and the mechanic arts referred to in the first 
     section of the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417, chapter 
     841; 7 U.S.C. 322)''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and the Lake Champlain basin'' after 
     ``Great Lakes region''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?


                           Amendment No. 1733

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I send to the desk in behalf of Senator 
Gorton an amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Gorton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1733.

  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 109, line 7, insert the following after ``2000.''
       ``If the Administrator makes a grant to a non-profit 
     organization to provide technical assistance under this 
     section, the Administrator shall assure that the program 
     administered by the non-profit organization, in combination 
     with other grants under this section, provides technical 
     assistance among the States in an equitable manner. A non-
     profit organization conducting any activities supported by a 
     grant under this subsection, shall consult with the State 
     agency having primary enforcement responsibility under 
     section 1413 on the activities to be conducted in the 
     State.''


                           Amendment No. 1734

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Hatch, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1734.

  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 124, after line 11, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Schedule of inspections.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator or authorized 
     representative of the Administrator shall conduct inspections 
     undertaken pursuant to this subsection during the normal 
     operating hours of the establishment, facility, or other 
     property.
       ``(B) Small systems.--(1) For a public water system serving 
     a population of 3,300 or less, the Administrator or 
     authorized representative of the Administrator shall, to the 
     extent practicable--
       (i) notify the person referred to in paragraph (1), at 
     least 3 days before the inspection, of the time when the 
     inspection is scheduled to occur, and
       (ii) schedule the inspection at a mutually convenient time.
       ``(C) Waiver.--The Administrator or an authorized 
     representative of the Administrator may waive the 
     requirements of subparagraphs (A) or (B) if the Administrator 
     or authorized representative of the Administrator determines 
     that an immediate inspection may be necessary to protect 
     public health.''

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this amendment to the pending legislation 
will address a problem I foresee with this bill for the operators of 
our smaller public water systems.
  The legislation before us today authorizes an official of the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to conduct an inspection and 
audit of any water system that is subject to the provisions of this 
title. Certainly, no one wants to prevent the EPA from conducting a 
proper and thorough inspection of our public water systems, no matter 
the size of the system or the community serviced by that system. We do 
not want to let an incident go unnoticed and, if the situation is 
appropriate, unenforced.
  However, the operators of the smaller systems in Utah, or almost 90 
percent of Utah's systems, do not make their primary income from the 
position of a system operator. Their primary, secondary, or tertiary 
responsibilities do not involve the operation of the local water 
system. This does not mean that they have no interest in the proper 
operation of the system--they do. It simply means that their effort, 
and therefore their time, must be appropriated between various 
conflicting responsibilities. They are farmers, dairy ranchers, small 
business owners, and other occupations, and must perform the duties of 
these positions as well as focus their attention on their position as 
the local water operators. In Utah, one of our operators is an employee 
of the Utah State Board of Education, and one owns and operates a 
nursing home.

  My amendment takes this diversity into consideration. My amendment 
encourages the EPA to conduct inspections authorized under this act, 
for pubic water systems serving populations of 3,300, at a time that is 
as convenient as possible to the local operators. This is merely a 
consideration to those individuals who have to juggle their schedules 
and perhaps even commute some distance. Spot inspections conducted by 
the EPA would not be fair, appropriate, or even effective without the 
presence of the operator. EPA officials should address monitoring or 
water quality problems in a particular system, and I encourage them to 
take what action they need. But, my amendment encourages them to 
contact the operator of that system to schedule a time certain when an 
inspection and audit can be accomplished.
  We do not need to encourage further acrimony between local government 
officials and the Federal Government by allowing one party to make one-
sided demands on the other. They need to work together. This 
cooperation can begin in this legislation by working to agree to a time 
and place for the inspection.
  Originally, the amendment would have required a written notice by the 
EPA to the local operator within a certain number of days. While that 
solution would be my first preference, I am willing to accommodate the 
procedural concerns of the EPA and the managers of this bill. 
Therefore, I have modified the amendment so that the EPA inspector 
shall, to the extent practicable, contact the local operator three days 
in advance prior to scheduling an inspection, and determine, if 
possible, a mutually agreeable time to conduct the inspection and audit 
of the system's records. The amendment authorizes the Administrator to 
conduct an inspection if there is a compelling reason to do so in the 
interest of protecting public health. The important part of my 
amendment is that EPA officials be encouraged to give prior 
notification to the local operator as they carry out this inspection 
and audit activity.
  I believe this is a reasonable requirement for EPA officials. It may 
not seem important to many people, but it is critical to the operators 
of small public water systems. I appreciate the willingness of the 
managers of the bill to review this issue, and I urge the amendment's 
adoption.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 1730

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I would just respond to my good friend 
from Montana in the final arguments with regard to my amendment which I 
think is different from other Davis-Bacon amendments.
  This amendment that I present has to do with poor communities. These 
are disadvantaged communities I speak of which cannot even afford 
drinking water. It is nice to think of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
except if you are in a situation where you could impose a maximum levy 
on your whole community, and it will not even build you a water tower. 
That is the reality in many places in America.
  That is why the revolving fund is very appropriate. But this is an 
effort to give them more for their money. It is not an effort to make 
them more disadvantaged. Often workers for these treatment plants come 
from out of town. You can talk about the fellow making $20,000 or 
$23,000 a year. We are talking about the person who is very skilled, 
willing to work for $15,000 a year, and cannot get a job because of 
Davis-Bacon, because of a union prevailing wage. And there is no way 
that person can get a job in a disadvantaged community.
  If you want to do something for the local community, for local 
contractors, that issue of quality always comes up. The water system 
here in Washington, D.C. was built under Davis-Bacon requirements. And 
we had the biggest scare in history last year with regard to potable 
water in the District of Columbia. Then there was a building a few 
blocks from here that fell in a couple of years ago. During 
construction, it just collapsed. All of that was not exactly quality 
work under Davis-Bacon. I think that is an argument that certainly can 
be challenged.
  But that is the purpose of the amendment.
  I thank the managers, and I appreciate their courtesy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                Amendment No. 1735 to Amendment No. 1729

              (Purpose: To provide a perfecting amendment)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for Mr. Mitchell, 
     for himself, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Baucus proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1735.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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:
       Strike all after the first section heading and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Private Property Rights Act of 1994''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the protection of private property from a taking by the 
     Government without just compensation is an integral 
     protection for private citizens incorporated into the 
     Constitution by the Fifth Amendment and made applicable to 
     the States by the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (2) Federal agencies should take into consideration the 
     impact of Governmental actions on the use and ownership of 
     private property.
       (c) Purpose.--The Congress, recognizing the important role 
     that the use and ownership of private property plays in 
     ensuring the economic and social well-being of the Nation, 
     declares that the Federal Government should protect the 
     health, safety, and welfare of the public and, in doing so, 
     to the extent practicable, avoid takings of private property.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and--
       (A) includes the United States Postal Service; and
       (B) does not include the General Accounting Office; and
       (2) the term ``taking of private property'' means any 
     action whereby private property is taken in such a way as to 
     require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United 
     States Constitution.
       (e) Private Property Taking Impact Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--The Congress authorizes and directs that, 
     to the fullest extent possible--
       (A) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the 
     United States shall be interpreted and administered in 
     accordance with the policies under this section; and
       (B) all agencies of the Federal Government shall complete a 
     private property taking impact analysis before issuing or 
     promulgating any policy, regulation, proposed legislation, or 
     related agency action which is likely to result in a taking 
     of private property, except that--
       (i) this subparagraph shall not apply to--

       (I) an action in which the power of eminent domain is 
     formally exercised;
       (II) an action taken--

       (aa) with respect to property held in trust by the United 
     States; or
       (bb) in preparation for, or in connection with, treaty 
     negotiations with foreign nations;

       (III) a law enforcement action, including seizure, for a 
     violation of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence 
     in a criminal proceeding;
       (IV) a study or similar effort or planning activity;
       (V) a communication between an agency and a State or local 
     land-use planning agency concerning a planned or proposed 
     State or local activity that regulates private property, 
     regardless of whether the communication is initiated by an 
     agency or is undertaken in response to an invitation by the 
     State or local authority;
       (VI) the placement of a military facility or a military 
     activity involving the use of solely Federal property; and
       (VII) any military or foreign affairs function (including a 
     procurement function under a military or foreign affairs 
     function), but not including the civil works program of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers; and

       (ii) in a case in which there is an immediate threat to 
     health or safety that constitutes an emergency requiring 
     immediate response or the issuance of a regulation pursuant 
     to section 553(b)(B) of title 5, United States Code, the 
     taking impact analysis may be completed after the emergency 
     action is carried out or the regulation is published.
       (2) Content of analysis.--A private property taking impact 
     analysis shall be a written statement that includes--
       (A) the specific purpose of the policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (B) an assessment of the likelihood that a taking of 
     private property will occur under such policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action;
       (C) an evaluation of whether such policy, regulation, 
     proposal, recommendation, or related agency action is likely 
     to require compensation to private property owners;
       (D) alternatives to the policy, regulation, proposal, 
     recommendation, or related agency action that would achieve 
     the intended purposes of the agency action and lessen the 
     likelihood that a taking of private property will occur; and
       (E) an estimate of the potential liability of the Federal 
     Government if the Government is required to compensate a 
     private property owner.
       (3) Submission to omb.--Each agency shall provide an 
     analysis required by this section as part of any submission 
     otherwise required to be made to the Office of Management and 
     Budget in conjunction with the proposed regulation.
       (f) Guidance and Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Guidance.--The Attorney General shall provide legal 
     guidance in a timely manner, in response to a request by an 
     agency, to assist the agency in complying with this section.
       (2) Reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and at the end of each 1-year period 
     thereafter, each agency shall provide a report to the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the 
     Attorney General identifying each agency action that has 
     resulted in the preparation of a taking impact analysis, the 
     filing of a taking claim, or an award of compensation 
     pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth 
     Amendment to the Constitution. The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Attorney General shall publish 
     in the Federal Register, on an annual basis, a compilation of 
     the reports of all agencies made pursuant to this paragraph.
       (g) Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in this 
     section shall create any right to administrative or judicial 
     review, or any other right or benefit or trust 
     responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable by a 
     party at law or equity against the United States, an agency 
     or instrumentality of the United States, an officer or 
     employee of the United States, or any other person. If an 
     agency action is subject to judicial or administrative review 
     under any other provision of law, any alleged failure to 
     comply with this section may not be used as a ground for 
     affecting or invalidating the agency action.
       (2) Claims for just compensation.--Nothing in this section 
     shall limit the right of any person to seek just compensation 
     pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
       (h) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, could I inquire of the distinguished 
floor manager what the parliamentary situation is here, and how we are 
handling these amendments?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, 3 o'clock having arrived, we are in a 
somewhat complex and unique situation.
  As I understand it, after consulting with the parliamentarian, we now 
have 11 amendments to dispose of here. We are taking them in reverse 
order until 3:45, and at 3:45 we will have a vote on the Johnston risk-
taking amendment. At that point, I think we can proceed in the order in 
which they were offered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I understood from my staff--and I want to verify it--the 
amendment I offered just now to the Dole amendment will be debated and 
voted on, at which time, if I prevail, at that point, he would be 
entitled to offer a second-degree amendment to mine; is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is my understanding. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the floor manager.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, if there is no 
objection, the Bumpers amendment No. 1735 will be considered a second-
degree amendment to the Dole amendment No. 1729.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Johnston amendment 
No. 1722.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Hatch amendment.
  Who seeks recognition?


                           Amendment No. 1732

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now take 
up the managers' amendment, amendment No. 1732, offered on behalf of 
myself, and I ask that that now be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is essentially a technical 
amendment. This is the managers' amendment including technical 
provisions.
  It has been cleared, and I urge the Senate to approve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1732) 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The pending amendment is the 
Hatch amendment.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________