[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  SAFE DRINKING WATER REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is acting on 
the safe drinking water reauthorization. It is an important bill for my 
State, where many communities have been struggling to comply with the 
existing law.
  As I approached this authorization, I had two principal goals. First 
and foremost, I wanted to make sure that any reform initiative 
undertaken by the committee continued to protect public health. Second, 
I hoped we could introduce some badly needed flexibility into the law. 
I believed that it was time to allow States to tailor drinking water 
requirements to fit their unique circumstances and to provide better 
assistance to communities, especially the smaller communities that face 
large costs to comply with the law. As Senator Baucus himself pointed 
out, the Safe Drinking Water Act has, for most of American States and 
cities, become a symbol of Federal heavy-handedness and abuse.
  I voted to report this bill from committee because I believe we had 
made significant progress in producing a bill that met my goals. 
Following the markup, I joined some of my committee colleagues in 
outlining issues that we thought needed more work prior to full Senate 
consideration. Together, we helped to initiate an effort to see that 
happen.

  While I think there is always more than we can do, I believe that we 
have reached a point today that, on balance, gives us a bill that is an 
enormous improvement over current law. In an ideal world I would have 
done even more to empower State decisionmaking and to redefine the 
Federal-State relationship. But we have struck a balance here, 
retaining EPA oversight while giving the States significant 
responsibility for developing alternative monitoring schemes and for 
administering a program for small system variances.
  I hope the States use the authorities under this act to help public 
water systems comply with the law and to reduce their costs of doing 
so. I also hope that EPA will reject past practice and withstand the 
temptation to micromanage the States, or to dictate the details of 
State programs because it prefers uniformity to variation. Should these 
reforms survive a conference with the House, I expect to watch very 
closely the implementation of these reforms, and I will press to make 
further changes should our intended result not happen.
  For today, I am pleased the committee has responded so well to the 
issues defined by the additional views that I prepared jointly with 
Senators Simpson, Warner, Smith, and Faircloth, my colleagues on the 
committee. I also congratulate Senators Hatfield and Kerrey for their 
role in helping to bringing about the improvements that have been 
offered today, and Senators Domenici and Boren for introducing their 
bill, which provided a goal line to move toward.
  Needless to say, the good will and hard work of Senator Baucus and 
Senator Chafee made it possible for us to achieve a product that comes 
closer to addressing those of my concerns that were still outstanding 
at the close of the markup in committee.
  Since that time, the bill has been substantially modified. I would 
like to highlight some of the improvements to the bill that were of 
particular interest to me. Under the bill, States are given more 
flexibility to develop alternative monitoring programs without undue 
interference by the EPA. The language pertaining to the selection of 
future contaminants has been modified to delete the presumption that 
any contaminant studied for regulation would actually be regulated.

  More than at any other time in the past, we are likely to see future 
contaminants regulated on the basis of good science, their actual 
occurrence in drinking water, and their risk to public health.
  My State had expressed serious concern about the bill's original 
mandate requiring State programs to address the viability of new and 
existing systems in a manner prescribed by EPA. Failure to have an EPA-
approved program would have jeopardized both primacy and a State's 
revolving loan fund allocation.
  We've worked out a program that should give States maximum 
flexibility to deal with viable systems and allowed for the development 
of a purely State-based program. I believe these ingredients are 
essential if States are to be successful in working with presently 
nonviable systems.
  In the area of standard setting, the present language is an 
improvement over that contained in the bill reported by committee. I 
think it provides a good basis from which to work, and one which we can 
revisit in the future should it be necessary.
  I am still concerned about the mandates imposed in the context of 
this bill. The committee has been responsive in providing funding for 
State administrative costs, including a means to fund the upsurge in 
State administrative needs in the immediate future. It has also been 
generous with the State revolving loan fund, which is crucial to assist 
with the capital costs for treatment facilities.
  I do not believe the funding we have provided is adequate to cover 
the ultimate cost to local government of complying with the 
requirements of this bill, particularly as new contaminants are 
regulated. But it is also true that the significant reforms that we 
have made today in monitoring, variances for small systems, the 
scientific basis for EPA decisions to regulate, and standard setting 
may provide the kind of flexibility that will produce substantial 
reductions in any remaining unfunded mandated costs. On that basis, and 
at the behest of State and local officials who have worked so hard to 
achieve this compromise, I withhold offering an unfunded mandates 
amendment.
  I intend to support this bill on final passage.
  I would like to then address the Safe Water Drinking Act which in 
just a few moments we will be voting upon.
  Mr. President, I think it is very important that if you disagree with 
something you should speak out, but I think also when you agree with 
something you should speak out as well.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee I was very 
involved in this legislation as it was being dealt with in the 
committee. I hope that I brought to that process the perspective of a 
local official because, as you know, I was the former mayor of Boise, 
ID.
  There are a number of issues I am very concerned about with the 
existing law. Therefore, I tried to bring that focus when we talked 
about the new legislation that is proposed. A number of those concerns 
were addressed by the chairman and the ranking member and were included 
in the chairman's opening remarks.
  I know there are a number of colleagues who are still considering how 
they may vote on this measure. I would just ask them this question, as 
I have asked myself: Are there improvements in this proposed Safe 
Drinking Water Act reauthorization over the existing law? The answer 
that I have concluded is there are vast improvements. There are 
significant achievements, such as a substantial State's flexibility for 
designing alternative monitoring programs. There is the small systems 
variance, the risk assessment, both for non-carcinogens as well as 
carcinogens. Are there costs involved in this? Absolutely. Are all 
costs taken care of? No.
  But there has been genuine effort to authorize funds for many of the 
costs involved, and that again is a vast improvement.
  So today, Mr. President, I would just like to state before this vote 
that I will vote for the Safe Water Drinking Act reauthorization. I 
urge my colleagues to do so as well. I believe that if they do, they 
will find that a number of mayors and county commissioners in their 
respective States will be grateful for their support of this 
legislation, which I hope will have strong support and will be carried 
in the House, as well.
  I commend Chairman Baucus and the ranking member, Senator Chafee, for 
their efforts in crafting what I think is a very balanced and 
progressive bill.
  Mr. President, thank you very much.

                          ____________________