[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

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this morning we are going to vote on final 
passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. I am very 
pleased that we have included in this bill strong provisions to address 
the growing concerns about parasite contamination. The bill requires 
EPA to set standards for safe levels of cryptosporidium in drinking 
water. And it requires EPA to institute an aggressive research program 
to develop better ways to detect and treat for cryptosporidium and 
other parasite contamination.
  And Mr. President it is not a moment too soon, because the city of 
Milwaukee just last night learned that a water sample taken 9 days 
earlier has again turned up traces of cryptosporidium, the same 
parasite that caused death and illness in that city 1 year ago.
  Despite these traces, no disease has been reported. In reality, we do 
not really know what the positive test means from the standpoint of 
public health, and this precisely demonstrates the problem.
  The state of science is extremely limited with regard to our 
understanding of how to detect and treat for parasites like 
cryptosporidium. We do not even understand what levels of 
cryptosporidium will cause illness.
  It is shocking that Milwaukee has to wait 9 days to get the results 
from a water sample, and it is ludicrous that we do not know exactly 
what it means to human health when they do get back the results of 
those tests.
  It just so happens that since Milwaukee's outbreak a year ago, the 
city has been aggressively monitoring for cryptosporidium. But it is 
suspected that the parasite is much more widespread than we recognize 
in other parts of the Nation, where no such monitoring is taking place.
  So, Mr. President, again, I believe that Milwaukee's continuing 
problems are a clear example of the need to move this bill forward as 
quickly as possible. We have a lot to learn about drinking water 
safety, and we have no time to waste. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of final passage of S. 2019, to reauthorize, and to improve, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] 
is recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it appears that we have secured broad, 
bipartisan support for a series of reforms to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act, a law that has become most controversial in recent months.
  Achieving this much reflects the contributions of many Senators and 
others, including the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Carol Browner, and her team in the EPA water office.
  The problems with the Safe Drinking Water Act were first brought to 
the attention of the Senate in 1992 by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Domenici]. He alerted us then to the problems in the program and to the 
need for promptly enacted reforms. His determination to see real 
changes in the Safe Drinking Water Act has been steadfast right through 
to today. He was our sentinel out on the frontlines of this battle.
  In response to the concerns Senator Domenici raised, the Congress 
adopted an amendment that I offered along with Senator Lautenberg to 
the 1993 EPA appropriations bill. That amendment delayed the proposed 
radon standard, provided some relief to small systems from monitoring 
requirements and requested a report from EPA on the status of the 
program.
  EPA's report arrived in September 1993. It is a thorough analysis and 
has been very helpful to Senators in understanding the intricacies of 
this law. The head of the drinking water office, Jim Elder, deserves 
special praise for the quality of his report and the foundation that it 
has laid for this Senate debate.
  Administrator Browner included 10 recommendations to strengthen the 
program along with the EPA report. At the top of her list was the 
proposal by President Clinton to establish a new State revolving fund 
program to support infrastructure investments for drinking water 
treatment. The President committed $1 billion per year in Federal 
grants to this new program. It does not miss the mark by much to say 
that the promise of capitalization grants for State revolving funds has 
been the glue that has held this legislative effort together at many 
difficult moments. The President's bold proposal for a new Federal 
grant program deserves some of the credit for our presence here today.
  Senator Baucus used the 10 EPA recommendations as the foundation for 
his bill, S. 1547, which was introduced in October of last year. The 
committee held hearings on that bill and it was the starting point for 
the bill that is now before the Senate.
  Some parts of that bill, including new fees to be imposed on drinking 
water systems and criminal enforcement provisions that had been 
recommended by EPA, generated strong opposition among officials of 
State and local government. Because of these objections, some 
significant adjustments were required when the bill reached markup at 
the full committee.
  I want to applaud my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle 
for the help they gave us at that point in the process. Although some 
of them preferred a much stronger dose of reform, they voted 
unanimously to support the committee process and report a 
reauthorization bill to the Senate. The votes by Senators Simpson, 
Durenberger, Warner, Smith, Faircloth, and Kempthorne gave us a 17-0 
vote in committee and real momentum to move the chairman's bill with 
significant amendments to the floor of the Senate.
  Most people were expecting a pitched battle here on the floor when 
the leaders called up this bill. But through the assistance of Senator 
Kerry of Nebraska and Senator Hatfield of Oregon, that battle has been 
avoided. They have ably represented the concerns of their States and 
their drinking water systems in working with us to develop a series of 
additional amendments that brought this bill into a form that most 
Senators will support.
  It is rare for Senators who are not members of the committee of 
jurisdiction to play such a strong and constructive role in developing 
a bill. I know that Senator Hatfield prepared for this effort by 
holding many town meetings in Oregon. At the meetings they discussed 
problems with the drinking water program as it is experienced by people 
who actually run small drinking water systems. Senator Kerrey is a very 
able member of the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
EPA and the needs of the program first came to his attention because of 
the issues related to the radon standard. We are grateful for their 
interest and the time they have spent to find thoughtful solutions to 
the concerns their constituents have raised.
  Reaching this degree of consensus on a program that has generated so 
much controversy is a considerable achievement. We all congratulate 
Senator Baucus on his success. I know he joins with me in extending 
appreciation to each of those I have mentioned and to the other Members 
of the Senate, administration officials, and State and local government 
officials who have played a constructive role in this process.

  Mr. President, the principal difficulty that we face in designing a 
workable Federal drinking water program is the great disparity in the 
size of public water systems. Most Americans get their drinking water 
from large municipal utilities that serve 10,000 or more people. But 
most drinking water systems are quite small serving only a few hundred 
people.
  Let me give you the statistics. There are more than 220,000 public 
drinking water systems covered by the requirements of this act; 60,000 
of those systems are community systems with connections to homes or 
other residential buildings. Of the 60,000 community systems, 36,000 
are very small serving fewer than 500 people.
  On the other hand, 79 percent of the population receives its drinking 
water from systems that serve more than 10,000 people. That is the 
disparity--79 percent of the population gets its drinking water from 
large systems that can afford relatively sophisticated treatment while 
at the same time there are 36,000 very small community drinking water 
systems that often do not have the technical or financial ability to 
use even simple treatment like chlorination or filtration.
  As is the case with most uutility services, there are large economies 
of scale in drinking water supply. A large system that serves tens of 
thousands can afford monitoring and treatment programs that are 
absolutely out of reach for small systems. That makes it very difficult 
to set a uniform Federal standard that applies in a workable way to all 
drinking water systems. What people living in large cities can afford, 
and want, in the way of health protection is often not affordable in 
small towns.
  There are several ways to resolve that dilemma. You could have two 
standards--one urban and one rural. But most people reject that idea. 
It sounds too much like second class health protection for Americans 
living in small towns.
  There are others who apparently believe that the best solution is to 
abandon the notion of a Federal drinking water program. They would 
resolve the dilemma by passing the problem off to the State. That 
proposition was offered in an amendment by Senator Wallop yesterday 
afternoon. Making the program voluntary with the States would take the 
pressure off EPA and the Congress, I suppose, but it does not solve the 
dilemma. At some level of government it would still be necessary to 
confront the challenge of meeting health-protection drinking water 
standards in communities served by small public water systems.

  A coalition of State and local government interests have put another 
proposal on the table. They suggest that existing provisions of the law 
requiring EPA to set standards as close to the health goal as feasible 
be put aside and that EPA be allowed to weigh a wide range of cost and 
risk information in picking a drinking water standard. The corollary to 
their theme is that current drinking water standards are not based on 
good science. Many Senators came to the view that better scientific 
information and a more carefully balancing of cost and health risk 
concerns might produce standards that would resolve the big city-small 
town dilemma.
  That is not a correct view. It is usually not possible to find one 
standard that is ideal for systems of all sizes. No amount of analysis 
can overcome the economic reality of drinking water supply. Large 
systems can afford more health protection, more monitoring, more 
treatment, more source water protection.
  The bill before the Senate attempts to resolve the dilemma with a 
four-part strategy. First, the bill mandates that EPA reconsider the 
monitoring regime it has promulgated, especially for the contaminants 
that are pesticides or industrial chemicals. It is possible to 
substantially reduce monitoring costs in this program without 
sacrificing an ounce of health protection.
  Second, the bill allows States to give variances to small systems 
that cannot afford to comply with the Federal standards. These 
variances would require the systems to use the best treatment 
technology they can afford and would only be granted after other 
options like alternative sources of water supply or consolidation with 
other systems have been considered.
  Third, the bill establishes a new basis for a radon standard. Radon 
is a small system contaminant. It occurs in ground water which is the 
source of supply for small systems. It is expensive to treat water to 
remove radon. The standard proposed by EPA would force thousands of 
systems with no other drinking water problem to install treatment. 
Because EPA's proposed rule would establish a health protection level 
far below the threat from other sources of radon including indoor and 
outdoor air, the bill provides an alternative approach to reduce the 
risks from radon. In States that have programs addressing the indoor 
air radon risk, the drinking water standard will be set at a less 
stringent level reflecting risks from exposure to radon in outdoor air.

  Finally, and perhaps most important, the bill authorizes a 
substantial Federal grant program to assist small communities in 
acquiring the treatment systems that are necessary to provide safe 
drinking water. Money for the new revolving loan fund program has 
already been appropriated awaiting enactment of this bill. EPA has 
estimated that the total cost to install treatment to meet all 
standards that have been promulgated under the 1986 amendments to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act is $8.6 billion. This bill authorizes $6.6 
billion in grants to meet these needs. It is also important to note 
that the Rural Development Administration provides grants and loans 
amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars per year to small drinking 
water systems, as well.
  This four-part solution to the dilemma confronted by any effort to 
set uniform Federal health standards for all drinking water systems has 
not been easy to sell. It would have been far easier to pretend that 
the standard setting authority of the law is the problem and that wide-
open discretion to pick an objective and unbiased standard based on 
sound science the sure solution. In my view that course would have led 
to paralysis at EPA, or to a relaxation of the health standards so 
sweeping as to deny the American people the safe drinking water they 
want and can readily afford.
  That we have been able to reject the simplistic solutions and 
recognize that the problem is in the economics of drinking water 
supply, rather than structure of the law or the competency of the 
Agency is a substantial achievement for this body. As I have said, we 
owe thanks to many who serve in this Chamber but especially to the 
distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
Senator Baucus, and to the Senators from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and 
Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey].
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Idaho is about to speak.
  I just want to briefly say that a lot of thanks are due to the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus; for Tom Sliter, his top aide 
in this; and Jimmie Powell, the leading staff worker on this side. They 
are two of the hardest working, bright, even-tempered, and talented 
people I have had the pleasure to work with and we all owe them a 
hearty thanks for their work on this bill. And I want to congratulate 
each and every one of them.
  The chairman has worked diligently on this program and deserves a lot 
of credit for it. I salute him and those members of the staff.
  Last night, Senator Baucus mentioned many of the staff people who 
worked on this bill, including those from EPA who gave us valuable 
assistance throughout this process, and I want to join him in thanking 
all of them.
  In addition to those he mentioned last night, I want to acknowledge 
the long hours and dedicated effort put into this bill by several 
people who work for members of the committee. They are: Brent Erickson 
with Senator Simpson, Ann Loomis with Senator Warner, Chris Russell 
with Senator Smith, George Howard with Senator Faircloth, and Meg Hunt 
with Senator Kempthorne.
  From my staff, I want to thank Lori Williams, Dan Delich, and John 
Grezebien as well as those staffers who work behind the scenes, those 
who never get to the Senate floor but play a vital role in the 
legislative process: Carolyn Streeter, Donna Campbell, Marie Balderson, 
and Irene Sarate.
  I thank: Martha Bennett and Doug Pahl with Senator Hatfield and Diane 
Hill with Senator Kerrey.
  From the EPW majority staff: JoEllen Darcy, Jeff Peterson, John 
Reeder--on loan from EPA--Bob Irvin, Karen Ilardo, Jerry Reynoldson, 
and Peter Scher.
  From the EPA staff: Carol Browner, Administrator; Bob Perciascepe, 
Assistant Administrator for Water; Chuck Fox; Phil Metzger; and Jim 
Elder, Director of the Safe Drinking Water Program.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho very much.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] is 
recognized.

                          ____________________