[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 114 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9974-S9977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY REFORM ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily laid aside so we can present another
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1548 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To extend the terms of permits for grazing on National Forest
System lands to allow time for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with permit renewals)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, for and on
behalf of Senator Thomas of Wyoming, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Thomas, proposes
an amendment numbered 1548 to amendment No. 1487.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . RENEWAL OF PERMITS FOR GRAZING ON NATIONAL FOREST
LANDS.
Notwithstanding any other law, at the request of an
applicant for renewal of a permit that has expired before,
on, or after the date of enactment of this Act for grazing on
land located in a unit of the National Forest System for
which a land and resource management plan under section 6 of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604) is in effect, if all action required
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with
respect to the land and resource management plan has been
taken, the Secretary of Agriculture shall reinstate, if
necessary, and extend the term of the permit until the date
on which the Secretary of Agriculture completes action on the
application, including action required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(b) This section shall apply only to permits that were not
renewed solely because the action required under the National
Environmental Policy Act had not been completed.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this amendment
has been cleared by both sides. We are prepared to accept it and make
it part of the Senate bill. I ask the distinguished Senator from
Michigan if that is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment is acceptable on this side, Mr. President.
Mr. HATCH. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
So the amendment (No. 1548) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that the
pending business be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1549 to Amendment No. 1487
(Purpose: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to modify
the bottled drinking water standards provisions to require the
establishment of regulations relating to contaminants in bottled
drinking water)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration. I send this amendment for and on
behalf of Senator Snowe, our Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Ms. Snowe, for
herself, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Leahy and Mr.
Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1549 to amendment
No. 1487.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the substitute amendment insert
the following new section:
SEC. . BOTTLED WATER STANDARDS.
Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 349) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) Except as
provided in subsection (b), whenever''; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(b)(1)(A) Not later than 180 days after the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency promulgates a national
primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant under
section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300g-1), the Secretary,
[[Page S9975]]
after public notice and comment, shall issue a regulation under this
subsection for that contaminant in bottled water or make a
finding that the regulation is not necessary to protect the
public health because the contaminant is contained in water
in public water systems (as defined under section 1401(4) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 300F(4))) but not in water used for
bottled drinking water.
``(B) In the case of contaminants for which national
primary drinking water regulations were promulgated under
section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300g-1) before the date of enactment of the Comprehensive
Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, the Secretary shall issue the
regulation or publish the finding not later than 1 year after
such date of enactment.
``(2) The regulation shall include any monitoring
requirements that the Secretary determines appropriate for
bottled water.
``(3) The regulation shall require the following:
``(A) In the case of contaminants for which a maximum
contaminant level is established in a national primary
drinking water regulation under section 1412 of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the regulation under
this subsection shall establish a maximum contaminant level
for the contaminant in bottled water that is at least as
stringent as the maximum contaminant level provided in the
national primary drinking water regulation.
``(B) In the case of contaminants for which a treatment
technique is established in a national primary drinking water
regulation under section 1412 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the regulation under this subsection
shall require that bottled water be subject to requirements
no less protective of the public health than those applicable
to water provided by public water systems using the treatment
technique required by the national primary drinking water
regulation.
``(4)(A) If the Secretary fails to establish a regulation
within the 180-day period described in paragraph (1)(A) of
the 1-year period described in paragraph (1)(B) (whichever is
applicable), the national primary drinking water regulation
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of such paragraph (which
is applicable) shall be considered, as of the date on which
the Secretary is required to establish a regulation under
such paragraph, as the regulation applicable under this
subsection to bottled water.
``(B) Not later than 30 days after the end of the 180-day
period, or the 1-year period (whichever is applicable),
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall, with respect to a national primary drinking
water regulation that is considered applicable to bottled
water as provided in subparagraph (A), publish a notice in
the Federal Register that--
``(i) sets forth the requirements of the national primary
drinking water regulation, including monitoring requirements,
which shall be applicable to bottled water; and
``(ii) provides that--
``(I) in the case of a national primary drinking water
regulation promulgated after the date of enactment of the
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, the requirements
shall take effect on the date on which the national primary
drinking water regulation for the contaminant takes effect
under section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 300g-1); or
``(II) in the case of a national primary drinking water
regulation promulgated before the date of enactment of the
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, the requirements
shall take effect on the date that is 18 months after such
date of the enactment.''.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that both sides have agreed to
accept this amendment. Therefore, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable on this side.
My understanding of the amendment, and I would like perhaps
confirmation of this from my friend from Utah, is that this amendment
gets into the problems that have been created for the bottled water
industry by the delay in getting the rules which they are waiting for
accepted and promulgated.
If my understanding is correct, this is an instance where it is the
business community that wants the rule. Sometimes we think it is the
business community alone that is bothered by burdensome regulations.
There have been too many instances where there have been burdensome
regulations. There has also been many instances where there were
critically necessary regulations, and the struggle we are going through
is to try to come up with reform which will leave in place the
essential process to protect our health and safety.
But my understanding of this amendment is that in the case of the
bottled water industry, we have an industry which has been waiting for
regulation, asking for regulation in order to stop people from
representing on bottled water that it, for instance, might be spring
water if it is just tap water.
We need, we are told by the bottled water industry, the agency to
act, and the delay in this is actually hurting an industry.
So this is an instance where it is the industry which is trying to
get through a regulatory process, trying to get a rule which will both
protect it from bottled water which is misrepresented as something
other than it is not, and we also had the situation where this was
caught up in a moratorium.
One of the arguments against the moratorium is while it may sound
good at first blush, the problem is we have a whole lot of businesses,
as well as people, waiting for safety and environmental and health
rules, that are awaiting the regulatory process to work.
I have not had a chance to study this amendment, and I want to make
sure my understanding is correct, but it is my understanding that the
purpose of this amendment is an attempt to get the bottled water
regulations finally adopted; is that correct?
Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the Senator has stated it correctly.
This is the situation where regulation can be a very good thing if it
is appropriately done. And, in many cases, it can be a very good thing.
And so I commend the Senator from Maine for bringing it forth at this
time. I believe the Senator is correct. I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to first thank the majority leader
and Senator Hatch for working with me and Senators Cohen, Kempthorne,
Leahy, and Lieberman on this amendment. Throughout this process, they
have clearly demonstrated their strong support for the bottled water
industry and for bottled water consumers, and they deserve to be
commended for their cooperation and good work.
I also wanted to clarify a couple of points that were raised during
the discussion on the amendment between Senator Hatch and Senator
Levin. First, it is definitely correct that the amendment is supported
by the bottled water industry. In fact, this legislation has been one
of the bottled water industry's biggest priorities for the past couple
of years.
Second, Senator Levin referenced the FDA's standards for defining
spring water. This amendment does not apply to the FDA's spring water
definition rules. It applies only to public health standards for
bottled water.
In addition, I wanted to point out that the big issue here is more
the discrepancy in timing between the EPA's and the FDA's issuance of
rules for tap water and bottled water, respectively, than it is the
bottled water industry's level of enthusiasm for Federal regulation.
The bottled water industry does have an interest in the promulgation of
reasonable regulations that provide additional assurances of the safety
of its product, but the industry's biggest interest is in making sure
that the FDA does not take too long in issuing its regulations for
bottled water after the EPA promulgates regulations for tap water. And
I will explain why in a moment.
I also wanted to thank Senator Kempthorne, who chairs the
Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife, for his
assistance in getting this amendment adopted. My motive in offering the
amendment to the regulatory reform bill was to provide another option
by which we can get the legislation enacted, giving it a better chance
of ultimate success. But I think it is important to recognize that
Senator Kempthorne has been working on this issue as part of the Safe
Drinking Water Act reauthorization bill that he is now drafting, and
that he will continue to do so as that bill moves through the
Environment and Public Works Committee. I commend him for his efforts
on this issue, and I look forward to working with him during the SDWA
reauthorization process so that we can give this urgently needed
legislation another opportunity for eventual adoption.
Mr. President, my amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators Cohen,
Kempthorne, Leahy, and Lieberman, is designed to make the regulatory
process for
bottled water more efficient and responsive, while expanding health
protections for the consuming public.
Under current law, bottled water is considered a food product, and is
therefore subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. My
amendment requires the FDA, which has jurisdiction
[[Page S9976]]
over bottled water, to publish final regulations for a contaminant in
bottled water no more than 6 months after the EPA has issued
regulations for that same contaminant in public drinking water or tap
water.
Unfortunately, the FDA has a history of long delays in issuing its
regulations for bottled water after EPA publishes its standards for tap
water. On December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule for 35
contaminants in bottled water. Nearly 4 years earlier, however, in
January 1991, the EPA regulations for these contaminants had already
been issued.
In another case, it took the FDA 4 years to issue regulations for a
series of volatile organic chemicals in bottled water after the EPA
issued regulations for those chemicals in public drinking water in
1989. And presently, final regulations for 23 new contaminants in
bottled water are still pending at FDA, even though the EPA's version
of the regulations went into effect in January 1994--a year and a half
ago.
While the FDA takes its time, bottled water producers and consumers
are left in limbo. In the absence of Federal standards, the bottled
water industry, which is composed of 430 bottling facilities in the
United States, is vulnerable to charges that its product is unsafe. In
fact, the Administrator of the EPA suggested publicly on two occasions
that bottled water was not fully protected because the FDA had not
issued certain regulations that had already been issued by the EPA for
public drinking water.
Of course, charges that bottled water is unsafe or unprotected
couldn't be further from the truth. Bottled water is subject to strict
industry safety standards and to various State rules. But the Federal
standards do provide an important additional assurance for consumers
nationwide. Without these standards, consumers may question whether
bottled water is really a safe, natural, and healthy alternative to tap
water, and sales in the industry could be unnecessarily dampened. Not
only do consumers lose when the bureaucracy drags its feet, but an
industry that employs thousands of Americans loses.
My amendment will ensure a more expeditious response in the future.
In addition to the 6-month deadline for new contaminants, the FDA will
be given 1 year to issue final regulations for contaminants that the
EPA already regulates, but that have not yet received new FDA standards
for bottled water. If the FDA fails to meet either the 6-month or 1-
year deadlines, the existing EPA standard is automatically implemented
for bottled water.
In some cases, FDA may determine that a particular contaminant
regulated by EPA does not occur in bottled water. My amendment would
allow the FDA to simply publish such findings in the Federal Register
before the deadline periods expire.
The amendment also stipulates that in all cases, the FDA standards
for bottled water must be at least as stringent as the EPA's standards
for public drinking water. The bill does reserve the FDA's right to
issue more stringent standards, however, adding an extra measure of
public health protection, if necessary.
It is my hope that this amendment will prompt the FDA to coordinate
its regulatory activities for drinking water with the EPA from the
beginning, before either agency issues a notice of proposed rulemaking.
By coordinating in this process, the agencies could issue their
regulations at roughly the same time. The amendment would therefore
have the effect of improving the efficiency of the Federal regulatory
process--something all of us agree is necessary--while enhancing health
protections for consumers. It represents a clear win-win proposition
for all of our constituents.
The bottled water industry generates $2.7 billion in sales annually,
and it serves millions of American consumers, with the potential to
serve even more. Surely, these producers and consumers alike deserve
the kind of consideration from
their Government that my amendment guarantees. I am pleased to see
that Senators on both sides of the aisle agree and support the
amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad to be a cosponsor of Senator
Snowe's amendment which is the exact language of S. 412 regarding
bottled water quality standards. Like many other enterprises from heart
surgery to hang-gliding, the bottled water industry needs nationwide
regulations that ensure the quality of its product.
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has been very slow in issuing
regulations that guarantee a particular standard of quality. In fact,
the FDA has lagged behind the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA],
sometimes by a matter of several years. The net result is that some
water companies can legally distribute water that is less healthy than
ordinary tap water. This is bad for consumers, bad for honest
businesses, and underscores one of the reasons why our Nation is
supportive of regulated standards.
I am particularly interested in this amendment because of a Vermont
business that has a clear interest in enforceable standards of quality.
The Vermont Pure Springs Company of Randolph Center, VT, is one of the
great success stories of Vermont's growing specialty food industry.
Vermont Pure Springs produces, in my opinion, the best bottled water in
the world--Vermont Pure Natural Spring Water. In fact, I invite each of
my colleagues to stop by my office to taste this water--I keep about a
dozen bottles of Vermont Pure water in my refrigerator.
Each bottle of Vermont Pure Natural Spring Water contains water that
is naturally filtered through Vermont mountain rock strata for at least
12 to 20 years. Some of Vermont Pure Springs' competition comes from
companies whose water is not only not as pure as Vermont Pure, but may
in fact have pollutants that are illegal in tap water. Since its
beginning in 1990, Vermont Pure Springs has been seeking the regulatory
guidance in this amendment to ensure its water is known throughout the
world and guaranteed by our Government as Vermont Pure.
The provisions of this bill ensure that whenever the Environmental
Protection Agency issues new standards for drinking water, the FDA will
have 180 days to issue regulations that address the same contaminants
to the minimum standard required by the EPA. If the FDA does not issue
formal regulations, the EPA drinking water standards apply to bottled
water. In the case of EPA standards that have already been established
and the FDA has not yet acted, the FDA has 1 year to act before the EPA
standards automatically apply. This bill allows the FDA to hold bottled
water to a stricter standard, but ensures that bottled water will be
held to a minimal standards.
I appreciate the opportunity to consider this amendment today. I look
forward to moving this particular legislation through Congress so that
it may be signed by the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1549) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it appears that we cannot get the Hutchison
amendment completed and negotiated in a way that is satisfactory to
both sides. It is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from
Texas is prepared to go to a vote on the amendment. I hope the other
side is prepared to do that.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, we had a conversation where it was, I thought,
indicated that we were trying to----
Mr. HATCH. I talked to the Senator from Texas and she felt it was not
getting done.
Mr. LEVIN. We are awaiting their redraft of the amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are making some progress. We would like
to work through the afternoon.
[[Page S9977]]
I had a discussion with the distinguished Democratic leader about
there being a number of votes on Monday. We may move the time for the
cloture vote, depending on what I hear from the Democratic leader.
I have also indicated that in addition to that cloture vote, if
cloture fails, there will be another cloture vote on Tuesday.
____________________