[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17742-S17757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Kempthorne along 
with Senators Chafee, Reid, and others, for their efforts to bring to 
the floor this important safe drinking water legislation, which I was 
pleased to cosponsor. The changes that would be made by this bill--
reducing unnecessary burdens and costs to communities and ratepayers 
while guaranteeing reliable drinking water--have been sought by cities 
and towns in my State for many years now.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act is perceived at the local level to be one 
of the most expensive and onerous Federal environmental requirements 
that we have. Reform of drinking water regulations has been a top 
priority of local officials across the country as they expressed 
increasing frustration with unfunded Federal mandates. As a former 
mayor, I understand the difficulties local officials encounter when 
they are faced with an enormous number of requirements and little money 
to pay for them.
  I was pleased to be an initial cosponsor of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 which was the first step taken by Congress to reduce 
the impact of unfunded mandates. That was enacted into law last March 
under the leadership of Senator Kempthorne. It is going to make it much 
more difficult to enact new unfunded mandates.
  The second step toward reducing the burden on communities is to 
directly address the unfunded mandates that currently exist on the 
books. The bill before us today represents a very thoughtful and 
prudent approach to this critical second step.
  The purpose of the bill is to maintain a safe drinking water supply 
while reducing the cost to communities and ratepayers. We need to 
remind ourselves that while cutting costs is very important, it is also 
critical that we do not lose sight of the fundamental goal of providing 
citizens with clean drinking water. People expect the water coming out 
of the tap to be safe, and we must not do anything that would 
jeopardize public health.
  It is a sorry comment indeed that you read in the local paper in this 
community that people need to boil their drinking water. Here we are in 
the Nation's Capital where people have to be alerted that the water 
they are drinking is not safe, that it contains harmful bacteria. 
Therefore, local residents are told to be sure to boil their water. 
That does not say very much for the state of affairs in this community, 
to say the least. But it is a warning, perhaps, to all of us that we 
cannot simply engage in looking at the costs without taking into 
account what the major and central goal has to be: protecting the 
health and welfare of our people.
  This bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase the 
role of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in standard setting. 
It would also provide waivers from various requirements for small 
drinking water systems, and would authorize a revolving loan fund to 
provide funding for drinking water infrastructure projects. This 
legislation goes a long way toward providing flexibility for States and 
municipalities to develop drinking water programs that make sense for 
particular communities instead of the current one-size-fits-all 
approach.
  One of the most critical aspects of this legislation is its 
recognition of the unique problems expensive Safe Drinking Water Act 
requirements pose to small communities. A recent CBO study found that 
the Safe Drinking Water Act has resulted in fairly modest costs for a 
majority of the households in this country. Approximately 80 percent of 
the households are expected to incur costs of $20 annually. However, 
the CBO noted that ``the household served by small water systems are 
particularly likely to face high costs,'' some well in excess of $100 
per year. Additionally, that study found that costs to ratepayers tend 
to be higher for surface water systems than for groundwater systems.
  In Maine, the majority of households get their water from municipal 
systems, all but a handful of which serve fewer than 10,000 users, and 
most of which serve less than 4,000 users. Maine has a relatively high 
percentage of water systems that rely on surface water as their source. 
Because this water has historically been very clean, few towns had 
filtration facilities. As a result, Maine water systems now have spent 
over $150 million in the past few years to comply with the surface 
water treatment rule, which has been particularly hard for these small 
community systems.
  One example of this would be Southport, ME. It is an island town of 
about 650 year-round residents, where the voters recently rejected--
overwhelmingly, I should point out--a $300,000 plan to bring the town 
into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The town's 70-year-
old system relies on surface water since there is little potable ground 
water on the island. Providing water that meets the law's standards 
would raise the annual water rates for seasonal residents from $136 to 
$306.
  In Searsport, ME, the water district is currently proposing a 66-
percent rate increase due to the need to convert from surface to ground 
water. As a result, the water costs of one Searsport company would 
increase by $48,000 a year. The company, understandably, is considering 
other water sources, although the implication for other users are going 
to be enormous if that company left the town system.
  Finally, I would like to share just one more example of the need to 
reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. Among the many letters I have 
received from Mainers expressing concerning about the law's impact is a 
very thoughtful letter from Mrs. Audrey Stone of Bucksport. Mrs. Stone 
wrote:

       As I rely totally on my Social Security check and therefore 
     am restricted to a fixed income, as are many other residents 
     in this community, you can readily see that the impact of a 
     water rate increase in excess of $200 per year poses grave 
     threats to my ability to maintain my residence. Additionally, 
     those residents who have another source of water supply may 
     choose to shut off the water company at the street, returning 
     to their own source of water and defeating the purpose of 
     this previously enumerated act. Further, this leaves less 
     ratepayers to absorb the cost of the mandated improvements.

  Mr. President, I strongly believe we have to preserve public 
confidence in the safety of our drinking water, but current Federal 
laws seek to achieve the goal of clean drinking water in a very 
expensive and sometimes very wasteful manner.
  This bill will maintain a safe drinking water supply and reduce 
unnecessary costs and burdens to communities and utilities that provide 
the water. By reducing unnecessary costs and providing additional 
Federal funding, communities will be better able to maintain reasonable 
rates and address other public works concerns and priorities such as 
law enforcement and education.
  Mr. President, there was a former city official from Lewiston, ME, 
who said, as a result of the costs of water regulations to communities, 
``We will have the cleanest water in the State and the dumbest kids.''
  It was a provocative statement, but it certainly hit home because he 
indicated that he was faced with a Hobson's choice of either obeying 
Federal environmental mandates or spending money on educating the 
community's children. He could not do both.
  I think this legislation will help solve that Hobson's choice and 
allow some flexibility to small communities so they may meet the goal 
of protecting our people while not forcing them to cut education and 
other high-priority items.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to support final passage of 
Senate bill 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this important bill.
  Montana is an extremely rural State. In fact, we don't have a 
drinking water system that serves more than 100,000 people. Most of our 
water systems don't serve more than 10,000 people. Meeting the 
requirements under the 

[[Page S 17743]]
existing water laws has been difficult, at best, for many of these 
communities.
  The bill we are considering today is a step in the right direction. 
It will give relief to communities and improve public health 
regulations by reducing burdensome and unnecessary regulations.
  Over the next 8 years, this bill authorizes $1 billion annually in 
Federal grants. These grants go directly to the States where loans or 
grants can be made to local water systems. In addition, this bill 
contains a provision where a percentage of the funds can be allocated 
for disadvantaged communities. This bill also gives our Governors the 
flexibility to transfer funds between the clean water and drinking 
water State revolving loan funds.
  The bill provides $15 million for technical assistance for small 
systems. This is a $5 million increase over existing levels. The 
technical assistance program often is the only contact systems have to 
meet the requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, 
S. 1316 allows the technical assistance funding to be used for the 
rural water wellhead-groundwater protection program. This has been one 
of the most successful programs in rural communities. And prevention is 
less expensive than remediation.
  Included in the current law, is a mandate to promulgate standards for 
25 additional contaminants every 3 years. S. 1316 repeals this mandate 
and sets a new mechanism to identify contaminants for future 
regulations.
  The most expensive part of running a water system is the monitoring 
which must occur. S. 1316 moves the decision to the States regarding 
monitoring. This will allow local conditions to be considered. Systems 
serving up to 10,000 people can skip repeat testing for many 
contaminants that do not pose health risks if the first sample in a 
quarterly series does not detect the contaminant. This could reduce the 
monitoring by 75 percent in some communities.
  Most importantly, this bill contains no new Federal mandates. S. 1316 
does not contain any new Federal regulatory program. Montanans want the 
Federal Government out of their lives, and this bill not only does not 
add new regulations, it streamlines the requirements contained in the 
current bill.
  There is no constituency for dirty water. However, the problem with 
the existing law is it is based on fines and penalties. The bill we 
will pass today takes us away from that mentality. It gives the States 
and communities the tools to provide folks with safe water. It is a 
bill based on providing communities with assistance, not penalties.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill and I look 
forward to it being enacted into law.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. I want to commend Senators 
Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid for their excellent work in 
crafting a bipartisan bill.
  This bipartisan effort is particularly important because 
environmental issues have been marked by such sharp and bitter 
controversy this Congress. Twenty-five years of bipartisan support for 
strong environmental protection have been placed in jeopardy. I hope 
that this bill will serve as a model for getting us back on track. The 
bill makes reasonable changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act but does 
not roll back protection of human health.
  The No. 1 responsibility Congress has, and what people demand from 
us, is to protect the people we serve from harm. That means guarding 
our national security with a strong defense, and keeping our streets 
safe from crime. But that also means protecting people from drinking 
poisonous water, breathing dangerous air, and from eating contaminated 
food--in other words, protecting people from harms from which they 
cannot protect themselves. We can and should reform our laws to make 
them more cost-effective and to eliminate unnecessary requirements. But 
we should not waiver from our responsibility to protect people.
  One of the major reasons that the current Safe Drinking Water Act 
needs adjustment is that many drinking water systems--mostly smaller 
systems--have difficulty complying with the law because of lack of 
funding and expertise. These systems also often lack trained operators. 
The legislation addresses these issues by authorizing a State revolving 
fund of $1 billion per year through 2003 to upgrade facilities to 
enable systems to come into compliance with the current standards, and 
by requiring that States receiving SRF money must have a system of 
operator certification and a training program.
  The issue of the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting standards 
for protecting human health and the environment has been extremely 
controversial this Congress, particularly in the context of regulatory 
reform legislation. This bill demonstrates that the most effective way 
for Congress to consider the use of cost-benefit analysis is in the 
context of individual statutes. In the abstract, in the context of a 
broad regulatory reform bill covering every health, safety, and 
environmental law, cost-benefit analysis becomes highly contentious 
because we simply don't know the impact on all the laws we are 
affecting. But this legislation demonstrates that we can clearly reach 
agreement when we look at individual statutes.
  This legislation allows the EPA Administrator discretion to utilize 
cost-benefit analysis to move away from technology-based standards in 
those circumstances where benefits do not justify costs. But there are 
logical limits restrictions on this authority that make sense in the 
context of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These restrictions include the 
following. First, the discretion is solely with the Administrator to 
use this authority. No court may compel the Administrator to use this 
authority. Second, the Administrator cannot use this discretion when 
the benefits justify the costs for large systems and variances from the 
standards are available for small systems. Third, the Administrator 
cannot use this authority to make any existing standard less stringent. 
In other words, there can be no rollback of human health protection. 
Fourth, the authority may not be used for rules relating to 
cryptosporidium and disinfectants or disinfectant byproducts. Fifth, 
there must be a full consideration of nonquantifiable benefits in any 
analysis of whether benefits justify costs. Sixth, the health effects 
on sensitive subpopulations must be considered in determining whether 
benefits justify costs. Seventh, judicial review of the Administrator's 
determination of whether benefits justify costs can only occur as part 
of the final rule and can only be considered by the court under the 
arbitrary and capricious standard.

  Some concern has been expressed in the Litchfield County area of my 
State regarding levels of radon found in their drinking water, and the 
environmental community has raised concerns that the radon standard in 
the bill is not strong enough. Unfortunately, since 1992, Congress as 
part of the appropriations process has prevented EPA from issuing a 
radon standard. The EPA spending bill this year, which I opposed, again 
included this restriction. Those who have led this effort cite the fact 
that the EPA Science Advisory Board, in a report to Congress, raised 
serious concerns about EPA's approach to regulating radon.
  This bill moves the process forward by establishing for the first 
time a Federal standard for radon at a level which the managers of the 
bill indicate finds support in the EPA Science Advisory Board report. 
Importantly, however, the bill contains a specific provision allowing 
the EPA Administrator to set a more stringent level for radon if 
certain conditions are met; in addition, States have the authority to 
set more stringent standards. I am confident that the EPA Administrator 
will take this authority very seriously, and I intend to follow up with 
the Agency on its use of this authority.
  Finally, the provisions relating to source-water protection are, in 
my view, not strong enough. As we have found in Connecticut, protecting 
the sources of drinking water makes good common sense--it's pollution 
prevention that will save water systems and communities money. I hope 
these provisions can be strengthened in the House and conference.
  Again, my congratulations to the managers.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today the Senate has the opportunity to 
demonstrate that the Federal Government is responsive to needs of the 
States and localities as they seek to provide quality drinking water to 
their citizens. It 

[[Page S 17744]]
is imperative that Congress move forward on a Safe Drinking Water Act 
[SDWA] that revises the standard setting process that bases drinking 
water standards on an analysis of costs and public health benefits, 
eliminates unnecessary monitoring requirements, and has regulations 
based on the occurrence of a given contaminant and existence of public 
health risks instead of an arbitrary and escalating schedule of 
contaminants.
  Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 following public 
concern over findings of harmful chemicals in drinking water supplies. 
The intentions were admirable, but today's SDWA is a law that is too 
rigid and fails to prioritize risks. The current law operates under the 
notion that EPA bureaucrats are better able than local public health 
officials to determine the public health needs of a local community. 
Because of this, contaminants like cryptosporidium that ought to be 
regulated go unregulated because water operators are too busy expending 
limited resources on testing for so many random and sometimes obscure 
substances. In addition, the law fails to acknowledge that today's 
drinking water systems are capable of efficiently delivering 40 million 
gallons of safe water to American homes every day.
  The current SDWA is also an excellent example of a statute where 
litle or no science is required to regulate; there is no flexibility to 
set priorities based on risk to public health until 83 contaminants are 
regulated.
  The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to 
regulate a specific list of 83 contaminants, allowing the Agency seven 
substitutions. Regardless of the health risk associated with each of 
the contaminants listed in the statute, EPA was told to regulate 9 
contaminants 1 year after enactment of the statute; 40 contaminants 
within 2 years of enactment; and the remainder 1 year later. Once EPA 
completes the list of 83, the statute goes on to require EPA to 
finalize regulations for 25 new contaminants every 3 years regardless 
of whether the contaminants occur in drinking water, or whether they 
are of public health concern.
  Nowhere in the statute does it say that the Agency should have good 
science, or peer-reviewed science or that if there are contaminants in 
drinking water supplies of greater health concern than those on the 
list, that EPA should regulate them first.
  EPA acknowledges that they have found it impossible to keep up with 
the statute's requirements and recognizes that the requirement has 
resulted in some pretty poorly drafted rules. In fact, in EPA's 1993 
report to Congress, the Agency was quite frank about the statute's 
required deadlines and the quality of the data used. The Agency said in 
its report:

       To meet these deadlines, data collection and analysis have 
     not always been as thorough as desired. Document drafting and 
     management review had to occur simultaneously and documents 
     have needed to be rewritten and rereviewed. Short review 
     periods have resulted in oversights and the need to publish 
     correction notices. Regulations covering multiple 
     contaminants have often been lengthy and complex. Thus, the 
     public had difficulty providing thoughtful comments and the 
     Agency had limited resources for gathering and analyzing 
     additional data in response to comments. In some cases, 
     unrealistic deadlines have contributed to the Agency's 
     difficulty in addressing the unique technical and economic 
     capacity problems of very small systems.

  The current drinking water law, in other words, has played a large 
role in creating the information vacuum that now exists on the 
regulation of cryptosporidium for instance.
  One reason it has taken EPA so long to focus on cryptosporidium is 
the current law. Its rigidity and lack of flexibility have created a 
situation where even EPA's resources have gone to complying with a 
requirement to regulate an arbitrary list of 83 contaminants, most of 
which according to EPA occur in drinking water seldom and rarely at 
levels of public health concern, rather than concentrating efforts on 
priority contaminants. Even more wasteful is the significant amount of 
funds being spent by local communities monitoring for contaminants that 
do not occur in their particular source of water. Hundreds of millions 
of dollars a year are spent on monitoring for the contaminants 
regulated currently.
  If we are not looking at what is occurring in the drinking water 
supply and we are not required to have adequate or even good science to 
regulate, it is not surprising that we wind up regulating contaminants 
that may not be of the highest concern--and those priority 
contaminants, such as cryptosporidium, go unregulated.
  Local water suppliers, however, have recognized the need to move 
ahead without EPA regulations and have led the effort to develop a 
voluntary partnership with the States and EPA to enhance existing 
treatment processes to help safeguard drinking water from 
cryptosporidium in advance of the knowledge needed to develop an 
appropriate national regulation.
  It is past time that the Federal Government get in step and develop 
reforms that allow for prioritization of standards based on risk to the 
human population.
  It is past time to bring common sense to both laws and regulations.
  I commend Senators Kempthorne, Reid, Chafee, and Baucus for working 
diligently to get this broad, bipartisan supported legislation to the 
floor. I will support this legislation because it goes a long way in 
improving the current law. It eliminates the arbitrary schedule of 
contaminants, provides much-needed assistance to small systems, 
requires good, peer-reviewed science, changes standard setting 
requirements, implements voluntary sourcewater protection initiatives, 
and many more things. It is imperative that these changes are made. 
However, I do have some concerns with the legislation and this is why I 
have not cosponsored the bill.

  I believe we need to do more to ensure that those responsible for 
providing safe drinking water can adequately pursue the activities 
deemed most important in protecting public health with the resources 
available. We need to continue to address seriously the issues of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
  According to the National Academy of Public Administration, the NAPA 
report:

       The tools of risk analysis and economic analysis help 
     clarify regulatory and priority-setting issues confronting 
     EPA and Congress. The discipline of analyzing risks, costs, 
     and benefits encourages a degree of consistency in approach 
     to understanding problems and defining solutions. The tools 
     can and do provide information that is important for 
     decisionmakers to consider. Shelving any of these tools, as 
     some advocate, would be foolish and counterproductive, an 
     invitation to muddle through rather than to learn and think.

  By setting risk based priorities we have the best opportunity to 
allocate, in the most cost-effective manner, the resources of the 
Government and private sector in protecting the public from 
contaminants in drinking water. We need to do all we can to provide 
greater protection to the public at less cost than the current system 
mandates.
  Once again, the NAPA report urges that:

       Congress should ask the agency to explain its significant 
     regulatory decisions in terms of reductions in risk, and in 
     terms of other benefits and costs. The agency should support 
     state and local efforts to engage the public in comparing 
     environmental risks, report periodically to Congress on a 
     national ranking of risks and risk-reduction opportunities, 
     and use comparative risk analysis to help set program and 
     budget priorities.

  One of the reasons that I stress the issues of risk assessment and 
cost benefit as they relate to budget priorities is because that is the 
only way we are going to get the ``biggest bang for the buck.'' My 
colleagues on the committee have already heard my concerns regarding 
the authorization for appropriations in this bill. I was hoping that my 
concerns were going to be addressed, but I understand my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have objected. Therefore, I am compelled to 
share with everyone, once again, my views regarding this issue.
  Every single one of us, Republican or Democrat, has a responsibility 
to balance the budget. We have seen over the last several weeks that 
our views might not be identical on how to achieve this objective, but 
the objective is the same--a balanced budget.

  As authorizers, not just on this committee, but all committees, we 
must start to be more realistic in our funding expectations. Do not get 
me wrong, I know that as an authorizer I would probably authorize more 
than I know would be appropriated--so as not to tie 

[[Page S 17745]]
the hands of the appropriators and just in case the slim chance would 
exist that full funding could be achieved. However, authorized pie-in-
the-sky numbers have contributed to our budget problems and in my 
opinion, when we know from the beginning that the proposed 
authorization for appropriation is not possible we are being unfair to 
all our constituents.
  Reality is that discretionary spending is declining. The EPA budget 
was reduced this year. We have no choice but to try to do more with 
less. We must prioritize. As chairman of the relevant appropriations 
committee I would love to appropriate what everyone wants--point me to 
the money machine.
  Since the funding does not exist--how can we continue to mislead and 
give the impression that things are possible when they are not. 
Unfortunately, there is a wide gap between the wish list in this bill 
and available resources.
  Once again, I was hoping that this concern would be addressed, and am 
disappointed that it was not. I guess I will follow the direction that 
the distinguished committee chairman, Senator Chafee, provided during 
markup. The decisions will have to be made solely in appropriations.
  I also need to address one final concern in relation to the proposed 
disinfection-disinfection byproducts rule. The provision in the bill, 
in my opinion, greatly discourages the use of chlorine in water 
treatment despite the many health benefits chlorine provides. The 
language exempts this rule from cost-benefit analysis, sound science 
and comparative risk assessment. Considering the proposed cost of this 
rule, I am concerned that this will be an unfunded mandate to the 
States and localities.
  Once again, I thank Chairman Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator 
Kempthorne, and Senator Reid for their leadership and diligence on this 
issue. I learned long ago that you do not always get what you want. 
Maybe next time.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate 
represents the best of this body. This legislation has been a long time 
in the works, and the final product shows the high level of commitment 
to this important area of policy.
  There are few things that touch more aspects of life in Oregon than 
water. From electricity, to fishing, forestry, and agriculture, no 
issue is more central to Oregon. And of course, the women, men, and 
children of my State, like all others, depend on a clean, healthy 
supply of water to drink.
  I have always supported the Safe Drinking Water Act. I voted for the 
original provision in 1974 and for the 1986 amendments. I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of the legislation introduced by a bipartisan 
group led by Senator Kempthorne.
  In 1993, I met with over 150 representatives of water systems in 
Oregon to discuss the approaching reauthorization of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. I have also received hundreds of letters in the last year 
from system operators and local officials. These are truly committed 
public servants who care deeply about the health of those in their 
communities. Their input has greatly assisted me in navigating through 
this debate.
  Mr. President, I believe water is our most vital resource. Water 
provides much of the clean electric power produced in the Northwest. 
Water is vital to Oregon's strong agricultural production. And where 
would our fisheries and forestry industries be without water? None of 
these is of more intimate importance to each of us than the water we 
consume. Our bodies cannot live without water.
  Many inside the beltway call Oregon the land of liquid sunshine. They 
say we do not tan, we rust. Well, we know that is not always true. We 
have recently experienced the difficulties of a 6-year drought, which 
taught us that water should never be taken for granted.
  Today Oregonians are confronting the damage that can come about due 
to too much rain. Heavy rains have hit the Pacific Northwest in the 
past several days causing significant problems, particularly in Yamhill 
and Tillamook Counties. Our Governor has declared a state of emergency 
in these counties.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from today's Oregonian 
newspaper be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATFIELD. The heavy rains have resulted in a landslide in 
Portland's renown Bull Run watershed, which has provided pure drinking 
water from the Portland area for generations. The slide severely 
damaged a bridge crossing which carries two of the three conduits which 
bring drinking water from the Bull Run watershed to Portland. No water 
is flowing through the two damaged pipes. The third pipe is underground 
and is still in operation. The two dams in the watershed are undamaged.
  City officials have two main concerns: public health and adequate 
supply. The Portland Water Bureau is closely monitoring both 
contamination levels and turbidity. At this stage, no public health 
problems have arisen.
  The second issue is adequate supply. The city's daily water usage 
this time of year is 90 million gallons per day. The one remaining 
conduit from Bull Run has a capacity of 75 million gallons per day. Any 
additional supply up to the 90 million gallons per day will come from 
the city's existing well fields in northeastern Portland near the 
Columbia River. In addition, over 270 million gallons is currently 
stored in reservoirs throughout the city.
  Temporary repair of the two conduits from Bull Run could take weeks. 
A permanent fix could take months. Engineering studies are already 
underway.
  This shows us once again the importance of our precious water 
resources. It shows us the importance of providing our local officials 
with the resources they need to respond to unpredictable challenges. 
These officials must have the flexibility and the resources to carry 
out their responsibilities.
  The legislation before us today meets that and many other goals. It 
is a significant accomplishment and I am proud to cosponsor it. Let me 
take a moment to review the concerns I have heard from hundreds of 
Oregon communities and take note of how these concerns have been 
addressed in the legislation before us.
  As my colleagues recall, last year, many months of effort were put 
toward crafting a bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization 
bill. I was proud to work closely with Senator Kerrey in an attempt to 
bridge the partisan differences that had emerged on the issue. The 
final product passed this body with overwhelming bipartisan support. 
Efforts to bring the bill to a conclusion late in the session were not 
successful. I am pleased that many of the provisions in the bill before 
us today clearly emanate from last year's bill.


                     Selection of New Contaminants

  One of the most frequently cited problems with the current law is 
that in the 1986 reauthorization, Congress required EPA to regulate 25 
new contaminants every 3 years, whether they need to or not. The bill 
before us eliminates this requirement and replaces it with a 
requirement that EPA take action with respect to at least five 
contaminants every 5 years beginning in 2001. This change will provide 
tremendous regulatory relief to EPA, States and water systems.


                            Risk Assessment

  Citizens of Oregon want to know that the contaminants EPA decides to 
regulate actually pose a health risk. They feel that the process of 
regulation is too often divorced from sound scientific evidence of risk 
from a contaminant.
  This legislation requires EPA to use good science and assess the risk 
of contaminants before proceeding with regulation. The bill gives EPA 
authority to regulate contaminants based on their actual occurrence in 
drinking water and the real risks they pose. This will help EPA pursue 
regulations of the substances in drinking water that pose the greatest 
threat to human health.


                         Cost-Benefit Analysis

  Nearly everyone I have spoken to in Oregon is concerned that EPA sets 
standards for contaminants at a level that is unrelated to the level of 
health protection secured for the cost. Small systems need 
consideration of risk even more than larger ones. The bill before us 
allows the Administrator the flexibility to set standards at levels 

[[Page S 17746]]
other than those technically feasible and affordable to large systems, 
when it makes sense to do so in light of the risk reductions to be 
achieved and the compliance costs.
  This is a critical element of reauthorization because it will create 
a tighter and more explicit relationship between regulations, health 
protection, and the compliance costs. I strongly commend Senators 
Kempthorne, Chafee and Baucus for helping solve this thorny issue.


                           Monitoring burden

  Oregonians have complained that they monitor for contaminants that 
have never been in their water. By ignoring differences among 
geographic areas, we force local systems to devote resources to 
contaminants they do not have. This takes vital resources from real 
problems. This bill includes provisions similar to those added by 
Senator Kerrey and myself to the 1994 Safe Drinking Water Act 
reauthorization bill that will allow State drinking water programs to 
design monitoring programs that are appropriate to conditions faced by 
their State.


                        Small System Flexibility

  In Oregon, I learned that small systems are particularly hard hit by 
many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act regulations because they do 
not have the economies of scale of a large city. The bill before us 
addresses this problem in several ways. First, there is monitoring 
relief for small systems. Moreover, systems serving less than 10,000 
people are eligible for a streamlined variance process and a small 
system technology program. A number of other flexibility provisions are 
included in the bill for small systems.


                          Sufficient Resources

  Oregonians have told me that the regulations governing drinking water 
are technical and expensive. In addition, GAO reported last year that 
State programs are underfunded.
  To begin to solve this problem, the bill authorizes a $1 billion 
annual State revolving loan fund. The bill also authorizes an 
additional $90 million for health effects research, a wise investment 
for public health.


                               Conclusion

  I strongly urge the Senate to support this bill. These provisions 
strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, not because they make the act 
more rigid and stringent, but rather because they will help us--in 
Congress, at EPA, in the States and in every local water system--focus 
drinking water resources on the most pressing problems and on the 
biggest threats to health.
  Again, let me commend the managers of this legislation for their fine 
efforts in bringing this matter to the floor in such a sound bipartisan 
manner. I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this legislation.

                               Exhibit 1

                  [From the Oregonian, Nov. 29, 1995]

                        When It Rains, It Pours

        (By Stuart Tomlinson, David R. Anderson, and Pat Forgey)

       Oregonians paused to assess and clean up the damage caused 
     by heavy rain Monday and Tuesday and braced for another, 
     stronger storm expected to hit Wednesday.
       Gov. John Kitzhaber declared a state of emergency Tuesday 
     in Tillamook and Yamhill counties because of landslides, 
     flooding and road washouts.
       ``It's a mess,'' Tillamook County Commissioner Jerry Dove 
     said after a helicopter tour Tuesday. ``I have never seen 
     anything so devastating.''
       Heavy rain falling on ground saturated during one of the 
     wettest Novembers on record sent several coastal rivers over 
     their banks, trapping motorists, closing schools and driving 
     residents from their homes.
       By Tuesday afternoon, the rain slackened, which allowed the 
     river levels to subside. But forecasters warned of heavier 
     rains Wednesday, accompanied by winds that could reach 75 mph 
     on the coast.
       ``The flood season has just begun,'' said Clint Stiger, a 
     hydrologist for the National Weather Service in Portland. 
     ``We're very concerned about the storm coming Wednesday 
     because there is just not much more moisture the soil can 
     contain.''
       Flood alerts were posted Tuesday for rivers throughout 
     Western Washington, and Gov. Mike Lowry declared a state of 
     emergency in Clark County and 10 other Washington counties 
     late Tuesday. The declaration is retroactive to Nov. 7, when 
     heavy rains began causing flood damage in Washington.
       While flooding was reported on the Clackamas River, Johnson 
     Creek and the Tualatin and Salmon rivers outside Portland, 
     the northern Oregon coast was hardest hit.
       Kitzhaber's emergency declaration will allow the Oregon 
     Department of Transportation to use highway safety money for 
     emergency road repairs. The declaration also means the 
     governor can use the Oregon National Guard to assist in 
     flood cleanup or for security.
       More than 6 inches of rain fell in about 36 hours at Lee's 
     Camp, a reporting station outside Tillamook. A rain gauge at 
     a Tillamook city reservoir can measure a maximum of 7.5 
     inches, but it overflowed in less than 24 hours Monday night 
     and Tuesday morning.
       Snow that had fallen during the weekend melted under the 
     onslaught of record warm temperatures. With 58 degrees, 
     Portland broke a record for the date set in 1982, while 
     Eugene had a record-tying 60 degrees.
       Portland is inching toward breaking the all-time rain-fall 
     record for November, which was 11.57 inches in 1942.
       By 10 p.m. Tuesday, rainfall at Portland International 
     Airport reached 10.28 inches.
       Rain was the main problem Tuesday, but high winds could 
     bring problems throughout the day Wednesday.
       Forcasters issued high wind warnings for the north and 
     central Oregon coast through Wednesday, with gusts up to 75 
     mph on exposed headlands and gusts to 40-plus mph inland.
       Heavy rain also hit Eastern Oregon. The National Weather 
     Service issued small stream advisories for portions of 
     Umatilla County.
       Snow levels rose to about 8,000 feet by Tuesday, but they 
     were expected to plummet Thursday and Friday to about 4,000 
     feet, with more snow forecast for the northern Oregon 
     Cascades.
       A storm containing moisture from nearly 1,000 miles 
     southwest of Hawaii brought the rain and warm temperatures to 
     the state. It's part of a pattern of storms that rake the 
     region during November and December.
       Oregon is on the edge between warm, tropical air to the 
     south and colder air to the north.
       ``Where the two air masses come together, there is often a 
     violent meeting on the boundary,'' said state climatologist 
     George Taylor. ``The atmosphere is trying to reach 
     equilibrium.''
       So were Tillamook County residents.
       Crews worked all Tuesday to reach people trapped in their 
     homes by mudslides, mostly on the Trask and Kilchis River 
     roads.
       By late Tuesday, about 50 homes, with as many as 200 
     residents, on Trask River Road still were cut off by 15 to 18 
     landslides. Some routes were cleared only to be closed again 
     by slides or flooding.
       Tillamook County Sheriff Thomas Dye said a U.S. Coast Guard 
     helicopter dropped a paramedic in the area to check on a 3-
     year-old girl suffering from the flu. The girl checked out 
     fine, and the paramedic left by helicopter.
       Jon Oshel, the county public works director, said he hoped 
     to have Trask River Road open by dark. Kilchis River Road 
     presented a bigger problem, although only about 10 families 
     still were cut off.
       ``We lost a major piece of road there that's just flat gone 
     into the river,'' Oshel said.
       Tillamook County Commissioner Ken Burdick lives up Trask 
     River Road, where he saw what he called the worse devastation 
     in 42 years.
       ``We sat there last night until 4 a.m., listening to 
     canyons blow out,'' he said.
       Burdick didn't get out of his house until late Tuesday, 
     when county road crews working their way up the Trask River 
     reached him.
       During a helicopter tour, Dove said every canyon they 
     looked at east of Tillamook had been hit with a gully-washer, 
     blocking roads, washing out culverts and carrying trees and 
     stumps downriver.
       Dove said he saw houses flooded and dairy farmers cut off 
     from their cows.
       The Wilson River Highway, the main road between Tillamook 
     and Portland, was closed between Tillamook and Glendale by 
     landslides. The road wasn't expected to be open to through 
     traffic until late Wednesday, traffic officials said.
       Mike Fredericks, who lives along the Wilson River, was 
     forced from his trailer by rising floodwaters. When he came 
     back Tuesday, he expected his trailer to be in Tillamook Bay.
       When he left the night before, his trailer was an island 
     buffeted by what used to be the hillside across the Wilson 
     River Highway.
       Because of a clear-cut last summer, he said, the culvert 
     that drains the hill clogged Monday night.
       The water had to go somewhere. When he went next door to 
     talk to his neighbor, a veteran of six years on the river, 
     Fredericks found out where.
       ``As soon as we turned our heads, down came the hill,'' 
     Fredericks said. ``The creek was hitting the trailer house 
     and fanning around each side.''
       Fredericks' cat, Cubby, was washed away. His mailbox, 
     telephone bill and all, ended up about 50 yards from the 
     house.
       The trailer, which is about five miles east of Tillamook, 
     survived the deluge and moved not an inch toward the Wilson 
     River. If it weren't for the mess in his yard, Fredericks 
     would have felt fortunate.
       The new stream cut a 10-foot-deep gully across the lawn, 
     halfway between his trailer home and recreational vehicle. 
     Sheared logs, about a foot of mud and hundreds of basketball-
     size rocks littered his lawn.

[[Page S 17747]]

       In Yamhill County, the Three Rivers Highway dropped about 4 
     feet at milepost 13.5. The highway was reopened after 
     emergency repairs were completed.
       Although the rains were impressive, river levels still were 
     below historic flood levels.
       During a January 1990 flood, the Nehalem River crested at 
     25 feet; Tuesday's peak reached 16.2 feet. In January 1972, 
     the Wilson River crested at 16.9 feet; Tuesday's peak reached 
     13.2 feet.
       Flooding caused the aptly named Roaring River Bridge, at 
     the confluence of the Roaring and Clackamas rivers about 17 
     miles southeast of Estacada, to sink two feet Tuesday 
     morning.
       A large log, probably loosened from an embankment eroded by 
     the floodwater, rammed and bent the bridge pilings, said Gary 
     McNeel, an assistant district manage of the Oregon Department 
     of Transportation office. The 45-year-old bridge serves about 
     1,100 vehicles a day.
       In Clackamas County, firefighters and the sheriff's 
     deputies evacuated residents of the Eagle Creek Mobile Home 
     Park near storm-swollen Eagle Creek for several hours early 
     Tuesday.
       Worst hit were Terry and Toni Hirbeck. Their doublewide at 
     30773 S.E. Creekside Lane, about a mile upstream from the 
     Clackamas River, had water up to its subflooring and no yard 
     at all.
       ``I woke Terry up at 11 o'clock last night to tell him the 
     water was coming up,'' said Toni Hirbeck, 33. ``And from 11 
     o'clock to midnight, the water rose so much that stuff was 
     already floating.''
       By 2:30 a.m., firefighters from the Boring Fire Department 
     had to rig a rope across the lane as a lifeline so the lane 
     could be forded more safely.


                              weather woes

                               The coast

       Tillamook: High water and mudslides closed dozens of roads. 
     Many residents were stranded in homes and cars. The Wilson 
     River Highway, the main road between Tillamook and Portland, 
     was blocked by slides. School districts in north and central 
     Tillamook County closed Tuesday, after officials decided it 
     was to risky to send buses out.

                            Multnomah County

       Bull Run: A mudslide smashed two of three conduits 
     supplying Portland's water from the Bull Run watershed 
     Tuesday, sharply reducing the Portland area's water delivery 
     system. Officials planned to avert a water shortage my 
     drawing on reservoirs and turning on backup wells along the 
     Columbia River.

                            Clackamas County

       Roaring River: Flooding caused Oregon 224's Roaring River 
     Bridge, over the Roaring River at the confluence with the 
     Clackamas River about 17 miles southeast of Estacada, to sink 
     about the two feet Tuesday. A large log rammed into and bent 
     the pilings of the 45-year-old bridge that serves about 1,100 
     vehicles a day. Workers are expected to complete a temporary 
     plate-steel bridge in about a week.
       Clackamas River: The river was above flood stage at several 
     sites, but particularly threatening at Carver. Residents of a 
     mobile home park were bracing for possible evacuation.
       Eagle Creek: Crews evacuated families from 12 homes about 
     1:30 a.m. Tuesday but allowed them to return later in the 
     morning.
       Salmon river: In the Mount Hood area, a few families were 
     driven from their homes Monday night.
       Sanbag help: County officials recommend calling 655--8224 
     to get information about sandbags and available help.

                              Clark County

       Salmon Creek: A handful of residents north of Vancouver 
     evacuated their homes Tuesday when Salmon Creek overflowed, 
     sending several feet of water into basements, submerging 
     lawns and uprooting trees. Homeowners and fire District 6 
     personnel sandbagged six homes at 136th Way and Salmon Creek 
     Avenue to stem the damage.
       Road Closures: Southeast Evergreen Highway was closed at 
     190th Avenue by water 3-feet deep across the pavement. Water 
     crested above the guardrail and closed Leadbetter Road at 
     232nd Avenue north of Lacamas Lake.

                             Eastern Oregon

       The storm caused flooding and power failures across much of 
     Eastern Oregon. Several families on the Umatilla Indian 
     Reservation near Pendleton wee stranded when the Umatilla 
     river flooded rural roads. Eight inches of snow fell on the 
     Ladd Canyon mountain pass between Baker City and La Grande, 
     causing a massive tie-up.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Safe Drinking Water Act is important 
to every community in this country--large or small--rich or poor. This 
public health statute ensures that our citizens have clean water to 
drink when they turn on the tap. But this law is important for another 
reason as well--it can be very costly for small rural communities that 
simply do not have the financial resources necessary to comply with 
many of the stringent standards and monitoring requirements required by 
the act. All of us in Congress have been sensitized to the issue of 
unfunded Federal mandates because of the regulatory excesses brought 
out by the previous reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  The Clinton administration makes the claim that Republicans don't 
care about the environment but that is pure balderdash. We care about 
the environment just as much and we are passing this legislation 
because we do care. We also care about real people--cities and small 
towns--and that is why we are putting some common sense back into the 
law.
  The environmental groups may think that unfunded mandates are part of 
what they call an unholy trinity, but I can tell you that to a Member 
of Congress this issue is a very real concern. When I travel around my 
State and stop in small towns I always hear complaints about the Clean 
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and unfunded mandates.
  The last time we reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act we caused a 
near crisis in small town America. Thousands of small towns are 
financially unable to meet Federal drinking water requirements and need 
help finding less expensive ways to make their water safe to drink. A 
recent GAO report said that meeting Federal drinking water standards is 
an acute problem for around 50,000 small communities that account for 
90 percent of the drinking water violations. We need to find more cost-
effective ways to provide these small towns with safe drinking water or 
we are going to be wholly discredited in the eyes of the American 
public.
  The EPA estimates that it will cost small communities $3 billion to 
comply with current Federal drinking water regulations and another $20 
billion to repair and replace and expand their current drinking water 
infrastructure and to meet future needs. It has been estimated that 70 
percent of the costs will be incurred by small communities that account 
for 10 percent of the population. These communities cannot afford that 
kind of expense and I don't think a simple revolving loan fund will 
help enough.
  Neither the Federal Government nor the States have developed policies 
that will reduce costs through less expensive technology or development 
of better financing and funding mechanisms. This situation must be 
remedied. We need to make direct grants to small communities along with 
a loan program and more importantly we need to revise monitoring 
requirements and change the ways standards are being set.
  The bill we are considering is an improvement in this regard, but I 
don't think it goes far enough. The environmental groups have taken a 
paternalistic approach to this issue and they don't believe the States 
should be given flexibility in carrying out the act. This isn't the 
classic case where it is industry versus the greenies. This is 
Governors, mayors, State legislators, and water administrators saying 
``Congress must do something radical to fix this program or we are 
going to go broke.''
  I don't think the committee bill goes as far as I would have liked in 
directing EPA to consider cost and good science, but I think the final 
version represents a genuine effort to improve current law and it will 
cause EPA to take a more realistic approach to the standard setting 
issue in the future. For this reason I intend to vote for this bill and 
I trust the President will sign it when Congress sends it on to the 
White House.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, Senator Cohen and I would like to engage 
the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Idaho in a colloquy.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would be pleased to participate in a colloquy with the 
Senators from Maine.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would be happy to engage the Senators from Maine in 
a colloquy as well.
  Ms. SNOWE. As the Senators from Rhode Island and Idaho are aware, a 
number of very small, economically disadvantaged communities across the 
country are having serious difficulties trying to comply with the 
surface water treatment rule. Compliance with this rule can be very 
expensive, sometimes requiring a disadvantaged community with less than 
500 residents to build a filtration plant costing over $1 million. 
Unfortunately, many of these communities cannot afford to construct 
these expensive facilities without substantial Federal assistance, and 
that assistance has not been adequate to meet the demand. This 
predicament 

[[Page S 17748]]
has caused a lot of frustration in certain small towns, particularly 
since the quality of their local water sources, which are often located 
in isolated rural areas, can be quite high and is not vulnerable to 
imminent degradation.
  Mr. COHEN. I concur with Senator Snowe on this point. There are 19 
small, economically disadvantaged towns in Maine currently under 
compliance order to install filtration systems as required by the SWTR, 
and the deadlines for those orders will be expiring over the next year. 
Without adequate Federal financial assistance, these disadvantaged 
communities will not be able to comply with the filtration requirement.
  We understand that section 13(b) of S. 1316 allows a State to exempt 
an economically disadvantaged public water system serving a population 
of less than 3,300 people from the requirements of a national primary 
drinking water regulation as they relate to maximum contaminant 
standards or treatment techniques for a period of up to 3 years, as 
long as there is a reasonable expectation that the system will receive 
Federal financial assistance during the exemption period. In addition, 
the bill would allow a State to renew this exemption in 2-year 
increments up to an additional 6 years.
  Ms. SNOWE. We further understand that the authorities available under 
section 13(b) apply to the surface water treatment rule, as they do to 
other national primary drinking water regulations, and that section 
13(b) would therefore allow a State to provide an exemption to a system 
serving an economically disadvantaged community in the predicament that 
we just described, provided the system meets the terms and conditions 
set forth in the section.
  We would like to ask the chairman of the Environmental and Public 
Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the chief sponsor of S. 1316, 
Senator Kempthorne, if our understanding of this provision is correct.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Maine Senators' understanding of section 13(b) is 
correct. This section does apply to the surface water treatment rule as 
well as other Federal drinking water regulations. I very much recognize 
the problems that small disadvantaged towns are facing in complying 
with some of the expensive requirements of the act, and we hope that 
section 13(b) and other sections of S. 1316 will address these 
problems.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I concur with Senator Chafee that the Maine Senators' 
understanding of section 13(b) is correct. The surface water treatment 
rule is covered under this section. One of my major interests in 
drafting S. 1316 was to find ways to ease the compliance burden of the 
act on small, disadvantaged communities while maintaining public health 
protections. Section 13(b) is one of the provisions in the bill that 
will help us achieve this important goal.
  Ms. SNOWE. We thank the Senators for clarifying this important 
matter.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, there is an issue on which I would 
like to engage in a colloquy and get the support of the chairman of the 
subcommittee. I understand that efforts to gain an accurate and valid 
determination of drinking water quality often can be compromised by 
brief weather changes. Current regulations call for water quality 
compliance of a contaminant to be based on the annual average of four 
quarterly samples. But when quarterly samples are collected during such 
brief periods, inaccurate and misleading impressions of the water's 
annual average quality can result.
  This situation is especially prevalent with respect to determination 
of agricultural and other non-point contaminants. spring thunderstorms 
often follow farmland tillage operations and necessary applications of 
fertilizers and crop protection chemicals, and natural storm water 
runoff can briefly elevate concentrations of these contaminants in 
water. A single spring quarter sample taken immediately after a major 
thunderstorm can put the water supplier out of compliance for the 
entire year and result in expensive and unnecessary water treatment.
  More frequent sampling would give a more accurate assessment of the 
long-term exposure to these seasonal contaminants. Mr. Chairman, it is 
my impression that the provisions for alternative monitoring programs 
authorized in section 19 of the bill would authorize each State with 
primary enforcement responsibility to allow utilities to conduct time-
weighted sampling during the quarters of concern. To balance accuracy 
with economic considerations, such alternative monitoring programs 
could allow utilities to composite monthly or more frequent samples for 
a single quarterly analysis for those contaminants which are known to 
be stable in storage.
  Is this the understanding of the chairman of this committee?
  Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, that is 
correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the chairman of the committee for his support 
and clarification of this section.


                           REGULATION OF ZINC

  Mr. THOMPSON. I would like to engage the majority managers of the 
bill in a brief colloquy concerning the regulation of zinc--an 
essential trace element--under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As they are 
undoubtedly aware, there are a number of studies showing that children, 
particularly poor children, are seriously deficient in their intake of 
zinc. Drinking water is one important source of zinc for those 
children.
  The managers are surely also aware that the Environmental Protection 
Agency has established at least one reference dose--or safe exposure 
level--that allows for less than the recommended dietary allowance for 
zinc for infants, children and possibly pregnant and nursing mothers, 
despite the needs of these particularly sensitive groups. In light of 
the essential nature of, and the recommended dietary allowances 
established for, zinc, is it the manager's view that EPA should 
consider these factors when regulating additional trace elements such 
as zinc?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that EPA 
should take into account: First, the essential nature of the zinc, and 
second, the recommended dietary allowances for the element for infants, 
children and pregnant and nursing women, when deciding whether or not 
the essential trace element zinc should be regulated under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I agree with the statement of the Senator from Idaho.


             small public water systems technology centers

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate, S. 1316, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, provides for the 
establishment of a grant program, to be administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], that would fund not fewer than 
five Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Centers across 
the United States. I commend the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works for the action it has taken in this regard. I would, however, ask 
for some clarification of the criteria listed in the new subsection 
(h). The criteria listed in the bill reference technical assistance 
support activities that would be provided by regional centers. My 
question to the managers of the bill is:
  Would a national center engaged in the following activities meet the 
criteria listed for the proposed Small Public Water Systems Technology 
Centers?
  A clearinghouse service engaged in both the collection and 
distribution, at no or low cost, of technical literature and other 
educational resource materials, including government documents, 
research papers, video tapes, brochures, and diagrams;
  A toll-free telephone assistance and referral service providing 
access to engineers and other specialists;
  A quarterly newsletter service, published at no cost to subscribers, 
that addresses such topics as the health effects of contaminated 
waters, small community assistance providers, small water system 
regulatory issues, and water system operation maintenance; and
  A toll-free electronic bulletin board service that enables users to 
post questions and have those questions answered, as well as to read 
and comment on water-related topics.
  In reading the bill and the committee's report, I would presume that 
a national center that provides such services would be eligible to 
receive funding under the grant program established in the bill. I 
would simply ask the manager of the bill if this is correct.

[[Page S 17749]]

  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator is correct. Let me add that the concept of 
providing grants to regional centers that the Senator refers to is 
primarily intended to ensure that such centers are distributed 
throughout our Nation. It is not intended to limit the scope of 
assistance these centers can provide.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would also add that the regional technology 
assistance centers are intended to be sited in areas that are 
representative of their region in regards to the water supply needs of 
small rural communities. In this respect, these centers are supposed to 
have expertise in the particular water supply problems associated with 
that region.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from West Virginia is correct, however, in 
pointing out that the information these centers provide can also be 
national in scope. The access to this information, therefore, should 
not be limited to any particular State or region. In providing 
assistance on a national basis, these centers should coordinate their 
activities to minimize any duplication of effort and to maximize the 
utility of the information provided.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the managers of the bill for providing this 
clarification.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues 
in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill represents a 
bipartisan effort which couples protection of public health and welfare 
with the flexibility necessary for cost-effective implementation.
  The bill contains a number of provisions that are of particular 
interest to New York State. The components of the bill which provide 
for watershed protection directly impact the 9 million residents of New 
York City who rely on the Croton, Catskill, and Delaware watersheds to 
provide approximately 1.4 billion gallons of water each day. The State 
of New York recently announced the establishment of a partnership 
between New York City and the communities located within the watershed 
region. This agreement will effectively limit contamination of the 
water supply, preventing the need for a multibillion-dollar water 
filtration facility. The bill would authorize up to $15 million per 
year for 7 years to help fund the implementation and assessment of 
demonstration projects as part of the New York City Water Protection 
Program. Thus, the bill supports New York State's efforts to achieve 
prudent, cost-effective protection of the quality of New York City's 
drinking water.
  A second provision will provide long-term benefits for the Great 
Lakes region by establishing a program to test chemical pollutants 
believed to cause so-called estrogenic effects in human populations. 
These effects may result in a variety of cancers--especially breast 
cancer--in addition to affecting the human reproductive system 
adversely. Pollutants which may be associated with these effects are 
known to accumulate in bodies of water and are pervasive in the Great 
Lakes System. The testing program sponsored by this provision will 
incorporate quality science and peer-review to allow the Administrator 
of EPA to identify such substances and take effective action to prevent 
human exposure.
  Unfortunately, despite Senator Chafee's valiant efforts today, it has 
become necessary to eliminate section 28 of the bill which, was 
reported unanimously out of committee. This section would have required 
the EPA Administrator to compare and rank various sources of pollution 
with respect to their relative degree of risk to human health and the 
environment, and evaluate the costs and benefits of existing 
regulations. I believe this analysis, which would have been included in 
a peer-reviewed report to the Congress, would have provided us with 
information critical to enhancing the effectiveness of the Nation's 
environmental programs.
  I would point out that the requirement to conduct cost-benefit 
analyses and to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental legislation 
was first incorporated in the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. I felt 
it was very important when passing the acid rain provisions of the 
Clean Air Act to evaluate their effectiveness, and requirements to 
conduct such an evaluation were incorporated in that law.
  In any case, because of the importance of safe drinking water 
legislation, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. I extend my sincere gratitude to Senator Chafee for 
his support of future consideration of the issue by the Environment and 
Public Works committee. I intend to work with him and other interested 
Members to secure passage of a bill authorizing these important 
studies. I have introduced legislation to achieve this end in the past 
three Congresses, and I look forward to the upcoming hearings on the 
measure.


                      Estrogenic Screening Program

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to commend and thank the managers 
of this bill for including in the manager's amendment package our 
amendment establishing an estrogenic chemicals screening program at 
EPA. This amendment is identical to an amendment that was adopted 
unanimously by the Senate when offered by my senior colleague from New 
York and myself during consideration of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 
the 103d Congress.
  The amendment requires EPA to gather information that may prove 
essential in the war against breast cancer. Specifically, this 
amendment will require the EPA to develop and implement a testing 
program to identify pesticides and other chemicals that can cause 
estrogenic and other biological effects in humans, and to report their 
findings to Congress within 4 years.
  This amendment is critical in view of growing evidence linking 
environmental chemicals that are capable of mimicking or blocking the 
action of the hormone estrogen to a host of developmental and 
reproductive abnormalities in wildlife and humans. The most alarming 
findings suggest a link between exposure to these chemicals and the 
dramatic increase in human breast cancer that has become so tragically 
apparent in our Nation over the past several decades.
  In 1960, the chances of a woman developing breast cancer were 1 in 
14. Today, they are one in eight. This year alone, breast cancer will 
strike an estimated 182,000 American women, and will take the lives of 
over 46,000. It has become the most common female cancer and the 
leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 35 and 
54.
  For years, researchers have understood that breast cancer is 
influenced by how much estrogen a woman produces. If you take the 
existing known risk factors--including early puberty, late menopause, 
delayed childbearing, or having no children at all--they have one thing 
in common: they all contribute to a high lifetime exposure to estrogen. 
There is clear evidence that the more estrogen a woman is exposed to in 
her lifetime, the higher her risk of developing breast cancer.
  Recently, scientists have been taking a close look at the relation 
between so-called xeno-estrogens and increased breast cancer risk. It 
is theorized that these estrogenic materials--which include pesticides 
and other chemicals capable of affecting the internal production of the 
hormone estrogen--may hold the key to explaining some of the 70 percent 
of all breast cancer cases not associated with any of the existing 
known risk factors.
  The research is compelling.
  Perhaps the most startling findings are those of Dr. Mary Wolff of 
Mt. Sinai Medical Center, whose research involved the estrogenic 
chemicals PCB and DDE, which is a breakdown product of the pesticide 
DDT. Dr. Wolff tested the blood of 58 women with breast cancer and 
compared it to that of 171 women who were cancer-free, taking pains to 
ensure that the women were identical when it came to age, childbearing 
history, and every other characteristic known to influence breast 
cancer risk. She found that the women who had developed breast cancer 
had PCB levels in their blood that were 15 percent higher than the 
cancer-free women, and DDE levels that were 35 percent higher. She also 
discovered that as the level of DDE increased, so did the risk of 
developing breast cancer--to the extent that the women with the highest 
DDE levels were four times as likely to get breast cancer as those with 
the lowest levels.
  A subsequent study by Canadian researchers, published on February 2, 
1994, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found a further 
link between DDE levels in breast tissue and the development of breast 
cancer. 

[[Page S 17750]]
 In this case, higher DDE levels were associated with a higher risk for 
a particular-type of breast cancer which feeds on estrogen--a type of 
breast cancer which, according to researchers, has made up a larger and 
larger portion of the increase in breast cancer in recent years. In the 
words of the study's authors, ``this study supports the hypothesis that 
exposure to estrogenic organochlorine may affect the incidence of 
hormone-responsive breast cancer.''
  The women of Long Island, NY, have long suspected a connection 
between the region's unusually high breast cancer rates and the 
exceptional concentrations of DDT and other potentially estrogenic 
pesticides that were once applied in an effort to rid former potato 
fields of a parasite known as the golden nematode.
  Women who have grown up and raised families in residential 
subdivisions that were built on top of these abandoned potato fields 
have good reasons to be suspicious. Not least of these is the recent 
finding that if you are a woman and you have lived in Nassau County for 
more than 40 years, your risk of getting breast cancer is 72 percent 
greater than a woman of the same age who has lived in the county for 
less than 20 years.
  The National Cancer Institute is now in the process of further 
examining the connection between breast cancer and xeno-estrogens as 
part of a comprehensive study into the causes of Long Island's high 
breast cancer rates. Their findings--expected within the next several 
years--will contribute greatly to our knowledge base about this 
important issue.
  As we wait for the results of this and other studies, it is vital 
that we begin to systematically identify those pesticides and other 
compounds present in the environment that possess estrogenic 
properties. We must do this so we will be ready, should further 
research confirm a clear link between these substances and breast 
cancer, to take appropriate steps to protect the public.
  This amendment will give us some of the information needed to begin 
taking these steps should they become necessary.
  The amendment would require the EPA to utilize appropriate, 
scientifically validated test systems as part of a screening program to 
identify pesticides and other substances capable of altering estrogenic 
activity in the human body.
  Several quick and inexpensive test systems have been developed in 
recent years which could potentially be utilized in such a screening 
program. Examples include tests developed by Dr. Ana M. Soto of Tufts 
University School of Medicine in Boston and Dr. Leon Bradlow of the 
Strang-Cornell Cancer Research Laboratory in New York, as well as a 
third test utilizing state-of-the-art biotechnology techniques 
described recently in Environmental Health Perspectives by Dr. John 
McLachlan of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
  Because these tests are simple, inexpensive and quick, they are well 
suited for the kind of large-scale screening needed to identify 
potentially hazardous estrogenic compounds. Since reproduction requires 
complex interactions between hormones and cells in the intact body, the 
tests are not intended to replace existing animal testing models, but 
to complement them by quickly flagging suspect compounds which can then 
be targeted for additional testing or public health approaches.
  Given the availability of these new techniques, I was shocked when I 
learned 2 years ago that EPA does not routinely screen pesticides for 
estrogenicity. I raised this concern in testimony before a joint 
hearing of House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment and the 
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on September 21, 1993. In 
my testimony I called for a much more aggressive EPA response to the 
evidence which has been put forward linking estrogenic chemicals and 
breast cancer.
  The EPA has now become more interested in this area--for which I 
commend and encourage them. But I would like to encourage them further 
by requiring them to undertake the kind of widespread screening program 
that our Nation's breast cancer epidemic demands, utilizing 
appropriate, scientifically validated testing techniques, coupled with 
a research program to understand the health risks associated with 
exposure to xenoestrogens.
  This amendment would ensure that such a program is underway within 1 
year, and would give the EPA Administrator a deadline of 2 years to 
implement a peer-reviewed plan, with a report to Congress due in 4 
years detailing the program's findings and any recommendations for 
further action the administrator deems appropriate.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot afford to wait until we have a 
smoking gun before we act to identify those chemicals in the 
environment that are estrogenic. Breast cancer is claiming the lives of 
women in this country at a rate of one death every 11 minutes. It would 
be unconscionable not to arm ourselves with crucial knowledge about 
chemicals that may be contributing to this scourge so that we can 
rapidly implement appropriate public health measures when scientific 
research indicates they are warranted.
  Mr. President, this amendment will ensure that we are armed with this 
crucial information, and I again thank the managers for agreeing to 
accept this amendment.


                 Pesticide Chemical Screening Amendment

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, would the Senator from New York yield 
for some questions regarding this amendment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Given the concerns that reproductive effects in 
wildlife may be linked to endocrine disruption, some are concerned that 
the amendment is too limited because it focuses on human breast cancer. 
Does the amendment take a position on this issue?
  Mr. D'AMATO. I recognize the concern that environmental estrogens and 
other hormone mimics may cause significant effects on nonhuman species. 
However, the top priority of this amendment is to learn more about 
substances that may lead to breast and other related forms of cancer in 
humans. It is silent about the possibility that effects may occur in 
other species and leaves that judgment to the Administrator.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have heard concerns raised about other endocrine and 
immune system impairments too. Does the discretion provided the 
Administrator under this amendment extend to health effects other than 
breast cancer?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Yes. For example, if the Administrator so chose, she 
could include screening for male reproductive effects, effects to the 
immune system, and so forth. Would the Senator address a question about 
the scope of the amendment?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Certainly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. When the results of the screening study become 
available, subsection g(6) directs the Administrator to ``. . . take 
such action, including appropriate regulatory action by rule or by 
order under statutory authority available to the Administrator, as is 
necessary to ensure the protection of public health.'' Is the intent 
that the Administrator regulate all substances found positive in the 
study under the amendment?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. No. The testing called for in the amendment is a 
screening study to identify active and inert pesticide ingredients that 
mimic estrogens. It is a hazard identification process designed to 
identify the magnitude of the potential problem and to help set 
priorities for the future. As we learned from the experience with the 
Ames test for carcinogens in the 1970's and 1980's, hazard 
identification tests do not provide enough information to be the sole 
basis for regulatory action. Having said that, let me quickly note that 
the Administrator may have additional information about the exposure 
levels, or about the relationship between exposure and effect for 
certain of the substances to be tested such that she makes a risk 
management decision that regulatory action is needed. If, as a result 
of such evaluations, the Administrator finds a substance likely has a 
potential adverse effect in humans she must take appropriate regulatory 
action. The amendment gives her authority to do so through appropriate 
regulatory action under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act or under other 
authority available to the Administrator.
  Mr. D'AMATO. What happens once the screening study called for in this 
amendment is completed? 

[[Page S 17751]]

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The screening study will identify certain pesticide 
ingredients that mimic estrogens and perhaps other hormones. 
Consequently, people will be concerned, some very concerned, about 
their health. It is important to be realistic, honest and responsible 
throughout the design and conduct of this study so that we do not 
create undue apprehension, but it is also important to inform the 
public and to take action where significant hazards are identified.
  Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator raises something that I feel very strongly 
about. Frankly, I am extremely worried about the health impacts 
associated with exposure to pesticides, and I am deeply concerned that 
they may lead to diseases such as breast cancer. At the same time I 
think that the women of Long Island and elsewhere have suffered enough 
anguish, and I do not want to scare people unnecessarily.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator raises an extremely important issue--how 
best to determine whether pesticides, a widespread class of 
environmental chemicals, pose a potential risk without creating 
unwarranted public concern. An important part of this process should be 
a risk communication strategy to identify the likely outcomes, and to 
keep the public informed and aware of the purpose of the study, 
including its strengths and limitations. It is important not to over 
promise and raise false expectations.
  Turning to another issue, could the Senator elaborate on what is 
intended by the exemption described in subsection g(4)?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Of course. While it is our intent to require broad 
screening of active and inert pesticide ingredients, we recognize that 
there are biologic substances, and perhaps other substances, that the 
Secretary will find do not warrant testing because she concludes that 
they do not mimic estrogen in humans. Subsection g(4) would allow her 
to exempt such substances from the screening program called for under 
this amendment. We expect the Secretary to rely upon the best available 
scientific information in identifying substances to be exempted.
  Would the Senator like to comment on why the amendment requires that 
the testing requirements and communication strategies be reviewed by 
the Science Advisory Panel and Science Advisory Board, and any other 
review group the Administrator deems appropriate before finalizing the 
requirements.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, certainly. It is because we are just coming to 
learn that certain environmental pollutants mimic naturally occurring 
hormones and that they may contribute to breast cancer, reproductive 
failure, and other diseases. There is no consensus about the magnitude 
and nature of the problem, and so it will be controversial, with those 
on opposite sides of the issue voicing strong opinions. It is our 
intent that EPA be as responsible and credible as it can be. This means 
that the Administrator should work with expert scientists from 
government, academia, industry, and the public health sector to select 
criteria for what constitutes a validated test, to select the set of 
validated tests to be used, and to design the protocols for study. She 
may wish to engage organizations such as the National Academy of 
Sciences or other appropriate independent scientific organizations for 
assistance.
  Similarly, when the study is completed, the report to Congress 
required under subsection g(7) should reflect guidance from the 
scientific community, summarizing the findings of the screening study, 
and recommending followup actions, as necessary.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Could the Senator discuss the potential followup actions 
that might be recommended?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Obviously, that depends on the outcome of the screening 
program. If only a few substances screen positive, the followup might 
include conducting more detailed tests on each substance that tests 
positive; if a number are positive, however, priorities must be set to 
identify those chemicals of greatest concern for which dose-response 
relationships are needed. Though we may wish it were not so, we simply 
cannot do everything at once.
  The criteria for setting priorities may well be to select those 
chemicals found most often in the environment and in the highest 
concentrations, those that are most active or that bioaccumulate, those 
for which there are testable hypotheses for action, and those which are 
representative of specific categories of chemicals. The goal is to 
develop plausible biologically-based risk-assessment models for use by 
EPA and others to inform their risk management decisions.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Does the Senator know just what kinds of follow-up 
studies will likely need to be conducted and how much they will cost?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The amendment is silent on exactly what additional 
studies to require after the screening study because we want to benefit 
from the screening results and from EPA's guidance before deciding 
what, if anything, to do next. The determination about how much science 
is needed before making a regulatory decision is a policy call. There 
will never be enough information to unambiguously answer every question 
about environmental safety. When the EPA makes its report to Congress 
it would be appropriate to examine just how much science is recommended 
by EPA to resolve this issue, how much additional research or action 
beyond that initiated by EPA would cost, and how much Congress thinks 
is appropriate to pay.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering legislation 
that is of primary importance to every home in America. Every 
individual, every family, and every community is directly affected by 
the quality of their drinking water. Perhaps in no other area do we 
need to provide assurances of adequate protection to public health than 
in drinking water. This legislation enhances important public health 
priorities by using sound science and appropriate treatment and testing 
technologies.
  As a cosponsor of the legislation, I would like to commend Senator 
Kempthorne and Senator Chafee for what turned out to be a year-long 
debate over the specifics of this bill. It is, as others have pointed 
out, compromise legislation. I am disappointed that some sections of 
the bill are not stronger. However, this legislation sets important new 
directions for Federal policy by providing States and local governments 
with a much stronger say in dealing with their own particular drinking 
water issues. Specifically, the new variance section provided to small 
systems will be of significant assistance in addressing the economic 
constraints on many of these smaller communities. It is important to 
note that States decide the affordability criteria, making these 
decisions closer to home.
  I am pleased that the standard setting section of the bill includes a 
requirement that EPA conduct a cost benefit analysis of alternative 
standards. However, this legislation specifically states only that it 
allows EPA to consider cost and benefits to set new standards; EPA is 
not clearly required to use that analysis to ensure that benefits 
justify costs.
  During the regulatory reform debate, we heard from representatives of 
the administration that such reform was unnecessary. If there were 
problems with individual statutes--like the current safe drinking water 
law--they should be addressed individually, statute by statute. We were 
told that the President's executive order currently calls cost-benefit 
analysis and is used to make sure that benefits outweigh costs.
  Therefore, passage of this Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth an 
important test for EPA. Let's see how this bill is implemented. If the 
administration actually conducts cost-benefit analysis and uses the 
results, this will go a long way toward passing the test. This statute, 
by allowing EPA the flexibility to conduct a cost-benefit test, will 
determine how serious it is about meeting this goal.
  In this regard, I am disappointed that the cost benefit language is 
not available for use in the disinfection byproducts rule. I understand 
that this was a closely negotiated compromise among the various parties 
associated with this bill. While I respect the compromises that have 
been made, I do not believe that the unfortunate results of codifying 
this proposed rule should be overlooked. EPA has received letters of 
concern from many communities, including Kansas communities, who are 
worried about the impact of this rule. It is ironic that this 
legislation seeks 

[[Page S 17752]]
to provide more flexibility for States by providing variances to small 
communities. Yet on this particular issue, EPA will continue to have 
the final say. I am concerned that the legislation before us 
essentially codifies a proposed rule which is extremely expensive and 
ignores sound science and the potentially adverse substitute risks that 
could result from overregulation of disinfection byproducts.
  Taking into consideration these concerns, I will support this bill. A 
strong bipartisan effort has been made and there is support of the 
compromises that were achieved in this bill. A great deal of work has 
gone into this legislation. I look forward to further discussions on 
this bill and how we can move forward to assure the quality of our 
Nation's drinking water.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1316, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, introduced by the Senator 
from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of this important legislation. The bill introduced by the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, 
Fisheries, and Wildlife will provide the Nation with a more workable, 
rational, and flexible law that reduces the burdens placed on small, 
rural water systems while protecting public health and assuring a safe 
supply of drinking water.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act has been one of the most frequently 
mentioned examples of an unfunded mandate on America's small towns, and 
justifiably so. The Congressional Budget Office recently released a 
report entitled ``The Safe Drinking Water Act: A Case Study of an 
Unfunded Federal Mandate.'' Mr. President, that report documents what 
many of us already knew about the current law. It is especially 
burdensome on small water systems, such as most of the systems in my 
State. The CBO report states, ``Households served by small water 
systems are particularly likely to face high costs. Furthermore, 
compliance costs could increase significantly over time.''
  Mr. President, it would be one thing if those costs were justified by 
a need for safety. But many of these costs have little or nothing to do 
with safety. In fact, they are regulation for regulation's sake.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act has also been roundly criticized as 
unnecessarily inflexible. The CBO report also addressed the flexibility 
concern, indicating that there are significant barriers to adequately 
using the flexibility provisions in the existing law. Mr. President, we 
can instill flexibility for our small communities into the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and still ensure that our constituents are drinking 
safe, clean water. I believe the bill before us today inserts some 
much-needed common sense into the law, and frankly Mr. President, it is 
long overdue.
  But the current law is inflexible in other, unnecessary ways as well. 
For example, the current statute requires that EPA regulate 25 new 
contaminants every 3 years, regardless of the overall risk posed by 
these contaminants. Mr. President, that is absurd. That is unnecessary. 
That is regulation for regulations sake, and it should be stopped.
  The bill before us repeals the requirement that the EPA regulate 25 
new contaminants every 3 years. Instead, the bill takes a flexible 
approach that requires the Administrator of EPA to develop a list of 
high-priority contaminants, and make regulatory decisions about at 
least five of those contaminants every 5 years. The bill does not 
mandate that EPA regulate additional contaminants on an arbitrary and 
costly schedule. This legislation takes the commonsense approach that 
says the EPA must analyze possible threats to public health. If no new 
threat exists, no regulation is necessary. This provision lets EPA 
consider risk, rather than simply imposing additional costs on water 
systems that may or may not increase protection of public health.
  The bill introduced yesterday includes a number of important 
provisions to address the shortcomings of the existing Safe Drinking 
Water Act. In addition to addressing the flexibility question, it 
authorizes a State revolving fund to give States funding to make grants 
or loans to water systems to help them comply with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. In fact, the conference report for the fiscal year 1996 VA, 
HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill provides $275 million 
for this SRF, providing we reauthorize the bill. While I would have 
preferred to see more resources go to this vital SRF, this funding is 
essential to small water systems to help them upgrade drinking water 
treatment systems, replace wells that provide unsafe drinking water, 
develop alternative sources of water, and comply with drinking water 
regulations. This funding will also help provide important technical 
assistance to local communities.
  Let me just say that the local communities have told me over and over 
how valuable that technical assistance is. I am pleased to say it is 
part of this new legislation.
  The State Revolving Fund is absolutely essential to our small 
communities so that they can adequately protect the health of the 
American public. The bill before us today gives a great deal of 
flexibility to small water systems so they can provide safe and 
affordable drinking water to their consumers. It gives States 
flexibility to reduce monitoring for contaminants that do not occur in 
their water system. That just makes common sense. States can also 
approve alternative treatment plans for small systems, taking into 
account affordability, without compromising the safety of the drinking 
water supplies.
  Last year, this body passed a balanced, flexible and workable bill to 
reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. I supported that bill. I was proud 
to do so. Unfortunately, we simply ran out of time at the end of the 
session before a conference committee could reconcile the differences 
between the House and Senate versions of the bill. I was extremely 
disappointed we could not pass a final version last year.
  I wish to applaud Senator Kempthorne for the significant effort he 
has put forward to craft a reasonable and responsible bill, and I 
commend him for his willingness to work with our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in drafting this legislation.
  Many people from State health department officials to managers of 
small rural water systems in my State have told me they believe this 
bill is even better than the bill we were addressing last year. I am 
proud to join the majority leader, the minority leader, the chairman 
and ranking members of the Environment Committee and the drinking water 
subcommittee in sponsoring this important piece of legislation.
  What could be more clear than the current legislation, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, needs to be reformed. It is my hope that this bill 
will lead to the kind of flexible, workable solutions that have been 
needed for years. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
legislation, and I urge our colleagues in the House to quickly turn to 
reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act. We cannot afford to let this 
opportunity slip away again during this session of Congress.
  I thank the Chair, and I especially thank my colleague from Idaho for 
really an excellent job in putting this legislation together.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from North 
Dakota for the comments he has made in his statement. I greatly 
appreciate both the tone and the spirit and the points the Senator 
raised. I agree with the Senator. The existing Safe Drinking Water Act 
needs a healthy dose of common sense, as the Senator points out, and I 
believe that this bill, S. 1316, provides that common sense. That is 
why I believe we have the support of the Governors, the mayors, and the 
county commissioners of the Nation supporting us in this legislation. I 
am 

[[Page S 17753]]
proud that the Senator is a cosponsor of this legislation.

  The Senator also pointed out with regard to the funds--and the 
Senator is correct--that up until the passage of this bill, which we 
are looking forward to, we have never provided the funds to the 
communities, to the water systems, and ironically we have had the 
situation where the appropriators have appropriated the money but it 
has never been authorized. For the first time, we will authorize the 
funds and use them where they ought to be on a priority basis to help 
our communities ensure that we not only continue to have safe drinking 
water but it will improve the public health of this country, plus the 
technical assistance that the Senator pointed out to the small 
communities. They have, as we all do, such finite resources, and yet 
they want to comply and they want to ensure that their constituents or 
the customers that they are serving get the standards to the greatest 
extent possible. We provide the technical assistance to do so.
  Another point that I would just mention is source water protection. I 
think we owe a great deal of credit to our agricultural organizations 
throughout the country that really have come forward and said we are 
going to support you in this because, again, in the previous Safe 
Drinking Water Acts we never addressed source water protection.
  So what is this source water protection? Again, it is common sense, 
as the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, that is, if you can 
keep water upstream from being contaminated so that you do not then 
have to wait until it is downstream and then treat all of the 
contamination so that people can then drink it. It is a lot cheaper to 
go ahead upstream and put in a few little amenities that may prevent 
the contamination than to just simply turn your back on it and say, 
well, we will wait and see what happens down here. But it is voluntary.
  And so again, it is a progressive step forward, but we have all of 
the stakeholders upstream saying, wonderful; we will be willing 
partners in making this happen.
  I believe this legislation, which is very much bipartisan, shows that 
you can be creative and innovative in protecting the environment but 
doing it at the most economically feasible level. We say in this 
legislation just because you can do something technologically does not 
mean it will be justifiable. Now we have cost-benefit.
  So, again, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. It has been a 
pleasure to work with the Senator on this legislation.

  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I again thank my colleague from Idaho. It has been a 
pleasure to work with him. He has been open-minded and absolutely fair 
with respect to listening to both sides on this matter, and I really 
have appreciated the way he has addressed this matter.
  I can remember so well going to a meeting of county commissioners and 
mayors in my State, and them saying to me, you know, it is nuts; we are 
being asked to test for things that have never been present in our 
system for 20 years. We have had testing for 20 years. We have never 
had this contaminant show up, and we keep having to do tests that may 
cost us $20 or $40 a test every month.
  When you are talking Washington talk, $20 or $40 a month does not 
sound like very much, but if you have towns such as we have in North 
Dakota, we have four of them incorporated that have 10 people or less 
and when you are talking about $20 or $40 a test on things that are 
totally unnecessary that may have to be done on a quarterly or monthly 
basis, it mounts up and it becomes an absurdity.
  So again, I think it is absolutely time that this job gets done. I 
again wish to thank my colleague from Idaho for the job he has done.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Safe Drinking 
Water Amendments Act of 1995. I am particularly pleased to see this 
legislation come before the Senate after the disappointment of last 
year when we were unable to come to an agreement.
  I have been involved in this debate for a long time. Back in January 
of this year I wrote a letter to the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, urging the Senator to focus the 
committee's attention once again on this important piece of 
legislation. I thought we had a good bill last year. But, Mr. 
President, I believe this year's bill is even better. And I thank 
Senator Chafee and others associated with him for their efforts.
  This year we are able to craft a bipartisan bill which improves our 
Nation's drinking water law in several important and meaningful ways. 
Communities throughout the United States, including many in Nebraska, 
have had a difficult time complying with current law. As we all know, 
unnecessary and heavy-handed mandates have cost our Nation, especially 
the small communities, very dearly.
  This bill recognizes that the needs of small communities are 
different from those of large communities. The bill combines 
flexibility with a good dose of common sense by allowing smaller 
communities to find the best way to protect their water quality.
  This bill gives new authority to the States in determining what 
contaminants pose the greatest risk to their communities and empowers 
States to direct their resources toward monitoring those contaminants 
rather than those that pose a trivial risk to their communities, 
removes excessive Federal regulation and keeps our Nation's drinking 
water safe.
  I am proud of the work that Senator Kerrey and I and others have done 
on this legislation. I believe that the bill that we have crafted 
strikes a fair balance by recognizing the need to protect our drinking 
water but also allowing States flexibility in determining how best to 
protect this valuable and very vital resource.
  Mr. President, in closing, I wish to emphasize once again my thanks 
for the leadership of Senator Chafee and others associated with him on 
the committee for their very successful job. And I hope that the Safe 
Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995 will shortly become the law of 
the land. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for 
his comments. I know that from his perspective, as a former Governor, a 
Governor from the great State of Nebraska, he realizes the need for 
State flexibility, and by granting that flexibility and authority to 
the States, that not all wisdom resides in Washington, DC, but that we 
happen to have 50 Governors throughout this country who really can make 
decisions that are tailored to the needs of their respective States in 
conjunction with their legislatures and the agencies they have set up 
in place.
  And, too, Senator Exon referenced Senator Kerrey, whom I also want to 
applaud for his efforts, because really he was a catalyst toward 
assuring that this particular legislation would be bipartisan, as it 
should be. So, again, the team from Nebraska served well, and I 
appreciate it. It is a joy to work with the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague from Idaho. I 
thank him for his keen perception in this whole area. I was very proud 
to follow his leadership earlier this year in the mandates area where 
we had required that of States for far too long. But I know that he has 
played a very keen part in crafting this measure, which I think is fair 
and reasonable, workable, and eliminates much of the consternation and 
expense, in many cases unnecessarily expensive procedures. So I thank 
him and the full committee for the excellent job they did. It was a 
pleasure working with the Senator.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 

[[Page S 17754]]
  Snowe of Maine be added as a cosponsor to the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise in support 
of this legislation to authorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. I want to 
commend my colleague and my friend from Idaho for his hard work on 
this, and to express at the same time my appreciation to the chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which we both serve, 
Senator Chafee, for the open process that he and Senator Kempthorne 
established for drafting this bill.

  It has not been a lightning experience, though it has been an 
enlightening experience. I say it has not been lightning because it has 
taken a fair amount of time to get this to this point. As a matter of 
fact, the committee has been meeting since February, both Democrats and 
Republicans, to try to get this legislation into shape so that it could 
meet the bipartisan test and pass. They have been meeting almost 
constantly over the year, and into September and October, to reach the 
consensus that exists now on this legislation.
  The process has produced a bill that, though imperfect, does 
substantially improve the Safe Drinking Water Act. When I say, ``though 
imperfect,'' I do not remember a time when there was a bill that 
involved a complicated process that had been produced here that was 
perfect. There is always a point of view that something could be 
better. It was often said by a former majority leader, George Mitchell, 
that the perfect is the enemy of the good. And what we have is we have 
a good bill.
  This committee, Mr. President, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, has a good history of working in a bipartisan fashion. The 
environmental legislation has been a joint enterprise, going back to at 
least 1969. This bipartisanship continued when Democrats chaired the 
committee from 1969 to 1980 and then through Senator Robert Stafford's 
tenure as chairman in the early 1980's. That spirit continues today, as 
demonstrated by this bill.
  The legacy of this process has been a system of environmental 
protection that, frankly, is a model for the industrial world. More 
importantly, the process has led to cleaner water, cleaner air, and a 
safer disposal of waste. It has led to a better world. But that should 
not be surprising.
  There has been strong bipartisan support across the country for 
effective environmental standards. Poll after poll shows support not 
only for EPA but for toughening of standards to protect the air, the 
water and our land. Although some special interests have taken the 
recent election results as a repudiation of the environment agenda over 
the last 25 years, I hope that this bill demonstrates that we, in a 
bipartisan fashion, can make progress, evidenced by this joint, 
bipartisan commitment to protect our environment.
  Time will tell if an optimistic view will prevail when Congress deals 
with other environmental issues.
  Mr. President, in any compromise, especially in this second 
generation of environmental statutes, agreement does not please 
everyone. Reaching a consensus requires both sides to accept provisions 
that they would rather not have. There are provisions in this bill that 
I would like to strengthen and I am sure others might want to weaken. 
However, the overall view is that this is a good bill.
  It is critical to ensure that drinking water is safe. Guaranteeing 
that safety is an important responsibility of Government, and it cannot 
be delegated entirely to the States or to the private market. At the 
same time, some State and local flexibility is essential to ensure 
efficient regulation. This legislation seeks to strike a balance 
between the critical need to guarantee public safety and the need to 
provide for reasonable regulatory flexibility. Once again, not a 
perfect balance, but a definite improvement over current law.
  For example, we have attempted to add additional cost-benefit and 
risk-assessment tests before we regulate chemical contaminants. These 
tests will apply to arsenic and sulfates and chlorinated byproducts. 
They are a reasonable compromise between provisions in the regulatory 
reform proposal and present law.
  As we debate this legislation, it is important to do what we can to 
strengthen public confidence in the water supply. Unfortunately, 
Americans now have little confidence in the safety of their drinking 
water. They worry about it, for their families. That is one of the 
reasons why 42 million Americans, one out of six, regularly drink 
bottled water. When I was a child, Mr. President--it was not a century 
ago, I assure you--I never heard of anybody drinking bottled water. 
Seltzer water or soda water, or something like that, but plain old 
bottled water? Never heard of it and never had the money for it even if 
we had heard of it.
  In the Washington area, Safeway or Giant Food stores, generic bottled 
water--and I am not talking about the highly advertised designer shaped 
bottles--in these places, water costs about $1.35 a gallon. It is 1,000 
percent more than tap water--1,000 percent.
  Despite these high costs, sales of nonsparkling bottled water 
increased 100 percent between 1986 and 1994. To be sure, some people 
drink bottled water because of the notion it provides. It is kind of a 
cachet of things that people do, but many simply do not trust local 
water supplies and are willing to pay a stiff premium for alternatives 
to tap water.
  I personally believe that the tap water provided by public and 
private systems in New Jersey, my State, are safe. But given the 
widespread distrust of our water supplies, it is essential that in our 
deregulatory zeal, we do not further undermine public confidence in tap 
water.
  This bill should move us closer to the goal of safe, drinkable water 
at affordable prices. I have been pleased to cosponsor the bill, and I 
urge its support.
  I add, Mr. President, that an amendment of mine that is included in 
the bill is there to guarantee the safety of bottled water, because 
this amendment requires that bottled water meet the same safety 
standards set for tap water.
  There is an anomaly out there that tap water is tested rather 
rigorously, and water that is paid for out of one's pocket has not had 
the same requirements. We want to make them the same. People ought to 
know simply because it is in a bottle and thought to be pure that there 
should be a test that applies to this water.
  The amendment is supported by the International Bottled Water 
Association, and it will assure consumers that bottled water is at 
least as safe as the water they receive at the tap. The public needs to 
know that all their drinking water is safe, whether it comes out of the 
tap or out of a bottle.
  So, Mr. President, I am supporting this bill and reserve, however, 
the right to change my mind if there are amendments offered that do not 
have direct relationship to the Safe Drinking Water Act changes as we 
propose them. We have heard other subjects being discussed on the 
floor, and I hope they will not be offered as amendments to this bill.
  Barring that, I am 100 percent behind it and will do whatever I can 
to help make it turn into law.
  Once again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his good, hard work 
which he continually shows in the committee and on the floor. We try to 
get things done, as I suggested earlier, in a bipartisan manner. It 
always is easier when we do, Mr. President. There are a few things that 
are on tap, to use the expression, a few things that we are working on 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee that I hope we will be 
able to use this effort as a model to move along. I have particular 
interest in Superfund and some other environmental legislation, and we 
just need to get together to make it happen.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey 
for his comments. I appreciate so much working with Senator Lautenberg 
on the committee. I appreciate his cosponsorship of this legislation. 

[[Page S 17755]]

  He has pointed out something that I agree with, and that is, 
oftentimes, while the motive may have been pure, you have regulations 
or legislation that is nonworkable, that is difficult to achieve, and 
so we have, again, turned our efforts toward establishing a dose of 
common sense in this legislation.

  As the Senator from New Jersey said, there are probably amendments he 
would like to offer that he would feel would strengthen the bill, and 
there are others who would offer amendments that would weaken the bill.
  The interesting thing is, his amendment he would determine as 
strengthening and I would determine as actually weakening, and vice 
versa.
  So I think we have found that good balance in this legislation, that 
while reducing the cost to the States and cities, we are increasing 
public health. Just because we have the technology to do something and 
it is technologically feasible, does not necessarily mean it is 
justifiable to require the States and cities to do.
  So we do have in this environmental legislation cost-benefit analysis 
that is in place. So, again, I have appreciated working with the 
Senator from New Jersey. I thank him for his comments this afternoon. 
In this fashion, I believe this legislation is going to move forward.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we have two items that have been cleared, 
and that can now be adopted.


                           Amendment No. 3071

    (Purpose: To authorize additional criteria for alternatives to 
                              filtration)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the first item was brought to our 
attention by the Presiding Officer, Senator Gorton, and Senator Murray. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires filtration for most drinking water 
systems that are served by surface water. But some cities have made 
extraordinary efforts to protect their watersheds from development that 
might contribute to contamination. One such city is Seattle, WA. That 
city owns virtually all of the land around its reservoir. This 
amendment recognizes the efforts made by the city of Seattle and allows 
Seattle, in cooperation with the State of Washington, to employ 
treatment approaches in lieu of filtration that will be more cost 
effective.
  So, Mr. President, I send on behalf of myself and both Senators from 
Washington a printed amendment, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), for himself, 
     Mr. Gorton, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
     Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3071.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. 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 64, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(a) Filtration Criteria.--Section 1412(b)(7)(C)(i) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, the Administrator 
     shall amend the criteria issued under this clause to provide 
     that a State exercising primary enforcement responsibility 
     for public water systems may, on a case-by-case basis, 
     establish treatment requirements as an alternative to 
     filtration in the case of systems having uninhabited, 
     undeveloped watersheds in consolidated ownership, and having 
     control over access to, and activities in, those watersheds, 
     if the State determines (and the Administrator concurs) that 
     the quality of the source water and the alternative treatment 
     requirements established by the State ensure significantly 
     greater removal efficiencies of pathogenic organisms for 
     which national primary drinking water regulations have been 
     promulgated or that are of public health concern than would 
     be achieved by the combination of filtration and chlorine 
     disinfection (in compliance with this paragraph and paragraph 
     (8)).''.
       On page 64, line 6, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 64, line 21, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am happy to support S. 1316, 
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation will go a 
long way to help small and large water systems in my State to provide 
safe, clean, and affordable drinking water to their customers.
  Last year, the Senate considered legislation to amend the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. I was a strong supporter of that legislation, 
which, unfortunately, never made it to the President's desk. The bill 
before the Senate today improves upon last year's legislation, and I am 
proud to support the committee's legislation once again.
  Over the past several years I have heard from small and large water 
systems in my State urging Congress to amend the current law in order 
to break free of the one-size-fits-all approach of current law. The 
legislation before the Senate today accomplishes this goal. Washington 
State ranks fifth in the Nation in the number of small public water 
systems, and, as a result, the mandates of current law are especially 
burdensome on my State's small systems. For many of my State's small 
communities the price tag associated with filtration costs is 
incomprehensible. These communities simply cannot afford this costly 
technology.
  The legislation before us today ensures that small systems will be 
better able to provide safe drinking water to their customers. The bill 
directs the Administrator to identify a range of technologies for a 
range of small systems. The legislation recognizes that small systems 
have unique needs and cannot afford the costly technology that is 
affordable for larger systems. In addition, many of my State's small 
system operators have told me that monitoring compliance was one of the 
most costly aspects of the current law. By giving States with primary 
enforcement responsibility the opportunity to establish their own 
monitoring requirements, this legislation eliminates another costly 
burden for small systems.
  The legislation also makes a critical improvement over existing law 
on standard setting. The bill establishes that maximum contaminant 
level goals [MCLG] for contaminants that are known or likely to cause 
cancer in humans may be set at a level other than zero, if the 
Administrator determines based upon available, peer-reviewed science, 
that there is a threshold level below which there is unlikely to be any 
increase in cancer risk and the Administrator sets the MCLG at that 
level with an adequate margin of safety. MCLG's for carcinogens--
elements known to cause cancer--are set at zero under current law. Many 
in the scientific community believe that this number has been set 
arbitrarily. The setting of the standard at zero is the equivalent of 
the Delany clause for drinking water contaminants. Many communities in 
my State have argued that a MCLG set at zero is an ineffective use of 
funds, and results in a great deal of effort expended, in many cases, 
for a marginal reduction in the likelihood of cancer. By granting the 
Administrator the flexibility to establish a MCLG at a level other than 
zero, S. 1316 makes a good improvement to existing law.
  Mr. President, I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and their staff, 
for accepting an amendment to the bill offered by this Senator and the 
junior Senator from Washington. The amendment establishes a limited 
alternative to filtration, if the system can utilize another form of 
treatment that will provide a significantly greater removal of 
pathogens, than that of filtration.
  The need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the city 
of Seattle. The city has two water supply sources, the Cedar River 
Watershed, and the Tolt River supply. Because of turbidity problems in 
the Tolt supply, the city is in the process of implementing filtration 
technology on the Tolt. Conversely, the Cedar River supply does not 
have turbidity problems--it consistently tests below average for 
turbidity--and the city is seeking an alternative to filtration for the 
Cedar River supply.
  Currently the Cedar is an unfiltered system, and therefore must 
comply with the surface water treatment rule. The rule sets forward 11 
specific criteria, and calls for extensive monitoring of the system, to 
ensure that the 

[[Page S 17756]]
system continues to provide clean water to its customers. During 1992, 
the Cedar violated 1 of the 11 criteria, and, consequently, was 
required to initiate filtration plans. Shortly thereafter the city 
entered into an agreement with the State and EPA region 10 to achieve 
compliance with the rule without filtration.
  Seattle has been working closely with EPA region 10 and the 
Washington State Health Department for the past several years to find a 
way to treat the Cedar supply, without filtration. Filtration would 
cost the city roughly $200 million, but the city believes that the 
process of ozonation would better meet the city's drinking water needs. 
The ozonation process would only cost $68 million. Ozonation is a 
process that is considerably less expensive than filtration and is 
believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring clean 
drinking water.
  The ozonation process is proven to be more effective than filtration 
in getting rid of harmful pathogens in a water supply, like 
cryptosporidium and giardia. Filtration technology would inactivate 
99.9 percent of crypto- sporidium, but ozonation would inactivate 
99.999 percent of the crypto- sporidium. The increase of .099 is 
considered a significant increase in the level of human health 
protection.
  The city of Seattle--together with mayors from Tacoma, Redmond, 
Bothell, and Bellevue--support the amendment because the majority of 
their communities are served by the Seattle water system. On behalf of 
the Puget Sound residents served by the city of Seattle's water supply, 
I would like to thank Senators Chafee and Baucus, and their staff, for 
working on this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the committee's bill, and this 
Senator hopes that we can get legislation to the President's desk for 
his signature this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Washington.
  The amendment (No. 3071) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I have a request from Senator Snowe that 
she be added as a cosponsor of S. 1316 and as a cosponsor of the 
managers' amendment to S. 1316.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Gorton also be added as 
cosponsor of S. 1316 and the managers' amendment thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3072

  (Purpose: To authorize grants for wastewater treatment and drinking 
     water supply to communities commonly referred to as colonias)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Domenici, 
Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), for himself, 
     Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3072.
       On page 195, after line 20, insert the following: ``(h) 
     Assistance to Colonias.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       ``(A) Eligible community.--The term `eligible community' 
     means a low-income community with economic hardship that--
       ``(i) is commonly referred to as a colonia;
       ``(ii) is located along the United States-Mexico border 
     (generally in an unincorporated area); and
       ``(iii) lacks basic sanitation facilities such as a safe 
     drinking water supply, household plumbing, and a proper 
     sewage disposal system.
       ``(B) Border state.--The term `border State' means Arizona, 
     California, New Mexico and Texas.
       ``(C) Treatment works.--The term `treatment works' has the 
     meaning provided in section 212(2) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)).
       ``(2) Grants to alleviate health risks.--The Administrator 
     of the environmental Protection Agency and the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal agencies are authorized to award grants 
     to any appropriate entity or border State to provide 
     assistance to eligible communities for--
       ``(A) the conservation, development, use and control 
     (including the extension or improvement of a water 
     distribution system) of water for the purpose of supplying 
     drinking water; and
       ``(B) the construction or improvement of sewers and 
     treatment works for wastewater treatment.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--Each grant awarded pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) shall be used to provide assistance to one or 
     more eligible community with respect to which the residents 
     are subject to a significant health risk (as determined by 
     the Administrator or the head of the Federal agency making 
     the grant) attributable to the lack of access to an adequate 
     and affordable drinking water supply system or treatment 
     works for wastewater.
       ``(4) Operation and maintenance.--The Administrator and the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, other entities 
     or border States are authorized to use funds appropriated 
     pursuant to this subsection to operate and maintain a 
     treatment works or other project that is constructed with 
     funds made available pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(5) Plans and specifications.--Each treatment works or 
     other project that is funded by a grant awarded pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be constructed in accordance with plans 
     and specifications approved by the Administrator, the head of 
     the Federal agency making the grant, or the border State in 
     which the eligible community is located. The standards for 
     construction applicable to a treatment works or other project 
     eligible for assistance under title II of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) shall apply to 
     the construction of a treatment works or project under this 
     subsection in the same manner as the standards apply under 
     such title.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2003.''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been cleared 
by both sides. As you understood from the reading of it, it deals with 
those very low-income settlements along the United States side of the 
United States-Mexican border, and it is of particular concern to the 
senior Senator from New Mexico, and I am sure for the junior Senator 
from New Mexico likewise.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1316, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995. I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this outstanding, broadly bipartisan bill.
  Mr. President, I have long been involved in the drinking water 
debate, having introduced a reform bill of my own last session. Coming 
from a predominantly rural State, one of my biggest concerns with the 
current Safe Drinking Water Act is the fact that the overwhelming 
majority of small rural water systems simply do not have the economic 
or technical capability to comply with the act as it now exists. 
Senator Kempthorne's bill goes very far in addressing this problem by 
giving States the flexibility to grant variances for small water 
systems.
  In addition, I am very happy to see that Senator Kempthorne's bill 
requires EPA to use the best available, peer-reviewed science in 
implementing the act. I worked hard to get this commonsense provision 
put into last session's reauthorization effort, and I am glad it has 
been retained in this session's bill.
  I would like to take a few moments to discuss an issue of particular 
importance to me, and that is the issue of colonias. Mr. President, for 
those who do not speak Spanish or come from the Southwest, colonia is 
the Spanish word for neighborhood. Traditionally, in my State of New 
Mexico and throughout the Southwest, colonias referred to long-
established, unincorporated small towns with rich community heritages.
  Over the past decade, colonias have also come to refer to densely 
populated, poverty-stricken communities that have sprung up along the 
border in the past 10 to 15 years. They are often populated primarily 
by Mexican-Americans and legal immigrants working as seasonal farm 
laborers. These are decent, honest, hardworking people trying their 
best to create a good life for themselves and their families. The 
tragedy of these new colonias, however, is that they are typified by 
desperate poverty, by severe overcrowding, by inadequate housing, by 
pathetic roads, and, most important for purposes of the bill before us, 
by nonexistent drinking and waste water services.

[[Page S 17757]]

  Mr. President, I would like to read a few passages from an article 
that appeared earlier this year in one of my State's newspapers, the 
Las Cruces Sun News. Las Cruces is the largest city in Dona Ana County, 
a county with a large number of colonias. The article, written by 
Deborah Baker of the Associated Press, is titled ``Colonias: The 
American dream is more of a nightmare for many State residents.'' Mr. 
President, the passages I would like to read, which could apply to most 
of the new colonias dotting our Nation's southwestern border, describe 
the appalling conditions under which these people live every day:

       The American dream lives on a trash-strewn hillside at the 
     end of a rutted road in a cluster of trailer and shacks 
     called El Milagro--``The Miracle.''
       There, two families share three rooms: a two-room trailer, 
     and a dirt-floored addition with walls that stop several feet 
     short of the ceiling.
       Cooking is done on a grate balanced between cinderblocks 
     over an open fire on the dirt floor. Water comes from a pipe, 
     run from a neighbor's house, that sticks up from the ground 
     behind the trailer. There is no bathroom--not even an 
     outhouse. No electricity. No heat.

  Mr. President, this is a description of third-world living conditions 
existing here in the United States of America. Such conditions are 
unsafe, unhealthy, and, I believe, simply intolerable. Nor is this a 
small problem. I know that in New Mexico we have at least 60 such 
communities in desperate need of this basic infrastructure. In Dona Ana 
County alone, there are 35 colonias.
  Our border States have made great efforts in trying to deal with this 
problem. My State of New Mexico, for example, has spent large amounts 
of money to build community centers, health facilities, fire stations, 
and day care centers for its colonies. New Mexico also recently enacted 
a statute to tighten up zoning laws that had previously allowed 
developers to subdivide plots of land repeatedly for residential use 
without first supplying basic infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, however, many of the border States simply do not have 
the financial capability to help with some of the more costly 
infrastructure that these communities need, especially drinking water 
and wastewater facilities. The colonias themselves certainly do not 
have these funds.
  Consequently, I am offering an amendment, for myself and for Senator 
Bingaman, that I believe will greatly help these most needy of 
communities.
  Mr. President, my amendment will authorize the Environmental 
Protection Agency, or any other appropriate agency, to award grants to 
any appropriate entity or border State to provide assistance for the 
construction of drinking and wastewater facilities.
  My amendment also authorizes these agencies to use funds to operate 
and maintain these drinking and wastewater facilities. I believe this 
is a key point. It is not enough just to build these systems. Without 
the technical assistance to keep them operating, and operating well, we 
haven't accomplished anything.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Chafee and 
Senator Kempthorne for their gracious help with this important 
amendment. I believe the amendment will go a long way in helping some 
of the neediest communities in the United States in two crucial public 
health areas. These colonias will finally get adequate sewer service, 
and they will finally receive clean, safe water to drink.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The amendment (No. 3072) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________