[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17767-S17774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that following the use or 
yielding back of the time on the Boxer amendment, the amendment be laid 
aside and there be 10 minutes equally divided between the two managers 
to offer a series of cleared amendments, and following the disposition 
of those amendments and the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to 
vote on or in relation to the Boxer amendment, to be followed 
immediately by third reading and final passage of S. 1316, as amended, 
all without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, I just 
want to make sure, since there will be intervening discussion between 
the explanation of my amendment and the vote, I ask that we could have 
a minute on each side just before the vote to restate it.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I say this to the distinguished Senator. If we are going 
to vote and people know we are going to go to final passage right after 
this, frankly, if we have nothing to do, no cleared amendments, I see 
no reason that there even would be 10 minutes. So let us see how it 
works out. I will say this to the Senator. If there is a long 
intervening time, I will make sure she gets a minute to explain her 
amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is all I need. I will certainly trust my chairman, 
whom I respect very much, as I respect the ranking member and 
subcommittee chair. And if the Senators want, I can send up the 
amendment and we can start the clock running on the 15 minutes per 
side.
  Mr. CHAFEE. All ready to go. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 3078

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the previous order, 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 California [Mrs. BOXER] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3078.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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:

       Section 20, Page 140, line 11--add at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       (F) Consumer Confidence Reports.--
       (i) In General.--The Administrator shall issue regulations 
     within three years of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1995 to require each community water system 
     to issue a consumer confidence report at least once annually 
     to its water consumers on the level of contaminants in the 
     drinking water purveyed by that system which pose a potential 
     risk to human health. The report shall include, but not be 
     limited to: information on source, content, and quality of 
     water purveyed; a plainly worded explanation of the health 
     implications of contaminants relative to national primary 
     drinking water regulations or health advisories; information 
     on compliance with national primary drinking water 
     regulations; and information on priority unregulated 
     contaminants to the extent that testing methods and health 
     effects information are available (including levels of 
     cryptosporidium and radon where States determine that they 
     may be found).
       (ii) Coverage.--Subsection (i) shall not apply to community 
     water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons or other 
     systems as determined by the Governor, provided that such 
     systems inform their customers that they will not be 
     complying with Subsection (i). The State may by rule 
     establish alternative requirements with respect to the form 
     and content of consumer confidence reports.

 
[[Page S 17768]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have a very good bill before us. I for 
one am just delighted to see it come here. It has been very bipartisan. 
I commend the chairman, the ranking member, Senator Kempthorne, and 
Senator Reid, all of whom have worked so hard on this bill. I am 
particularly pleased, being a member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, that my biggest priority was taken care of in this 
bill, which involved assurance that our drinking water will protect the 
most vulnerable populations.
  I had an amendment that did carry on this bill the last time it came 
before the body, and basically it makes sure that children, infants, 
pregnant women, and the chronically ill are not overlooked when we set 
standards. We know that more than 100 people who died as a result of 
drinking water in Milwaukee last year were from vulnerable groups such 
as children, the elderly, transplant patients, and AIDS patients. About 
400,000 people in Milwaukee got sick as a result of contaminated 
drinking water. We hear very large numbers coming out of CDC, The 
Centers for Disease Control. One report that says 900 people die from 
contaminated tap water every year.
  So, Mr. President, this is an important bill, and I am proud that we 
are here at this moment. I would also like to thank Senators Chafee and 
Baucus for agreeing to my amendment to authorize the Southwest Center 
for Environmental Research and Policy. It is very important. It is a 
consortium of American and Mexican universities that work to address 
environmental problems along the United States-Mexico border, including 
but not limited to air quality, water quality, and hazardous materials, 
and it is important to a lot of our States. San Diego State University 
is involved in it, New Mexico State University, University of Utah, 
University of Texas, Arizona State University as well. So that is my 
praise for this bill.
  Mr. President, I think we need to do more. I think we should do more. 
I am very proud that the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, has joined 
me in offering this community right-to-know amendment. It is supported 
by over 60 environmental groups and the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and I will at the end of my remarks ask that the EPA's letter 
be included in the Record so everyone can see it.
  The American Public Health Association, League of Conservation 
Voters, Consumer Federation of America, League of Women Voters, 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the Sierra Club, the American Baptist Church, the United 
Methodist Board of Churches Society all support the Boxer-Daschle 
amendment.
  Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why we do not just make this 
happen. I have great respect for my leaders on the committee. Perhaps 
they have negotiated a compromise they feel they do not want to 
disturb. But I cannot back off in terms of presenting it because I feel 
strongly about it. I believe the community has a right to know what is 
in the drinking water.
  Mr. President, 89 percent of the American people are asking for this. 
They want more information about the quality of their drinking water.
  It would ensure that consumers are informed about the levels of 
contaminants found in their drinking water once a year through the mail 
in an easy-to-understand explanation of what is in their water and what 
the health risks are, if any.
  Mr. President, I ask that you let me know when I have used up 10 
minutes of my 15 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the times 
were divided 20 minutes per side, not 15 minutes.
  Does the Senator wish to be informed at 10 minutes remaining?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know, although the earlier agreement was 
20 minutes on a side formally, we have agreed to 15 minutes. It may be 
presumptuous of me, but I ask unanimous consent that the earlier 
unanimous-consent agreement be modified so it is 15 minutes per side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have 
used 10 minutes.
  What is very important about this community right-to-know amendment 
is that we exempt small water systems that serve 10,000 persons or 
less. So we are mindful of not putting a burden on the small systems. 
We also allow the Governor to opt out as long as he explains why.
  This is a national bill. Safe drinking water is a national priority; 
otherwise, we would not be here. So the argument that we should not 
tell the Governors what to do just does not fly. We are telling water 
systems what to do, we are setting safety levels, and all this does is 
say, ``Let's also let the consumers know.''
  My amendment requires EPA to issue regulations within 3 years that 
would govern the implementation of this. The reason is, we want it to 
be very simple. The objective of the Boxer-Daschle amendment is not to 
inflict consumers with a complex table of chemicals they never heard 
of, nor to scare consumers about the quality of their water, but to let 
them know what they need to know.
  Let me be specific. I have a new grandchild, and that grandchild is 
the most precious thing to me and to his family. When that grandchild 
visits Washington, DC, I am not sure if I should mix that formula with 
the tap water, because there has been an advisory of late to be 
careful.
  I think it is important for people to know if they should, in fact, 
mix that formula with tap water. They should know, if they are 
concerned about an elderly person, whether the water is safe. I heard 
colleagues say, ``Oh, it is too much information for people; too much. 
We don't want to load them down with pages of information.''
  Here is one report, a terrific one that comes out of Ohio where they 
show people what causes cloudy water, what causes rusty water. In other 
words, when you send out these things, it is an opportunity to put 
people's minds at ease. It is not just a question of frightening them. 
Is there lead in my drinking water? And then they show where the 
various plants are located, where the water comes from and the various 
chemicals that are in the water.
  So if someone does have someone living with them who is part of a 
vulnerable population--be it an infant, be it a child under 6, be it a 
grandma, a grandpa who has some problem, be it a cancer victim, be it 
an AIDS victim--we would have an opportunity to know if, in fact, that 
water could harm them.
  We have over 60 public interest, environmental, and public health 
groups supporting us, and I gave you just a few of those, and we will 
put the rest into the Record.
  But I do believe that the Boxer-Daschle amendment will also benefit 
water suppliers because it will increase consumer awareness of how 
their local water system performs and what challenges that system faces 
as it tries to maintain water quality.
  We have a water board in our home county, and they come to us once in 
a while and say, ``You know, we have to increase your water rates.''
  ``Why?''
  If I know it is to make that water safer, if it is to make sure 
contaminants are taken out of the water, that is a plus for that water 
district, and there will be more support.
  Currently, consumers are required to be notified only if a water 
supplier violates an enforceable standard. Consumers do not have to be 
told if their tap water contains common contaminants which are not 
regulated, such as cryptosporidium and radioactive radon. We know 
cryptosporidium kills people. We do not happen to have a standard 
established for cryptosporidium. Does that mean we should not let 
people know if it is in their water supply?
  I certainly hope people will support this amendment because then 
consumers will know if cryptosporidium is in their water supply, at 
what level, and whether it is dangerous. And if they have a little 
child in the home or someone from a vulnerable population, they can act 
accordingly.
  In the case of arsenic, an EPA-regulated contaminant, the current 
standard is being revised by the EPA because it is a weak standard that 
was set in 1942 before we knew that arsenic caused cancer. In the bill 
we are considering, the EPA will not have to issue a revised standard 
until the year 2001 and no enforceable standard until 

[[Page S 17769]]
2004. I believe consumers have a right to know whether or not the water 
they drink contains arsenic at levels that could be a potential risk to 
their health.
  Why not let consumers know? Why treat people like they do not deserve 
to know or they will misuse the information? We are all adults. We 
deserve to know. We are paying money for that water. We ought to know 
what it contains.
  Under current law, not even a crisis, an outbreak such as the 1993 
Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak which killed over 100 people, not 
even a crisis forces water systems to warn consumers about the presence 
of dangerous levels of unregulated contaminants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from California has 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Madam President. I am going to withhold 
because I know my colleagues are going to make some terrific arguments 
against me, and I want to be ready to combat them, so I retain my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I, unfortunately, must oppose this 
amendment, although I do appreciate the efforts of the Senator from 
California to work with the concerns that I had expressed on this. I 
truly do appreciate that.
  I do not oppose this amendment because I believe that consumers 
should not have access to information about the safety of the tap water 
that they drink. Our bill already requires drinking water systems to 
give information to consumers of any health threats presented by 
drinking water and of any violations. These provisions ensure that 
consumers have access to information that they need to protect 
themselves, if that is necessary.
  Let me just state for you, Madam President, what the bill 
specifically provides.
  First, each water system is required to notify their customers within 
24 hours of any violation of a drinking water standard that results in 
an immediate health concern.
  Second, for all other violations of Federal drinking water standards 
and requirements, public water systems are required to notify their 
customers of those violations as soon as possible but within 1 year of 
the violation.
  Third, and finally, the State and EPA are required to publish an 
annual report disclosing all violations by drinking water systems in 
the State. That report also must be made available to the public.
  As has been pointed out, the State of California has in its system 
already a program very similar to what the Senator from California has 
discussed. Therefore, there is nothing to preclude a State from doing 
exactly what the Senator from California is saying she feels should be 
done, but it ought to be left to the prerogative of the States.
  California has chosen to do so. There may be other States that will 
choose to do so, but why in the world should we have the Federal 
Government say that you must do this? We spent quite a bit of time 
earlier today talking about unfunded Federal mandates. We took S. 1316 
and gave it to the Congressional Budget Office and said, ``Please 
review this and score this and determine if, in any way, we are 
providing any new unfunded Federal mandates.'' Their letter came back 
and said, ``No, you are not.''
  But with regard to this particular amendment, the Senator from 
California also sent to the Congressional Budget Office a question as 
to how much would it cost. The Congressional Budget Office came back 
and said the requirement nationwide would be between $1.5 to $10 
million annually. That is an unfunded Federal mandate, and the $1.5 to 
$10 million annually could be used in tremendous opportunities by some 
of the small systems to achieve the standards that are necessary for 
the public health that we are trying to improve.
  So for those reasons, Madam President, I respectfully have to oppose 
this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am always very, very reluctant to 
oppose any amendment by the distinguished Californian who is a member 
of our Environment and Public Works Committee, a very able member of 
that committee and contributes a great deal. So it is with some 
trepidation that I rise to differ with her views on this particular 
amendment.
  It seems to me that this is not a necessary amendment, and, frankly, 
I do not think we should be adopting amendments that do not seem to 
have a necessity to them.
  Now, as has been pointed out, in the legislation we have submitted, 
S. 1316, if one looks at the report of the committee on page 136, it 
starts setting forth there what are the requirements that we have 
regarding notice. And indeed, on page 137, under (D)(1), ``Regulations 
issued under subparagraph (a) shall specify notification procedures for 
violations, other than the violations covered by subparagraph (c), and 
the procedures specify that a public water system shall provide written 
notice to each person served by the system by notice in the first bill 
prepared after the date of occurrence.''
  In other words, if there is a violation of the law, then it is 
required that notice be given. I think that is adequate. Madam 
President, as the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Kempthorne, just pointed out, there is a system for not only this 
notification, but if we want a more broad notification, then go ahead 
and do it. The States can pass such a law.
  Indeed, let me just demonstrate here, if I might, a two-sided piece 
of paper which is, I suppose, something like 14 inches long, issued by 
the State of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland law, by the Patuxent and 
Potomac Water Filtration Plants. It is just unintelligible. I think 
this is what everybody is going to receive. Let me give an 
illustration. It says down here, ``1-1, dichlorothane; 1-3, 
dichloropropane.'' That goes on to say that it deals with a number of 
micrograms per liter. It is not detected, it says, in Patuxent and in 
Potomac. Again, ``maximum monthly averages not detected.'' And it goes 
on to say that there is no limit established up or down by EPA on this.
  In other words, apparently, the Maryland law is that there must be 
close to 80 substances or potential contaminants that have to be 
notified. Anybody that receives this--99.9 percent of the people that 
receive it must say, ``What is this?'' and dispose of it in the 
wastebasket.
  It seems to me that it is really an unnecessary expenditure. So, 
Madam President, I reluctantly oppose the amendment by the Senator from 
California on the basis that if some State wants it, go ahead and do 
it. That is their business. If they do not want to do it, then we have 
some protective provisions in the current law, as I have previously 
pointed out.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will take 4 minutes. All of us greatly 
admire the Senator from California. I do not know any Senator, frankly, 
who is a stronger advocate for environmental protection than the 
Senator from California. She is very persistent and perceptive in her 
efforts to protect the environment. She has already said--and I think 
most Senators agree--that the bill before us is a very good safe 
drinking water bill. It sets very good--more than good, excellent 
standards--that apply to States around the country as they direct their 
systems to comply with certain standards and contaminant levels and so 
forth.
  The amendment the Senator from California offers, I think, goes too 
far. Essentially, it says that what California is doing, issuing 
reports to each consumer with respect to a whole lot of information, 
now must apply to all States; that is, the Federal Government must 
adopt the same requirement. It is regulatory overkill.
  Let me very briefly indicate some of the specifics that this 
amendment would require systems to provide to consumers. It would 
require reporting the source--I do not know whether this means 
groundwater, rivers, or whatever. It requires reporting on content, 
that could be most anything. The quality of the water requirement is 
vague. A multiworded explanation of the health implications of 
contaminants relative to national primary drinking water regulations is 
required. Even though the State and the system may 

[[Page S 17770]]
be meeting all the standards, still consumers have to be notified as to 
the health implications of those contaminants--even though regulated. I 
am just touching the tip of the iceberg listing the requirements that 
must be given to consumers. The long and short of it is, if California 
or any State wants to, according to its own law, require a whole host 
of information about what the water contains, even though the system is 
meeting all the standards required by law, then let that State make 
that decision.
  One reason we are here today writing this bill and making amendments 
to the Safe Drinking Water Act is because, under the 1986 amendments to 
the act, we unfortunately required systems, States, and the EPA to do 
way too much, to dilute its resources pursuing a lot of different 
efforts, instead of concentrating on the most egregious contaminants 
and problems and focusing priorities on the problems a system should 
meet to make sure the water is as pure as can be for the consumers.
  If systems do what this amendment proposes, it would further dilute 
and distract resources. Systems would have to spend a lot of time 
trying to figure out what all this is, even though they are doing what 
is required of them and meeting the law.
  I urge Senators to look and see what is in this amendment. I think 
they will realize that we should not be requiring all States to do 
something that one State may want to do. If a State chooses to do so, 
fine. This does not limit States from taking these actions. I do not 
think we should require all this additional information which, as the 
Senator from Rhode Island pointed out, is not going to be read. I know 
the interest groups will do a good job of filing lawsuits and doing 
whatever they want to do if a State system is not meeting standards. 
They should. I take my hat off to them. But we should not go overboard 
with a lot of red tape and bombard people with information they are not 
even going to read.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, as the author the community right-
to-know law that requires notification of the public of releases of 
toxics into the environment, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
Senator from California, Senator Boxer.
  This amendment requires local water providers to notify their 
customers at least annually of the quality of their drinking water so 
they can properly monitor the water for possible health effects.
  Madam President, shining the light on the behavior of corporations 
and governments has repeatedly led to significant environmental 
advances. When accidents, or discharges, or violations must be reported 
to the customers, quality improves. This has been proven dramatically 
in the case of the community right-to-know legislation.
  The right-to-know law does not require a company to lower its use or 
emissions of any chemical one ounce. The right-to-know law was intended 
to notify neighbors about chemicals that were being discharged. 
Companies did not like the bad publicity.
  In addition, the law brought to the attention of corporate executives 
the fact that expensive chemicals were leaving their facilities as 
waste, not product. In response to these reports, companies voluntarily 
instituted pollution prevention measures that have lowered toxic 
releases tremendously. Emissions from facilities have decreased 42 
percent nationwide since 1989; a reduction of two billion pounds.
  Virtually none of those reductions were required by federal law; they 
were voluntarily done by companies who found a better way to do 
business, encouraged by this law.
  Senator Boxer's amendment is likely to have similar, positive 
effects. It will mean cleaner drinking water for consumers. It also 
will give individual Americans complete information about the quality 
and safety of their drinking water. This will allow consumers to decide 
for themselves whether they want to buy bottled water, or take other 
steps to protect themselves from unhealthy drinking water.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from New Jersey; he is the author of 
the community right-to-know law that requires notification to the 
public of releases of toxics in the environment. He strongly backs this 
amendment. He says, ``This will allow consumers to decide for 
themselves whether they want to buy bottled water, or take other steps 
to protect themselves.'' This is life and death, Madam President.
  Madam President, has all time expired on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would appreciate it if they will take their time so I 
can finish the debate. It is my amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 5 minutes. The 
Senator from Rhode Island has 3 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will retain 1 minute of my time, and I will speak for 4 
minutes. First of all, I think the comments made by my colleagues are 
terrific, but they are not right.
  Madam President, I have to make a number of points here. My colleague 
from Montana says, oh, what does this mean, and he holds up this 
amendment. This has been in operation in California for 6 years. Nobody 
ever asks what does it mean. Everyone thinks it is terrific, and 
everybody understands what it means.
  In addition, we worked with the EPA because they had constructive 
suggestions. They worked with us on every word of this amendment.
  My friend from Idaho makes a point that I would like to address. He 
says, ``My God, we go a long way in this bill. You have to be told 
there is a violation if your water standard is in violation of the 
law.''
  I have to point out to my friend that in 1993 the GAO did a very 
important report entitled ``Consumers Often Not Well-Informed of 
Potentially Serious Violations in their Water Supply.'' They concluded 
that 63 percent of violations were not reported at all. Of these, over 
half of the violations posed serious long-term health risks such as 
long-term cancer risk.
  Now, that is GAO. That is not some environmental organization. That 
is an investigative arm of the Congress. The fact is, these violations 
more than half the time are not reported. I do not want to wait for 
there to be an outbreak of cryptosporidium and people die and then we 
notify them, ``Boil your water.''
  I think people have a right to know on a regular basis what is in 
their water. I do not think it is in any way encroaching.
  We are so clear: Systems that serve 10,000 persons or less are 
exempted from this. Governors can opt out by explaining why. And the 
cost, if you take the maximum cost, is 23 cents per household per year. 
Madam President, 23 cents per year to know if there is cryptosporidium 
in your water.
  Just talk to someone who lost a loved one from cryptosporidium in the 
water supply. Would it be worth 23 cents a year? And, by the way, the 
Governor can opt out. So there is no unfunded mandate if the Governor 
can opt out.
  The American Public Health Association wants to see this amendment 
become the law of the land. This is not extreme. This is a national 
safe drinking water act. National standards are set. We should be 
standing up here for the consumer, for taxpayers, for that water user 
who pays for that water, to have the information they need to keep 
their families safe.
  The first time there is an outbreak of cryptosporidium, people will 
rush to this floor and say, ``Boxer was right,'' and so was Senator 
Daschle because he happens to be the lead cosponsor, and Senator 
Lautenberg who spent so much of his career making sure consumers have 
the right to know if there are toxins in our environment.
  I would like to add Senator Kohl as a cosponsor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, let me just say this to the very able 
arguments of the Senator from California. They are able arguments.
  I suppose that when she makes the point that the Governor can opt out 
or that it does not apply to those systems of 10,000 or less that it 
works the other way around.
  If this is such a vital amendment and so necessary, why do we have it 
that a Governor can just opt out of it? Or if it is so important, why 
do we exclude 87 percent of the water systems in the Nation? Madam 
President, 87 percent of the water systems in the Nation serve 10,000 
or fewer people. 

[[Page S 17771]]

  That is not to say that 87 percent of the population is served by 
that. I am not making that suggestion. But 87 percent of all the water 
systems in the Nation are small ones. They are exempt from this bill.
  Madam President, I say this is a good piece of legislation. One of 
the things we have done here is to provide money to train the operators 
of these systems to be better. We have provided for better technical 
assistance than previously existed. We encourage consolidations.
  I think we have done a lot of things to improve the safety of the 
water that the users drink, in addition to the provisions that I have 
previously mentioned that deal specifically with notification in case 
the water is not safe.
  I do appreciate the arguments of the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 1 minute and 
43 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senator from California makes a very 
impassioned statement. It sounds very good.
  The facts are, very simply, if California or if any State wants to go 
far above and beyond what is required by Federal law, I think it makes 
sense for that State to do so if that State wants to do so. I do not 
think the Federal Government should make this additional requirement on 
all States just because California is doing it. If California wants to, 
fine. But the U.S. Congress should not make a judgment as to whether an 
additional requirement to each individual consumer, which has no 
bearing whatever to whether the systems in a State meet standards. If 
the State wants to, fine. I do not think the Federal Government should 
make that requirement on all States.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We yield back the balance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will finish. When anyone does not like 
an argument, they tell you you are emotional. Let me just say the 
American Public Health Association is not emotional about this. They 
just say, ``We need to know. We need to know what is in our water 
supply.''
  I say to my friend from Rhode Island, the distinguished and able 
chairman, for whom I have the greatest respect, that 83 percent of the 
American people will be covered by this Boxer amendment because they 
are served by the larger water systems.
  To those who oppose this amendment, I ask, suppose that your loved 
one is elderly or ill, has a compromised immune system because of 
cancer, chemotherapy, a recent transplant, or for other reasons, or 
there is a little baby in the house that you are mixing that formula 
with water from the tap, suppose you knew your water supplier knew all 
along there was a level of cryptosporidium in the water but never told 
you, because in 63 percent of the cases, the GAO says they do not 
report violations.
  That is not emotion. That is fact. The GAO study found 63 percent of 
the violations are not reported. I make sure if cryptosporidium is in 
your water system, you would know whether you live in Maine or 
California or Montana or Rhode Island or South Carolina.
  I hope that people will vote against the motion to table, which I 
assume is on its way. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I move to table the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from California, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding we have 10 minutes equally divided 
to wrap up amendments or statements before we go to the vote.


                           Amendment No. 3079

    (Purpose: To provide that monitoring requirements imposed on a 
     substantial number of public water systems be established by 
                              regulation)

  Mr. CHAFEE. I have one last amendment, Madam President, that I send 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself, 
     Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Reid, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3079.

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

       On page 132, line 5, strike ``methods.'' and insert 
     ``methods. Information requirements imposed by the 
     Administrator pursuant to the authority of this subparagraph 
     that require monitoring, the establishment or maintenance of 
     records or reporting, by a substantial number of public water 
     systems (determined in the sole discretion of the 
     administrator), shall be established by regulation as 
     provided in clause (ii).''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, this amendment tightens up EPA's 
information-gathering authorities under the law. The amendment would 
require EPA to impose new monitoring reporting or record-keeping 
requirements only by rule of a public comment if those requirements 
would effect a substantial number of public water systems.
  This amendment has been cleared on both sides. We are prepared to 
adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3079) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        source water protection

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, as all the managers of this bill are 
acutely aware, an emergency outbreak of the parasite cryptosporidium in 
Milwaukee in 1993 resulted in the deaths of over 100 citizens and 
caused nearly 400,000 others to become severely ill. I believe that 
many provisions included in this legislation will be helpful in 
protecting future generations from the threat of cryptosporidium and 
other microbial contaminants, and I thank the managers for that.
  Certainly the Milwaukee outbreak has demonstrated the need for strong 
source water protection programs. In fact, the State of Wisconsin has 
one of the most respected sources water protection programs in the 
Nation. However, even with that program, the Milwaukee cryptosporidium 
outbreak occurred. Although the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program is 
primarily a voluntary program, working in a cooperative manner with 
landowners in targeted watersheds, the program does have the authority 
to enforce against the small minority of landowners in a targeted 
watershed who refuse to cooperate with the commonsense conservation 
efforts of their neighbors.
  While I know that it is the intention of the managers to create a 
new, Source Water Quality Protection Partnership Program which is 
voluntary in nature, I want to be able to assure the citizens of my 
State that the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program will not be 
discriminated against in S. 1316, as a result of having an enforcement 
authority.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I completely understand the concerns of the Senator from 
Wisconsin, and I agree that the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program is 
one of the most outstanding water quality programs in this country. In 
that context, I want to assure the Senator that S. 1316 in no way 
discriminates against the Wisconsin program, or any other State 
program, on the basis of that program's enforcement authority. While 
States choosing to participate in the new Source Water Quality 
Protection Partnership Program are required to use the voluntary 
approach, other sections of the bill would provide programs like 
Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program access to funding from the State 
revolving fund. States that choose the Source Water Quality Protection 
Partnership approach are also authorized to use SRF funding.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I concur in the response made by the Senator from Rhode 
Island. This bill does not discriminate against State or local programs 
that include enforcement authority, it merely sets up a different 
framework. Both purely voluntary programs, as well as programs like the 
Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program, are authorized to use funding 
from the State's SRF allocation through state administration of a 

[[Page S 17772]]
source water quality protection program.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the managers for this clarification and for working 
with me on this important matter.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I, too, am pleased that this bill contains a 
requirement for the development of a national standard for 
cryptosporidum. Several times this Congress, I have raised the issue 
that the cryptosporidum outbreaks are no longer Milwaukee's problem, 
but the country's problem, and that there should be action to ensure 
that enforceable national requirements are developed. However, relative 
to the bill's provisions that create a new petition program for 
voluntary sourcewater protection, I share the concerns of the senior 
Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Kohl].
  I want to be certain that Wisconsin is not penalized for the actions 
it has already taken to protect source water. As mentioned by the 
senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] our State's efforts to protect 
source waters from contaminated runoff centers around the Wisconsin 
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, often referred to as 
the priority watershed program based upon its watershed approach to 
controlling polluted runoff. The program provides grants to local units 
of government in urban and rural watersheds, which reimburse up to 70 
percent of costs associated with installing best management practices. 
By the end of 1994, the State has been actively engaged in 67 projects, 
including 4 large-scale and 3 lake initiatives, and more than 82 large-
scale projects are eligible to participate in the program.
  Our State's program follows an extensive land use inventory and water 
resource appraisal process, and public participation is a critical 
component of the program. By in large participation has been voluntary, 
but the State does retain the authority to require participation after 
the protection plan is developed.
  I concur in the importance of assuring that this bill allows 
Wisconsin's current program to access the SRF and appreciate the 
statements made by the floor managers to that effect.


                           stage i rulemaking

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to clarify the application 
of the new standard setting authorities established by the bill to the 
stage I rulemaking for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts that 
EPA has proposed.
  The use of chlorine to kill pathogenic organisms in drinking water 
presents a real challenge. On the one hand, disinfection of public 
water supplies is a public health miracle. One of the witnesses at our 
hearings on this bill called it the single most important public health 
advance in history. On the other hand, the use of chlorine as a 
disinfectant may produce chemical byproducts in the water that present 
other health risks.
  EPA has proposed a rule for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts 
that attempts to balance these risks. The proposed rule was developed 
through a regulatory negotiation that included representatives of local 
governments, water agencies and water supply districts, and public 
interest groups. EPA used this approach because current law does not 
contain explicit authority to balance risks in the way that EPA has 
proposed to do in this rulemaking. Presumably, one reason for the 
negotiation was to avoid a subsequent court challenge to the rule.
  Now, we are changing the law and we are including explicit authority 
for the Administrator to take a risk balancing approach where it is 
appropriate. These changes would authorize EPA to issue the type of 
rule that has been proposed in stage I for disinfection byproducts. But 
in passing this bill, we face a delicate legislative task. We want to 
endorse the risk balancing approach that EPA is taking and make it 
clear that the statute as amended authorizes such a rule--including the 
stage I rule--but we don't want these new statutory provisions to 
disturb the negotiated agreement that is incorporated in the rule that 
EPA has proposed.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee whether the bill would prevent 
EPA from modifying the proposed rule. If new information indicates that 
the stage I rule as proposed does not strike an appropriate balance 
among the competing health risks, could EPA modify the rule when it is 
promulgated?
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that the agreement negotiated by 
the parties to the disinfection byproducts rulemaking does provide that 
the final stage I rule may include modifications if new information 
warrants those changes. The bill does not preclude changes that are 
within the scope of the agreement.
  However, these new standard setting authorities are not to be the 
basis for making changes in the rule as it was proposed, nor was it our 
intent to require the Administrator to repropose the stage I proposed 
rule to conduct additional risk balancing under new section 1412(b)(5). 
However, if subsequent to enactment, someone should discover an 
inconsistency, the bill specifically precludes a change in the proposed 
rule to resolve that inconsistency. Furthermore, the bill insulates the 
rule from a court challenge on the basis of any inconsistency, should 
one be found. We do not intend to disrupt the results of the 
negotiation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The committee report at page 38 says that the bill does 
not apply to the stage I rulemaking because that rule has already been 
proposed in a detailed form. Does the Senator's statement affect that 
part of the committee report?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The purpose of this statement is to establish that 
in one sense the new authority contained in section 1412b(5) does apply 
to the stage I rulemaking.
  As I said, we are attempting a delicate legislative task here. We are 
changing the statute to provide EPA with explicit authority to set 
standards that balance risks. But we do not want the detailed 
provisions of this new authority to upset a specific rule of that type 
that has recently been proposed. We want to make clear that EPA is 
authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act, as it is amended by this 
bill, to issue the stage I rule. If this bill is enacted and the stage 
I rule is promulgated as it was proposed, no one could bring a court 
challenge against the rule on the grounds that it wasn't authorized by 
the statute.
  At the same time, the stage I rule is not to be tested against the 
specific provisions of the statute to determine whether it is 
consistent in every respect. it may not be. So long as the final stage 
I rule stays within the parameters of the agreement negotiated by the 
parties, it is authorized by the statute as amended.
  The bill applies to the stage I rule because EPA is given general 
authority to issue a rule that is consistent with the negotiated 
agreement; but the specific provisions of the risk balancing 
authorities in the new subsection 1412(b)(5) are not to be applied by 
EPA or by the courts in determining whether the final rule is in 
accordance with the law. That determination is to be based on the 
agreement that was signed by the parties to the negotiation.
  Nothing in this bill affects the applicability of new subsection 
1412(b)(5) to the stage II rulemaking on disinfection by products.
  Madam President, that completes everything on this side. I inform all 
Senators, immediately following the vote on the motion to table the 
Boxer amendment, we will then go to final passage.
  I ask, if proper, for the yeas and nays on final passage at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the delay here is we are waiting a 
possible additional colloquy with the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Madam President, how much time of the 10 minutes is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator from California wished that minute, this 
is the time, if she would like.


                           Amendment No. 3078

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will take advantage of that one moment 
to simply say what we are trying to do in this amendment is to give 
support to the public health community, which says it is very 
important. We have the support of EPA and the American Public Health 
Association, and a number of other organizations, that 

[[Page S 17773]]
consumers have a right to know, just once a year, what is in their 
water.
  It is not something we feel is burdensome. As a matter of fact, we 
say the EPA has to issue regulations that make it simple. The 
Democratic leader is supporting this. Senator Lautenberg is supporting 
this. Senator Kohl, whose State had a terrible outbreak of 
cryptosporidium and lost lives, is supporting it. We think this is 
extremely reasonable. It is not an unfunded mandate. Governors can opt 
out of this. Small water systems can opt out of this. The large water 
systems serve 83 percent of our people.
  We think this is a solid amendment and we urge a ``no'' vote on the 
motion to table.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes remaining. Is there 
further debate?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, while we are preparing several 
colloquies to submit for the Record, I will take this brief opportunity 
to thank everybody involved. Particularly, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, for his splendid work 
on this. He has really been a tower of strength and the leader of this 
whole effort.
  Also, I thank the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Senator Reid, 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, and all the staff for their 
wonderful work. I particularly thank Jimmie Powell on this side, who 
really was very, very effective.


                     public water system definition

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Some questions have arisen about how section 24(b) of 
the bill, which amends the definition of public water systems, applies 
to certain irrigation systems. As the committee report explains, the 
provision is intended to address a narrow set of situations, such as 
the one that was involved in the Imperial Irrigation court decision, 
where an irrigation system is knowingly providing drinking water to a 
large number of customers. However, it is my understanding that the 
provision does not apply to irrigation systems that only intend to 
provide water for such purposes as irrigation and stock watering, and 
do not intend that water be withdrawn for drinking water use.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with Senator Kempthorne's interpretation. In the 
arid west, where irrigation systems may cover vast distances, it would 
be unfair and impractical to treat an irrigation system as a public 
water system just because a number of people withdraw water for 
drinking water use without the permission or knowledge of the system, 
and I do not believe that the provision applies to such situations.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Does the manager of the bill share this view.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The Safe Drinking Water Act defines a public water 
system as a system for the provision to the public of piped water for 
human consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections 
or regularly serves at least 25 individuals. In describing a public 
water system, EPA's regulations and guidance use such terms as 
``serves'' and ``delivers,'' usually in the context of ``customers.'' 
These terms are clearly contrary to a situation where the irrigation 
system does not either consent to having water withdrawn for human 
consumption, or know that such withdrawals are occurring with respect 
to the requisite number of connections or customers.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Questions also have arisen about how the new 
provision would apply to irrigation systems that provide water to 
municipal drinking water systems, which then treat the water and 
provide it to customers for human consumption. Would these irrigation 
systems be treated as public water systems on this basis?
  Mr. CHAFEE. No. Under the new provision, a connection is not 
considered, for purposes of determining whether an entity is a public 
water system, if the water is treated by a pass-through entity to 
achieve a level of treatment equivalent to the level provided by 
applicable drinking water regulations. In the case you describe, the 
municipal water system would be providing such treatment, and the 
irrigation system's provision of water to the municipal water system 
would not be considered a connection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I commend the floor manager, Senator 
Chafee, for his efforts, not only during the months that it took us to 
get here but for his demeanor today on the floor. I also thank Senator 
Baucus, the other floor manager of this very important legislation, and 
Senator Reid, for this legislation that is going to be well received by 
all the States and municipalities throughout the United States and 
their constituents.
  I thank the staffs of Senator Baucus and Senator Reid and the staff 
of Senator Chafee: Jimmie Powell and Steve Shimberg; and acknowledge my 
staff, Meg Hunt, Ann Klee, and Buzz Fawcett, and thank all the Senators 
who participated today, in their suggestions or debate, for their 
improvements to the bill.
  I look forward to what is about to happen, which is we are going to 
astound our families by voting on final passage of this at a relatively 
early hour. Then I suggest all Senators go home, have supper with their 
families, and raise a toast of safe drinking water to what we have 
accomplished today.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We have no need for further time, Madam President.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3078

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question now occurs on the motion to table the amendment offered 
by the Senator from California, amendment No. 3078.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 587 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Snowe
     Wellstone
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3078) was 
agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 588 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford 

[[Page S 17774]]

     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the bill (S. 1316), as amended, was passed.
  (The text of the bill will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COATS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________