[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6725-H6762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3604) to amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act--
the ``Safe Drinking Water Act''--and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3604

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. References; effective date; disclaimer.

                     TITLE I--PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

Subtitle A--Promulgation of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

Sec. 101. Selection of additional contaminants.
Sec. 102. Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.
Sec. 103. Limited alternative to filtration.
Sec. 104. Standard-setting.
Sec. 105. Ground water disinfection.
Sec. 106. Effective date for regulations.
Sec. 107. Risk assessment, management, and communication.
Sec. 108. Radon, arsenic, and sulfate.
Sec. 109. Urgent threats to public health.
Sec. 110. Recycling of filter backwash.
Sec. 111. Treatment technologies for small systems.

 Subtitle B--State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for Public Water 
                                Systems

Sec.  121. State primacy.

                Subtitle C--Notification and Enforcement

Sec. 131. Public notification.

[[Page H6726]]

Sec. 132. Enforcement.
Sec. 133. Judicial review

                  Subtitle D--Exemptions and Variances

Sec. 141. Exemptions.
Sec. 142. Variances.

                  Subtitle E--Lead Plumbing and Pipes

Sec. 151. Lead plumbing and pipes.

                    Subtitle F--Capacity Development

Sec. 161. Capacity development.

                     TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO PART C

Sec. 201. Source water quality assessment.
Sec. 202. Federal facilities.

    TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

Sec. 301. Operator certification.
Sec. 302. Technical assistance.
Sec. 303. Public water system supervision program.
Sec. 304. Monitoring and information gathering.
Sec. 305. Occurrence data base.
Sec. 306. Citizens suits.
Sec. 307. Whistle blower.
Sec. 308. State revolving funds.
Sec. 309. Water conservation plan.

                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 403. New York City watershed protection program.
Sec. 404. Estrogenic substances screening program.
Sec. 405. Reports on programs administered directly by Environmental 
              Protection Agency.
Sec. 406. Return flows.
Sec. 407. Emergency powers.
Sec. 408. Waterborne disease occurrence study.
Sec. 409. Drinking water studies.
Sec. 410. Bottled drinking water standards.
Sec. 411. Clerical amendments.

 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHEDS

Sec. 501. General program.
Sec. 502. New York City Watershed, New York.
Sec. 503. Rural and Native villages, Alaska.
Sec. 504. Acquisition of lands.
Sec. 505. Federal share.
Sec. 506. Condition on authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 507. Definitions.

            TITLE VI--DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 601. Drinking water research authorization.
Sec. 602. Scientific research review.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES; EFFECTIVE DATE; DISCLAIMER.

       (a) References to Safe Drinking Water Act.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to that section or other 
     provision of title XIV of the Public Health Service Act 
     (commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 
     300f et seq.).
       (b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specified in this 
     Act or in the amendments made by this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this Act or in any amendments 
     made by this Act to title XIV of the Public Health Service 
     Act (commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act) or any 
     other law shall be construed by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or the courts as affecting, 
     modifying, expanding, changing, or altering--
       (1) the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act;
       (2) the duties and responsibilities of the Administrator 
     under that Act; or
       (3) the regulation or control of point or nonpoint sources 
     of pollution discharged into waters covered by that Act.

     The Administrator shall identify in the agency's annual 
     budget all funding and full-time equivalents administering 
     such title XIV separately from funding and staffing for the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
                     TITLE I--PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Subtitle A--Promulgation of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

     SEC. 101. SELECTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTAMINANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1412(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300g-
     1(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Regulation of unregulated contaminants.--
       ``(A) Listing of contaminants for consideration.--(i) Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 5 years 
     thereafter, the Administrator, after consultation with the 
     scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board, 
     after notice and opportunity for public comment, and after 
     considering the occurrence data base established under 
     section 1445(g), shall publish a list of contaminants which, 
     at the time of publication, are not subject to any proposed 
     or promulgated national primary drinking water regulation, 
     which are known or anticipated to occur in public water 
     systems, and which may require regulation under this title.
       ``(ii) The unregulated contaminants considered under clause 
     (i) shall include, but not be limited to, substances referred 
     to in section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and 
     substances registered as pesticides under the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
       ``(iii) The Administrator's decision whether or not to 
     select an unregulated contaminant for a list under this 
     subparagraph shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Determination to regulate.--(i) Not later than 5 
     years after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1996, and every 5 years thereafter, 
     the Administrator shall, by rule, for not fewer than 5 
     contaminants included on the list published under 
     subparagraph (A), make determinations of whether or not to 
     regulate such contaminants.
       ``(ii) A determination to regulate a contaminant shall be 
     based on findings that--
       ``(I) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a 
     substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in 
     public water systems with a frequency and at a level of 
     public health concern; and
       ``(II) regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful 
     opportunity for public health risk reduction for persons 
     served by public water systems.

     Such findings shall be based on the best available public 
     health information, including the occurrence data base 
     established under section 1445(g).
       ``(iii) The Administrator may make a determination to 
     regulate a contaminant that does not appear on a list under 
     subparagraph (A) if the determination to regulate is made 
     pursuant to clause (ii).
       ``(iv) A determination under this subparagraph not to 
     regulate a contaminant shall be considered final agency 
     action and subject to judicial review.
       ``(C) Priorities.--In selecting unregulated contaminants 
     for consideration under subparagraph (B), the Administrator 
     shall select contaminants that present the greatest public 
     health concern. The Administrator, in making such selection, 
     shall take into consideration, among other factors of public 
     health concern, the effect of such contaminants upon 
     subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general 
     population (such as infants, children, pregnant women, the 
     elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or 
     other subpopulations) that are identifiable as being at 
     greater risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to 
     contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
       ``(D) Regulation.--For each contaminant that the 
     Administrator determines to regulate under subparagraph (B), 
     the Administrator shall promulgate, by rule, maximum 
     contaminant level goals and national primary drinking water 
     regulations under this subsection. The Administrator shall 
     propose the maximum contaminant level goal and national 
     primary drinking water regulation not later than 24 months 
     after the determination to regulate under subparagraph (B), 
     and may publish such proposed regulation concurrent with the 
     determination to regulate. The Administrator shall promulgate 
     a maximum contaminant level goal and national primary 
     drinking water regulation within 18 months after the proposal 
     thereof. The Administrator, by notice in the Federal 
     Register, may extend the deadline for such promulgation for 
     up to 9 months.
       ``(E) Health advisories and other actions.--The 
     Administrator may publish health advisories (which are not 
     regulations) or take other appropriate actions for 
     contaminants not subject to any national primary drinking 
     water regulation.''.
       (b) Applicability of Prior Requirements.--The requirements 
     of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 1412(b)(3) of title 
     XIV of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act) as in effect before the enactment of 
     this Act, and any obligation to promulgate regulations 
     pursuant to such subparagraphs not promulgated as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, are superseded by the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) to such subparagraphs (C) and (D).

     SEC. 102. DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS.

       Section 1412(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following subparagraph:
       ``(F) Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.--
       ``(i) Information collection rule.--Not later than December 
     31, 1996, the Administrator shall, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, promulgate an information 
     collection rule to obtain information that will facilitate 
     further revisions to the national primary drinking water 
     regulation for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, 
     including information on microbial contaminants such as 
     cryptosporidium. The Administrator may extend the December 
     31, 1996, deadline under this clause for up to 180 days if 
     the Administrator determines that progress toward approval of 
     an appropriate analytical method to screen for 
     cryptosporidium is sufficiently advanced and approval is 
     likely to be completed within the additional time period.
       ``(ii) Additional deadlines.--The time intervals between 
     promulgation of a final information collection rule, an 
     Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, a Final 
     Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, a Stage I 
     Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and a Stage 
     II Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule shall be in 
     accordance with the schedule published in volume 59, Federal 
     Register, page

[[Page H6727]]

     6361 (February 10, 1994), in table III.13 of the proposed 
     Information Collection Rule. If a delay occurs with respect 
     to the promulgation of any rule in the timetable established 
     by this subparagraph, all subsequent rules shall be completed 
     as expeditiously as practicable but no later than a revised 
     date that reflects the interval or intervals for the rules in 
     the timetable.''.

     SEC. 103. LIMITED ALTERNATIVE TO FILTRATION.

       Section 1412(b)(7)(C) is amended by adding the following 
     after clause (iv):
       ``(v) As an additional alternative to the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to clauses (i) and (iii), including the 
     criteria for avoiding filtration contained in CFR 141.71, a 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems may, on a case-by-case basis, and after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, 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 greater removal or 
     inactivation 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 paragraph (8)).''.

     SEC. 104. STANDARD-SETTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 1412(b) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(4) Each'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Goals and standards.--
       ``(A) Maximum contaminant level goals.--Each'';
       (B) in the last sentence--
       (i) by striking ``Each national'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Maximum contaminant levels.-- Except as provided in 
     paragraphs (5) and (6), each national''; and
       (ii) by striking ``maximum level'' and inserting ``maximum 
     contaminant level''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Determination.--At the time the Administrator 
     proposes a national primary drinking water regulation under 
     this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a 
     determination as to whether the benefits of the maximum 
     contaminant level justify, or do not justify, the costs based 
     on the analysis conducted under paragraph (12)(C).''.
       (2) By striking ``(5) For the'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(D) Definition of feasible.--For the''.
       (3) In the second sentence of paragraph (4)(D) (as so 
     designated), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting 
     ``this paragraph''.
       (4) By striking ``(6) Each national'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) Feasible technologies.--
       ``(i) Each national''.
       (5) In paragraph (4)(E)(i) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``this paragraph'' and inserting ``this subsection''.
       (6) By inserting after paragraph (4) (as so amended) the 
     following:
       ``(5) Additional health risk considerations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the 
     Administrator may establish a maximum contaminant level for a 
     contaminant at a level other than the feasible level, if the 
     technology, treatment techniques, and other means used to 
     determine the feasible level would result in an increase in 
     the health risk from drinking water by--
       ``(i) increasing the concentration of other contaminants in 
     drinking water; or
       ``(ii) interfering with the efficacy of drinking water 
     treatment techniques or processes that are used to comply 
     with other national primary drinking water regulations.
       ``(B) Establishment of level.--If the Administrator 
     establishes a maximum contaminant level or levels or requires 
     the use of treatment techniques for any contaminant or 
     contaminants pursuant to the authority of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the level or levels or treatment techniques shall 
     minimize the overall risk of adverse health effects by 
     balancing the risk from the contaminant and the risk from 
     other contaminants the concentrations of which may be 
     affected by the use of a treatment technique or process that 
     would be employed to attain the maximum contaminant level or 
     levels; and
       ``(ii) the combination of technology, treatment techniques, 
     or other means required to meet the level or levels shall not 
     be more stringent than is feasible (as defined in paragraph 
     (4)(D)).
       ``(6) Additional health risk reduction and cost 
     considerations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), if the 
     Administrator determines based on an analysis conducted under 
     paragraph (12)(C) that the benefits of a maximum contaminant 
     level promulgated in accordance with paragraph (4) would not 
     justify the costs of complying with the level, the 
     Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, promulgate a maximum contaminant level for the 
     contaminant that maximizes health risk reduction benefits at 
     a cost that is justified by the benefits.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Administrator shall not use the 
     authority of this paragraph to promulgate a maximum 
     contaminant level for a contaminant, if the benefits of 
     compliance with a national primary drinking water regulation 
     for the contaminant that would be promulgated in accordance 
     with paragraph (4) experienced by--
       ``(i) persons served by large public water systems; and
       ``(ii) persons served by such other systems as are 
     unlikely, based on information provided by the States, to 
     receive a variance under section 1415(e) (relating to small 
     system assistance program);
     would justify the costs to the systems of complying with the 
     regulation. This subparagraph shall not apply if the 
     contaminant is found almost exclusively in small systems (as 
     defined in section 1415(e), relating to small system 
     assistance program).
       ``(C) Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.--The 
     Administrator may not use the authority of this paragraph to 
     establish a maximum contaminant level in a Stage I or Stage 
     II national primary drinking water regulation for 
     contaminants that are disinfectants or disinfection 
     byproducts (as described in paragraph (3)(F)), or to 
     establish a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique 
     requirement for the control of cryptosporidium. The authority 
     of this paragraph may be used to establish regulations for 
     the use of disinfection by systems relying on ground water 
     sources as required by paragraph (8).
       ``(D) Judicial review.--A determination by the 
     Administrator that the benefits of a maximum contaminant 
     level or treatment requirement justify or do not justify the 
     costs of complying with the level shall be reviewed by the 
     court pursuant to section 1448 only as part of a review of a 
     final national primary drinking water regulation that has 
     been promulgated based on the determination and shall not be 
     set aside by the court under that section unless the court 
     finds that the determination is arbitrary and capricious.''.
       (b) Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts.--The 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may use 
     the authority of section 1412(b)(5) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (as amended by this Act) to promulgate the Stage 
     I and Stage II rules for disinfectants and disinfection 
     byproducts as proposed in volume 59, Federal Register, page 
     38668 (July 29, 1994). The considerations used in the 
     development of the July 29, 1994, proposed national primary 
     drinking water regulation on Disinfection and Disinfection 
     Byproducts shall be treated as consistent with such section 
     1412(b)(5) for purposes of such Stage I and Stage II rules.
       (c) Review of Standards.--Section 1412(b)(9) (42 U.S.C. 
     300g-1(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(9) Review and revision.--The Administrator shall, not 
     less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as 
     appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation 
     promulgated under this title. Any revision of a national 
     primary drinking water regulation shall be promulgated in 
     accordance with this section, except that each revision shall 
     maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of 
     persons.''.

     SEC. 105. GROUND WATER DISINFECTION.

       Section 1412(b)(8) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(8)) is amended by 
     striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``At 
     any time after the end of the 3-year period that begins on 
     the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996, but not later than the date on which the 
     Administrator promulgates a Stage II rulemaking for 
     disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (as described in 
     paragraph (3)(F)(ii)), the Administrator shall also 
     promulgate national primary drinking water regulations 
     requiring disinfection as a treatment technique for all 
     public water systems, including surface water systems and, as 
     necessary, ground water systems. After consultation with the 
     States, the Administrator shall (as part of the regulations) 
     promulgate criteria that the Administrator, or a State that 
     has primary enforcement responsibility under section 1413, 
     shall apply to determine whether disinfection shall be 
     required as a treatment technique for any public water system 
     served by ground water. A State that has primary enforcement 
     authority shall develop a plan through which ground water 
     disinfection determinations are made. The plan shall be based 
     on the Administrator's criteria and shall be submitted to the 
     Administrator for approval.''.

     SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR REGULATIONS.

       Section 1412(b)(10) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(10)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(10) Effective date.--A national primary drinking water 
     regulation promulgated under this section (and any amendment 
     thereto) shall take effect on the date that is 3 years after 
     the date on which the regulation is promulgated unless the 
     Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable, 
     except that the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an 
     individual system), may allow up to 2 additional years to 
     comply with a maximum contaminant level or treatment 
     technique if the Administrator or State (in the case of an 
     individual system) determines that additional time is 
     necessary for capital improvements.''.

     SEC. 107. RISK ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNICATION.

       Section 1412(b) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)) is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) Risk assessment, management and communication.--

[[Page H6728]]

       ``(A) Use of science in decisionmaking.--In carrying out 
     this section, and, to the degree that an Agency action is 
     based on science, the Administrator shall use--
       ``(i) the best available, peer-reviewed science and 
     supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and 
     objective scientific practices; and
       ``(ii) data collected by accepted methods or best available 
     methods (if the reliability of the method and the nature of 
     the decision justifies use of the data).
       ``(B) Public information.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Administrator shall ensure that the presentation of 
     information on public health effects is comprehensive, 
     informative and understandable. The Administrator shall, in a 
     document made available to the public in support of a 
     regulation promulgated under this section, specify, to the 
     extent practicable--
       ``(i) each population addressed by any estimate of public 
     health effects;
       ``(ii) the expected risk or central estimate of risk for 
     the specific populations;
       ``(iii) each appropriate upper-bound or lower-bound 
     estimate of risk;
       ``(iv) each significant uncertainty identified in the 
     process of the assessment of public health effects and 
     studies that would assist in resolving the uncertainty; and
       ``(v) peer-reviewed studies known to the Administrator that 
     support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support any 
     estimate of public health effects and the methodology used to 
     reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific data.
       ``(C) Health risk reduction and cost analysis.--
       ``(i) Maximum contaminant levels.--When proposing any 
     national primary drinking water regulation that includes a 
     maximum contaminant level, the Administrator shall, with 
     respect to a maximum contaminant level that is being 
     considered in accordance with paragraph (4) and each 
     alternative maximum contaminant level that is being 
     considered pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6)(A), publish, seek 
     public comment on, and use for the purposes of paragraphs 
     (4), (5), and (6) an analysis of:

       ``(I) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk 
     reduction benefits for which there is a factual basis in the 
     rulemaking record to conclude that such benefits are likely 
     to occur as the result of treatment to comply with each 
     level.
       ``(II) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk 
     reduction benefits for which there is a factual basis in the 
     rulemaking record to conclude that such benefits are likely 
     to occur from reductions in co-occurring contaminants that 
     may be attributed solely to compliance with the maximum 
     contaminant level, excluding benefits resulting from 
     compliance with other proposed or promulgated regulations.
       ``(III) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs for which 
     there is a factual basis in the rulemaking record to conclude 
     that such costs are likely to occur solely as a result of 
     compliance with the maximum contaminant level, including 
     monitoring, treatment, and other costs and excluding costs 
     resulting from compliance with other proposed or promulgated 
     regulations.
       ``(IV) The incremental costs and benefits associated with 
     each alternative maximum contaminant level considered.
       ``(V) The effects of the contaminant on the general 
     population and on groups within the general population such 
     as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, 
     individuals with a history of serious illness, or other 
     subpopulations that are identified as likely to be at greater 
     risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to 
     contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
       ``(VI) Any increased health risk that may occur as the 
     result of compliance, including risks associated with co-
     occurring contaminants.
       ``(VII) Other relevant factors, including the quality and 
     extent of the information, the uncertainties in the analysis 
     supporting subclauses (I) through (VI), and factors with 
     respect to the degree and nature of the risk.

       ``(ii) Treatment techniques.--When proposing a national 
     primary drinking water regulation that includes a treatment 
     technique in accordance with paragraph (7)(A), the 
     Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on an 
     analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs 
     likely to be experienced as the result of compliance with the 
     treatment technique and alternative treatment techniques that 
     are being considered, taking into account, as appropriate, 
     the factors described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) Approaches to measure and value benefits.--The 
     Administrator may identify valid approaches for the 
     measurement and valuation of benefits under this 
     subparagraph, including approaches to identify consumer 
     willingness to pay for reductions in health risks from 
     drinking water contaminants.
       ``(iv) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Administrator, acting through the Office 
     of Ground Water and Drinking Water, to conduct studies, 
     assessments, and analyses in support of regulations or the 
     development of methods, $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1996 through 2003.''.

     SEC. 108. RADON, ARSENIC, AND SULFATE.

       Section 1412(b) is amended by inserting after paragraph 
     (12) the following:
       ``(13) Certain contaminants.--
       ``(A) Radon.--Any proposal published by the Administrator 
     before the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996 to establish a national primary drinking 
     water standard for radon shall be withdrawn by the 
     Administrator. Notwithstanding any provision of any law 
     enacted prior to the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996, within 3 years of such date of enactment, 
     the Administrator shall propose and promulgate a national 
     primary drinking water regulation for radon under this 
     section, as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
     of 1996. In undertaking any risk analysis and benefit cost 
     analysis in connection with the promulgation of such 
     standard, the Administrator shall take into account the costs 
     and benefits of control programs for radon from other 
     sources.
       ``(B) Arsenic.--(i) Notwithstanding the deadlines set forth 
     in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate a 
     national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic 
     pursuant to this subsection, in accordance with the schedule 
     established by this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph, the Administrator shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan for study in support of drinking water 
     rulemaking to reduce the uncertainty in assessing health 
     risks associated with exposure to low levels of arsenic. In 
     conducting such study, the Administrator shall consult with 
     the National Academy of Sciences, other Federal agencies, and 
     interested public and private entities.
       ``(iii) In carrying out the study plan, the Administrator 
     may enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal 
     agencies, State and local governments, and other interested 
     public and private entities.
       ``(iv) The Administrator shall propose a national primary 
     drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than January 
     1, 2000.
       ``(v) Not later than January 1, 2001, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for 
     arsenic.
       ``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001 for the studies 
     required by this paragraph.
       ``(C) Sulfate.--
       ``(i) Additional study.--Prior to promulgating a national 
     primary drinking water regulation for sulfate, the 
     Administrator and the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall jointly conduct an additional 
     study to establish a reliable dose-response relationship for 
     the adverse human health effects that may result from 
     exposure to sulfate in drinking water, including the health 
     effects that may be experienced by groups within the general 
     population (including infants and travelers) that are 
     potentially at greater risk of adverse health effects as the 
     result of such exposure. The study shall be conducted in 
     consultation with interested States, shall be based on the 
     best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies 
     conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific 
     practices.
       ``(ii) Proposed and final rule.--Notwithstanding the 
     deadlines set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator may, 
     pursuant to the authorities of this subsection and after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, promulgate a final 
     national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate. Any 
     such regulation shall include requirements for public 
     notification and options for the provision of alternative 
     water supplies to populations at risk as a means of complying 
     with the regulation in lieu of a best available treatment 
     technology or other means.''.

     SEC. 109. URGENT THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH.

       Section 1412(b) is amended by inserting the following after 
     paragraph (13):
       ``(14) Urgent threats to public health.--The Administrator 
     may promulgate an interim national primary drinking water 
     regulation for a contaminant without making a determination 
     for the contaminant under paragraph (4)(C) or completing the 
     analysis under paragraph (12)(C) to address an urgent threat 
     to public health as determined by the Administrator after 
     consultation with and written response to any comments 
     provided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     acting through the director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention or the director of the National 
     Institutes of Health. A determination for any contaminant in 
     accordance with paragraph (4)(C) subject to an interim 
     regulation under this subparagraph shall be issued, and a 
     completed analysis meeting the requirements of paragraph 
     (12)(C) shall be published, not later than 3 years after the 
     date on which the regulation is promulgated and the 
     regulation shall be repromulgated, or revised if appropriate, 
     not later than 5 years after that date.''.

     SEC. 110. RECYCLING OF FILTER BACKWASH.

       Section 1412(b) is amended by adding the following new 
     paragraph after paragraph (14):
       ``(15) Recycling of filter backwash.--The Administrator 
     shall promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of 
     filter backwash water within the treatment process of a 
     public water system. The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulation not later than 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 
     unless such recycling has been addressed by the 
     Administrator's `enhanced surface water treatment rule' prior 
     to such date.''.

[[Page H6729]]

     SEC. 111. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.

       (a) List of Technologies for Small Systems.--Section 
     1412(b)(4)(E) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(4)(E)), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) The Administrator shall include in the list any 
     technology, treatment technique, or other means that is 
     affordable for small public water systems serving--

       ``(I) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300;
       ``(II) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500; 
     and
       ``(III) a population of 500 or fewer but more than 25;

     and that achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant 
     level or treatment technique, including packaged or modular 
     systems and point-of-entry or point-of-use treatment units. 
     Point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be 
     owned, controlled and maintained by the public water system 
     or by a person under contract with the public water system to 
     ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with 
     the maximum contaminant level or treatment technique and 
     equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers 
     are automatically notified of operational problems. If the 
     American National Standards Institute has issued product 
     standards applicable to a specific type of point-of-entry or 
     point-of-use treatment unit, individual units of that type 
     shall not be accepted for compliance with a maximum 
     contaminant level or treatment technique requirement unless 
     they are independently certified in accordance with such 
     standards.
       ``(iii) Except as provided in clause (v), not later than 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this clause and 
     after consultation with the States, the Administrator shall 
     issue a list of technologies that achieve compliance with the 
     maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for each 
     category of public water systems described in subclauses (I), 
     (II), and (III) of clause (ii) for each national primary 
     drinking water regulation promulgated prior to the date of 
     the enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(iv) The Administrator may, at any time after a national 
     primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated, 
     supplement the list of technologies describing additional or 
     new or innovative treatment technologies that meet the 
     requirements of this paragraph for categories of small public 
     water systems described in subclauses (I), (II) and (III) of 
     clause (ii) that are subject to the regulation.
       ``(v) Within one year after the enactment of this clause, 
     the Administrator shall list technologies that meet the 
     surface water treatment rules for each category of public 
     water systems described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of 
     clause (ii).''.
       (b) Availability of Information on Small System 
     Technologies.--Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300j-4) is amended by 
     adding after subsection (g):
       ``(h) Availability of Information on Small System 
     Technologies.--For purposes of sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 
     1415(e) (relating to small system assistance program), the 
     Administrator may request information on the characteristics 
     of commercially available treatment systems and technologies, 
     including the effectiveness and performance of the systems 
     and technologies under various operating conditions. The 
     Administrator may specify the form, content, and submission 
     date of information to be submitted by manufacturers, States, 
     and other interested persons for the purpose of considering 
     the systems and technologies in the development of 
     regulations or guidance under sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 
     1415(e).''.
 Subtitle B--State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for Public Water 
                                Systems

     SEC. 121. STATE PRIMACY.

       (a) State Primary Enforcement Responsibility.--Section 1413 
     (42 U.S.C. 300g-2) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) has adopted drinking water regulations that are no 
     less stringent than the national primary drinking water 
     regulations promulgated by the Administrator under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 1412 not later than 2 
     years after the date on which the regulations are promulgated 
     by the Administrator, except that the Administrator may 
     provide for an extension of not more than 2 years if, after 
     submission and review of appropriate, adequate documentation 
     from the State, the Administrator determines that the 
     extension is necessary and justified;''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(c) Interim Primary Enforcement Authority.--A State that 
     has primary enforcement authority under this section with 
     respect to each existing national primary drinking water 
     regulation shall be considered to have primary enforcement 
     authority with respect to each new or revised national 
     primary drinking water regulation during the period beginning 
     on the effective date of a regulation adopted and submitted 
     by the State with respect to the new or revised national 
     primary drinking water regulation in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(1) and ending at such time as the 
     Administrator makes a determination under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B) with respect to the regulation.''.
       (b) Emergency Plans.--Section 1413(a)(5) is amended by 
     inserting after ``emergency circumstances'' the following: 
     ``including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other 
     natural disasters, as appropriate''.
                Subtitle C--Notification and Enforcement

     SEC. 131. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

       Section 1414(c) (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Notice to Persons Served.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a public water 
     system shall give notice of each of the following to the 
     persons served by the system:
       ``(A) Notice of any failure on the part of the public water 
     system to--
       ``(i) comply with an applicable maximum contaminant level 
     or treatment technique requirement of, or a testing procedure 
     prescribed by, a national primary drinking water regulation; 
     or
       ``(ii) perform monitoring required by section 1445(a).
       ``(B) If the public water system is subject to a variance 
     granted under subsection (a)(1)(A), (a)(2), or (e) of section 
     1415 for an inability to meet a maximum contaminant level 
     requirement or is subject to an exemption granted under 
     section 1416, notice of--
       ``(i) the existence of the variance or exemption; and
       ``(ii) any failure to comply with the requirements of any 
     schedule prescribed pursuant to the variance or exemption.
       ``(C) Notice of the concentration level of any unregulated 
     contaminant for which the Administrator has required public 
     notice pursuant to paragraph (2)(E).
       ``(2) Form, manner, and frequency of notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall, by regulation, 
     and after consultation with the States, prescribe the manner, 
     frequency, form, and content for giving notice under this 
     subsection. The regulations shall--
       ``(i) provide for different frequencies of notice based on 
     the differences between violations that are intermittent or 
     infrequent and violations that are continuous or frequent; 
     and
       ``(ii) take into account the seriousness of any potential 
     adverse health effects that may be involved.
       ``(B) State requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State may, by rule, establish 
     alternative notification requirements--

       ``(I) with respect to the form and content of notice given 
     under and in a manner in accordance with subparagraph (C); 
     and
       ``(II) with respect to the form and content of notice given 
     under subparagraph (D).

       ``(ii) Contents.--The alternative requirements shall 
     provide the same type and amount of information as required 
     pursuant to this subsection and regulations issued under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) Relationship to section 1413.--Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed or applied to modify the 
     requirements of section 1413.
       ``(C) Violations with potential to have serious adverse 
     effects on human health.--Regulations issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall specify notification procedures for 
     each violation by a public water system that has the 
     potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as 
     a result of short-term exposure. Each notice of violation 
     provided under this subparagraph shall--
       ``(i) be distributed as soon as practicable after the 
     occurrence of the violation, but not later than 24 hours 
     after the occurrence of the violation;
       ``(ii) provide a clear and readily understandable 
     explanation of--

       ``(I) the violation;
       ``(II) the potential adverse effects on human health;
       ``(III) the steps that the public water system is taking to 
     correct the violation; and
       ``(IV) the necessity of seeking alternative water supplies 
     until the violation is corrected;

       ``(iii) be provided to the Administrator or the head of the 
     State agency that has primary enforcement responsibility 
     under section 1413 as soon as practicable, but not later than 
     24 hours after the occurrence of the violation; and
       ``(iv) as required by the State agency in general 
     regulations of the State agency, or on a case-by-case basis 
     after the consultation referred to in clause (iii), 
     considering the health risks involved--

       ``(I) be provided to appropriate broadcast media;
       ``(II) be prominently published in a newspaper of general 
     circulation serving the area not later than 1 day after 
     distribution of a notice pursuant to clause (i) or the date 
     of publication of the next issue of the newspaper; or
       ``(III) be provided by posting or door-to-door notification 
     in lieu of notification by means of broadcast media or 
     newspaper.

       ``(D) Written notice.--
       ``(i) In general.--Regulations issued under subparagraph 
     (A) shall specify notification procedures for violations 
     other than the violations covered by subparagraph (C). The 
     procedures shall specify that a public water system shall 
     provide written notice to each person served by the system by 
     notice (I) in the first bill (if any) prepared after the date 
     of occurrence of the violation, (II) in an annual report 
     issued not later than 1 year after the date of occurrence of 
     the violation, or (III) by mail or direct delivery as soon as 
     practicable, but not later than 1 year after the date of 
     occurrence of the violation.
       ``(ii) Form and manner of notice.--The Administrator shall 
     prescribe the form and manner of the notice to provide a 
     clear and

[[Page H6730]]

     readily understandable explanation of the violation, any 
     potential adverse health effects, and the steps that the 
     system is taking to seek alternative water supplies, if any, 
     until the violation is corrected.
       ``(E) Unregulated contaminants.--The Administrator may 
     require the owner or operator of a public water system to 
     give notice to the persons served by the system of the 
     concentration levels of an unregulated contaminant required 
     to be monitored under section 1445(a).
       ``(3) Reports.--
       ``(A) Annual report by state.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than January 1, 1998, and 
     annually thereafter, each State that has primary enforcement 
     responsibility under section 1413 shall prepare, make readily 
     available to the public, and submit to the Administrator an 
     annual report on violations of national primary drinking 
     water regulations by public water systems in the State, 
     including violations with respect to (I) maximum contaminant 
     levels, (II) treatment requirements, (III) variances and 
     exemptions, and (IV) monitoring requirements determined to be 
     significant by the Administrator after consultation with the 
     States.
       ``(ii) Distribution.--The State shall publish and 
     distribute summaries of the report and indicate where the 
     full report is available for review.
       ``(B) Annual report by administrator.--Not later than July 
     1, 1998, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     prepare and make available to the public an annual report 
     summarizing and evaluating reports submitted by States 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) and notices submitted by public 
     water systems serving Indian Tribes provided to the 
     Administrator pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D) of 
     paragraph (2) and making recommendations concerning the 
     resources needed to improve compliance with this title. The 
     report shall include information about public water system 
     compliance on Indian reservations and about enforcement 
     activities undertaken and financial assistance provided by 
     the Administrator on Indian reservations, and shall make 
     specific recommendations concerning the resources needed to 
     improve compliance with this title on Indian reservations.
       ``(4) Consumer confidence reports by community water 
     systems.--
       ``(A) Annual reports to consumers.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with public water systems, environmental groups, 
     public interest groups, risk communication experts, and the 
     States, and other interested parties, shall issue regulations 
     within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph to require each community water system to mail to 
     each customer of the system at least once annually a report 
     on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed 
     by that system (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as 
     a `consumer confidence report'). Such regulations shall 
     provide a brief and plainly worded definition of the terms 
     `maximum contaminant level goal' and `maximum contaminant 
     level' and brief statements in plain language regarding the 
     health concerns that resulted in regulation of each regulated 
     contaminant. The regulations shall also provide for an 
     Environmental Protection Agency toll-free hot-line that 
     consumers can call for more information and explanation.
       ``(B) Contents of report.--The consumer confidence reports 
     under this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, 
     each of the following:
       ``(i) Information on the source of the water purveyed.
       ``(ii) A brief and plainly worded definition of the terms 
     `maximum contaminant level goal' and `maximum contaminant 
     level', as provided in the regulations of the Administrator.
       ``(iii) If any regulated contaminant is detected in the 
     water purveyed by the public water system, a statement 
     setting forth (I) the maximum contaminant level goal, (II) 
     the maximum contaminant level, (III) the level of such 
     contaminant in such water system, and (IV) for any regulated 
     contaminant for which there has been a violation of the 
     maximum contaminant level during the year concerned, the 
     brief statement in plain language regarding the health 
     concerns that resulted in regulation of such contaminant, as 
     provided by the Administrator in regulations under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(iv) Information on compliance with national primary 
     drinking water regulations.
       ``(v) Information on the levels of unregulated contaminants 
     for which monitoring is required under section 1445(a)(2) 
     (including levels of cryptosporidium and radon where States 
     determine they may be found).
       ``(vi) A statement that more information about contaminants 
     and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the 
     Environmental Protection Agency hot line.

     A public water system may include such additional information 
     as it deems appropriate for public education. The 
     Administrator may, for not more than 3 regulated contaminants 
     other than those referred to in subclause (IV) of clause 
     (iii), require a consumer confidence report under this 
     paragraph to include the brief statement in plain language 
     regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of 
     the contaminant or contaminants concerned, as provided by the 
     Administrator in regulations under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Coverage.--The Governor of a State may determine not 
     to apply the mailing requirement of subparagraph (A) to a 
     community water system serving fewer than 10,000 persons. Any 
     such system shall--
       ``(i) inform its customers that the system will not be 
     complying with subparagraph (A),
       ``(ii) make information available upon request to the 
     public regarding the quality of the water supplied by such 
     system, and
       ``(iii) publish the report referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     annually in one or more local newspapers serving the area in 
     which customers of the system are located.
       ``(D) Alternative form and content.--A State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility may establish, by rule, 
     after notice and public comment, alternative requirements 
     with respect to the form and content of consumer confidence 
     reports under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 132. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1414 (42 U.S.C. 300g-3) is amended 
     as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a):
       (A) In paragraph (1)(A)(i), by striking ``any national 
     primary drinking water regulation in effect under section 
     1412'' and inserting ``any applicable requirement'', and by 
     striking ``with such regulation or requirement'' in the 
     matter following clause (ii) and inserting ``with the 
     requirement''.
       (B) In paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``regulation or'' and 
     inserting ``applicable''.
       (C) By amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Enforcement in nonprimacy states.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, on the basis of information 
     available to the Administrator, the Administrator finds, with 
     respect to a period in which a State does not have primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems, that a 
     public water system in the State--
       ``(i) for which a variance under section 1415 or an 
     exemption under section 1416 is not in effect, does not 
     comply with any applicable requirement; or
       ``(ii) for which a variance under section 1415 or an 
     exemption under section 1416 is in effect, does not comply 
     with any schedule or other requirement imposed pursuant to 
     the variance or exemption;

     the Administrator shall issue an order under subsection (g) 
     requiring the public water system to comply with the 
     requirement, or commence a civil action under subsection (b).
       ``(B) Notice.--If the Administrator takes any action 
     pursuant to this paragraph, the Administrator shall notify an 
     appropriate local elected official, if any, with jurisdiction 
     over the public water system of the action prior to the time 
     that the action is taken.''.
       (2) In subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``a national primary drinking water regulation'' and 
     inserting ``any applicable requirement''.
       (3) In subsection (g):
       (A) In paragraph (1), by striking ``regulation, schedule, 
     or other'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``applicable''.
       (B) In paragraph (2), by striking ``effect until after 
     notice and opportunity for public hearing and,'' and 
     inserting ``effect,'', and by striking ``proposed order'' and 
     inserting ``order'', in the first sentence and in the second 
     sentence, by striking ``proposed to be''.
       (C) In paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) In a case in which a civil penalty sought by the 
     Administrator under this paragraph does not exceed $5,000, 
     the penalty shall be assessed by the Administrator after 
     notice and opportunity for a public hearing (unless the 
     person against whom the penalty is assessed requests a 
     hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of title 
     5, United States Code). In a case in which a civil penalty 
     sought by the Administrator under this paragraph exceeds 
     $5,000, but does not exceed $25,000, the penalty shall be 
     assessed by the Administrator after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of 
     title 5, United States Code.''.
       (D) In paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``paragraph exceeds 
     $5,000'' and inserting ``subsection for a violation of an 
     applicable requirement exceeds $25,000''.
       (4) By adding at the end the following subsections:
       ``(h) Relief.--
       ``(1) In general.--An owner or operator of a public water 
     system may submit to the State in which the system is located 
     (if the State has primary enforcement responsibility under 
     section 1413) or to the Administrator (if the State does not 
     have primary enforcement responsibility) a plan (including 
     specific measures and schedules) for--
       ``(A) the physical consolidation of the system with 1 or 
     more other systems;
       ``(B) the consolidation of significant management and 
     administrative functions of the system with 1 or more other 
     systems; or
       ``(C) the transfer of ownership of the system that may 
     reasonably be expected to improve drinking water quality.
       ``(2) Consequences of approval.--If the State or the 
     Administrator approves a plan pursuant to paragraph (1), no 
     enforcement action shall be taken pursuant to this part with 
     respect to a specific violation identified in the approved 
     plan prior to the date that is the earlier of the date on 
     which consolidation is completed according to the plan or the 
     date that is 2 years after the plan is approved.
       ``(i) Definition of Applicable Requirement.--In this 
     section, the term `applicable requirement' means--
       ``(1) a requirement of section 1412, 1414, 1415, 1416, 
     1417, 1441, or 1445;

[[Page H6731]]

       ``(2) a regulation promulgated pursuant to a section 
     referred to in paragraph (1);
       ``(3) a schedule or requirement imposed pursuant to a 
     section referred to in paragraph (1); and
       ``(4) a requirement of, or permit issued under, an 
     applicable State program for which the Administrator has made 
     a determination that the requirements of section 1413 have 
     been satisfied, or an applicable State program approved 
     pursuant to this part.''.
       (b) State Authority for Administrative Penalties.--Section 
     1413(a) (42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)) is amended as follows:
       (1) In paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end 
     thereof.
       (2) In paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''.
       (3) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) has adopted authority for administrative penalties 
     (unless the constitution of the State prohibits the adoption 
     of the authority) in a maximum amount--
       ``(A) in the case of a system serving a population of more 
     than 10,000, that is not less than $1,000 per day per 
     violation; and
       ``(B) in the case of any other system, that is adequate to 
     ensure compliance (as determined by the State);

     except that a State may establish a maximum limitation on the 
     total amount of administrative penalties that may be imposed 
     on a public water system per violation.''.

     SEC. 133. JUDICIAL REVIEW

       Section 1448(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-7(a)) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In paragraph (2), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``final'' after ``any other''.
       (2) In the matter after and below paragraph (2):
       (A) By striking ``or issuance of the order'' and inserting 
     ``or any other final Agency action''.
       (B) By adding at the end the following: ``In any petition 
     concerning the assessment of a civil penalty pursuant to 
     section 1414(g)(3)(B), the petitioner shall simultaneously 
     send a copy of the complaint by certified mail to the 
     Administrator and the Attorney General. The court shall set 
     aside and remand the penalty order if the court finds that 
     there is not substantial evidence in the record to support 
     the finding of a violation or that the assessment of the 
     penalty by the Administrator constitutes an abuse of 
     discretion.''.
                  Subtitle D--Exemptions and Variances

     SEC. 141. EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) Systems Serving Fewer Than 3,300 Persons.--Section 1416 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(h) Small Systems.--(1) For public water systems serving 
     fewer than 3,300 persons, the maximum exemption period shall 
     be 4 years if the State is exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems and determines that--
       ``(A) the public water system cannot meet the maximum 
     contaminant level or install Best Available Affordable 
     Technology (`BAAT') due in either case to compelling economic 
     circumstances (taking into consideration the availability of 
     financial assistance under section 1452, relating to State 
     Revolving Funds) or other compelling circumstances;
       ``(B) the public water system could not comply with the 
     maximum contaminant level through the use of alternate water 
     supplies;
       ``(C) the granting of the exemption will provide a drinking 
     water supply that protects public health given the duration 
     of exemption; and
       ``(D) the State has met the requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2)(A) Before issuing an exemption under this section or 
     an extension thereof for a small public water system 
     described in paragraph (1), the State shall--
       ``(i) examine the public water system's technical, 
     financial, and managerial capability (taking into 
     consideration any available financial assistance) to operate 
     in and maintain compliance with this title, and
       ``(ii) determine if management or restructuring changes (or 
     both) can reasonably be made that will result in compliance 
     with this title or, if compliance cannot be achieved, improve 
     the quality of the drinking water.
       ``(B) Management changes referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     may include rate increases, accounting changes, the hiring of 
     consultants, the appointment of a technician with expertise 
     in operating such systems, contractual arrangements for a 
     more efficient and capable system for joint operation, or 
     other reasonable strategies to improve capacity.
       ``(C) Restructuring changes referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     may include ownership change, physical consolidation with 
     another system, or other measures to otherwise improve 
     customer base and gain economies of scale.
       ``(D) If the State determines that management or 
     restructuring changes referred to in subparagraph (A) can 
     reasonably be made, it shall require such changes and a 
     schedule therefore as a condition of the exemption. If the 
     State determines to the contrary, the State may still grant 
     the exemption. The decision of the State under this 
     subparagraph shall not be subject to review by the 
     Administrator, except as provided in subsection (d).
       ``(3) Paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to an exemption issued under this subsection. 
     Subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(2) shall not apply to an 
     exemption issued under this subsection, but any exemption 
     granted to such a system may be renewed for additional 4-year 
     periods upon application of the public water system and after 
     a determination that the criteria of paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of this subsection continue to be met.
       ``(4) No exemption may be issued under this section for 
     microbiological contaminants.''.
       (b) Limited Additional Compliance Period.--At the end of 
     section 1416(h) insert:
       ``(5)(A) Notwithstanding this subsection, the State of New 
     York, on a case-by-case basis and after notice and an 
     opportunity of at least 60 days for public comment, may allow 
     an additional period for compliance with the Surface Water 
     Treatment Rule established pursuant to section 1412(b)(7)(C) 
     in the case of unfiltered systems in Essex, Columbia, Greene, 
     Dutchess, Rennsselaer, Schoharie, Saratoga, Washington, and 
     Warren Counties serving a population of less than 5,000, 
     which meet appropriate disinfection requirements and have 
     adequate watershed protections, so long as the State 
     determines that the public health will be protected during 
     the duration of the additional compliance period and the 
     system agrees to implement appropriate control measures as 
     determined by the State.
       ``(B) The additional compliance period referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall expire on the earlier of the date 3 
     years after the date on which the Administrator identifies 
     appropriate control technology for the Surface Water 
     Treatment Rule for public water systems in the category that 
     includes such system pursuant to section 1412(b)(4)(E) or 5 
     years after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 
     1416(b)(1) is amended by striking ``prescribed by a State 
     pursuant to this subsection'' and inserting ``prescribed by a 
     State pursuant to this subsection or subsection (h)''.
       (2) Section 1416(c) is amended by striking ``under 
     subsection (a)'' and inserting ``under this section'' and by 
     inserting after ``(a)(3)'' in the second sentence ``or the 
     determination under subsection (h)(1)(C)''.
       (3) Section 1416(d)(1) is amended by striking ``3-year'' 
     and inserting ``4-year'' and by amending the first sentence 
     to read as follows: ``Not later than 4 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1996, the Administrator shall complete a comprehensive review 
     of the exemptions granted (and schedules prescribed pursuant 
     thereto) by the States during the 4-year period beginning on 
     such date.''.
       (4) Section 1416(b)(2)(C) is repealed.
       (d) Systems Serving More Than 3,300 Persons.--Section 
     1416(b)(2)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ``12 months'' and 
     inserting ``4 years'' and section 1416(b)(2)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``3 years after the date of the issuance of the 
     exemption'' and inserting ``4 years after the expiration of 
     the initial exemption''.

     SEC. 142. VARIANCES.

       (a) BAAT Variance.--Section 1415 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4) is 
     amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(e) Small System Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) BAAT variances.--In the case of public water systems 
     serving 3,300 persons or fewer, a variance under this section 
     shall be granted by a State which has primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems allowing the use of 
     Best Available Affordable Technology in lieu of best 
     technology or other means where--
       ``(A) no best technology or other means is listed under 
     section 1412(b)(4)(E) for the applicable category of public 
     water systems;
       ``(B) the Administrator has identified BAAT for that 
     contaminant pursuant to paragraph (3); and
       ``(C) the State finds that the conditions in paragraph (4) 
     are met.
       ``(2) Definition of baat.--The term `Best Available 
     Affordable Technology' or `BAAT' means the most effective 
     technology or other means for the control of a drinking water 
     contaminant or contaminants that is available and affordable 
     to systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons.
       ``(3) Identification of baat.--(A) As part of each national 
     primary drinking water regulation proposed and promulgated 
     after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
     of 1996, the Administrator shall identify BAAT in any case 
     where no `best technology or other means' is listed for a 
     category of public water systems listed under section 
     1412(b)(4)(E). No such identified BAAT shall require a 
     technology from a specific manufacturer or brand. BAAT need 
     not be adequate to achieve the applicable maximum contaminant 
     level or treatment technique, but shall bring the public 
     water system as close to achievement of such maximum 
     contaminant level as practical or as close to the level of 
     health protection provided by such treatment technique as 
     practical, as the case may be. Any technology or other means 
     identified as BAAT must be determined by the Administrator to 
     be protective of public health. Simultaneously with 
     identification of BAAT, the Administrator shall list any 
     assumptions underlying the public health determination 
     referred to in the preceding sentence, where such assumptions 
     concern the public water system to which the technology may 
     be applied, or its source waters. The Administrator shall 
     provide the assumptions used in determining affordability, 
     taking into consideration the number of persons served by 
     such systems. Such listing shall provide as much reliable 
     information as practicable on performance, effectiveness, 
     limitations, costs, and other

[[Page H6732]]

     relevant factors in support of such listing, including the 
     applicability of BAAT to surface and underground waters or 
     both.
       ``(B) To the greatest extent possible, within 36 months 
     after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrator shall identify BAAT 
     for all national primary drinking water regulations 
     promulgated prior to such date of enactment where no best 
     technology or other means is listed for a category of public 
     water systems under section 1412(b)(4)(E), and where 
     compliance by such small systems is not practical. In 
     identifying BAAT for such national primary drinking water 
     regulations, the Administrator shall give priority to 
     evaluation of atrazine, asbestos, selenium, 
     pentachlorophenol, antimony, and nickel.
       ``(4) Conditions for baat variance.--To grant a variance 
     under this subsection, the State must determine that--
       ``(A) the public water system cannot install `best 
     technology or other means' because of the system's small 
     size;
       ``(B) the public water system could not comply with the 
     maximum contaminant level through use of alternate water 
     supplies or through management changes or restructuring;
       ``(C) the public water system has the capacity to operate 
     and maintain BAAT; and
       ``(D) the circumstances of the public water system are 
     consistent with the public health assumptions identified by 
     the Administrator under paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Schedules.--Any variance granted by a State under 
     this subsection shall establish a schedule for the 
     installation and operation of BAAT within a period not to 
     exceed 2 years after the issuance of the variance, except 
     that the State may grant an extension of 1 additional year 
     upon application by the system. The application shall include 
     a showing of financial or technical need. Variances under 
     this subsection shall be for a term not to exceed 5 years 
     (including the period allowed for installation and operation 
     of BAAT), but may be renewed for such additional 5-year 
     periods by the State upon a finding that the criteria in 
     paragraph (1) continue to be met.
       ``(6) Review.--Any review by the Administrator under 
     paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1)(G)(i).
       ``(7) Ineligibility for variances.--A variance shall not be 
     available under this subsection for--
       ``(A) any maximum contaminant level or treatment technique 
     for a contaminant with respect to which a national primary 
     drinking water regulation was promulgated prior to January 1, 
     1986; or
       ``(B) a national primary drinking water regulation for a 
     microbial contaminant (including a bacterium, virus, or other 
     organism) or an indicator or treatment technique for a 
     microbial contaminant.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Changes.--
       Section 1415 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``best technology, treatment techniques, or 
     other means'' and ``best available technology, treatment 
     techniques or other means'' each place such terms appear and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``best technology or other means''.
       (2) By striking the third sentence and by striking ``Before 
     a schedule prescribed by a State pursuant to this 
     subparagraph may take effect'' and all that follows down to 
     the beginning of the last sentence in subsection (a)(1)(A).
       (3) By amending the first sentence of subsection (a)(1)(C) 
     to read as follows: ``Before a variance is issued and a 
     schedule is prescribed pursuant to this subsection or 
     subsection (e) by a State, the State shall provide notice and 
     an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed variance 
     and schedule.''.
       (4) By inserting ``under this section'' before the period 
     at the end of the third sentence of subsection (a)(1)(C).
       (5) By striking ``under subparagraph (A)'' and inserting 
     ``under this section'' in subsection (a)(1)(D).
       (6) By striking ``that subparagraph'' in each place it 
     appears and insert in each such place ``this section'' in 
     subsection (a)(1)(D).
       (7) By striking the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(D).
       (8) By striking ``3-year'' and inserting ``5-year'' in 
     subsection (a)(1)(F) and by amending the first sentence of 
     such subsection (a)(1)(F) to read as follows: ``Not later 
     than 5 years after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrator shall complete a 
     review of the variances granted under this section (and the 
     schedules prescribed in connection with such variances).''.
       (9) By striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``this section'' in subsection (a)(1)(G)(i).
       (10) By striking ``paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``this section'' in subsection (b).
       (11) By striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this 
     section'' in subsection (c).
       (12) By repealing subsection (d).
                  Subtitle E--Lead Plumbing and Pipes

     SEC. 151. LEAD PLUMBING AND PIPES.

       Section 1417 (42 U.S.C. 300g-6) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Prohibitions.--
       ``(A) In general.--No person may use any pipe, any pipe or 
     plumbing fitting or fixture, any solder, or any flux, after 
     June 19, 1986, in the installation or repair of--
       ``(i) any public water system; or
       ``(ii) any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential 
     facility providing water for human consumption,

     that is not lead free (within the meaning of subsection (d)).
       ``(B) Leaded joints.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
     leaded joints necessary for the repair of cast iron pipes.''.
       (2) In subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting ``owner or 
     operator of a'' after ``Each''.
       (3) By adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
       ``(3) Unlawful acts.--Effective 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, it shall be unlawful--
       ``(A) for any person to introduce into commerce any pipe, 
     or any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, that is not lead 
     free, except for a pipe that is used in manufacturing or 
     industrial processing;
       ``(B) for any person engaged in the business of selling 
     plumbing supplies, except manufacturers, to sell solder or 
     flux that is not lead free; or
       ``(C) for any person to introduce into commerce any solder 
     or flux that is not lead free unless the solder or flux bears 
     a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the 
     solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing 
     providing water for human consumption.''.
       (4) In subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``lead, and'' in paragraph (1) and 
     inserting ``lead;'';
       (B) by striking ``lead.'' in paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``lead; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) when used with respect to plumbing fittings and 
     fixtures, refers to plumbing fittings and fixtures in 
     compliance with standards established in accordance with 
     subsection (e).''.
       (5) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide accurate 
     and timely technical information and assistance to qualified 
     third-party certifiers in the development of voluntary 
     standards and testing protocols for the leaching of lead from 
     new plumbing fittings and fixtures that are intended by the 
     manufacturer to dispense water for human ingestion.
       ``(2) Standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a voluntary standard for the leaching 
     of lead is not established by the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, promulgate regulations setting a health-
     effects-based performance standard establishing maximum 
     leaching levels from new plumbing fittings and fixtures that 
     are intended by the manufacturer to dispense water for human 
     ingestion. The standard shall become effective on the date 
     that is 5 years after the date of promulgation of the 
     standard.
       ``(B) Alternative requirement.--If regulations are required 
     to be promulgated under subparagraph (A) and have not been 
     promulgated by the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, no person may import, 
     manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce a new 
     plumbing fitting or fixture, intended by the manufacturer to 
     dispense water for human ingestion, that contains more than 4 
     percent lead by dry weight.''.
                    Subtitle F--Capacity Development

     SEC. 161. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.

       Part B (42 U.S.C. 300g et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``SEC. 1419. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) State Authority for New Systems.--Each State shall 
     obtain the legal authority or other means to ensure that all 
     new community water systems and new nontransient, 
     noncommunity water systems commencing operation after October 
     1, 1999, demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial 
     capacity with respect to each national primary drinking water 
     regulation in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date 
     of commencement of operations.
       ``(b) Systems in Significant Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) List.--Beginning not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this section, each State shall prepare, 
     periodically update, and submit to the Administrator a list 
     of community water systems and nontransient, noncommunity 
     water systems that have a history of significant 
     noncompliance with this title (as defined in guidelines 
     issued prior to the date of enactment of this section or any 
     revisions of the guidelines that have been made in 
     consultation with the States) and, to the extent practicable, 
     the reasons for noncompliance.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section and as part of the capacity 
     development strategy of the State, each State shall report to 
     the Administrator on the success of enforcement mechanisms 
     and initial capacity development efforts in assisting the 
     public water systems listed under paragraph (1) to improve 
     technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
       ``(c) Capacity Development Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, each State shall develop and 
     implement a strategy to assist public water systems in 
     acquiring and maintaining technical, managerial, and 
     financial capacity.

[[Page H6733]]

       ``(2) Content.--In preparing the capacity development 
     strategy, the State shall consider, solicit public comment 
     on, and include as appropriate--
       ``(A) the methods or criteria that the State will use to 
     identify and prioritize the public water systems most in need 
     of improving technical, managerial, and financial capacity;
       ``(B) a description of the institutional, regulatory, 
     financial, tax, or legal factors at the Federal, State, or 
     local level that encourage or impair capacity development;
       ``(C) a description of how the State will use the 
     authorities and resources of this title or other means to--
       ``(i) assist public water systems in complying with 
     national primary drinking water regulations;
       ``(ii) encourage the development of partnerships between 
     public water systems to enhance the technical, managerial, 
     and financial capacity of the systems; and
       ``(iii) assist public water systems in the training and 
     certification of operators;
       ``(D) a description of how the State will establish a 
     baseline and measure improvements in capacity with respect to 
     national primary drinking water regulations and State 
     drinking water law; and
       ``(E) an identification of the persons that have an 
     interest in and are involved in the development and 
     implementation of the capacity development strategy 
     (including all appropriate agencies of Federal, State, and 
     local governments, private and nonprofit public water 
     systems, and public water system customers).
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which a State first adopts a capacity development strategy 
     under this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the head 
     of the State agency that has primary responsibility to carry 
     out this title in the State shall submit to the Governor a 
     report that shall also be available to the public on the 
     efficacy of the strategy and progress made toward improving 
     the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of public 
     water systems in the State.
       ``(4) Review.--The decisions of the State under this 
     section regarding any particular public water system are not 
     subject to review by the Administrator and may not serve as 
     the basis for withholding funds under section 
     1452(a)(1)(H)(i).
       ``(d) Federal Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall support the 
     States in developing capacity development strategies.
       ``(2) Informational assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
       ``(i) conduct a review of State capacity development 
     efforts in existence on the date of enactment of this section 
     and publish information to assist States and public water 
     systems in capacity development efforts; and
       ``(ii) initiate a partnership with States, public water 
     systems, and the public to develop information for States on 
     recommended operator certification requirements.
       ``(B) Publication of information.--The Administrator shall 
     publish the information developed through the partnership 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii) not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) Promulgation of drinking water regulations.--In 
     promulgating a national primary drinking water regulation, 
     the Administrator shall include an analysis of the likely 
     effect of compliance with the regulation on the technical, 
     financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems.
       ``(4) Guidance for new systems.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Administrator shall publish guidance developed in 
     consultation with the States describing legal authorities and 
     other means to ensure that all new community water systems 
     and new nontransient, noncommunity water systems demonstrate 
     technical, managerial, and financial capacity with respect to 
     national primary drinking water regulations.''.
                     TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO PART C

     SEC. 201. SOURCE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Guidelines and Programs.--Section 1428 is amended by 
     adding ``and source water'' after ``WELLHEAD'' in the section 
     heading and by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(l) Source Water Assessment.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--Within 12 months after enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, after notice and 
     comment, the Administrator shall publish guidance for States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems to carry out directly or through delegation 
     (for the protection and benefit of public water systems and 
     for the support of monitoring flexibility) a source water 
     assessment program within the State's boundaries.
       ``(2) Program requirements.--A source water assessment 
     program under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in 
     such State from which one or more public water systems in the 
     State receive supplies of drinking water, using all 
     reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources 
     of the supply of drinking water in the State and the water 
     flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reliable 
     information as the State deems necessary to adequately 
     determine such areas; and
       ``(B) identify for contaminants regulated under this title 
     for which monitoring is required under this title (or any 
     unregulated contaminants selected by the State in its 
     discretion which the State, for the purposes of this 
     subsection, has determined may present a threat to public 
     health), to the extent practical, the origins within each 
     delineated area of such contaminants to determine the 
     susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated 
     area to such contaminants.
       ``(3) Approval, implementation, and monitoring relief.--A 
     State source water assessment program under this subsection 
     shall be submitted to the Administrator within 18 months 
     after the Administrator's guidance is issued under this 
     subsection and shall be deemed approved 9 months after the 
     date of such submittal unless the Administrator disapproves 
     the program as provided in subsection (c). States shall begin 
     implementation of the program immediately after its approval. 
     The Administrator's approval of a State program under this 
     subsection shall include a timetable, established in 
     consultation with the State, allowing not more than 2 years 
     for completion after approval of the program. Public water 
     systems seeking monitoring relief in addition to the interim 
     relief provided under section 1418(a) shall be eligible for 
     monitoring relief, consistent with section 1418(b), upon 
     completion of the assessment in the delineated source water 
     assessment area or areas concerned.
       ``(4) Timetable.--The timetable referred to in paragraph 
     (3) shall take into consideration the availability to the 
     State of funds under section 1452 (relating to State 
     Revolving Funds) for assessments and other relevant factors. 
     The Administrator may extend any timetable included in a 
     State program approved under paragraph (3) to extend the 
     period for completion by an additional 18 months. Compliance 
     with subsection (g) shall not affect any State permanent 
     monitoring flexibility program approved under section 
     1418(b).
       ``(5) Demonstration project.--The Administrator shall, as 
     soon as practicable, conduct a demonstration project, in 
     consultation with other Federal agencies, to demonstrate the 
     most effective and protective means of assessing and 
     protecting source waters serving large metropolitan areas and 
     located on Federal lands.
       ``(6) Use of other programs.--To avoid duplication and to 
     encourage efficiency, the program under this section shall, 
     to the extent practicable, be coordinated with other existing 
     programs and mechanisms, and may make use of any of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Vulnerability assessments, sanitary surveys, and 
     monitoring programs.
       ``(B) Delineations or assessments of ground water sources 
     under a State wellhead protection program developed pursuant 
     to this section.
       ``(C) Delineations or assessments of surface or ground 
     water sources under a State pesticide management plan 
     developed pursuant to the Pesticide and Ground Water State 
     Management Plan Regulation (subparts I and J of part 152 of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations), promulgated under 
     section 3(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(d)).
       ``(D) Delineations or assessments of surface water sources 
     under a State watershed initiative or to satisfy the 
     watershed criterion for determining if filtration is required 
     under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (section 141.70 of 
     title 40, Code of Federal Regulations).
       ``(7) Public availability.--The State shall make the 
     results of the source water assessments conducted under this 
     subsection available to the public.''.
       (b) Approval and Disapproval of State Programs.--Section 
     1428 is amended as follows:
       (1) Amend the first sentence of subsection (c)(1) to read 
     as follows: ``If, in the judgment of the Administrator, a 
     State program or portion thereof under subsection (a) is not 
     adequate to protect public water systems as required by 
     subsection (a) or a State program under subsection (l) or 
     section 1418(b) does not meet the applicable requirements of 
     subsection (l) or section 1418(b), the Administrator shall 
     disapprove such program or portion thereof.''.
       (2) Add after the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) the 
     following: ``A State program developed pursuant to subsection 
     (l) or section 1418(b) shall be deemed to meet the applicable 
     requirements of subsection (l) or section 1418(b) unless the 
     Administrator determines within 9 months of the receipt of 
     the program that such program (or portion thereof) does not 
     meet such requirements.''.
       (3) In the third sentence of subsection (c)(1) and in 
     subsection (c)(2) strike ``is inadequate'' and insert ``is 
     disapproved''.
       (4) In subsection (b), add the following before the period 
     at the end of the first sentence: ``and source water 
     assessment programs under subsection (l)''.
       (5) In subsection (g)--
       (A) insert after ``under this section'' the following: 
     ``and the State source water assessment programs under 
     subsection (l) for which the State uses grants under section 
     1452 (relating to State Revolving Funds)''; and
       (B) strike ``Such'' in the last sentence and inserting ``In 
     the case of wellhead protection programs, such''.

     SEC. 202. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Part C (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

[[Page H6734]]

     ``SEC. 1429. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each department, agency, and 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
     branches of the Federal Government--
       ``(1) owning or operating any facility in a wellhead 
     protection area,
       ``(2) engaged in any activity at such facility resulting, 
     or which may result, in the contamination of water supplies 
     in any such area, or
       ``(3) owning or operating any public water system,

     shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, 
     interstate, and local requirements, both substantive and 
     procedural (including any requirement for permits or 
     reporting or any provisions for injunctive relief and such 
     sanctions as may be imposed by a court to enforce such 
     relief), respecting the protection of such wellhead areas and 
     respecting such public water systems in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as any person is subject to such 
     requirements, including the payment of reasonable service 
     charges. The Federal, State, interstate, and local 
     substantive and procedural requirements referred to in this 
     subsection include, but are not limited to, all 
     administrative orders and all civil and administrative 
     penalties and fines, regardless of whether such penalties or 
     fines are punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for 
     isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations. The United 
     States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise 
     applicable to the United States with respect to any such 
     substantive or procedural requirement (including, but not 
     limited to, any injunctive relief, administrative order or 
     civil or administrative penalty or fine referred to in the 
     preceding sentence, or reasonable service charge). The 
     reasonable service charges referred to in this subsection 
     include, but are not limited to, fees or charges assessed in 
     connection with the processing and issuance of permits, 
     renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of plans, 
     studies, and other documents, and inspection and monitoring 
     of facilities, as well as any other nondiscriminatory charges 
     that are assessed in connection with a Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local regulatory program respecting the 
     protection of wellhead areas or public water systems. Neither 
     the United States, nor any agent, employee, or officer 
     thereof, shall be immune or exempt from any process or 
     sanction of any State or Federal Court with respect to the 
     enforcement of any such injunctive relief. No agent, 
     employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
     liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local law concerning the protection of 
     wellhead areas or public water systems with respect to any 
     act or omission within the scope of the official duties of 
     the agent, employee, or officer. An agent, employee, or 
     officer of the United States shall be subject to any criminal 
     sanction (including, but not limited to, any fine or 
     imprisonment) under any Federal or State requirement adopted 
     pursuant to this title, but no department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial 
     branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such 
     sanction. The President may exempt any facility of any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive 
     branch from compliance with such a requirement if he 
     determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United 
     States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted due to 
     lack of appropriation unless the President shall have 
     specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the 
     budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make 
     available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall 
     be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional 
     exemptions may be granted for periods not to exceed 1 year 
     upon the President's making a new determination. The 
     President shall report each January to the Congress all 
     exemptions from the requirements of this section granted 
     during the preceding calendar year, together with his reason 
     for granting each such exemption.
       ``(b) Administrative Penalty Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Administrator finds that a 
     Federal agency has violated an applicable requirement under 
     this title, the Administrator may issue a penalty order 
     assessing a penalty against the Federal agency.
       ``(2) Penalties.--The Administrator may, after notice to 
     the agency, assess a civil penalty against the agency in an 
     amount not to exceed $25,000 per day per violation.
       ``(3) Procedure.--Before an administrative penalty order 
     issued under this subsection becomes final, the Administrator 
     shall provide the agency an opportunity to confer with the 
     Administrator and shall provide the agency notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with 
     chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(4) Public review.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any interested person may obtain review 
     of an administrative penalty order issued under this 
     subsection. The review may be obtained in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United 
     States District Court for the district in which the violation 
     is alleged to have occurred by the filing of a complaint with 
     the court within the 30-day period beginning on the date the 
     penalty order becomes final. The person filing the complaint 
     shall simultaneously send a copy of the complaint by 
     certified mail to the Administrator and the Attorney General.
       ``(B) Record.--The Administrator shall promptly file in the 
     court a certified copy of the record on which the order was 
     issued.
       ``(C) Standard of review.--The court shall not set aside or 
     remand the order unless the court finds that there is not 
     substantial evidence in the record, taken as a whole, to 
     support the finding of a violation or that the assessment of 
     the penalty by the Administrator constitutes an abuse of 
     discretion.
       ``(D) Prohibition on additional penalties.--The court may 
     not impose an additional civil penalty for a violation that 
     is subject to the order unless the court finds that the 
     assessment constitutes an abuse of discretion by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds Collected From 
     Federal Government.--Unless a State law in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1996 or a State constitution requires the funds to be used in 
     a different manner, all funds collected by a State from the 
     Federal Government from penalties and fines imposed for 
     violation of any substantive or procedural requirement 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by the State only 
     for projects designed to improve or protect the environment 
     or to defray the costs of environmental protection or 
     enforcement.''.
       (b) Citizen Enforcement.--(1) The first sentence of section 
     1449(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-8(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) for the collection of a penalty by the United States 
     Government (and associated costs and interest) against any 
     Federal agency that fails, by the date that is 18 months 
     after the effective date of a final order to pay a penalty 
     assessed by the Administrator under section 1429(b), to pay 
     the penalty.''.
       (2) Subsection (b) of section 1449 (42 U.S.C. 300j-8(b)) is 
     amended, by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) 
     and inserting ``; or'' and by adding the following new 
     paragraph after paragraph (2):
       ``(3) under subsection (a)(3) prior to 60 days after the 
     plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Attorney 
     General and to the Federal agency.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1447 (42 U.S.C. 300j-6) 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a):
       (A) In the first sentence, by striking ``(1) having 
     jurisdiction over any federally owned or maintained public 
     water system or (2)''.
       (B) In the first sentence, by striking out ``respecting the 
     provision of safe drinking water and''.
       (C) In the second sentence, by striking ``(A)'', ``(B)'', 
     and ``(C)'' and inserting ``(1)'', ``(2)'', and ``(3)'', 
     respectively.
       (2) In subsection (c), by striking ``the Safe Drinking 
     Water Amendments of 1977'' and inserting ``this title'' and 
     by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``this title''.
    TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

     SEC. 301. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION.

       Section 1442 is amended by adding the following after 
     subsection (e):
       ``(f) Minimum Standards.--(1) Not later than 30 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996 and after consultation with States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
     specifying minimum standards for certification (and 
     recertification) of the operators of community and 
     nontransient noncommunity public water systems. Such 
     regulations shall take into account existing State programs, 
     the complexity of the system and other factors aimed at 
     providing an effective program at reasonable cost to States 
     and public water systems, taking into account the size of the 
     system.
       ``(2) Any State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems shall adopt and 
     implement, within 2 years after the promulgation of 
     regulations pursuant to paragraph (1), requirements for the 
     certification of operators of community and nontransient 
     noncommunity public water systems.
       ``(3) For any State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems which has an operator 
     certification program in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, the 
     regulations under paragraph (1) shall allow the State to 
     enforce such program in lieu of the regulations under 
     paragraph (1) if the State submits the program to the 
     Administrator within 18 months after the promulgation of such 
     regulations unless the Administrator determines (within 9 
     months after the State submits the program to the 
     Administrator) that such program is not substantially 
     equivalent to such regulations. In making this determination, 
     such existing State programs shall be presumed to be 
     substantially equivalent to the regulations, notwithstanding 
     program differences, based on the size of systems or the 
     quality of source water, providing State programs meet 
     overall public health objectives of the regulations. If 
     disapproved the program may be resubmitted within 6 months 
     after receipt of notice of disapproval.''.

     SEC. 302. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 1442(e) (42 U.S.C. 300j-1(e)), relating to 
     technical assistance for small systems, is amended to read as 
     follows:

[[Page H6735]]

       ``(e) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator may provide 
     technical assistance to small public water systems to enable 
     such systems to achieve and maintain compliance with 
     applicable national primary drinking water regulations. Such 
     assistance may include circuit-rider programs, training, and 
     preliminary engineering evaluations. There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Administrator to be used for such 
     technical assistance $15,000,000 for fiscal years 1997 
     through 2003. No portion of any State revolving fund 
     established under section 1452 (relating to State revolving 
     funds) and no portion of any funds made available under this 
     subsection may be used either directly or indirectly for 
     lobbying expenses. Of the total amount appropriated under 
     this subsection, 3 percent shall be used for technical 
     assistance to public water systems owned or operated by 
     Indian tribes.''.

     SEC. 303. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM.

       Section 1443(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-2(a)) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Authorization.--For the purpose  of making grants 
     under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003.''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Reservation of funds by the administrator.--If the 
     Administrator assumes the primary enforcement responsibility 
     of a State public water system supervision program, the 
     Administrator may reserve from funds made available pursuant 
     to this subsection, an amount equal to the amount that would 
     otherwise have been provided to the State pursuant to this 
     subsection. The Administrator shall use the funds reserved 
     pursuant to this paragraph to ensure the full and effective 
     administration of a public water system supervision program 
     in the State.
       ``(9) State loan funds.--For any fiscal year for which the 
     amount made available to the Administrator by appropriations 
     to carry out this subsection is less than the amount that the 
     Administrator determines is necessary to supplement funds 
     made available pursuant to paragraph (8) to ensure the full 
     and effective administration of a public water system 
     supervision program in a State, the Administrator may reserve 
     from the funds made available to the State under section 1452 
     (relating to State revolving funds) an amount that is equal 
     to the amount of the shortfall. This paragraph shall not 
     apply to any State not exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems as of the date of 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996.''.

     SEC. 304. MONITORING AND INFORMATION GATHERING.

       (a) Review of Existing Requirements.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 1445(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a)(1)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1)(A) Every person who is subject to any requirement of 
     this title or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain 
     such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and 
     provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably 
     require by regulation to assist the Administrator in 
     establishing regulations under this title, in determining 
     whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance with 
     this title, in administering any program of financial 
     assistance under this title, in evaluating the health risks 
     of unregulated contaminants, or in advising the public of 
     such risks. In requiring a public water system to monitor 
     under this subsection, the Administrator may take into 
     consideration the system size and the contaminants likely to 
     be found in the system's drinking water.
       ``(B) Every person who is subject to a national primary 
     drinking water regulation under section 1412 shall provide 
     such information as the Administrator may reasonably require, 
     after consultation with the State in which such person is 
     located if such State has primary enforcement responsibility 
     for public water systems, on a case-by-case basis, to 
     determine whether such person has acted or is acting in 
     compliance with this title.
       ``(C) Every person who is subject to a national primary 
     drinking water regulation under section 1412 shall provide 
     such information as the Administrator may reasonably require 
     to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under 
     section 1412 of this title, after consultation with States 
     and suppliers of water. The Administrator may not require 
     under this subparagraph the installation of treatment 
     equipment or process changes, the testing of treatment 
     technology, or the analysis or processing of monitoring 
     samples, except where the Administrator provides the funding 
     for such activities. Before exercising this authority, the 
     Administrator shall first seek to obtain the information by 
     voluntary submission.
       ``(D) The Administrator shall not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this sentence, after consultation 
     with public health experts, representatives of the general 
     public, and officials of State and local governments, review 
     the monitoring requirements for not fewer than 12 
     contaminants identified by the Administrator, and promulgate 
     any necessary modifications.''.
       (b) Monitoring Relief.--Part B is amended by adding the 
     following new section after section 1417:

     ``SEC. 1418. MONITORING OF CONTAMINANTS.

       ``(a) Interim Monitoring Relief Authority.--(1) A State 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems may modify the monitoring requirements for any 
     regulated or unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is 
     required other than microbial contaminants (or indicators 
     thereof), disinfectants and disinfection byproducts or 
     corrosion byproducts for an interim period to provide that 
     any public water system serving 10,000 persons or fewer shall 
     not be required to conduct additional quarterly monitoring 
     during an interim relief period for such contaminants if--
       ``(A) monitoring, conducted at the beginning of the period 
     for the contaminant concerned and certified to the State by 
     the public water system, fails to detect the presence of the 
     contaminant in the ground or surface water supplying the 
     public water system, and
       ``(B) the State, (considering the hydrogeology of the area 
     and other relevant factors), determines in writing that the 
     contaminant is unlikely to be detected by further monitoring 
     during such period.
       ``(2) The interim relief period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall terminate when permanent monitoring relief is 
     adopted and approved for such State, or at the end of 36 
     months after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1996, whichever comes first. In order to serve 
     as a basis for interim relief, the monitoring conducted at 
     the beginning of the period must occur at the time determined 
     by the State to be the time of the public water system's 
     greatest vulnerability to the contaminant concerned in the 
     relevant ground or surface water, taking into account in the 
     case of pesticides the time of application of the pesticide 
     for the source water area and the travel time for the 
     pesticide to reach such waters and taking into account, in 
     the case of other contaminants, seasonality of precipitation 
     and contaminant travel time.
       ``(b) Permanent Monitoring Relief Authority.--(1) Each 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems under this title and having an approved 
     wellhead protection program and a source water assessment 
     program may adopt, in accordance with guidance published by 
     the Administrator, and submit to the Administrator as 
     provided in section 1428(c), tailored alternative monitoring 
     requirements for public water systems in such State (as an 
     alternative to the monitoring requirements for chemical 
     contaminants set forth in the applicable national primary 
     drinking water regulations) where the State concludes that 
     (based on data available at the time of adoption concerning 
     susceptibility, use, occurrence, wellhead protection, or from 
     the State's drinking water source water assessment program) 
     such alternative monitoring would provide assurance that it 
     complies with the Administrator's guidelines. The State 
     program must be adequate to assure compliance with, and 
     enforcement of, applicable national primary drinking water 
     regulations. Alternative monitoring shall not apply to 
     regulated microbiological contaminants (or indicators 
     thereof), disinfectants and disinfection by-products, or 
     corrosion by-products. The preceding sentence is not intended 
     to limit other authority of the Administrator under other 
     provisions of this title to grant monitoring flexibility.
       ``(2)(A) The Administrator shall issue, after notice and 
     comment and at the same time as guidelines are issued for 
     source water assessment under section 1428(l), guidelines for 
     States to follow in proposing alternative monitoring 
     requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection for 
     chemical contaminants. The Administrator shall publish such 
     guidelines in the Federal Register. The guidelines shall 
     assure that the public health will be protected from drinking 
     water contamination. The guidelines shall require that a 
     State alternative monitoring program apply on a contaminant-
     by-contaminant basis and that, to be eligible for such 
     alternative monitoring program, a public water system must 
     show the State that the contaminant is not present in the 
     drinking water supply or, if present, it is reliably and 
     consistently below the maximum contaminant level.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the phrase 
     `reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant 
     level' means that, although contaminants have been detected 
     in a water supply, the State has sufficient knowledge of the 
     contamination source and extent of contamination to predict 
     that the maximum contaminant level will not be exceeded. In 
     determining that a contaminant is reliably and consistently 
     below the maximum contaminant level, States shall consider 
     the quality and completeness of data, the length of time 
     covered and the volatility or stability of monitoring results 
     during that time, and the proximity of such results to the 
     maximum contaminant level. Wide variations in the analytical 
     results, or analytical results close to the maximum 
     contaminant level, shall not be considered to be reliably and 
     consistently below the maximum contaminant level.
       ``(3) The guidelines issued by the Administrator under 
     paragraph (2) shall require that if, after the monitoring 
     program is in effect and operating, a contaminant covered by 
     the alternative monitoring program is detected at levels at 
     or above the maximum contaminant level or is no longer 
     reliably or consistently below the maximum contaminant level, 
     the public water system must either--
       ``(A) demonstrate that the contamination source has been 
     removed or that other action

[[Page H6736]]

     has been taken to eliminate the contamination problem, or
       ``(B) test for the detected contaminant pursuant to the 
     applicable national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(c) Treatment as NPDWR.--All monitoring relief granted by 
     a State to a public water system for a regulated contaminant 
     under subsection (a) or (b) shall be treated as part of the 
     national primary drinking water regulation for that 
     contaminant.
       ``(d) Other Monitoring Relief.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the authority of the States 
     under applicable national primary drinking water regulations 
     to alter monitoring requirements through waivers or other 
     existing authorities. The Administrator shall periodically 
     review and, as appropriate, revise such authorities.''.
       (c) Unregulated Contaminants.--Section 1445(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     300j-4(a)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) through (8) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Monitoring program for unregulated contaminants.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing the criteria for a monitoring 
     program for unregulated contaminants. The regulations shall 
     require monitoring of drinking water supplied by public water 
     systems and shall vary the frequency and schedule for 
     monitoring requirements for systems based on the number of 
     persons served by the system, the source of supply, and the 
     contaminants likely to be found.
       ``(B) Monitoring program for certain unregulated 
     contaminants.--
       ``(i) Initial list.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996 
     and every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall issue a 
     list pursuant to subparagraph (A) of not more than 40 
     unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water 
     systems and to be included in the national drinking water 
     occurrence data base maintained pursuant to subsection (g).
       ``(ii) Governors' petition.--The Administrator shall 
     include among the list of contaminants for which monitoring 
     is required under this paragraph each contaminant recommended 
     in a petition signed by the Governor of each of 7 or more 
     States, unless the Administrator determines that the action 
     would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher 
     public health concern.
       ``(C) Monitoring plan for small and medium systems.--
       ``(i) In general.--Based on the regulations promulgated by 
     the Administrator, each State shall develop a representative 
     monitoring plan to assess the occurrence of unregulated 
     contaminants in public water systems that serve a population 
     of 10,000 or fewer. The plan shall require monitoring for 
     systems representative of different sizes, types, and 
     geographic locations in the State.
       ``(ii) Grants for small system costs.--From funds 
     appropriated under subparagraph (H), the Administrator shall 
     pay the reasonable cost of such testing and laboratory 
     analysis as are necessary to carry out monitoring under the 
     plan.
       ``(D) Monitoring results.--Each public water system that 
     conducts monitoring of unregulated contaminants pursuant to 
     this paragraph shall provide the results of the monitoring to 
     the primary enforcement authority for the system.
       ``(E) Notification.--Notification of the availability of 
     the results of monitoring programs required under paragraph 
     (2)(A) shall be given to the persons served by the system and 
     the Administrator.
       ``(F) Waiver of monitoring requirement.--The Administrator 
     shall waive the requirement for monitoring for a contaminant 
     under this paragraph in a State, if the State demonstrates 
     that the criteria for listing the contaminant do not apply in 
     that State.
       ``(G) Analytical methods.--The State may use screening 
     methods approved by the Administrator under subsection (i) in 
     lieu of monitoring for particular contaminants under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph 
     $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 
     2003.''.
       (d) Screening Methods.--Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300j-4) is 
     amended by adding the following after subsection (h):
       ``(i) Screening Methods.--The Administrator shall review 
     new analytical methods to screen for regulated contaminants 
     and may approve such methods as are more accurate or cost-
     effective than established reference methods for use in 
     compliance monitoring.''.

     SEC. 305. OCCURRENCE DATA BASE.

       Section 1445 is amended by adding the following new 
     subsection after subsection (f):
       ``(g) National Drinking Water Occurrence Data Base.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, 
     the Administrator shall assemble and maintain a national 
     drinking water occurrence data base, using information on the 
     occurrence of both regulated and unregulated contaminants in 
     public water systems obtained under subsection (a)(1)(A) or 
     subsection (a)(2) and reliable information from other public 
     and private sources.
       ``(2) Public input.--In establishing the occurrence data 
     base, the Administrator shall solicit recommendations from 
     the Science Advisory Board, the States, and other interested 
     parties concerning the development and maintenance of a 
     national drinking water occurrence data base, including such 
     issues as the structure and design of the data base, data 
     input parameters and requirements, and the use and 
     interpretation of data.
       ``(3) Use.--The data shall be used by the Administrator in 
     making determinations under section 1412(b)(3) with respect 
     to the occurrence of a contaminant in drinking water at a 
     level of public health concern.
       ``(4) Public recommendations.--The Administrator shall 
     periodically solicit recommendations from the appropriate 
     officials of the National Academy of Sciences and the States, 
     and any person may submit recommendations to the 
     Administrator, with respect to contaminants that should be 
     included in the national drinking water occurrence data base, 
     including recommendations with respect to additional 
     unregulated contaminants that should be listed under 
     subsection (a)(2). Any recommendation submitted under this 
     clause shall be accompanied by reasonable documentation 
     that--
       ``(A) the contaminant occurs or is likely to occur in 
     drinking water; and
       ``(B) the contaminant poses a risk to public health.
       ``(5) Public availability.--The information from the data 
     base shall be available to the public in readily accessible 
     form.
       ``(6) Regulated contaminants.--With respect to each 
     contaminant for which a national primary drinking water 
     regulation has been established, the data base shall include 
     information on the detection of the contaminant at a 
     quantifiable level in public water systems (including 
     detection of the contaminant at levels not constituting a 
     violation of the maximum contaminant level for the 
     contaminant).
       ``(7) Unregulated contaminants.--With respect to 
     contaminants for which a national primary drinking water 
     regulation has not been established, the data base shall 
     include--
       ``(A) monitoring information collected by public water 
     systems that serve a population of more than 3,300, as 
     required by the Administrator under subsection (a);
       ``(B) monitoring information collected by the States from a 
     representative sampling of public water systems that serve a 
     population of 3,300 or fewer; and
       ``(C) other reliable and appropriate monitoring information 
     on the occurrence of the contaminants in public water systems 
     that is available to the Administrator.''.

     SEC. 306. CITIZENS SUITS.

       Section 1449 (42 U.S.C. 300j-8) is amended by inserting ``, 
     or a State'' after ``prosecuting a civil action in a court of 
     the United States'' in subsection (b)(1)(B).

     SEC. 307. WHISTLE BLOWER.

       (a) Whistle Blower.--Section 1450(i) is amended as follows:
       (1) Amend paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``30 days'' and 
     inserting ``180 days'' and by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``and the Environmental Protection Agency''.
       (2) Amend paragraph (2)(B)(i) by inserting before the last 
     sentence the following: ``Upon conclusion of such hearing and 
     the issuance of a recommended decision that the complaint has 
     merit, the Secretary shall issue a preliminary order 
     providing the relief prescribed in clause (ii), but may not 
     order compensatory damages pending a final order.''.
       (3) Amend paragraph (2)(B)(ii) by inserting ``and'' before 
     ``(III)'' and by striking ``compensatory damages, and (IV) 
     where appropriate, exemplary damages'' and inserting ``and 
     the Secretary may order such person to provide compensatory 
     damages to the complainant''.
       (4) Redesignate paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and insert 
     after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall dismiss a complaint filed 
     under paragraph (1), and shall not conduct the investigation 
     required under paragraph (2), unless the complainant has made 
     a prima facie showing that any behavior described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1) was a 
     contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action 
     alleged in the complaint.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding a finding by the Secretary that the 
     complaint has made the showing required by paragraph (1)(A), 
     no investigation required under paragraph (2) shall be 
     conducted if the employer demonstrates, by clear and 
     convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same 
     unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior.
       ``(C) The Secretary may determine that a violation of 
     paragraph (1) has occurred only if the complainant has 
     demonstrated that any behavior described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1) was a contributing factor in the 
     unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(D) Relief may not be ordered under paragraph (2) if the 
     employer demonstrates clear and convincing evidence that it 
     would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the 
     absence of such behavior.''.
       (5) Add at the end the following:
       ``(8) This subsection may not be construed to expand, 
     diminish, or otherwise affect any right otherwise available 
     to an employee under Federal or State law to reduce the 
     employee's discharge or other discriminatory action taken by 
     the employer against the employee. The provisions of this 
     subsection shall be prominently posted in any place of 
     employment to which this subsection applies.''.

[[Page H6737]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to claims filed under section 1450(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 308. STATE REVOLVING FUNDS.

       Part E (42 U.S.C. 300j et seq.) is amended by adding the 
     following new section after section 1451:

     ``SEC. 1452. STATE REVOLVING FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants to states to establish revolving funds.--(A) 
     The Administrator shall enter into agreements with eligible 
     States to make capitalization grants, including letters of 
     credit, to the States under this subsection solely to further 
     the health protection objectives of this title, promote the 
     efficient use of fund resources, and for such other purposes 
     as are specified in this title.
       ``(B) To be eligible to receive a capitalization grant 
     under this section, a State shall establish a drinking water 
     treatment revolving loan fund and comply with the other 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(C) Such a grant to a State shall be deposited in the 
     drinking water treatment revolving fund established by the 
     State, except as otherwise provided in this section and in 
     other provisions of this title. No funds authorized by other 
     provisions of this title to be used for other purposes 
     specified in this title shall be deposited in any State 
     revolving fund.
       ``(D) Such a grant to a State shall be available to the 
     State for obligation during the fiscal year for which the 
     funds are authorized and during the following fiscal year, 
     except that grants made available from funds provided in 
     Public Law 103-327, Public Law 103-124, and Public Law 104-
     134 shall be available for obligation during each of the 
     fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
       ``(E) Except as otherwise provided in this section, funds 
     made available to carry out this part shall be allotted to 
     States that have entered into an agreement pursuant to this 
     section in accordance with--
       ``(i) for each of fiscal years 1995 through 1997, a formula 
     that is the same as the formula used to distribute public 
     water system supervision grant funds under section 1443 in 
     fiscal year 1995, except that the minimum proportionate share 
     established in the formula shall be 1 percent of available 
     funds and the formula shall be adjusted to include a minimum 
     proportionate share for the State of Wyoming; and
       ``(ii) for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent fiscal 
     year, a formula that allocates to each State the proportional 
     share of the State needs identified in the most recent survey 
     conducted pursuant to section 1452(h), except that the 
     minimum proportionate share provided to each State shall be 
     the same as the minimum proportionate share provided under 
     clause (i).
       ``(F) Such grants not obligated by the last day of the 
     period for which the grants are available shall be reallotted 
     according to the appropriate criteria set forth in 
     subparagraph (E).
       ``(G) The State allotment for a State not exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
     shall not be deposited in any such fund but shall be allotted 
     by the Administrator as follows: 20 percent of such allotment 
     shall be available to the Administrator as needed to exercise 
     primary enforcement responsibility under this title in such 
     State and the remainder shall be reallotted to States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems for deposit in such funds. Whenever the 
     Administrator makes a final determination pursuant to section 
     1413(b) that the requirements of section 1413(a) are no 
     longer being met by a State, additional grants for such State 
     under this title shall be immediately terminated by the 
     Administrator. This subparagraph shall not apply to any State 
     not exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems as of the date of enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
       ``(H)(i) Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the Administrator 
     shall withhold 20 percent of each capitalization grant made 
     pursuant to this section to a State if the State has not met 
     the requirements of section 1419 (relating to capacity 
     development).
       ``(ii) The Administrator shall withhold 20 percent of each 
     capitalization grant made pursuant to this section if the 
     State has not met the requirements of subsection (f) of 
     section 1442 (relating to operator certification).
       ``(iii) All funds withheld by the Administrator pursuant to 
     clause (i) shall be reallotted by the Administrator on the 
     basis of the same ratio as is applicable to funds allotted 
     under subparagraph (E). None of the funds reallotted by the 
     Administrator pursuant to this paragraph shall be allotted to 
     a State unless the State has met the requirements of section 
     1419 (relating to capacity development).
       ``(iv) All funds withheld by the Administrator pursuant to 
     clause (ii) shall be reallotted by the Administrator on the 
     basis of the same ratio as applicable to funds allotted under 
     subparagraph (E). None of the funds reallotted by the 
     Administrator pursuant to this paragraph shall be allotted to 
     a State unless the State has met the requirements of 
     subsection (f) of section 1442 (relating to operator 
     certification).
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Except as otherwise authorized by this 
     title, amounts deposited in such revolving funds, including 
     loan repayments and interest earned on such amounts, shall be 
     used only for providing loans, loan guarantees, or as a 
     source of reserve and security for leveraged loans, the 
     proceeds of which are deposited in a State revolving fund 
     established under paragraph (1), or other financial 
     assistance authorized under this section to community water 
     systems and nonprofit noncommunity water systems, other than 
     systems owned by Federal agencies. Such financial assistance 
     may be used by a public water system only for expenditures 
     (not including monitoring, operation, and maintenance 
     expenditures) of a type or category which the Administrator 
     has determined, through guidance, will facilitate compliance 
     with national primary drinking water regulations applicable 
     to such system under section 1412 or otherwise significantly 
     further the health protection objectives of this title. Such 
     funds may also be used to provide loans to a system referred 
     to in section 1401(4)(B) for the purpose of providing the 
     treatment described in section 1401(4)(B)(i)(III). Such funds 
     shall not be used for the acquisition of real property or 
     interests therein, unless such acquisition is integral to a 
     project authorized by this paragraph and the purchase is from 
     a willing seller. Of the amount credited to any revolving 
     fund established under this section in any fiscal year, 15 
     percent shall be available solely for providing loan 
     assistance to public water systems which regularly serve 
     fewer than 10,000 persons.
       ``(3) Limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     no assistance under this part shall be provided to a public 
     water system that--
       ``(i) does not have the technical, managerial, and 
     financial capability to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this title; or
       ``(ii) is in significant noncompliance with any requirement 
     of a national primary drinking water regulation or variance.
       ``(B) Restructuring.--A public water system described in 
     subparagraph (A) may receive assistance under this part if--
       ``(i) the owner or operator of the system agrees to 
     undertake feasible and appropriate changes in operations 
     (including ownership, management, accounting, rates, 
     maintenance, consolidation, alternative water supply, or 
     other procedures) if the State determines that such measures 
     are necessary to ensure that the system has the technical, 
     managerial, and financial capability to comply with the 
     requirements of this title over the long term; and
       ``(ii) the use of the assistance will ensure compliance.
       ``(b) Intended Use Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--After providing for public review and 
     comment, each State that has entered into a capitalization 
     agreement pursuant to this part shall annually prepare a plan 
     that identifies the intended uses of the amounts available to 
     the State loan fund of the State.
       ``(2) Contents.--An intended use plan shall include--
       ``(A) a list of the projects to be assisted in the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of the plan, including 
     a description of the project, the expected terms of financial 
     assistance, and the size of the community served;
       ``(B) the criteria and methods established for the 
     distribution of funds; and
       ``(C) a description of the financial status of the State 
     loan fund and the short-term and long-term goals of the State 
     loan fund.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--An intended use plan shall provide, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that priority for the use of 
     funds be given to projects that--
       ``(i) address the most serious risk to human health;
       ``(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this title (including requirements for 
     filtration); and
       ``(iii) assist systems most in need on a per household 
     basis according to State affordability criteria.
       ``(B) List of projects.--Each State shall, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, publish and periodically 
     update a list of projects in the State that are eligible for 
     assistance under this part, including the priority assigned 
     to each project and, to the extent known, the expected 
     funding schedule for each project.
       ``(c) Fund Management.--Each State revolving fund under 
     this section shall be established, maintained, and credited 
     with repayments and interest. The fund corpus shall be 
     available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance 
     under this section. To the extent amounts in each such fund 
     are not required for current obligation or expenditure, such 
     amounts shall be invested in interest bearing obligations.
       ``(d) Assistance for Disadvantaged Communities.--
       ``(1) Loan subsidy.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, in any case in which the State makes a loan 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(2) to a disadvantaged community or 
     to a community that the State expects to become a 
     disadvantaged community as the result of a proposed project, 
     the State may provide additional subsidization (including 
     forgiveness of principal).
       ``(2) Total amount of subsidies.--For each fiscal year, the 
     total amount of loan subsidies made by a State pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of the 
     capitalization grant received by the State for the year.

[[Page H6738]]

       ``(3) Definition of disadvantaged community.--In this 
     subsection, the term `disadvantaged community' means the 
     service area of a public water system that meets 
     affordability criteria established after public review and 
     comment by the State in which the public water system is 
     located. The Administrator may publish information to assist 
     States in establishing affordability criteria.
       ``(e) State Contribution.--Each agreement under subsection 
     (a) shall require that the State deposit in the State 
     revolving fund from State moneys an amount equal to at least 
     20 percent of the total amount of the grant to be made to the 
     State on or before the date on which the grant payment is 
     made to the State, except that a State shall not be required 
     to deposit such amount into the fund prior to the date on 
     which each grant payment is made for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
     1996, and 1997 if such State deposits the State contribution 
     amount into the State fund prior to September 30, 1998.
       ``(f) Combined Financial Administration.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (c), a State may (as a convenience and to avoid 
     unnecessary administrative costs) combine, in accordance with 
     State law, the financial administration of a revolving fund 
     established under this section with the financial 
     administration of any other revolving fund established by the 
     State if otherwise not prohibited by the law under which such 
     revolving fund was established and if the Administrator 
     determines that--
       ``(1) the grants under this section, together with loan 
     repayments and interest, will be separately accounted for and 
     used solely for the purposes specified in this section; and
       ``(2) the authority to establish assistance priorities and 
     carry out oversight and related activities (other than 
     financial administration) with respect to such assistance 
     remains with the State agency having primary responsibility 
     for administration of the State program under section 1413.
       ``(g) Administration.--(1) Each State may annually use up 
     to 4 percent of the funds allotted to the State under this 
     section to cover the reasonable costs of administration of 
     the programs under this section, including the recovery of 
     reasonable costs expended to establish such a fund which are 
     incurred after the date of enactment of this section, and to 
     provide technical assistance to public water systems within 
     the State. For fiscal year 1995 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, each State with primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems within that State may 
     use up to an additional 10 percent of the funds allotted to 
     the State under this section--
       ``(A) for public water system supervision programs which 
     receive grants under section 1443(a);
       ``(B) to administer or provide technical assistance through 
     source water protection programs;
       ``(C) to develop and implement a capacity development 
     strategy under section 1419(c); and
       ``(D) for an operator certification program for purposes of 
     meeting the requirements of section 1442(f),

     if the State matches such expenditures with at least an equal 
     amount of State funds. At least half of such match must be 
     additional to the amount expended by the State for public 
     water supervision in fiscal year 1993. An additional 1 
     percent of the funds annually allotted to the State under 
     this section shall be used by each State to provide technical 
     assistance to public water systems in such State. Funds 
     utilized under section 1452(g)(1)(B) shall not be used for 
     enforcement actions or for purposes which do not facilitate 
     compliance with national primary drinking water regulations 
     or otherwise significantly further the health protection 
     objectives of this title.
       ``(2) The Administrator shall publish such guidance and 
     promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section, including--
       ``(A) provisions to ensure that each State commits and 
     expends funds allotted to the State under this section as 
     efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and 
     applicable State laws,
       ``(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and
       ``(C) guidance to avoid the use of funds made available 
     under this section to finance the expansion of any public 
     water system in anticipation of future population growth.

     Such guidance and regulations shall also insure that the 
     States, and public water systems receiving assistance under 
     this section, use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures 
     that conform to generally accepted accounting standards.
       ``(3) Each State administering a revolving fund and 
     assistance program under this subsection shall publish and 
     submit to the Administrator a report every 2 years on its 
     activities under this subsection, including the findings of 
     the most recent audit of the fund and the entire State 
     allotment. The Administrator shall periodically audit all 
     revolving funds established by, and all other amounts 
     allotted to, the States pursuant to this subsection in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Comptroller 
     General.
       ``(h) Needs Survey.--The Administrator shall conduct an 
     assessment of water system capital improvements needs of all 
     eligible public water systems in the United States and submit 
     a report to the Congress containing the results of such 
     assessment within 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 4 
     years thereafter.
       ``(i) Indian Tribes.--1\1/2\ percent of the amounts 
     appropriated annually to carry out this section may be used 
     by the Administrator to make grants to Indian Tribes and 
     Alaskan Native Villages which are not otherwise eligible to 
     receive either grants from the Administrator under this 
     section or assistance from State revolving funds established 
     under this section. Such grants may only be used for 
     expenditures by such tribes and villages for public water 
     system expenditures referred to in subsection (a)(2).
       ``(j) Other Areas.--Of the funds annually available under 
     this section for grants to States, the Administrator shall 
     make allotments in accordance with section 1443(a)(4) for the 
     District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Republic of Palau. The grants allotted as provided in this 
     subsection may be provided by the Administrator to the 
     governments of such areas, to public water systems in such 
     areas, or to both, to be used for the public water system 
     expenditures referred to in subsection (a)(2). Such grants 
     shall not be deposited in revolving funds. The total 
     allotment of grants under this section for all areas 
     described in this paragraph in any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 1 percent of the aggregate amount made available to 
     carry out this section in that fiscal year.
       ``(k) Set-Asides.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), a 
     State may take each of the following actions:
       ``(A) Provide assistance, only in the form of a loan to one 
     or both of the following:
       ``(i) Any public water system described in subsection 
     (a)(2) to acquire land or a conservation easement from a 
     willing seller or grantor, if the purpose of the acquisition 
     is to protect the source water of the system from 
     contamination and to ensure compliance with national primary 
     drinking water regulations.
       ``(ii) Any community water system to implement local, 
     voluntary source water protection measures to protect source 
     water in areas delineated pursuant to section 1428(l), in 
     order to facilitate compliance with national primary drinking 
     water regulations applicable to such system under section 
     1412 or otherwise significantly further the health protection 
     objectives of this title. Funds authorized under this clause 
     may be used to fund only voluntary, incentive-based 
     mechanisms.
       ``(B) Provide assistance, including technical and financial 
     assistance, to any public water system as part of a capacity 
     development strategy developed and implemented in accordance 
     with section 1419(c).
       ``(C) Make expenditures from the capitalization grant of 
     the State for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to delineate and 
     assess source water protection areas in accordance with 
     section 1428(l), except that funds set aside for such 
     expenditure shall be obligated within 4 fiscal years.
       ``(D) Make expenditures from the fund for the establishment 
     and implementation of wellhead protection programs under 
     section 1428.
       ``(2) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the total amount 
     of assistance provided and expenditures made by a State under 
     this subsection may not exceed 15 percent of the amount of 
     the capitalization grant received by the State for that year 
     and may not exceed 10 percent of that amount for any one of 
     the following activities:
       ``(A) To acquire land or conservation easements pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i).
       ``(B) To provide funding to implement voluntary, incentive-
     based source water quality protection measures pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A)(ii).
       ``(C) To provide assistance through a capacity development 
     strategy pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(D) To make expenditures to delineate or assess source 
     water protection areas pursuant to paragraph (1)(C).
       ``(E) To make expenditures to establish and implement 
     wellhead protection programs pursuant to paragraph (1)(D).
       ``(3) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section 
     creates or conveys any new authority to a State, political 
     subdivision of a State, or community water system for any new 
     regulatory measure, or limits any authority of a State, 
     political subdivision of a State or community water system.
       ``(l) Savings.--The failure or inability of any public 
     water system to receive funds under this section or any other 
     loan or grant program, or any delay in obtaining the funds, 
     shall not alter the obligation of the system to comply in a 
     timely manner with all applicable drinking water standards 
     and requirements of this title.
       ``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section 
     $599,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994 and $1,000,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1995 through 2003. Sums shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(n) Health Effects Studies.--From funds appropriated 
     pursuant to this section for each fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall reserve $10,000,000 for health effects 
     studies on drinking water contaminants authorized by the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. In allocating funds 
     made available under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     give priority to studies concerning the health effects of 
     cryptosporidium,

[[Page H6739]]

     disinfection byproducts, and arsenic, and the implementation 
     of a plan for studies of subpopulations at greater risk of 
     adverse effects.
       ``(o) Demonstration Project for State of Virginia.--
     Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subsection 
     limiting the use of funds deposited in a State revolving fund 
     from any State allotment, the State of Virginia may, as a 
     single demonstration and with the approval of the Virginia 
     General Assembly and the Administrator, conduct a program to 
     demonstrate alternative approaches to intergovernmental 
     coordination to assist in the financing of new drinking water 
     facilities in the following rural communities in southwestern 
     Virginia where none exists on the date of the enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and where such 
     communities are experiencing economic hardship: Lee County, 
     Wise County, Scott County, Dickenson County, Russell County, 
     Buchanan County, Tazewell County, and the city of Norton, 
     Virginia. The funds allotted to that State and deposited in 
     the State revolving fund may be loaned to a regional 
     endowment fund for the purpose set forth in this paragraph 
     under a plan to be approved by the Administrator. The plan 
     may include an advisory group that includes representatives 
     of such counties.
       ``(p) Small System Technical Assistance.--The Administrator 
     may reserve up to 2 percent of the total funds appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (m) for each of the fiscal years 1997 
     through 2003 to carry out the provisions of section 1442(e), 
     relating to technical assistance for small systems.''.

     SEC. 309. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.

       Part E is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1453. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.

       ``(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1996, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register 
     guidelines for water conservation plans for public water 
     systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons, public water 
     systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons, and public 
     water systems serving more than 10,000 persons, taking into 
     consideration such factors as water availability and climate.
       ``(b) SRF Loans or Grants.--Within 1 year after publication 
     of the guidelines under subsection (a), a State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
     may require a public water system, as a condition of 
     receiving a loan or grant from a State revolving fund under 
     section 1452, to submit with its application for such loan or 
     grant a water conservation plan consistent with such 
     guidelines.''.
                        TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Alternative Quality Control and Testing Procedures.--
     Section 1401(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. 300f(1)(D)) is amended by 
     adding the following at the end thereof: ``At any time after 
     promulgation of a regulation referred to in this paragraph, 
     the Administrator may add equally effective quality control 
     and testing procedures by guidance published in the Federal 
     Register. Such procedures shall be treated as an alternative 
     for public water systems to the quality control and testing 
     procedures listed in the regulation.''.
       (b) Public Water System.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1401(4) (42 U.S.C. 300f(4)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``piped water for 
     human consumption'' and inserting ``water for human 
     consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances'';
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (C) by striking ``(4) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Public water system.--
       ``(A) In general.--The''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Connections.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a 
     connection to a system that delivers water by a constructed 
     conveyance other than a pipe shall not be considered a 
     connection, if--

       ``(I) the water is used exclusively for purposes other than 
     residential uses (consisting of drinking, bathing, and 
     cooking, or other similar uses);
       ``(II) the Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems) determines that alternative water to 
     achieve the equivalent level of public health protection 
     provided by the applicable national primary drinking water 
     regulation is provided for residential or similar uses for 
     drinking, cooking, and bathing; or
       ``(III) the Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems) determines that the water provided for 
     residential or similar uses for drinking, cooking, and 
     bathing is centrally treated or treated at the point of entry 
     by the provider, a pass-through entity, or the user to 
     achieve the equivalent level of protection provided by the 
     applicable national primary drinking water regulations.

       ``(ii) Irrigation districts.--An irrigation district in 
     existence prior to May 18, 1994, that provides primarily 
     agricultural service through a piped water system with only 
     incidental residential or similar use shall not be considered 
     to be a public water system if the system or the residential 
     or similar users of the system comply with subclause (II) or 
     (III) of clause (i).
       ``(C) Transition period.--A water supplier that would be a 
     public water system only as a result of modifications made to 
     this paragraph by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1996 shall not be considered a public water system for 
     purposes of the Act until the date that is two years after 
     the date of enactment of this subparagraph. If a water 
     supplier does not serve 15 service connections (as defined in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B)) or 25 people at any time after the 
     conclusion of the two-year period, the water supplier shall 
     not be considered a public water system.''.
       (2) GAO Study.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall undertake a study to--
       (A) ascertain the numbers and locations of individuals and 
     households relying for their residential water needs, 
     including drinking, bathing, and cooking (or other similar 
     uses) on irrigation water systems, mining water systems, 
     industrial water systems or other water systems covered by 
     section 1401(4)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water Act that are 
     not public water systems subject to the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act;
       (B) determine the sources and costs and affordability (to 
     users and systems) of water used by such populations for 
     their residential water needs; and
       (C) review State and water system compliance with the 
     exclusion provisions of section 1401(4)(B) of such Act.

     The Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress 
     within 3 years after the enactment of this Act containing the 
     results of such study.

     SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) General.--Part A (42 U.S.C. 300f) is amended by adding 
     the following new section after section 1401:

     ``SEC. 1402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title for 
     the first 7 fiscal years following the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. With the exception of 
     biomedical research, nothing in this Act shall affect or 
     modify any authorization for research and development under 
     this Act or any other provision of law.''.
       (b) Critical Aquifer Protection.--Section 1427 (42 U.S.C. 
     300h-6) is amended as follows:
       (1) Subsection (b)(1) is amended by striking ``not later 
     than 24 months after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1986''.
       (2) The table in subsection (m) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

``1992-2003..............................................15,000,000.''.

       (c) Wellhead Protection Areas.--The table in section 
     1428(k) (42 U.S.C. 300h-7(k)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``1992-2003..............................................30,000,000.''.

       (d) Underground Injection Control Grant.--The table in 
     section 1443(b)(5) (42 U.S.C. 300j-2(b)(5)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``1992-2003..............................................15,000,000.''.

     SEC. 403. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       Section 1443 (42 U.S.C. 300j-2) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) New York City Watershed Protection Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator is authorized to 
     provide financial assistance to the State of New York for 
     demonstration projects implemented as part of the watershed 
     program for the protection and enhancement of the quality of 
     source waters of the New York City water supply system, 
     including projects necessary to comply with the criteria for 
     avoiding filtration contained in 40 CFR 141.71. Demonstration 
     projects which shall be eligible for financial assistance 
     shall be certified to the Administrator by the State of New 
     York as satisfying the purposes of this subsection. In 
     certifying projects to the Administrator, the State of New 
     York shall give priority to monitoring projects that have 
     undergone peer review.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date on 
     which the Administrator first provides assistance pursuant to 
     this paragraph, the Governor of the State of New York shall 
     submit a report to the Administrator on the results of 
     projects assisted.
       ``(3) Matching requirements.--Federal assistance provided 
     under this subsection shall not exceed 35 percent of the 
     total cost of the protection program being carried out for 
     any particular watershed or ground water recharge area.
       ``(4) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     subsection for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003 
     $8,000,000 for each of such fiscal years for the purpose of 
     providing assistance to the State of New York to carry out 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 404. ESTROGENIC SUBSTANCES SCREENING PROGRAM.

       Part F is amended by adding the following at the end 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 1466. ESTROGENIC SUBSTANCES SCREENING PROGRAM.

       ``(a)  Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall develop 
     a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems 
     and other scientifically relevant information, to determine 
     whether certain substances may have an effect in humans

[[Page H6740]]

     that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally 
     occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the 
     Administrator may designate.
       ``(b) Implementation.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, after obtaining public 
     comment and review of the screening program described in 
     subsection (a) by the scientific advisory panel established 
     under section 25(d) of the Act of June 25, 1947 (chapter 125) 
     or the Science Advisory Board established by section 8 of the 
     Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 
     1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365), the Administrator shall implement the 
     program.
       ``(c) Substances.--In carrying out the screening program 
     described in subsection (a), the Administrator--
       ``(1) shall provide for the testing of all active and inert 
     ingredients used in products described in section 103(e) of 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9603(e)) that may be found 
     in sources of drinking water, and
       ``(2) may provide for the testing of any other substance 
     that may be found in sources of drinking water if the 
     Administrator determines that a substantial population may be 
     exposed to such substance.
       ``(d) Exemption.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the 
     Administrator may, by order, exempt from the requirements of 
     this section a biologic substance or other substance if the 
     Administrator determines that the substance is anticipated 
     not to produce any effect in humans similar to an effect 
     produced by a naturally occurring estrogen.
       ``(e) Collection of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall issue an order 
     to a person that registers, manufactures, or imports a 
     substance for which testing is required under this subsection 
     to conduct testing in accordance with the screening program 
     described in subsection (a), and submit information obtained 
     from the testing to the Administrator, within a reasonable 
     time period that the Administrator determines is sufficient 
     for the generation of the information.
       ``(2) Procedures.--To the extent practicable the 
     Administrator shall minimize duplicative testing of the same 
     substance for the same endocrine effect, develop, as 
     appropriate, procedures for fair and equitable sharing of 
     test costs, and develop, as necessary, procedures for 
     handling of confidential business information.
       ``(3) Failure of registrants to submit information.--
       ``(A) Suspension.--If a person required to register a 
     substance referred to in subsection (c)(1) fails to comply 
     with an order under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the 
     sale or distribution of the substance by the person. Any 
     suspension proposed under this paragraph shall become final 
     at the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date that 
     the person receives the notice of intent to suspend, unless 
     during that period a person adversely affected by the notice 
     requests a hearing or the Administrator determines that the 
     person referred to in paragraph (1) has complied fully with 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Hearing.--If a person requests a hearing under 
     subparagraph (A), the hearing shall be conducted in 
     accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code. 
     The only matter for resolution at the hearing shall be 
     whether the person has failed to comply with an order under 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection. A decision by the 
     Administrator after completion of a hearing shall be 
     considered to be a final agency action.
       ``(C) Termination of suspensions.--The Administrator shall 
     terminate a suspension under this paragraph issued with 
     respect to a person if the Administrator determines that the 
     person has complied fully with this subsection.
       ``(4) Noncompliance by other persons.--Any person (other 
     than a person referred to in paragraph (3)) who fails to 
     comply with an order under paragraph (1) shall be liable for 
     the same penalties and sanctions as are provided under 
     section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2601 and following) in the case of a violation referred to in 
     that section. Such penalties and sanctions shall be assessed 
     and imposed in the same manner as provided in such section 
     16.
       ``(f) Agency Action.--In the case of any substance that is 
     found, as a result of testing and evaluation under this 
     section, to have an endocrine effect on humans, the 
     Administrator shall, as appropriate, take action under such 
     statutory authority as is available to the Administrator, 
     including consideration under other sections of this Act, as 
     is necessary to ensure the protection of public health.
       ``(g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report containing--
       ``(1) the findings of the Administrator resulting from the 
     screening program described in subsection (a);
       ``(2) recommendations for further testing needed to 
     evaluate the impact on human health of the substances tested 
     under the screening program; and
       ``(3) recommendations for any further actions (including 
     any action described in subsection (f)) that the 
     Administrator determines are appropriate based on the 
     findings.
       ``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to amend or modify the provisions of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act.''.

     SEC. 405. REPORTS ON PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

       For States and Indian Tribes in which the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency has revoked primary 
     enforcement responsibility under part B of title XIV of the 
     Public Health Service Act (which title is commonly known as 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act) or is otherwise administering 
     such title, the Administrator shall provide every 2 years, a 
     report to Congress on the implementation by the Administrator 
     of all applicable requirements of that title in such States.

     SEC. 406. RETURN FLOWS.

       Section 3013 of Public Law 102-486 (42 U.S.C. 13551) shall 
     not apply to drinking water supplied by a public water system 
     regulated under title XIV of the Public Health Service Act 
     (the Safe Drinking Water Act).

     SEC. 407. EMERGENCY POWERS.

       Section 1431(b) is amended by striking out ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$15,000''.

     SEC. 408. WATERBORNE DISEASE OCCURRENCE STUDY.

       (a) System.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention, and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall jointly establish--
       (1) within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     pilot waterborne disease occurrence studies for at least 5 
     major United States communities or public water systems; and
       (2) within 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     a report on the findings of the pilot studies, and a national 
     estimate of waterborne disease occurrence.
       (b) Training and Education.--The Director and Administrator 
     shall jointly establish a national health care provider 
     training and public education campaign to inform both the 
     professional health care provider community and the general 
     public about waterborne disease and the symptoms that may be 
     caused by infectious agents, including microbial 
     contaminants. In developing such a campaign, they shall seek 
     comment from interested groups and individuals, including 
     scientists, physicians, State and local governments, 
     environmental groups, public water systems, and vulnerable 
     populations.
       (c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
     each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2001, $3,000,000 to 
     carry out this section. To the extent funds under this 
     section are not fully appropriated, the Administrator may use 
     not more than $2,000,000 of the funds from amounts reserved 
     under section 1452(n) for health effects studies for purposes 
     of this section. The Administrator may transfer a portion of 
     such funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     for such purposes.

     SEC. 409. DRINKING WATER STUDIES.

       (a) Subpopulations at Greater Risk.--The Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a 
     continuing program of studies to identify groups within the 
     general population that are at greater risk than the general 
     population of adverse health effects from exposure to 
     contaminants in drinking water. The study shall examine 
     whether and to what degree infants, children, pregnant women, 
     the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, 
     or other subpopulations that can be identified and 
     characterized are likely to experience elevated health risks, 
     including risks of cancer, from contaminants in drinking 
     water.
       (b) Biological Mechanisms.--The Administrator shall conduct 
     studies to--
       (1) understand the biomedical mechanisms by which chemical 
     contaminants are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and 
     eliminated from the human body, so as to develop more 
     accurate physiologically based models of the phenomena;
       (2) understand the effects of contaminants and the 
     biomedical mechanisms by which the contaminants cause adverse 
     effects (especially noncancer and infectious effects) and the 
     variations in the effects among humans, especially 
     subpopulations at greater risk of adverse effects, and 
     between test animals and humans; and
       (3) develop new approaches to the study of complex 
     mixtures, such as mixtures found in drinking water, 
     especially to determine the prospects for synergistic or 
     antagonistic interactions that may affect the shape of the 
     dose-response relationship of the individual chemicals and 
     microbes, and to examine noncancer endpoints and infectious 
     diseases, and susceptible individuals and subpopulations.
       (c) Studies on Harmful Substances in Drinking Water.--
       (1) Development of studies.--The Administrator shall, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, and, as appropriate, the heads 
     of other Federal agencies, conduct the studies described in 
     paragraph (2) to support the development and implementation 
     of the most current version of each of the following:
       (A) Enhanced surface water treatment rule (59 Fed. Reg. 
     38832 (July 29, 1994)).
       (B) Disinfectant and disinfection byproducts rule (59 Fed. 
     Reg. 38668 (July 29, 1994)).
       (C) Ground water disinfection rule (availability of draft 
     summary announced at (57 Fed. Reg. 33960; July 31, 1992)).
       (2) Contents of studies.--The studies required by paragraph 
     (1) shall include, at a minimum, each of the following:

[[Page H6741]]

       (A) Toxicological studies and, if warranted, 
     epidemiological studies to determine what levels of exposure 
     from disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, if any, may 
     be associated with developmental and birth defects and other 
     potential toxic end points.
       (B) Toxicological studies and, if warranted, 
     epidemiological studies to quantify the carcinogenic 
     potential from exposure to disinfection byproducts resulting 
     from different disinfectants.
       (C) The development of dose-response curves for pathogens, 
     including cryptosporidium and the Norwalk virus.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,500,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003.

     SEC. 410. BOTTLED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.

       Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 349) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), whenever''.
       (2) By adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b)(1) Not later than 180 days before the effective date 
     of a national primary drinking water regulation promulgated 
     by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     for a contaminant under section 1412 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the Secretary shall 
     promulgate a standard of quality regulation under this 
     subsection for that contaminant in bottled water or make a 
     finding that such a regulation is not necessary to protect 
     the public health because the contaminant is contained in 
     water in public water systems (as defined under section 
     1401(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(4))) but not in water 
     used for bottled drinking water. The effective date for any 
     such standard of quality regulation shall be the same as the 
     effective date for such national primary drinking water 
     regulation, except for any standard of quality of regulation 
     promulgated by the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 for which (as 
     of such date of enactment) an effective date had not been 
     established. In the case of a standard of quality regulation 
     to which such exception applies, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate monitoring requirements for the contaminants 
     covered by the regulation not later than 2 years after such 
     date of enactment. Such monitoring requirements shall become 
     effective not later than 180 days after the date on which the 
     monitoring requirements are promulgated.
       ``(2) A regulation issued by the Secretary as provided in 
     this subsection shall include any monitoring requirements 
     that the Secretary determines appropriate for bottled water.
       ``(3) A regulation issued by the Secretary as provided in 
     this subsection shall require the following:
       ``(A) In the case of contaminants for which a maximum 
     contaminant level is established in a national primary 
     drinking water regulation under section 1412 of the Public 
     Health Service Act, the regulation under this subsection 
     shall establish a maximum contaminant level for the 
     contaminant in bottled water which is no less stringent than 
     the maximum contaminant level provided in the national 
     primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(B) In the case of contaminants for which a treatment 
     technique is established in a national primary drinking water 
     regulation under section 1412 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, the regulation under this subsection shall require that 
     bottled water be subject to requirements no less protective 
     of the public health than those applicable to water provided 
     by public water systems using the treatment technique 
     required by the national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(4)(A) If the Secretary does not promulgate a regulation 
     under this subsection within the period described in 
     paragraph (1), the national primary drinking water regulation 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered, as of the 
     date on which the Secretary is required to establish a 
     regulation under paragraph (1), as the regulation applicable 
     under this subsection to bottled water.
       ``(B) In the case of a national primary drinking water 
     regulation that pursuant to subparagraph (A) is considered to 
     be a standard of quality regulation, the Secretary shall, not 
     later than the applicable date referred to in such 
     subparagraph, publish in the Federal Register a notice--
       ``(i) specifying the contents of such regulation, including 
     monitoring requirements, and
       ``(ii) providing that for purposes of this paragraph the 
     effective date for such regulation is the same as the 
     effective date for the regulation for purposes of title XIV 
     of the Public Health Service Act (or, if the exception under 
     paragraph (1) applies to the regulation, that the effective 
     date for the regulation is not later than 2 years and 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1996).''.

     SEC. 411. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Part B.--Part B (42 U.S.C. 300g and following) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In section 1412(b)(2)(C) by striking ``paragraph 
     (3)(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)(A)''.
       (2) In section 1412(b)(8) strike ``1442(g)'' and insert 
     ``1442(e)''.
       (3) In section 1415(a)(1)(A) by inserting ``the'' before 
     ``time the variance is granted''.
       (b) Part C.--Part C (42 U.S.C. 300h and following) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) In section 1421(b)(3)(B)(i) by striking ``number or 
     States'' and inserting ``number of States''.
       (2) In section 1427(k) by striking ``this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``this section''.
       (c) Part E.--Section 1441(f) (42 U.S.C. 300j(f)) is amended 
     by inserting a period at the end.
       (d) Section 1465(b).--Section 1465(b) (42 U.S.C. 300j-25) 
     is amended by striking ``as by'' and inserting ``by''.
       (e) Short Title.--Section 1 of Public Law 93-523 (88 Stat. 
     1600) is amended by inserting ``of 1974'' after ``Act'' the 
     second place it appears and title XIV of the Public Health 
     Service Act is amended by inserting the following immediately 
     before part A:

     ``SEC. 1400. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the `Safe 
     Drinking Water Act'.
       ``(b) Table of Contents.--

              ``TITLE XIV--SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

``Sec. 1400. Short title and table of contents.

                         ``Part A--Definitions

``Sec. 1401. Definitions.
``Sec. 1402. Authorization of appropriations.

                     ``Part B--Public Water Systems

``Sec. 1411. Coverage.
``Sec. 1412. National drinking water regulations.
``Sec. 1413. State primary enforcement responsibility.
``Sec. 1414. Enforcement of drinking water regulations.
``Sec. 1415. Variances
``Sec. 1416. Exemptions.
``Sec. 1417. Prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.
``Sec. 1418. Monitoring of contaminants.
``Sec. 1419. Capacity development.

     ``Part C--Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water

``Sec. 1421. Regulations for State programs.
``Sec. 1422. State primary enforcement responsibility.
``Sec. 1423. Enforcement of program.
``Sec. 1424. Interim regulation of underground injections.
``Sec. 1425. Optional demonstration by States relating to oil or 
              natural gas.
``Sec. 1426. Regulation of State programs.
``Sec. 1427. Sole source aquifer demonstration program.
``Sec. 1428. State programs to establish wellhead and source water 
              protection areas.
``Sec. 1429. Federal facilities.

                       ``Part D--Emergency Powers

``Sec. 1431. Emergency powers.
``Sec. 1432. Tampering with public water systems.

                      ``Part E--General Provisions

``Sec. 1441. Assurance of availability of adequate supplies of 
              chemicals necessary for treatment of water.
``Sec. 1442. Research, technical assistance, information, training of 
              personnel.
``Sec. 1443. Grants for State programs.
``Sec. 1444. Special study and demonstration project grants; guaranteed 
              loans.
``Sec. 1445. Records and inspections.
``Sec. 1446. National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
``Sec. 1447. Federal agencies.
``Sec. 1448. Judicial review.
``Sec. 1449. Citizen's civil action.
``Sec. 1450. General provisions.
``Sec. 1451. Indian tribes.
``Sec. 1452. State revolving funds.
``Sec. 1453. Water conservation plan.

 ``Part F--Additional Requirements To Regulate the Safety of Drinking 
                                 Water

``Sec. 1461. Definitions.
``Sec. 1462. Recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks.
``Sec. 1463. Drinking water coolers containing lead.
``Sec. 1464. Lead contamination in school drinking water.
``Sec. 1465. Federal assistance for State programs regarding lead 
              contamination in school drinking water.
``Sec. 1466. Estrogenic substances screening program.''.
 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHEDS

     SEC. 501. GENERAL PROGRAM.

       (a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Administrator 
     may provide technical and financial assistance in the form of 
     grants to States (1) for the construction, rehabilitation, 
     and improvement of water supply systems, and (2) consistent 
     with nonpoint source management programs established under 
     section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, for 
     source water quality protection programs to address 
     pollutants in navigable waters for the purpose of making such 
     waters usable by water supply systems.
       (b) Limitation.--Not more than 30 percent of the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section in a fiscal year may 
     be used for source water quality protection programs 
     described in subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Condition.--As a condition to receiving assistance 
     under this section, a State shall ensure that such assistance 
     is carried out in the most cost-effective manner, as 
     determined by the State.

[[Page H6742]]

       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Such sums shall 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 502. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator may provide technical 
     and financial assistance in the form of grants for a source 
     water quality protection program described in section 501 for 
     the New York City Watershed in the State of New York.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Such sums shall 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 503. RURAL AND NATIVE VILLAGES, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator may provide technical 
     and financial assistance in the form of grants to the State 
     of Alaska for the benefit of rural and Alaska Native villages 
     for the development and construction of water systems to 
     improve conditions in such villages and to provide technical 
     assistance relating to construction and operation of such 
     systems.
       (b) Consultation.--The Administrator shall consult the 
     State of Alaska on methods of prioritizing the allocation of 
     grants made to such State under this section.
       (c) Administrative Expenses.--The State of Alaska may use 
     not to exceed 4 percent of the amount granted to such State 
     under this section for administrative expenses necessary to 
     carry out the activities for which the grant is made.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 504. ACQUISITION OF LANDS.

       Assistance provided with funds made available under this 
     title may be used for the acquisition of lands and other 
     interests in lands; however, nothing in this title authorizes 
     the acquisition of lands or other interests in lands from 
     other than willing sellers.

     SEC. 505. FEDERAL SHARE.

       The Federal share of the cost of activities for which 
     grants are made under this title shall be 50 percent.

     SEC. 506. CONDITION ON AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       An authorization of appropriations under this title shall 
     be in effect for a fiscal year only if at least 75 percent of 
     the total amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for 
     such fiscal year by section 308 are appropriated.

     SEC. 507. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District 
     of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the 
     Pacific Islands.
       (3) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system'' 
     means 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 and a 
     draw and fill system for the provision to the public of water 
     for human consumption. Such term does not include a for-
     profit system that has fewer than 15 service connections used 
     by year-round residents of the area served by the system or a 
     for-profit system that regularly serves fewer than 25 year-
     round residents and does not include a system owned by a 
     Federal agency. Such term includes (A) any collection, 
     treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control 
     of the operator of such system and used primarily in 
     connection with such system, and (B) any collection or 
     pretreatment facilities not under such control that are used 
     primarily in connection with such system.
            TITLE VI--DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 601. DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     addition to--
       (1) amounts authorized for research under section 
     1412(b)(13) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the 
     Public Health Service Act);
       (2) amounts authorized for research under section 409 of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and
       (3) $10,000,000 from funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     section 1452(n) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of 
     the Public Health Service Act),
     such sums as may be necessary for drinking water research for 
     fiscal years 1997 through 2003. The annual total of the sums 
     referred to in this section shall not exceed $26,593,000.

     SEC. 602. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

       (a) In general.--The Administrator shall assign to the 
     Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Assistant Administrator'') the 
     duties of--
       (1) developing a strategic plan for drinking water research 
     activities throughout the Environmental Protection Agency (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Agency'');
       (2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency 
     planning activities; and
       (3) reviewing all Agency drinking water research to ensure 
     the research--
       (A) is of high quality; and
       (B) does not duplicate any other research being conducted 
     by the Agency.
       (b) Report.--The Assistant Administrator shall transmit 
     annually to the Administrator and to the Committees on 
     Commerce and Science of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report detailing--
       (1) all Agency drinking water research the Assistant 
     Administrator finds is not of sufficiently high quality; and
       (2) all Agency drinking water research the Assistant 
     Administrator finds duplicates other Agency research.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bililey] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this bill be extended by 30 minutes, such time to be equally 
divided between the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] each will control 35 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3604, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
  More than 3 years ago, at the urging of States and local governments, 
I sat down with former Congressman Jim Slattery to consider how the 
Safe Drinking Water Act could be fixed.
  Both Congressman Slattery and I recognized that the act was not 
working. Under the existing law, EPA was on a regulatory treadmill.
  We also recognized that the Safe Drinking Water Act afforded no 
flexibility in implementation--the act incorporated a one-size-fits-all 
philosophy towards monitoring and technology. Unfortunately, if you 
weren't the right size--meaning a large public water system--well, that 
was your problem.
  I regret that we were not able to finish our work in the previous 
Congress. But if there is any consolation in the delay--I believe that 
we have a far better bill today.
  H.R. 3604 contains a balanced package of reforms. The bill gives the 
EPA the ability to use common sense in establishing new drinking water 
standards. The Agency, for the first time, can set a drinking water 
standard which balances the risk of one contaminant against another and 
directs limited resources toward those contaminants which present the 
greatest threat to public health.
  In addition, the bill contains new emphasis on source water 
protection, provisions to ensure that operators of public water systems 
are properly trained, and a new program to help public water systems 
maintain the capacity to meet drinking water standards.
  We have also incorporated consumer-right-to-know provisions and have 
provided for estrogenic screening.
  Importantly, we do not impose all these new requirements on States 
and local water systems without providing a source of funding. The 
State Revolving Fund--which provides $1 billion per year--is explicitly 
tied to Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
  Altogether, I believe we have delivered on our commitment to bring a 
consensus bill forward which Members from both sides of the aisle can 
support. We have incorporated the concerns of two other committees and 
have attempted to put together the broadest possible agreement.
  The goal of our effort has been--and always will be--the provision of 
safe drinking water to our homes and our communities. I believe the 
bill produced by the Commerce Committee lives up to our historic 
responsibility to provide for the public health and welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:


[[Page H6743]]


                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed intergovernmental and private sector 
     mandates cost estimates for H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1996, as reported by the House 
     Committee on Commerce on June 24, 1996. CBO provided a 
     federal cost estimate for this bill on June 24, 1996.
       This bill would impose new intergovernmental and private 
     sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4. The costs of 
     these mandates, however, would not exceed the thresholds 
     established in that law.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.


    congressional budget office estimated cost of intergovernmental 
                                mandates

       1. Bill number: H.R. 3604.
       2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
       3. Bill status: As reported by the House Committee on 
     Commerce on June 24, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3604 would amend the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (SDWA) to authorize the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for capitalizing state 
     revolving loan funds (SRFs). These SRFs would provide low-
     cost financing for the construction of facilities to treat 
     drinking water. In addition, the bill would change the 
     process for selecting drinking water contaminants for 
     regulation and would allow costs and benefits to be 
     considered when setting standards for those contaminants. The 
     bill would also alter requirements for monitoring, treatment, 
     and public notification, and would authorize other kinds of 
     assistance for states and water systems.
       5. Intergovernmental mandates contained in bill: H.R. 3604 
     would impose new mandates on both state and local 
     governments, but would also change the federal drinking water 
     program in ways that would lower the costs to public water 
     systems of complying with existing and future federal 
     requirements.
       The bill would require public water systems, many of which 
     are publicly owned and operated, to:
       adhere to new public notification requirements, including a 
     requirement to distribute an annual ``consumer confidence 
     report'' to the customers,
       comply with operator certification requirements established 
     by the states pursuant to EPA regulations, and
       provide requested information to EPA on regulated and 
     unregulated contaminants for a new national drinking water 
     database.
       In addition, the bill would require states to obtain the 
     legal authority or ``other means'' to ensure that all new 
     community water systems and new non-transient, non-community 
     water systems demonstrate technical, managerial, and 
     financial capacity to comply with federal drinking water 
     regulations. Within four years of the bill's enactment, 
     states would have to develop and implement a strategy to 
     assist public water systems in acquiring and maintaining 
     technical, managerial, and financial capacity. State agencies 
     would be required to write reports about their efforts and 
     submit them to either the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) or the governor of the state.
       The bill would ease drinking water requirements on public 
     water systems by:
       changing the procedures that EPA uses to identify 
     contaminants for regulation under the SDWA in ways that would 
     likely result in fewer contaminants being regulated.
       delaying the effective date of new regulations,
       directing EPA to define treatment technologies that are 
     feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency 
     issues new contaminant regulations,
       allowing operators of small drinking water systems to 
     obtain variances from drinking water standards under certain 
     conditions, and
       allowing states to establish alternative monitoring 
     requirements for contaminants in drinking water.
       6. Estimated direct costs of mandates to State, local, and 
     tribal governments:
       (a) Is the $50 Million Threshold Exceeded? No.
       (b) Total Direct Costs of Mandates: CBO estimates that the 
     annual costs of new mandates imposed by the bill on state and 
     local governments would total $30 million to $40 million. CBO 
     projects that publicly owned water systems would incur costs 
     of $15 million to $25 million per year to comply with 
     requirement to mail annual ``consumer confidence reports'' to 
     their customers. Publicly owned water systems would also 
     incur annual direct costs of $5 million to $10 million to 
     comply with the operator-certification requirement, beginning 
     in fiscal year 2001. CBO further estimates that state 
     governments would incur costs totaling several million 
     dollars per year to comply with the requirement to develop 
     and implement capacity development strategies for water 
     systems.
       These additional costs to state and local governments would 
     be at least partially offset by a number of other changes to 
     the federal drinking water program that would significantly 
     lower the costs of complying with future requirements. 
     Specifically, the bill would reduce public water systems' 
     likely costs by changing the federal standard-setting 
     process, delaying the effective date of new regulations, 
     allowing operators to obtain variances, and allowing states 
     to establish alternative monitoring requirements.
       (c) Estimate of Necessary Budget Authority: Not applicable.
       7. Basis of estimate; The new mandates in the bill would 
     affect both state and local governments. Municipal water 
     systems would have to send annual ``consumer confidence 
     reports'' to their customers and would have to comply with 
     new operator certification requirements. They would also be 
     subject to new reporting and information requirements. State 
     governments would be required to develop and implement 
     strategies to improve the technical, financial, and 
     managerial capacities of public water systems. The estimated 
     impact of each of these provisions on state and local 
     governments is discussed below.

                   New mandates of local governments

       New Public Notification Requirements.--Section 131 would 
     require EPA to issue regulations to rural community water 
     systems to mail an annual ``consumer confidence report'' to 
     each customer. The reports would contain:
       information about the source of the water supplies by the 
     system,
       the levels of any regulated contaminants detected in the 
     water,
       the levels of unregulated contaminants for which monitoring 
     is required, and in some cases, a brief statement explaining 
     the health concerns that prompted the regulation of a 
     contaminant.
       The governor of a state could exempt systems serving fewer 
     than 10,000 people from the requirement to mail the report. 
     Systems not required to mail the report would instead have to 
     publish it in local newspapers and make the information 
     available upon request.
       CBO estimates that this new requirement would apply to 
     about 23,000 publicly owned community water systems that are 
     not already complying with similar state laws. These systems 
     serve about 54 million households. Based on information from 
     water system operators in those states with similar laws, CBO 
     concluded that most larger systems would be able to insert 
     the report into a billing statement without incurring 
     additional postage costs. For smaller systems, CBO assumed 
     that some systems could use bulk mail and that others would 
     have to use first-class postage. Including the cost of 
     printing and staff time needed to write the reports, we 
     estimate the aggregate national cost to be $15 million to $25 
     million annually for publicly owned systems.
       Based on a small survey of small circulation daily 
     newspapers, CBO estimates that providing the option for small 
     systems to publish their report in newspapers would not 
     significantly reduce the aggregate cost of the requirement. 
     CBO estimates that, in general, the printing and postage 
     costs for a system serving 10,000 or fewer people would be 
     similar to the cost of a display advertisement or legal 
     notice.
       New Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would 
     require EPA to issue regulations specifying minimum standards 
     for the certification of operators of community water 
     systems. This mandate would impose costs totaling $5 million 
     to $10 million annually on publicly owned systems, primarily 
     on very small ones. While almost every state now has an 
     operator certification program, many of them exempt these 
     small systems. CBO estimates that approximately 33,000 
     additional systems would be subject to operator certification 
     requirements as a result of this bill and that about 10,000 
     of those are owned and operated by local governments.
       Based on information provided by EPA officials, state 
     officials, and associations of state and local officials, CBO 
     assumed that many of the smallest water systems would utilize 
     contractors rather than employ certified operators. Other 
     systems would incur costs for training and testing their 
     employees.
       This estimate is based on a number of factors that are 
     highly uncertain. The bill would give EPA considerable 
     latitude in establishing minimum standards, and CBO cannot 
     predict what those standards would be. Further, we cannot 
     predict the extent to which EPA would allow states to 
     continue their current programs in lieu of adopting the new 
     standards. We have assumed that EPA would not require 
     substantial changes in existing state requirements for larger 
     systems. The cost of this mandate could be greater if that 
     were not the case. Part of the cost we have attributed to the 
     public sector could be shifted to the private sector if some 
     small water systems require individual operators to bear the 
     cost of obtaining their certification.
       Information Requirements.--The bill would allow EPA, after 
     consultation with the states and with water systems, to 
     require water systems to provide information for use in 
     establishing new standards for contaminants. Under current 
     law, EPA can only require this information through a formal 
     rule-making. The bill would limit the kinds of information 
     EPA could require without providing funding and would require 
     the agency to first try to obtain the information 
     voluntarily. Because of these limitations, CBO does not 
     expect reporting costs for public water systems to increase 
     significantly as a result of this change.

                    New mandate on State governments

       H.R. 3604 would require each state to obtain the legal 
     authority or ``other means'' to

[[Page H6744]]

     ensure that all new community water systems and new non-
     transient, non-community water systems demonstrate technical, 
     managerial, and financial capacity to comply with federal 
     drinking water regulations. Within four years of the bill's 
     enactment, states would have to develop and implement a 
     ``capacity development strategy'' to assist public water 
     systems in acquiring and maintaining technical, managerial, 
     and financial capacity. State agencies would be required to 
     submit periodic reports to EPA or to the governor of the 
     state about the success of the strategy.
       Although some states are already providing this kind of 
     assistance to new and existing water systems, CBO expects 
     that most states would have to devote additional resources to 
     meet this requirement. Many state agencies that oversee 
     drinking water systems (usually environmental or public 
     health agencies) do not currently have expertise in 
     managerial or financial operations of drinking water systems. 
     Therefore CBO estimates that as a whole states would have to 
     spend several million dollars per year to develop and 
     implement these strategies. How much states spend would 
     depend on what standard EPA applies in carrying out the 
     bill's instruction to withhold 20 percent of a state's SRF 
     grant if it has not complied with this mandate. In any 
     case, states receiving SRF grants from EPA would be 
     allowed to use some of the grant money to defray this 
     cost. This funding would probably offset most of the 
     additional costs to the states.

               Changes likely to reduce compliance costs

       Other provisions, discussed individually below, would 
     reduce the likely costs of complying with future drinking 
     water regulations. These future regulations, which would be 
     required under current law, would impose significant costs, 
     primarily on local public water systems. The number and 
     stringency of these regulations are likely to be less under 
     H.R. 3604, and associated cost savings would at least 
     partially offset the additional costs of new mandates 
     contained in the bill. However, CBO cannot estimate these 
     savings on the basis of information we currently have.
       New standard-setting procedure.--H.R. 3604 would change the 
     procedures for selecting drinking water contaminants for 
     regulation and for determining permissible levels of those 
     contaminants in ways that would likely lower future 
     compliance costs for public water systems. First, it would 
     rescind the requirement that EPA issue rules for 25 drinking 
     water contaminants every three years. Thus, EPA would not 
     have to regulate a specific number of contaminants. Although 
     it is possible that, with this change, EPA would regulate 
     more contaminants than current law dictates, CBO expects that 
     the agency would regulate fewer contaminants than currently 
     required.
       Second, the bill would require EPA to conduct a cost-
     benefit analysis for national primary drinking water 
     regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would 
     require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level, to 
     determine whether the benefits of the proposed MCL justify 
     the costs of complying with it. EPA would be given the 
     discretionary authority to establish less stringent standards 
     when it determines that the benefits of an MCL set at the 
     feasible level would not justify the cost of compliance or 
     when it determines that the contaminant occurs almost 
     exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this discretionary 
     authority, it would have to set the MCL at a level that 
     maximizes the reduction in health risk at a cost justified by 
     the benefits. While current law requires EPA to perform cost/
     benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not give the 
     agency the discretion to use those analyses as justification 
     for changing the standards contained in new regulations. This 
     change would give EPA greater discretion to set less 
     stringent standards in future regulations. Any use of that 
     discretion would lower the cost of compliance for public 
     water systems.
       Effective date of regulations.--The bill would change the 
     date that primary drinking water regulations become effective 
     from eighteen months to three years after the date of 
     promulgation, unless EPA determines that an earlier date is 
     practicable. This change would give water systems more time 
     to install new equipment or take other steps necessary to 
     comply with the new regulation.
       Small system technologies and variances.--Current law 
     allows EPA and the states to provide variances to small 
     systems if it is too costly for them to meet a standard. Such 
     provisions are almost never used, however. The bill would 
     create a Best Available Affordable Technology (BAAT) 
     variance. States would be allowed to grant BAAT variances to 
     small systems that can not otherwise afford to meet the 
     standard. If this variance option is widely used, it could 
     provide financial relief to small systems, many of which are 
     publicly owned.
       Changes to monitoring requirements.--H.R. 3604 would change 
     monitoring requirements for local water systems in ways that 
     probably would lower compliance costs. First, the section 
     would allow states with primary enforcement authority 
     (primacy) to modify temporarily the monitoring requirements 
     for most regulated and unregulated contaminants. States with 
     primacy would be allowed to relieve water systems serving 
     10,000 or fewer people of monitoring for a contaminant for up 
     to three years if certain conditions are met.
       Second, the bill would allow states with primary 
     enforcement authority, in some circumstances, to alter 
     monitoring requirements for most regulated contaminants 
     permanently. Third, the section would cap the number of 
     unregulated contaminants for which EPA could require 
     monitoring. Under current law, which has no such cap, EPA 
     requires testing for 33 unregulated contaminants.
       Fourth, under ``representative monitoring plans'' developed 
     by states with primary enforcement authority, public water 
     systems serving 10,000 or fewer people would probably monitor 
     for unregulated contaminants less frequently than they do 
     now. Current law requires all systems to do such monitoring, 
     but under these plans, only a representative sample of water 
     systems would have to monitor. Finally, this section would 
     direct the EPA Administrator to pay the reasonable costs of 
     testing and analysis that small systems (those serving 3,300 
     or fewer people) incur by carrying out the representative 
     monitoring plans.
       8. Appropriation or other Federal financial assistance 
     provided in bill to cover mandate costs:
       New Federal Grant Program to Set Up State Revolving 
     Funds.--The bill would authorize appropriations of $8.4 
     billion for state and local governments over fiscal years 
     1997 to 2003. The largest authorization would be $7 billion 
     for the creation of state revolving funds. In addition, the 
     bill would make available for spending $725 million that was 
     appropriated for the SRFs in fiscal years 1994-1996. If the 
     authorized funds are appropriated, these SRFs would be a 
     significant source of low-cost infrastructure financing for 
     many public water supply systems.
       In order to receive a federal SRF grant, states would have 
     to deposit matching funds of 20 percent into their revolving 
     fund. The bill would instruct EPA to withhold 20 percent of 
     an SRF grant to a state if the state has not met EPA's 
     requirements for an operator certification program. EPA would 
     also be instructed to withhold 20 percent of an SRF grant to 
     a state if the state has not met federal requirements for 
     capacity development programs.
       The bill would allow states to use a portion of their SRF 
     grants to help pay for the cost of developing and 
     implementing capacity development strategies. However, in 
     order to use that funding, states would have to take steps to 
     become eligible for an SRF grant and provide the required 20 
     percent state match to receive the grant.
       The bill would allow a state to spend up to 15 percent of 
     its SRF grant on certain activities, but only up to 10 
     percent on any one activity. The allowable activities would 
     include providing assistance to water systems for developing 
     technical, managerial, and financial capacity. The bill would 
     also allow a state with primary enforcement authority to 
     spend up to 10 percent of its SRF grant on four different 
     kinds of activities, one of which is developing and 
     implementing a capacity development strategy. In order to do 
     so, states would have to match such expenditures with an 
     equal amount of state funds, at least half of which would 
     have to exceed the amount the state spent supervising public 
     water systems in fiscal year 1993.
       CBO expects that most, if not all, states would apply to 
     EPA for SRF grant funding and thus would be able to use a 
     portion of their grant for funding state activities, 
     including developing and implementing their capacity 
     development strategies.
       Assuming appropriation of the full amounts authorized, CBO 
     estimates that, if states claim the maximum amounts available 
     for these activities, about $1.6 billion in SRF funds would 
     be available to states over the fiscal years 1997 through 
     2003. While states would be required to provide matching 
     funds to receive SRF grants and, in some cases, to use the 
     grant money for purposes other than capitalizing their SRF, 
     CBO estimates that they would be able to pay for most of 
     their capacity development activities with federal funding.
       Other Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 302 of the 
     bill would authorize appropriations of $15 million for fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2003 to be used by EPA to provide 
     technical assistance to small public water systems. Such 
     assistance may include circuit-rider programs, training, and 
     preliminary engineering evaluations. The purpose of such 
     assistance would be to enable small public water systems to 
     achieve and maintain compliance with national primary 
     drinking water regulations.
       Section 303 would extend the authorization for grants to 
     the states for public water system supervision (PWSS) 
     programs through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per year 
     and in some situations would allow states to supplement their 
     PWSS grant with money from their SRF capitalization grant. 
     The PWSS programs implement the Safe Drinking Water Act at 
     the level through enforcement, staff training, data 
     management, sanitary surveys, and certification of testing 
     laboratories.
       Section 304 would authorize appropriations of $10 million 
     annually for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for EPA to carry 
     out a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. Based 
     on regulations promulgated by EPA, each state would have to 
     develop a plan for representative sampling of small systems 
     serving a population of 10,000 or less. The bill would 
     require EPA to use some of the appropriated funds as grants 
     for these small systems to pay for the costs of monitoring 
     unregulated contaminants.
       Section 402 would extend the authorization of 
     appropriations for EPA's sole source aquifer demonstration 
     program at $15 million for

[[Page H6745]]

     each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003. This program provides 
     50 percent matching grants to states and localities for 
     projects to protect critical aquifers. This section would 
     also extend the authorization of appropriations for EPA's 
     wellhead protection program at $30 million through fiscal 
     year 2003. This program provides matching grants to states to 
     fund their efforts to protect the areas around water wells.
       Section 403 would authorize appropriations of $15 million 
     annually through fiscal year 2003 to help fund a watershed 
     protection program for the city of New York, Federal 
     assistance for this program would be capped at 35 percent.
       9. Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments: 
     Several sections of the bill would increase the 
     responsibilities of states only if they have chosen to accept 
     primary enforcement responsibility for national drinking 
     water regulations. Every state except Wyoming currently has 
     primary enforcement authority. To receive primacy for a 
     particular regulation, a state must adopt its own regulation 
     that is at least as stringent as the federal regulation, and 
     it must have adequate procedures for enforcing that 
     regulation. If states do not accept primacy, EPA will enforce 
     the provisions of the SDWA in that state. These additional 
     responsibilities are not mandates as defined in Public Law 
     104-4 because states have the option of not accepting primary 
     enforcement responsibility.
       Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would 
     require state agencies that exercise primary enforcement 
     responsibility to adopt and implement EPA regulations 
     requiring the certification of water system operators. Based 
     on information provided by the Association of State Drinking 
     Water Administrators, CBO estimates that states could incur 
     costs totaling about $5 million to comply with this 
     requirement. These costs would be incurred by the 37 states 
     that now exempt very small systems from their certification 
     programs.
       The bill would allow states with primary enforcement 
     authority to use a portion of their SRF grant to defray the 
     cost of this new primacy condition, but states would still be 
     required to commit some of their own resources. The bill 
     would also allow a state with primary enforcement authority 
     to spend up to 10 percent of its SRF grant on four different 
     kinds of activities, one of which is implementing an operator 
     certification program. In order to do so, however, states 
     would have to match such expenditures with an equal amount of 
     state funds, at least half of which would have to exceed the 
     amount the state spent supervising public water systems in 
     fiscal year 1993.
       Representative Monitoring Plan.--The bill would require 
     states with primary enforcement authority to develop a 
     ``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the occurrence 
     of unregulated contaminants in small and medium water systems 
     (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). Under these plans, 
     only a representative sample of water systems in each state 
     would be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants. 
     Current law requires all systems to do such monitoring. While 
     these plans could reduce the cost of monitoring for the water 
     systems, they would require extra effort by the states.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Pepper Santalucia.
       12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine (for Paul N. 
     Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis).


    congressional budget office estimate of costs of private-sector 
                                mandates

       1. Bill number: H.R. 3604.
       2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
       3. Bill status: As reported by the House Committee on 
     Commerce on June 24, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3604 would amend and reauthorize the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The purpose of the SDWA is to 
     protect the public drinking water supplies from harmful 
     contaminants. The SDWA is administered through regulatory 
     programs that establish standards and treatment requirements 
     for drinking water and ground water. SDWA regulations apply 
     to both privately and publicly owned systems that serve at 
     least 25 people (or 15 service connections) at least 60 days 
     per year. H.R. 3604 would authorize the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for 
     capitalizing state revolving loan funds (SRFs). These SRFs 
     would provide low-cost financing for the construction of 
     facilities to treat drinking water. Other major provisions of 
     the bill would:
       amend the procedures used for the selection of contaminants 
     for regulation based on an analysis of costs, benefits and 
     relative risk,
       authorize variances for small systems that cannot afford to 
     comply with national standards,
       direct EPA to define treatment technologies that are 
     feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency 
     issues new contaminant regulations,
       allow states to establish an alternative monitoring program 
     for contaminants in drinking water,
       require states to ensure that new public water systems have 
     the technical expertise and financial resources to implement 
     the SDWA, and
       authorize appropriations of $100 million a year for state 
     public water system supervision (PWSS) programs, $15 million 
     a year for protecting underground drinking water sources, $30 
     million a year for protecting drinking water wellhead areas, 
     and $15 million a year for assisting small drinking water 
     systems.
       5. Private-sector mandates contained in bill: H.R. 3604 
     would impose new mandates on public water systems, businesses 
     in the plumbing industry, manufacturers of certain chemical 
     products, and manufacturers of bottled drinking water. 
     However, the bill also would change the federal drinking 
     water program in ways that would lower the costs to public 
     water systems of complying with existing federal requirements 
     and that would lower the likely cost of complying with future 
     requirements. Over 50 percent of public water systems are 
     privately owned. A large portion of privately owned water 
     systems are relatively small, serving less than 10,000 
     households. Many provisions of the bill would directly reduce 
     the compliance costs of these systems and provide for grants 
     and technical assistance.
       The bill contains several new mandates on public water 
     system. Specifically, the bill would require water systems 
     to:
       comply with operator certification requirements established 
     by the states pursuant to EPA regulations.
       adhere to new public notification requirements, including a 
     requirement to distribute an annual ``consumer confidence 
     report'' to their customers, and
       provide requested information to EPA for use in 
     establishing new standards for contaminants.
       The bill also contains new mandates on the bottled-water 
     industry, certain segments of the plumbing industry, and 
     manufacturers of certain chemicals. H.R. 3640, if enacted, 
     would:
       impose the standards set for tap water under the SDWA as 
     regulations on the quality of bottled water if the Food and 
     Drug Administration has not acted within 180 days of the 
     issuance of the tap water standards by EPA,
       expand the ban on the use of materials containing lead in 
     drinking water systems and home plumbing, and
       require businesses that register, manufacture, or import 
     certain products to screen for substances that may have an 
     effect on humans that is similar to an effect produced by 
     naturally occurring estrogen, or other endocrine effects as 
     directed by EPA.
       The bill would reduce public water systems' likely cost of 
     complying with future regulations by:
       changing the procedures that EPA uses to identify 
     contaminants for regulation under the SDWA in ways that would 
     likely result in fewer contaminants being regulated,
       delaying the effective date of new regulations,
       directing EPA to define treatment technologies that are 
     feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency 
     issues new contaminant regulations,
       allowing operators of small drinking water systems greater 
     flexibility to obtain variances from drinking water standards 
     under certain conditions, and
       allowing states to establish alternative monitoring 
     requirements for contaminants in drinking water.
       6. Estimated direct cost to the private sector: The net 
     direct costs of the private-sector mandates identified in 
     this bill would not likely exceed the $100 million threshold 
     established in Public Law 104-4. Although mandates become 
     effective at different dates, CBO estimates that the 
     aggregate direct cost of mandates in this bill for which we 
     were able to obtain data would range from $40 million to $60 
     million annually for the first five years. Greater 
     uncertainty exists for mandates that become effective in 
     later years. Specifically, costs for estrogenic testing under 
     Section 404 could exceed the threshold if more expensive 
     tests become required. We further estimate that the costs of 
     these new mandates on the private sector would be at least 
     partially offset by savings from changes the bill would make 
     in the standard-setting process and in other aspects of the 
     federal drinking water program. These changes, which are the 
     same as those resulting in savings to publicly owned systems, 
     would significantly lower the costs privately owned systems 
     would incur to comply with future regulatory requirements.
       CBO estimates that privately owned water systems would 
     incur direct costs of $10 million to $15 million per year to 
     comply with a new requirement to mail annual ``consumer 
     confidence reports'' to their customers. Privately owned 
     water systems would also incur annual direct costs of $15 
     million to $20 million to comply with the new operator-
     certification requirement, beginning in fiscal year 2001. CBO 
     estimates that the costs to manufacturers and importers of 
     substances that would be subject to estrogen testing would 
     initially range from $15 million to $25 million annually. (In 
     later years, after an initial period of testing, the costs 
     could be more than $100 million as more sophisticated tests 
     may be required to determine longer term effects). The 
     incremental costs of expanding the ban on lead materials to 
     the plumbing industry would be negligible, as most in the 
     industry have already started to comply with the increased 
     ban on lead in plumbing fittings and fixtures. CBO also 
     estimates that the incremental costs to the bottled-water 
     industry would be negligible as most manufacturers attempt to 
     comply with EPA standards for tap water where appropriate for 
     bottled water.

[[Page H6746]]

                   New mandates on the private sector

       New Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would 
     require EPA to issue regulations specifying minimum standards 
     for the certification of operators of community water 
     systems. This mandate would impose costs totaling $25 million 
     to $30 million annually on publicly and privately owned 
     systems, primarily on very small water systems. While almost 
     every state now has an operator certification program, many 
     of them exempt these small systems. CBO estimates that 
     approximately 33,000 additional public water systems would be 
     subject to operator certification requirements as a result of 
     this bill and about 23,000 of those are privately owned. 
     Thus, CBO estimates that the incremental costs to privately 
     owned water systems would range from $15 million to $20 
     million per year to comply with the new federal requirements 
     for operator certification.
       Based on information provided by EPA officials, state 
     officials, and associations of state and local officials, CBO 
     assumed that many of the smallest water systems would utilize 
     contractors rather than employ certified operators. Other 
     systems would incur costs for training and testing of their 
     employees.
       This estimate is based on a number of factors that are 
     highly uncertain. The bill would give EPA considerable 
     latitude in establishing minimum standards, and CBO cannot 
     predict what those standards would be. Further, we cannot 
     predict the extent to which EPA would allow states to 
     continue their programs in lieu of adopting the new 
     standards. We have assumed that EPA would not require 
     substantial changes in existing state requirements for large 
     systems. The cost of this mandate could be greater if that 
     were not the case. Part of the cost we have attributed to the 
     public sector could be shifted to the private sector if some 
     small water systems require individual operators to bear the 
     cost of obtaining their certification.
       New Public Notification Requirements.--Section 131 would 
     require EPA to issue regulations to require community water 
     systems to mail an annual ``consumer confidence report'' to 
     each customer. The reports would contain:
       information about the source of the water supplied by the 
     system,
       the levels of any regulated contaminants detected in the 
     water,
       the levels of unregulated contaminants for which monitoring 
     is required, and
       in some cases, a brief statement explaining the health 
     concerns that prompted the regulation of a contaminant.
       The governor of a state could exempt systems serving fewer 
     than 10,000 people from the requirement to mail the report. 
     Systems not required to mail the report would instead have to 
     publish it in local newspapers and make the information 
     available upon request.
       CBO estimates that this new requirement would apply to 
     about 30,000 privately owned community water systems that are 
     not already complying with similar state laws. These systems 
     serve about 15 million households. Based on information from 
     water system operators in those states with similar laws, CBO 
     estimates that it would cost $10 million to $15 million 
     annually for these privately owned systems to prepare and 
     mail these reports. The estimate includes: the cost of 
     printing a report, the cost of staff time to develop a 
     report, and the cost of mailing reports to customers. CBO 
     does not expect that providing the option for small systems 
     (serving under 10,000) to publish the report in local 
     newspapers would significantly reduced the aggregate cost of 
     the requirement.
       Information Requirements.--The bill would allow EPA, after 
     consultation with the states and with water systems, to 
     require water systems to provide information for use in 
     establishing new standards for contaminants. Under current 
     law, EPA can only require this information through a formal 
     rule-making process. The bill would limit the kinds of 
     information EPA could require without providing funding and 
     would require the agency to first try to obtain the 
     information voluntarily. Because of these limitations, CBO 
     does not expect reporting costs for public water systems to 
     increase significantly as a result of this change.
       New Bottled Drinking Water Standards.--Section 410 of the 
     bill would direct the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to 
     establish regulations for bottled water for each contaminant 
     for which the EPA has promulgated a rule for drinking water. 
     The regulations are to be issued no later than 180 days after 
     tap water standards have been set and are to be no less 
     stringent. If FDA fails to act within the 180-day period, the 
     maximum contaminant levels established for tap water and 
     would apply to bottled water. Industry representatives claim 
     that they already meet and most likely exceed federal 
     standards for drinking water. The likely incremental effect 
     of this provision would be to influence how quickly federal 
     rules are promulgated for bottled water. The incremental 
     compliance costs to the industry of this provision would be 
     negligible.
       New Ban on Lead Plumbing Fixtures.--Section 141 of the bill 
     would ban the use of plumbing fittings and fixtures that 
     exceed established lead leaching rates and prohibit the use 
     and sale of leaded solder and flux unless it is clearly 
     labeled to prevent its use in plumbing delivering water for 
     human consumption. Current law already bans the use of pipe, 
     solder or flux containing lead in public water systems and 
     residential plumbing intended for human consumption. H.R. 
     3604 would add a ban on the use of lead plumbing fittings and 
     fixtures and defines ``lead free'' to be based on a consensus 
     standard to be established by The National Sanitation 
     Foundation (a private certifier). Industry experts consulted 
     by CBO indicate that these provisions codify current activity 
     in the industry and would not create significant incremental 
     compliance costs.
       New Estrogenic Substances Screening Program.--Section 404 
     would direct EPA to establish a screening program to 
     determine whether certain pesticides and other chemicals may 
     affect the endocrine system in ways similar to the natural 
     hormone estrogen. After a two-year period to develop 
     appropriate validated test systems, EPA would require persons 
     who register pesticides and chemicals, or who manufacture or 
     import targeted substances to conduct testing in accordance 
     with the screening program. Based on information provided by 
     research scientists, industry experts and EPA officials, CBO 
     assumed that an initial screening period would be necessary 
     to begin separating out those pesticides and chemicals from 
     the substances targeted by EPA that would not likely have an 
     effect on the endocrine system. Experts consulted by CBO 
     indicated that the initial stage of the screening program 
     would probably involve a set of short-term tests designed to 
     screen for an indication of an endocrine-like effect at the 
     cellular level.
       Cost estimates for a set of these tests range from $10,000 
     to $15,000, depending on the number and types of tests that 
     would be validated by EPA to be included in an initial 
     screening program. The group of substances eligible for 
     testing include active and inert ingredients from pesticides 
     and industrial chemicals. Experts consulted by CBO indicate 
     that a range of 1,500 to 1,700 substances could be tested in 
     an initial screening program. Based on these data, CBO 
     estimates the cost of testing to manufacturers and importers 
     could range from $15 million to $25 million. After a period 
     of initial screening, scientists and EPA officials indicated 
     that more sophisticated tests would probably be required to 
     analyze the longer-term effects of the substances that remain 
     of importance. These tests could be similar in nature to the 
     multi-generational tests conducted under current law (FIFRA 
     and TSCA) and could cost on average about $500,000 per test. 
     If such additional screening were required by EPA, the costs 
     to the private sector could increase to over $100 million 
     in years after the initial testing has been completed.

               Changes likely to reduce compliance costs

       Several provisions in H.R. 3604 should result in savings to 
     the private sector relative to current law. The additional 
     costs to the private sector of mandates in the bill would be 
     at least partially offset by a number of other changes to the 
     federal drinking water program that would significantly lower 
     the costs of complying with future requirements. 
     Specifically, the bill would reduce public water systems' 
     likely costs by changing the federal standard-setting 
     process, delaying the effective date of new regulations, 
     allowing operators to obtain variances, and allowing states 
     to establish alternative monitoring requirements. Major 
     provisions that have potential to result in savings are 
     discussed below.
       New Standard-Setting Procedure.--H.R. 3604 would change the 
     procedures for selecting drinking water contaminants for 
     regulation and for determining permissible levels of those 
     contaminants in ways that would likely lower future 
     compliance costs for public water systems. The bill would 
     rescind the requirement that EPA issue rules for 25 drinking 
     water contaminants every three years. Thus, EPA would not 
     have to regulate a specific number of contaminants. Although 
     it is possible that, with this change, EPA would regulate 
     more new contaminants than current law dictates, CBO expects 
     that the agency would actually regulate fewer new 
     contaminants than currently required.
       Second, the bill would require EPA to conduct a cost-
     benefit analysis for national primary drinking water 
     regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would 
     require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level 
     (MCL), to determine whether the benefits of the proposed MCL 
     justify the costs of complying with it. EPA would be given 
     the discretionary authority to establish less stringent 
     standards when it determines that the benefits of an MCL set 
     at the feasible level would not justify the cost of 
     compliance or when it determines that the contaminant occurs 
     almost exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this 
     discretionary authority, it would have to set the MCL at a 
     level that maximizes the reduction in health risk at a cost 
     justified by the benefits. While current law requires EPA to 
     perform cost/benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not 
     give the agency the discretion to use those analyses as 
     justification for changing the standards contained in new 
     regulations. This change in current law would give EPA 
     greater discretion to set less stringent standards in future 
     regulations. Any use of that discretion would lower the cost 
     of compliance for public water systems.
       Effective Date of Regulations.--The bill would change the 
     date that primary drinking water regulations become effective 
     from eighteen months to three years after the date of 
     promulgation, unless EPA determines that an earlier date is 
     practicable. This change would give water systems more

[[Page H6747]]

     time to install new equipment or take other steps necessary 
     to comply with the new regulation.
       Small System Technologies and Variances.--Current law 
     allows EPA and the states to provide variances to small 
     systems if it is too costly for them to meet a standard. Such 
     provisions are almost never used, however. Section 142 of the 
     bill would create a Best Available Affordable Technology 
     (BAAT) variance. States would be allowed to grant BAAT 
     variances to small systems that can not otherwise afford to 
     meet the standard. If this variance option is widely used, it 
     could provide financial relief to small systems, many of 
     which are privately owned.
       Changes to Monitoring Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would change 
     monitoring requirements for local water systems in ways that 
     probably would lower compliance costs. First, the section 
     would allow states with primary enforcement authority 
     (primacy) to modify temporarily the monitoring requirements 
     for most regulated and unregulated contaminants. States with 
     primacy would be allowed to relieve water systems serving 
     10,000 or fewer people of monitoring for a contaminant for up 
     to three years if certain conditions are met.
       Second, the bill would allow states with primacy, in some 
     circumstances, to alter monitoring requirements for most 
     regulated contaminants permanently. Third, the bill would cap 
     the number of unregulated contaminants for which EPA could 
     require monitoring. Under current law, which has no such cap, 
     EPA requires testing for 33 unregulated contaminants.
       Fourth, the bill would require states with primacy to 
     develop a ``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the 
     occurrence of unregulated contaminants in small and medium 
     water systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). Under 
     these plans, only a representative sample of water systems in 
     each state would be required to monitor for unregulated 
     contaminants. Because current law requires all systems to do 
     such monitoring, these plans could reduce the cost of 
     monitoring for the water systems. Finally, this section would 
     direct the EPA Administrator to pay the reasonable costs of 
     testing and analysis that small systems incur by carrying out 
     the representative monitoring plans.
       7. Appropriations or other Federal financial assistance:
       New Federal Grant Program to Set Up State Revolving 
     Funds.--The bill would authorize appropriations of $7.8 
     billion for state and local governments over fiscal years 
     1997 to 2003 in part to be used in various programs to assist 
     publicly and privately owned water systems. The largest 
     authorization would be $7 billion for the creation of state 
     revolving funds (SRFs). In addition, the bill would make 
     available for spending $725 million that was appropriated for 
     the SRFs in fiscal years 1994-1996. If the authorized funds 
     are appropriated, these SRFs would be a significant source of 
     low-cost infrastructure financing for many public water 
     supply systems.
       The bill, under section 308, would establish a new State 
     Revolving Fund (SRF) program for drinking water 
     infrastructure. The bill authorizes $1 billion per year 
     through fiscal year 2003 for capitalization grants. The 
     federal government would provide capitalization grants to 
     state-run SRFs. States would use these funds to make grants 
     and loans to public water systems to facilitate compliance 
     with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Further, the bill would 
     authorize EPA to reserve up to 2 percent of its annual grant 
     to provide technical assistance to small water systems 
     serving a population of 10,000 or less. Assistance may 
     include financial management, planning and design, source 
     water protection, or system restructuring.
       In order to receive a federal SRF grant, states would have 
     to deposit matching funds of 20 percent into their revolving 
     fund. The bill would instruct EPA to withhold 20 percent of 
     an SRF grant to a state if the state has not met EPA's 
     requirements for an operator certification program. EPA would 
     also be instructed to withhold twenty percent of an SRF grant 
     to a state if the state has not met federal requirements for 
     capacity development programs.
       Other Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 302 of the 
     bill would authorize $15 million for fiscal years 1997 
     through 2003 to be used by EPA to provide technical 
     assistance to small public water systems. Such assistance may 
     include circuit-rider programs, training, and preliminary 
     engineering evaluations. The purpose of such assistance would 
     be to enable small public water systems to achieve and 
     maintain compliance with national primary drinking water 
     regulations.
       Section 303 of the bill would extend the authorization for 
     grants to the states for public water system supervision 
     (PWSS) programs through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per 
     year and in some situations would allow states to supplement 
     their PWSS grant with money from their SRF capitalization 
     grant. The PWSS programs implement the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act at the state level through enforcement, staff training, 
     data management, sanitary surveys, and certification of 
     testing laboratories. Some of these funds may be used to pay 
     for training operators of privately owned systems.
       Section 304 of the bill would authorize appropriations of 
     $10 million annually for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for 
     EPA to carry out a monitoring program for unregulated 
     contaminants. Based on regulations promulgated by EPA, each 
     state would have to develop a plan for representative 
     sampling of small systems serving a population of 10,000 or 
     less. The bill would require EPA to use some of the 
     appropriated funds as grants for these small systems to pay 
     for the costs of monitoring unregulated contaminants.
       8. Previous CBO estimate: None
       9. Estimate prepared by: Terry Dinan and Patrice Gordon.
       10. Estimate approved by: Jan Acton, Assistant Director for 
     Natural Resources and Commerce.
                                                                    ____



                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I applaud your work and the efforts of 
     other key members of the Committee on Commerce to reach 
     bipartisan agreement on a strengthened Safe Drinking Water 
     Act (SDWA). As you prepare for Full Committee mark-up and 
     future steps in the legislative process, I would like to 
     provide you with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
     initial views on the bill reported by the Subcommittee on 
     health and Environment, as well as an assessment of EPA's 
     ability to implement provisions of the bill.
       Ensuring the safety of the water we drink every day is one 
     of the most fundamental responsibilities of government, and 
     one of President Clinton's top environmental priorities. In 
     September 1993, the Administration sent to Congress ten 
     recommendations for SDWA reauthorization. We seek a 
     reauthorized Act that provides responsible regulatory 
     improvements coupled with stronger `preventive'' approaches 
     and public information along with increased State and local 
     funding--all of which will improve public health protection.
       The Committee's bill achieves these goals by drawing on 
     many of the strongest elements of the Senate bill, S. 1316, 
     while making essential improvements in several key areas. The 
     Committee's improvements in the area of ``prevention'' are 
     perhaps the most significant. The bill reflects the 
     Administration's recommendations to fundamentally improve the 
     ability of water systems and States to prevent drinking water 
     safety problems and avoid public health endangerment in the 
     future. Preventing pollution of drinking water sources in the 
     first place can reduce the cost of treating water ``after the 
     fact.'' The bill provides for the delineation and assessment 
     of source water areas, as in the Senate bill, but provides 
     States with extensive flexibility to develop and fund their 
     own source water protection programs and local protection 
     projects. We strongly support this flexibility; State and 
     local initiatives should not be stifled by overly 
     prescriptive statutory requirements. In addition, the bill 
     strengthens small system assistance, operator training and 
     certification, and State programs to encourage greater 
     technical, financial, and managerial capacity among the 
     nation's water systems.
       We applaud the Commerce for including provisions to improve 
     consumer awareness. Public access to information on drinking 
     water safety is long overdue. We are pleased to see the 
     Committee has included an estrogen screening program that 
     will advance our understanding of endocrine disrupters and 
     their potential health effects. These provisions and the 
     stronger prevention focus in the bill, if passed into law, 
     would signal a revitalized national commitment to meet the 
     challenge of safe and affordable drinking water long into the 
     future.
       The Committee's bill, like the Senate bill, includes 
     several provisions that address current implementation 
     problems faced by water systems, States, and EPA--most 
     notably, monitoring flexibility, workable exemptions, small 
     system assistance, small system technology variances, and 
     more funding for States. The bill also establishes the 
     Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) proposed by 
     President Clinton, which will provide funding to communities 
     to improve drinking water safety. I am concerned, however, 
     that the total level of ``taps'' from the SRF to fund 
     specific activities will limit the availability of dollars 
     needed for building a permanent source of revolving funds.
       Finally, the Committee's bill builds upon the Senate's 
     balanced framework for selecting contaminants and setting 
     standards, but eliminates duplicative procedural hurdles that 
     could cause unnecessary delays in future safety standards. 
     The bill also has a special provision to preserve the 
     balanced framework that was agreed upon as part of a 
     negotiated rulemaking for setting future standards for 
     disinfection byprodudcts and Cryptosporidium.
       The Administration has steadfastly supported improvements 
     to SDWA along the lines of the bill reported by the 
     Subcommittee, and EPA has taken a number of steps to prepare 
     for these improvements. Over the last year we have worked 
     hard with stakeholders to realign our resources to reflect 
     priority drinking water concerns. We believe our extensive 
     outreach effort will bolster future partnerships for 
     implementing SDWA. In addition, our planned reorganization of 
     the drinking water program should improve the Agency's 
     ability to strengthen its scientific work in drinking water 
     while maintaining other priority activities.
       EPA's responsibilities in the bill will present significant 
     implementation challenges. Important new efforts to boost 
     stakeholder involvement and strengthen science will 
     undoubtedly make some time frames

[[Page H6748]]

     difficult and strain current Agency resources. Timely 
     implementation is achievable, however, depending on adequate 
     levels of future funding. We look forward to working together 
     to assure there are resources necessary to allow 
     implementation of the important public health protections in 
     this bill.
       I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the 
     bill. We may have additional comments as we conduct a more 
     detailed review of individual provisions. I look forward to 
     working with the Committee to secure final passage of SDWA 
     reauthorization that provides balanced regulatory 
     improvements, new funding, strong prevention, and public 
     information.
           Sincerely,
     Carol M. Browner.
                                                                    ____

                                                    June 11, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to express our appreciation for 
     your hard work in developing H.R. 3604, the bipartisan bill 
     to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act reported by the 
     Health and Environment Subcommittee on June 6. We urge the 
     Commerce Committee and the House to approve that bill as 
     expeditiously as possible to keep the legislative process 
     moving forward.
       First and foremost, H.R. 3604 improves the protection of 
     public health. It represents a significant advance over 
     current law and over the bill approved by the House in 1994. 
     Among other significant changes, the measure approved in 
     subcommittee eliminates the requirement for the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to regulate 25 new contaminants every three 
     years and instead focuses attention on contaminants that 
     actually occur or are likely to occur in drinking water. The 
     bill improves the current standard setting process by 
     allowing EPA to balance risks and to consider costs and 
     benefits in setting most new standard. It also addresses the 
     technology needs of small water systems, allows some relief 
     from monitoring requirements when contaminants do not occur 
     in the drinking water in a given community, and authorizes a 
     new state revolving fund for much needed investments in 
     drinking water infrastructure. These changes and others are 
     important improvements over the current law.
       As you know, the bill also includes several expanded 
     federal authorities and new mandates on states, local 
     governments, and water suppliers about which we have some 
     concerns. We await the Congressional Budget Office analysis 
     of the costs of these mandates.
       We will continue to work with you and your colleagues in 
     the Senate to assure that the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     reauthorization bill is enacted into law this year, providing 
     the public with both safe and affordable drinking water.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Tommy G. Thompson, Chairman, National Governors' 
           Association;
         Gregory S. Lashutka, President, National League Cities;
         Norman B. Rice, President, The U.S. Conference of Mayors;
         Douglas R. Bovin, President, National Association of 
           Countries;
         James J. Lack, President, National Conference of State 
           Legislature;
         David L. Tippin, President, Association of Metropolitan 
           Water Agencies;
         Karl F. Kohlhoff, President, American Water Works 
           Association;
         Ronald S. Dugan, President, National Association of Water 
           Companies;
         James K. Cleland, President, Association of State 
           Drinking Water Administrators;
         Fred N. Pfeiffer, President National Water Resources 
           Association.
                                                                    ____

                                             Campaign for Safe and


                                    Affordable Drinking Water,

                                                    June 21, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas Bliley,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bliley: We are writing to thank you for your 
     leadership in negotiating and achieving unanimous Committee 
     passage of the ``Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996,'' H.R. 
     3604, and to express our appreciation for your attention to 
     our views in the legislative process. We do not agree with 
     all of the decisions that the Committee reached, but we do 
     believe that our concerns received full and fair 
     consideration.
       Although we did not support S. 1316 as it was passed by the 
     Senate, we are pleased to be able to endorse H.R. 3604. We 
     support it on balance because it provides a number of 
     important public health protections, including:
       The right-to-know provision, which requires water systems 
     to issue drinking water quality reports to consumers.
       Prevention provisions, including an improved source water 
     assessment, operator certification, and capacity development 
     sections.
       A reasonable radon provision that establishes a rational 
     process for setting a standard for this important cancer-
     causing contaminant.
       More workable small system provisions. Small system 
     exemptions and variances would be limited to water systems 
     serving less than 3,300 customers. These provisions would 
     encourage and facilitate compliance rather than needlessly 
     waiving public health protection requirements.
       Improved monitoring provisions for unregulated 
     contaminants, tying monitoring relief to source water 
     assessments, and requiring a disease monitoring study.
       We continue to have, of course, objections to some of the 
     language included in H.R. 3604, particularly the provisions 
     affecting citizen suits, standard setting (although we 
     recognize that the House language improves upon the Senate 
     proposal), source water program funding, and information 
     gathering. Accordingly, our continued support for H.R. 3604 
     will be predicated upon maintaining the important 
     improvements the Commerce Committee adopted.
           Sincerely,
         20/20 Vision;
         Gary Rose, Aids Action Council;
         Susan Polan, American Cancer Society;
         Ted Morton, American Oceans Campaign;
         Dr. Fernando Trevino, American Public Health Association;
         Beth Norcross, American Rivers;
         Michael Hirshfield, PhD., Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
         Roberta Hazen-Aranson, Childhood Lead Action Project, RI;
         Winonah Hauter, Citizen Action;
         Mary Clark, Citizen Action of New York;
         Paul Schwartz, Clean Water Action;
         Ginny Yingling, Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota;
         Beth Blissman, Lorain Grenado, Steering Committee, 
           COPEEN, Colorado People's Environmental and Economic 
           Network;
         Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America;
         Donald Clark, Cornicopia Network of New Jersey, Inc.;
         James K. Wyerman, Defenders of Wildlife;
         Phil Clapp, Environmental Information Center;
         Brian Cohen, Environmental Working Group;
         Velma Smith, Friends of the Earth;
         Joanne Royce, Government Accountability Project;
         Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council;
         Jan Conley, Lake Superior Greens;
         Judy Pannullo, Long Island Progressive Coalition;
         Dr. Edward B. Smart, Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministry;
         Aisha Ikramuddin, Mothers & Others;
         Mary Marra, National Wildlife Federation;
         Cleo Manual, National Consumers League;
         Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defence Council;
         Rev. Albert G. Cohen, Network for Environmental & 
           Economic Responsibility;
         Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey Environmental Federation;
         Bruce R. Carpenter, New York Rivers United;
         Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation;
         Debbie Ortman, Northern Environmental Network;
         Alfonso Lopez, Physicians for Social Responsibility;
         Rabbi David Sapperstein; Religious Action Center;
         Alison Walsh, Save the Bay, Rhode Island;
         Mark Pelavin, Union of American Hebrew Congregations;
         Daniel Rosenberg, U.S. PIRG;
         Parker Blackmun, WashPIRG;
         Robert Hudek, Wisconsin Citizen Action.
                                                                    ____



                                          Clean Water Council,

                                                     May 29, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, House Commerce Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned members of the Clean 
     Water Council represent employers and independent 
     professionals who finance, design, construct, and maintain 
     drinking water delivery and treatment facilities. We urge you 
     to support timely action on legislation to reauthorize the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act and create a State Revolving Loan 
     Fund (SRF) Program to help states finance capital investment 
     and improvements in drinking water infrastructure.
       The proposed drinking water SRF program would be an 
     efficient and cost-effective means of providing capital for 
     the construction of drinking water delivery and treatment 
     facilities. The need for the program is well documented. 
     Growing demands on our aging and sometimes nonexistent 
     infrastructure often force cash-strapped communities to patch 
     the leaks and stretch the infrastructure to unsafe limits for 
     lack of financial resources. Water main breaks, boil water 
     orders, and dry fire hydrants are routine occurrences and 
     pose unacceptable risks to our families. A 1990 report 
     published by the Clean Water Council demonstrated a $2-
     billion annual drinking water infrastructure deficit above 
     and beyond what the states themselves are expected to invest.
       Furthermore, clean water infrastructure is essential to 
     environmental protection, private sector productivity and 
     profitability, and job creation. Half of the estimated 57,000 
     jobs created for every $1 billion invested are permanent 
     jobs. Clean water construction, rehabilitation, and 
     maintenance also increase the local tax base. A dependable 
     network of pipes and treatment facilities attracts new homes 
     and businesses to a community. This is an area where 
     environmental protection and economic growth go hand-in-hand.

[[Page H6749]]

       Your efforts to move safe drinking water legislation this 
     year are an investment in America's clean water future.
           Sincerely,
         The Clean Water Council,
         American Consulting Engineers Council;
         American Portland Cement Alliance;
         American Road and Transportation Builders Association;
         American Society of Civil Engineers;
         American Subcontractors Association;
         Associated Equipment Distributors;
         Associated General Contractors of America;
         Constructed Industry Manufacturers Association;
         Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities;
         Equipment Manufacturers Institute;
         International Spiral Rib Pipe Association;
         National Aggregates Association;
         National Constructors Association;
         National Precast Concrete Association;
         National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
         National Stone Association;
         National Utility Contractors Association;
         Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association;
         Water and Sewer Distributors of America;
         Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association.
                                                                    ____

                                         Council of Infrastructure


                                        Financing Authorities,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     Chairman, Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We want to extend our congratulations to 
     you, the members of your Committee and staff for your 
     skillful legislative effort in fashioning a bi-partisan 
     consensus bill that moved swiftly through your Committee to 
     reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. H.R. 3604 is a good 
     and carefully constructed piece of legislation that deserves 
     to be adopted by the House.
       We are pleased to advise you of our support for this 
     legislation, as reported out of your Committee, and 
     appreciate the extensive effort that you and the other 
     members of the Commerce Committee devoted to fashioning the 
     several compromises that have allowed this bill to move 
     forward. The provisions in the bill creating a new State 
     Revolving Loan fund will authorize critically needed funds to 
     finance water system improvements and if expeditiously 
     enacted, will make already appropriated funds available for 
     state lending. We are especially appreciative of the 
     continued efforts by the Committee staff to work with us to 
     accommodate changes in the State Revolving Loan Fund 
     financing provisions which will make them more workable when 
     the bill becomes law.
       We look forward to the passage of this legislation, and 
     offer our support and assistance through the continuation of 
     the legislative process.
       With appreciation,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul Marchetti,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear myself say I am speaking in 
opposition to this bill. I have here in my hand a statement in support 
of the bill, a statement that commends, appropriately, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the members of our 
committee for the very long period of negotiations entered into in good 
faith to resolve the differences on the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  This was a negotiation that literally took place over a matter of 
years and the result of our negotiations was a bill supported by 
everyone, the water systems, the State and local governments, the 
agricultural interests, and the environmentalists. Everybody was 
satisfied that the legislation that was reported unanimously out of the 
Committee on Commerce was a good bill and this legislation appeared to 
be heading to conference and to the President's desk as one of the rare 
accomplishments of this legislative session.
  The unfortunate fact is I cannot make that statement that ordinarily 
is made on a suspension bill, urging all our colleagues to support it. 
The reason I cannot make that statement is that this bill was changed 
last night. An important part of the drinking water legislation is a 
revolving fund that would help drinking water systems throughout this 
country to able to draw on money so that they could upgrade their 
systems, so that we could be assured that those water systems will be 
delivering water that meets the standard to protect the public health.
  In the bill now before us, as a result of negotiations behind closed 
doors that did not involve any of us on the Democratic side, money has 
been earmarked for certain projects to be paid for out of this 
revolving fund; $375 million is earmarked for specific areas, specific 
water projects. Now, that means there is less money for the rest of the 
country. It means that the revolving fund will not be used for the 
highest priorities, where we need to clean those systems up or allow 
the systems to be modernized so that the water can be cleaned.
  This bill should not be coming to the floor under those kinds of 
circumstances. We all believe, and the reason we entered the 
negotiations is we wanted to accomplish something through a bipartisan 
agreement. In accomplishing a bipartisan agreement, there has to be 
understandings and the bill was delicately balanced. It certainly was 
not the bill I wanted completely. It was not the bill the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] or the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis] wanted in its entirety, but we balanced out the different 
concerns and had a compromise bill we all felt we could stand behind.
  Part of that balancing out was an understanding that we would all 
negotiate with each other, we would all have to agree to changes all 
the way through conference. Well, we are not even off the House floor 
and changes are being made in this bill without our agreeing to it.

                              {time}  1245

  In fact, without even knowing about it. Bipartisanship and working to 
accomplish something in this House has to involve relying on each other 
to keep commitments, to be able to rely on each other's understandings 
of where we are going with any legislation.
  The provisions in this bill now that have been added are arbitrary. 
These projects are arbitrarily designated as being ahead of everybody 
else, every other water system in the country. It is not for public 
health reasons. It is for political reasons that some projects are 
being given special treatment.
  I feel very sad to have to come here to the floor after all this 
effort and urge my colleagues not to support this legislation. It seems 
to me a very poor way for us to be moving legislation that should be a 
proud accomplishment that all of us should look with pride as having 
done something in the public interest.
   Mr. Speaker, I will yield to others who may want to speak on this 
legislation, but, while we have in the past told all our colleagues to 
support the bill, now we have to urge opposition to it. If these 
projects are meritorious, let us have a vote on them. Let Members have 
a discussion as to those specific projects. If they were presented to 
us on the House floor and the Members wanted to go along with it, then 
I would really have no complaint, even if I were to oppose it. But to 
have special projects that amount to political pork inserted in the 
bill and then we have to vote for the whole bill and move those 
projects along with a bill that everybody wanted seems to me the 
improper way for us to proceed.
   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we are getting smarter as we go along. We 
have developed a very good bill that responds to a legitimate need of 
the American people. That is to deal in a responsible manner with safe 
drinking water.
  The American people have said to us they want smaller, less costly, 
less intrusive government, and we are responding. But they do not want 
us to dismantle government and they for darn sure want us to be 
responsible in protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink, 
and the food we eat. This measure, the Safe Drinking Water Act, does 
just that.
  I would point out to my distinguished colleague from California this 
bill does not, let me repeat, this bill

[[Page H6750]]

does not contain any earmarks. The bill does not include any site-
specific provisions. EPA and the States have the authority to select 
their own priorities. Let me make that abundantly clear. This bill does 
not have any earmarks. This bill has some language making 
recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency, but the 
Environmental Protection Agency is given free rein to make the best 
possible judgments consistent with the objectives of this legislation.
  Let me also point out that, if Congress fails to appropriate at least 
75 percent of the authorization for the grants program and if the 
States and localities do not come up with at least a 50/50 cost sharing 
match, two very responsible ways to deal with the legislation, then all 
bets are off.
  It is important for all my colleagues following this debate very 
closely to understand this bill does not include any earmarks. What it 
does include is hope for communities all across this country who have 
said to us in no uncertain terms, please help us, please give us some 
resources so that we can do the job that our constituents have every 
right to expect us to do; that is, to protect the water we drink.
  We can go all around the world, and there are very few countries 
where you can do what I am about to do, reach over and grab a glass of 
water from a public water system. This is not any fancy imported water. 
This is from the Washington public water system. I can drink it knowing 
full well that I am not placing my health in jeopardy. Do you want to 
know why? Because we have the Environmental Protection Agency, because 
we have Federal employees implementing Federal regulations, operating 
under Federal law. Here is to you America. And we are going to do 
something more. We are going to protect that water supply.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to take this opportunity to tell the gentleman from New 
York that he has played a very important role in fashioning a Safe 
Drinking Water Act that we can be proud of. The right-to-know 
provisions in this legislation are just one of the areas from an 
environmental perspective that we have in this legislation due to his 
enormous efforts. On this bill and any others that affect the 
environment, the public health, he has been a champion, and I want to 
commend him for it.
  We do not have a disagreement over this legislation and the substance 
of this legislation. My only complaint, and it is not with the 
gentleman from New York, is that on our side we were never consulted 
about the specific projects. We were never consulted about it. We did 
not know about it until it was put in this legislation.
  I do want to underscore the points my colleague has made that, after 
all the work that has been done, we have a drinking water bill on 
substance that is one we should proudly support. My only objections are 
the changes were made.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in our 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which, incidentally, is 
the largest committee of this Congress or, for that matter, any 
Congress in the history of the Republic, it passed by unanimous vote, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. And we did have some very thorough 
consultation.
  I can only speak for my committee. We did have some consultation 
about our section of the bill, and I see some of my colleagues from the 
committee who were very much a part of that consultation on the other 
side of the aisle. The point is we have striven mightily to make this 
not a partisan thing, although we proudly claim an initiative here, but 
to work in concert with our good friends who are Democrats who share 
the same vision for America that we all have; that is, we want cleaner 
water.
  I would further point out that I am very mindful of the fact that the 
gentleman has some special needs in Santa Monica, and we have talked 
about this and we have exchanged correspondence. This is the ideal 
vehicle to go forward with the improvements that my colleague needs for 
the water system in Santa Monica.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that 
anything in Santa Monica is in this legislation. That was on another 
matter. The fact of the matter is, my colleague's committee made some 
decisions. My complaint is not about that committee making decisions 
within its jurisdiction.
  My complaint is that, when we agreed in our committee on a drinking 
water bill, we agreed that everybody, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], myself, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], had to sign off on any changes in 
the bill that we had. We feel we were not consulted in the changes that 
were made. That is our complaint. Our complaint is not with my 
colleague and not with the members of his committee, as to what he may 
have pursued within his own committee as it affected the bill that we 
all agreed to and had mutual commitments would not be changed.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
know time is precious, just let me say that we are about today 
something that I think is going to make the American people very happy. 
They watch what goes on down here and they wonder why we cannot come 
together, Republicans and Democrats, on something so important as safe 
drinking water. We can look the American people in the eye and say, we 
have come up with a good program that is going to protect the water 
supply for America. I think that is a day's deed well done.

  I think the gentleman for his help and for his guidance. He was here 
before I. He has been my inspiration on some occasions. We have been 
partners dealing with some legislation like acid rain. We are partners 
here again today. I hope we march forward together and pass this very 
important legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and I 
hope that we will be together on this legislation, if not today, down 
the road, because we have been consistently fighting the battle on the 
same side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], chairman of the subcommittee that has worked 
very hard on this bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me, my full committee chairman.
  Over 5 months ago, I chaired the Health and Environment Subcommittee 
hearing concerning priorities for the reauthorization of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  The subcommittee heard testimony from public officials, private water 
systems, and the environmental community. And, while opinions varied, 
no one disputed the essential task before us--the need to overhaul a 
well-intentioned, 10-year-old statute which has served us well, but 
which has not aged gracefully.
  Many have cited the need for flexibility in the administration of the 
law. EPA has also estimated that the capital expenditures needed to 
comply with current requirements total $8.6 billion. So the question 
has not been whether to act, but how to best correct identified 
problems.
  At first, I must admit the job looked easy, especially given the 
action of the other body to vote unanimously in favor of reforms. The 
careful review of the Commerce Committee, however, has helped to shape 
legislative provisions which are improved and which I believe will 
stand the test of time.
  We have improved the standard setting language which lies at the 
heart of the act, making it more workable and efficient.
  In addition, the bill strengthens certain provisions regarding 
capacity development and operator training. The bill will directly 
improve the human factor in the safe drinking water act.
  All of these changes are not universally popular with every 
interested party. But a careful balance has been struck in this 
legislation between flexibility in administration and certainty in 
regulation.
  I believe we have a good bill before us. It is a bill which bears the 
imprint and hard work of many Members too numerous to mention. I would 
urge its approval to help ensure the continued

[[Page H6751]]

safety of the Nation's drinking water supply.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is presiding over some very important 
hearings at this very hour dealing with aviation safety. Otherwise, he 
would be here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell] has 25 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Bliley] has 27 minutes remaining.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] controls 
the remainder of the time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Waxman].
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to pay my respects and my 
compliments to my dear friends, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]. They have tried 
hard to work with us on a fair and a decent bill. I believe that it had 
in that effort a real seed of careful and good legislative work. For 
that I commend them and for that I thank them.
  But between the time that Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Waxman, and I agreed with regard to the substance 
of the bill, something peculiar happened. All of a sudden, we have 
found that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, well 
known for its ability to seize pork wherever that pork might be found, 
has done so again.
  So we do not bring Members a bill which is going to make safe the 
waters only. We bring here a bill which through some curious process 
between the time the bill left our committee and the time it came to 
the floor came to contain 375 million dollars' worth of pork.
  My staff informs me that perhaps a couple of the projects which are 
in this area of pork have some merit. Most of them are, quite frankly, 
nothing more or less than shameless raids by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. Not only are they quite shameless 
raids, but they are for projects which are quite lacking in merit. More 
importantly, they are an attempt to raid a small fund which is going to 
help communities all across this country to make safe the drinking 
water upon which their people are dependent.

                              {time}  1300

  They are things for parks and for rehabilitation of water systems, 
improvement and restoration of an aquatic system at Pennypack Park. 
They are other wonderful programs for water line extensions. They are 
programs for construction and activities at a reservoir.
  There are other infrastructure water assistance programs, not for 
making water safe for the public at large, not for carrying out the 
purposes for which this program was set up, but simply to take care of 
some political things so that we now have a safe drinking water bill 
where the moneys available to assist communities in addressing the 
problem of safety of their water simply are being perverted by the 
Committee on Public Works to seize a wonderful opportunity to convert 
meaningful public expenditures into pork to benefit the members of that 
committee and to get around the constraints that are put on by 
Republican colleagues over here with regard to how public moneys have 
been spent.
  This is a sneaky, dishonest effort to get around the requirements of 
the Budget Act and the budget. That is all it is. This is not good, 
honest, carefully thought-out legislation at all. It has been perverted 
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a fashion 
which is unique to that committee, and it manifests in a splendid way 
fiscal irresponsibility on that side of the aisle from which Members 
over here were totally excluded. It also manifests splendid 
irresponsibility in seizing and converting funds which should have gone 
to communities for making water safe, into pork. Thus has the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure served this body.
  Every Member of this body could look at this piece of legislation and 
say my district would have had a chance to get real and meaningful 
assistance in terms of cleaning up our water supply, making it safe, 
but the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has stolen $375 
million out of that fund for their own peculiar, unreported purposes 
for which there have been neither hearings nor reports, and they have 
done so in a way which evades the Budget Act.
  Now, the bill started out to be a responsible effort to clean up the 
drinking waters of this country, to avoid the kind of things that 
struck Milwaukee where they had a major infestation of an intestinal 
parasite which caused a large number of deaths and an even larger 
number of sicknesses and illness. It is an attempt to see to it that 
water systems in places like Washington, DC, where we have been told 
that the waters of this city that are used by the citizens of this city 
should be boiled because they are unsafe. But, no, we have gone to 
steal money from the State-controlled drinking water fund to fatten 
pork projects suggested not on the basis of need, but on the basis of 
congressional politics and in a splendid way to escape the constraints 
that my Republican colleagues would put on the budget for the Committee 
on Public Works.

  I think this is clearly wrong. The revolving fund which is raided to 
the tune of $375 million is an important assistance to communities 
across this country, which desperately need those moneys to carry out 
important projects. But some 14 members of the Committee on Public 
Works and their friends have decided, no, those moneys are going to be 
shortstopped, those moneys are going to be taken off to take care of 
their own peculiar special nice interests at the expense of all the 
other Members of this body and at the expense of a program which is 
already far too small for the cleaning up of the drinking water 
supplies of the people of this country.
  The only source of money, apparently, that the Committee on Public 
Works could find from which they could filch this money was the funding 
which is included in this bill for the protection of drinking water 
supplies and for the restoration of the safety of those drinking water 
supplies. Those moneys are limited, but they are essential, and they 
are important to the public health to the safety of the people of this 
country, Mr. Speaker, and they are a public expenditure which is very 
important to all the people.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] briefly.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding, and I do not wish to interrupt his fun, but I do appreciate 
his giving me a time to respond to some of his comments. The gentleman 
from Michigan is suggesting that what used to be called the Committee 
on Public Works which is now called the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, this is the new era----
  Mr. DINGELL. I know it by the old name, and they are still up to 
their old practices which is pork, pork at all costs, pork at any cost, 
pork without responsibility, pork without need, pork. We perhaps should 
change their name to the committee on pork.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. As my colleagues know, I have only been here 14 years, 
so I am still learning, but I am talking now to the master because, as 
I look here at the River Rouge project over the past few years, I 
notice there are $320 million that has been earmarked at the direction 
of the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. That was a wise expenditure, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I say that in a spirit, the good spirit of the day. I 
just want to point out as we are talking about something, just because 
he says it is so does not mean it is so. Let me stress this bill does 
not have any earmarks; earmarks, that is, directing the expenditure of 
a certain amount of money for any particular project. That is very 
important for all my colleagues to understand.
  Second, the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Michigan, for whom 
I have the greatest respect, could teach us all a lesson on how to get 
pork because, as I look at the appropriations

[[Page H6752]]

from 1992 through 1997, I notice $320 million specifically earmarked 
for the Rouge River National Wet Weather project. Now, in 1992 it was 
$46 million; he was modest that year. In 1993 he got a little more 
energized, was up to $82 million, and keep going up. In 1994, $85 
million. In 1995, in the spirit of the day, modestly went back to $75 
million. In 1996, well, there have been some changes around here, was 
only $11\5/8\ million, but in 1997 the committee report already 
includes $20 million.
  The point is, and I have no quarrel; I used to live in Michigan. I 
can understand the importance of cleaning up the Rouge River, and I 
want to work with the gentleman to do just that.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. Bereuter asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that 
was reported out of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to engage the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] in colloquy regarding the 
provisions of the bill relating to ground water disinfection.
  Nebraska is by far the most ground water-dependent State in the 
Nation. As this Member made clear in the statement submitted for the 
Record, the ground water disinfection rule could place an absolutely 
unworkable and untenable burden upon many of our local communities 
unless reason prevails. In fact, chlorination of community drinking 
water from ground water sources, which may present some health risks, 
could be requiring a solution to a nonproblem in most Nebraska 
communities.
  Is it the committee's intent that communities using groundwater as a 
drinking water source will not be required to disinfect the water 
unless an actual health threat is present?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is aware, the bill provides 
in section 105 that EPA must issue criteria which a State would be 
required to use to determine whether disinfection is necessary for any 
public water system served by ground water. In developing such 
criteria, the administrator is authorized to use the new authority in 
the bill to set a different level if she determines that the benefits 
of the regulation do not justify the costs, provided that the level she 
establishes maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is 
justified by the benefits.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would this legislation 
also ensure that the potential health risks associated with 
chlorination, as well as the costs associated with disinfection be 
taken into account when developing the ground water disinfection rule?
  Mr. BLILEY. If the gentleman would yield, the answer is ``yes.'' 
Under this legislation, the administrator is required to conduct an 
analysis of the costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory level. This 
analysis must include a review of health risk reduction benefits as 
well as compliance costs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, this gentleman thanks the 
distinguished gentleman for this clarification.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Burr], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] for yielding, and I also thank him and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for their leadership on this bill.
  This bill seeks to protect public safety by improving the outdated 
law that regulates tap water. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a 
good bill, it is a bill my colleagues should support. The safe drinking 
water bill is well negotiated, bipartisan agreement grounded in three 
vital principles:
  First, targeting the most dangerous contaminants in our tap water; 
second, providing greater resources to small water treatment plants; 
and third, making sure consumers know more about the tap water that 
they use more so than ever before.
  I want to personally thank those people in North Carolina who had 
faith in this process. I want to thank key individuals in North 
Carolina: Linda Sewall and Rick Durham from the North Carolina 
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources for their help 
and their understanding as we went through the process; and I want to 
thank Terry Henderson in North Carolina, who heads up the North 
Carolina League of Municipalities for his support.
  I urge my colleagues' support for the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is 
the right thing.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to what my colleague from 
North Carolina said, and I agree with everything he said, but the 
problem is that the bill, as it came out of the Committee on Commerce 
on a bipartisan basis, was appropriate this morning for action on the 
suspension list. Normally, as we all know, we put bills on the 
suspension list if they had been agreed to on both sides, if they are 
good government and we want to get them moving in an expedited fashion. 
The problem is that somehow when this bill left the Committee on 
Commerce, all these pork projects were added to it, and that now 
jeopardizes the legislation, which is really sad.
  This was a bill that was to be a model for a bill that we could get 
together on a bipartisan basis that would help from an environmental 
point of view, that would help with the public health. We had the 
President's support. the legislation that came out of the Committee on 
Commerce was very similar to what passed the Senate. So we were 
expediting it because we felt we could get it to the President's desk 
and be signed into the law.
  All of that is out the window now because of the action that was 
taken by the Republican leadership. And I think it is a real shame 
because, because of the addition of these particular projects which are 
earmarked in the bill and not on an objective basis, that means now 
that we jeopardize the possibility of it passing the House on an 
expedited basis, we jeopardize the possibility of coming to an 
agreement quickly with the Senate and also getting the President to 
sign the bill.
  And I just wanted to say for those who are saying that it is not true 
that there are specific earmarks or pork in this bill, I am just 
reading from the report language that says that the administrator is 
directed to provide priority consideration to the following projects, 
and then 13 or 14 projects are specifically listed as having to be 
prioritized.
  That goes against the objective criteria that were put in the bill in 
the Committee on Commerce. Basically, the money in this fund was 
supposed to be divided between the States on an objective formula, and 
they would decide to focus the money on projects that address the most 
serious health risks. This is no longer the case, and that is why we 
have to oppose this bill on the suspension list.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who has been very helpful on the right-to-know 
provision on this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to just take 1 
minute to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle we have 
worked together so well through this process I would certainly hope 
that we could bring it to a successful conclusion here today.
  The gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman], and I in particular worked together on the 
community right-to-know provisions so that everyone who reaches up and 
turns on the tap water in their home or in their place of business will 
know that it is good, clean water without contaminants that will be 
harmful to them or their families. This is a consumer-friendly bill, 
therefore, which will provide our constituents with more information 
than ever before.

                              {time}  1315

  When this bill become law, violations of the water standards will be 
reviewed and be reported to customers within 24 hours of any violation, 
and every year every member of the community, every consumer in the 
community, will be

[[Page H6753]]

provided with a consumer confidence report listing all foreign 
materials. I think this is an excellent bill and I urge passage today.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of the groups supporting 
this bill are the National Governors Association, National League of 
Cities, U.S. Council of Mayors, National Association of Counties, 
National Conference of State Legislatures, Association of Metropolitan 
Water Agencies, and the list goes on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following list of 
organizations in support of the legislation.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                      Groups Supporting H.R. 3604

       The National Governors' Association.
       National League of Cities.
       U.S. Conference of Mayors.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       Association of Metropolitan Water agencies.
       American Water Works Association.
       National Association of Water Companies.
       Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
       National Water Resources Association.
       Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
       Clean Water Action Project.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       U.S. PIRG.
       Citizen Action.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       Friends of the Earth.
       AIDS action Council.
       Environmental Working Group.
       American Public Health Association.
       American Cancer Society.
       American Oceans Campaign.
       American Rivers.
       Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
       Childhood Lead Action Project, RI.
       Citizen Action of New York.
       Clean Water Action.
       Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota.
       Colorado People's Environmental and Economic Network.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       Cornicopia Network of New Jersey, Inc.
       Defenders of Wildlife.
       Environmental Information Center.
       Government Accountability Project.
       Kentucky Resources Council.
       Lake Superior Greens.
       Long Island Progressive Coalition.
       Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministry.
       Mothers & Others.
       National Consumers League.
       Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility.
       New Jersey Environmental Federation.
       New York Rivers United.
       North Carolina Coastal Federation.
       Northern Environmental Network.
       Religious Action Center.
       Save the Bay, RI.
       Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
       WashPIRG.
       Wisconsin Citizen Action.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Member for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton] what an important contribution he played in this bill. One of 
the very significant features of this bill is the right to know section 
that will give people clear information about any risks they are 
taking. I think that is important for people to have. We ought to 
empower people with that kind of information. I want the Members of 
this body to know that the gentleman from New Jersey, who introduced 
his own legislation, has worked with me and others and was responsible 
for this.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a valuable member of the 
committee.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of this bill. This 
legislation not only protects the environment and human health, but it 
does so in a way that is smarter and better than before. Gone are many 
of the costly and inflexible command and control mandates. For the 
first time, true risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is brought 
to this statute. We have made more manageable the requirements of the 
EPA in determining new contaminants. Greater flexibility has been given 
to local systems, which have vastly different needs and concerns from 
each other. We have increased the technical assistance provided to 
smaller systems in order to ensure that they can deliver the best and 
safest drinking water possible.
  One area of particular concern to me in my home State of Iowa is 
adequate and fair source water protection. The measure we are debating 
today contains an honest and fair source water program. Up to 10 
percent of the State revolving fund can be used by water systems to 
enter into voluntary incentive-based source water protection programs 
with willing upstream neighbors, whether they are farmers or 
businesses. This is a very good addition. I urge its prompt adoption.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to address the merits 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which we are discussing today. I am 
very concerned about the continued ability of rural parts of this 
country to have access to water. This might come as a surprise to some, 
but there are many areas in this country, including central and 
southeastern Illinois, that are just now being reached by rural water 
cooperatives, just now receiving the benefits of full water service. 
This has not happened overnight. It has taken a lot of hard work by 
people at the local, State, and Federal level.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 3406, because it 
strikes a necessary balance between environmental protection and relief 
from brudensome regulations for many of our small communities. There 
are provisions that recognize the particular needs and constrictions of 
these locales, and I would hate to see an opportunity for such forward-
thinking legislation be missed. The Safe Drinking Water Act has 
received bipartisan support throughout the committee process and has 
been endorsed by the administration as well as environmental groups. 
Moreover, our cities, towns, and constituents have repeatedly voiced 
their support for this action. Let us do the right thing, the necessary 
thing, and pass this legislation and ensure the ability of all 
Americans to drink clean water.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and my 
colleague for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to something that is very important, 
that we repeat several times to make certain all clearly understand 
this. This bill does not have any earmarks. That is very important. The 
funding for the grants program, incidentally, is in response to the 
demand, the cry, the plea from our Governors, our county officials, and 
our mayors that we come up with a grants program.
  The grants program is contingent on Congress first appropriating at 
least 745 percent of the amount authorized for the revolving loan fund. 
They are intended for hardship communities. Mr. Speaker, I think my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle should be working hand in glove, 
as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has with me on this 
subcommittee as we have brought this out on a bipartisan basis, because 
we recognize there are communities that have legitimate needs and just 
do not have the wherewithal to address those needs. Thus, the creation 
of this grants program. It is a good program, and I urge my colleagues, 
on a bipartisan basis, to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of 
the Committee on Commerce, and this bill has been held up repeatedly as 
an example of bipartisanship. That is the way it started. That is the 
way it started. It went through the Senate 99 to nothing. It went 
through our full committee 44 to nothing.
  Then, a funny thing happened as it came over here. There are 375 
pages that have been added, that no one has had a chance to see. I ask 
every Member, have they read the 375 pages? No, they have not. They are 
going to vote on something they have never read, they have never seen, 
we have never had a hearing on, we never had a chance to debate. I 
worked long and hard with the Members on this bill. We had a good bill. 
It has now gone down the drain.
  Take a look at it. Title V, go to title V. That is where all the 
changes are.

[[Page H6754]]

This bill was a good bill. Title V will now jeopardize the public 
health, and I believe it will undermine the State revolving fund by 
limiting the States' flexibility to prioritize. That flexibility we 
have heard about for the last 2 years, giving it back to the States, 
has just gone out the window in the last 24 hours. There is no 
flexibility.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill at the current level of funding, with the set-
asides for designated, we do not want to say earmarked projects, let us 
call them designated activities, continue to limit the availability of 
funds needed for a permanent revolving fund. We worked so hard to get 
the money in there, the State revolving fund, the technical assistance 
program with the EPA. It was all in here to help areas, small areas 
like mine in northern Michigan.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us not overstate this revolving fund. We are offended by it. But 
this bill is a good bill. One of the reasons it is a good bill is the 
provision the gentleman has authored to be sure we had estrogenic 
review of any impurities in the drinking water, any kind of pollutants 
that would have a causal effect on breast cancer. This is a very good 
bill. Let us not forget it is a very good bill. Let us not ignore that 
we have something we can be very proud of.
  It is unfortunate that we have the disagreement, and we are stating 
our disagreements about the result of putting in these earmarkings of 
the water systems. That is something we will debate and will go to 
conference on and talk further about, but I wanted, while the gentleman 
is speaking, to make the point that his contribution led to this being 
a much better bill in a very fundamental way.
  The American people are worried about impacts on them from chemicals. 
The idea that in their drinking water there might be something that 
could be a cause of breast cancer is a horrifying thought. We will now 
measure that, we will screen for it, and make sure that does not 
happen.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman from New York 
is, there have been a lot of questions about the State revolving loan 
fund. The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has pointed out a 
number of parts about it.
  I would ask the gentleman from New York, can we agree and promise the 
American people and Members of this body that when it goes to the 
conference committee, that the 57-percent trigger that protects the 
State revolving loan fund will stay in there? Because without that 
trigger, this thing becomes more a pork barrel project than what has 
been added to it. The only way to protect this bill and those 375 
earmarks that are there is that we have some protection that that 75 
trigger remains in. I know the gentleman will be in the conference 
committee. Can he promise that to the Members and the American people?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues I helped author 
that provision, so I am going to be very supportive.
  Just let me say, despite what anyone might suggest, no one can 
convince me that this is a glass of vintage wine. This is a glass of 
water. We may call it vintage wine, we may repeat it over and over, but 
it does not change the fact it is still water. The fact of the matter 
is there is no pork in this bill. There are no earmarks.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this statement of 
administration policy.
  The statement referred to is as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


         h.r. 3604--safe drinking water act amendments of 1995

       The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3604 as reported 
     by the House Commerce Committee. Ensuring the safety of the 
     Nation's drinking water is one of the Administration's top 
     environmental priorities.
       H.R. 3604, which is the result of a bipartisan effort, 
     reflects the Administration's recommendations for 
     strengthening public health protections by: (1) establishing 
     a State Revolving Fund (SRF) to subsidize community efforts 
     to improve drinking water safety; (2) providing a flexible 
     framework to promote the protection of drinking water 
     sources; (3) providing responsible regulatory reforms 
     including the appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis in 
     standards setting; and (4) strengthening State programs for 
     improving the capability of water systems to provide safe 
     water. These provisions coupled with the bill's improved 
     consumer awareness provisions will help meet the challenge of 
     providing safe and affordable drinking water.
       The Administration, however, strongly opposes the 
     provisions added in Title V which jeopardize public health 
     and undermine the SRF by limiting the States' flexibility to 
     prioritize project funding. Furthermore, the Administration 
     recommends that H.R. 3604 be modified in conference to 
     minimize the number of earmarks on State Revolving Funds. The 
     bill's current level of Fund set-asides for designated 
     activities would limit the availability of funds needed for a 
     permanent revolving fund. The Administration may also propose 
     several technical corrections in conference.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to speak on behalf of pork.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act Amendments of 1996, as amended by Chairman Bliley.
  I wish to commend the chairman and the ranking Democrat of the 
Commerce Committee for their fine work in developing this important, 
bipartisan legislation for the benefit of States and local water 
suppliers and the customers they serve. This bill demonstrates the way 
in which we in the House can work on a bipartisan basis to resolve a 
serious need facing the States and local interests.
  Mr. Speaker, while the Transportation Committee has been very 
interested in the financing provisions of this bill, I also wish to 
indicate my support for the regulatory reforms contained in the bill. 
The bill makes important modifications to the drinking water programs. 
The bill modifies the way in which EPA sets drinking water standards to 
better meet the needs of local communities. It also enhances State 
flexibility on monitoring requirements and assures improved capacity to 
meet drinking water standards. I am also pleased that the bill includes 
provisions on right to know. I have always strongly supported measures 
to assure that citizens are adequately informed about the condition of 
their environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been issues raised about 
additions which have been made to the Commerce Committee bill as 
ordered reported. Several of these changes were made to accommodate the 
interests and concerns of the Transportation Committee. I am 
particularly pleased that the bill includes the Transportation 
Committee provisions to establish a separate grant program to aid 
communities in developing adequate water supply infrastructure.
  These provisions were developed in the Transportation Committee on a 
bipartisan basis, and reflect the fair and full consideration of the 
committee. The separate grant program represents the Transportation 
Committee's view, based upon numerous hearings, of how to best meet the 
overall drinking water needs of the Nation. While I support the intent 
of the Commerce Committee bill to assure that funds are used toward 
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the overall needs of 
States and local governments to provide a safe and reliable source of 
drinking water dwarf the needs solely related to that act. We on the 
Transportation Committee have determined that there is a Federal role 
in responding to those greater needs as well.
  The infrastructure needs of the country are enormous, and no less so 
in the area of drinking water. Recent estimates of need for drinking 
water infrastructure are as high as $23 billion, just to meet needs 
which are known to exist over the next 5 years. While it has been 
fashionable of late to blame water supply infrastructure needs on so-
called unfunded Federal mandates, the truth is that only about $3 
billion of the $23 billion in needs, or less than 15 percent of the 
needs are associated with Federal drinking water standards. The vast 
majority of needs are associated

[[Page H6755]]

with basic infrastructure which is necessary to provide adequate water 
supplies to the public.
  These needs are great and know no political or regional boundaries. 
In my State there are needs to remove harmful pollutants from what 
should be pristine waters. In older urban areas, the water supply 
infrastructure is badly in need of rehabilitation and repair.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates the good which the Congress can 
do if it works together, in a bipartisan manner to address the Nation's 
problems. It also demonstrates the ability for multiple committees in 
the House to work to reach a common goal.
  When President Clinton first proposed Federal assistance to assist 
States and localities in providing safe, reliable drinking water 
supplies, the Public Works and Transportation Committee responded by 
quickly drafting and reporting to the House legislation which would 
establish such a program. We modeled it after the highly successful 
State revolving loan fund program of the Clean Water Act. I am pleased 
that the bill before us includes many of the same elements as were in 
that proposal.
  With Chairman Bliley's amendment, this bill now also includes the 
very important authority for the Administrator to make grants, in 
addition to the State revolving loan fund program, for drinking water 
needs.
  Mr. Speaker, this additional grant-making authority is crucial to 
meeting the Nation's overall drinking water needs. In our committee's 
experience with the Clean Water Act, we have learned that there are 
times when even very low or no interest loans are just not sufficient 
to provide affordable, adequate basic infrastructure. While the 
overwhelming majority of assistance under this bill will be provided 
through the revolving loan program, the modest grant program fashioned 
in the Transportation Committee, and which has been included in the 
chairman's amendment, will help complete the package of financial 
assistance for communities who need such assistance. By way of example, 
the Appropriations Committee just completed action on legislation for 
EPA which will provide grant assistance for a variety of projects such 
as the Texas Colonias, Boston, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Louisiana, 
and the Rouge River in Michigan.
  This bill promises much in the way of meeting drinking water 
infrastructure needs. I hope that the majority will be committed to 
assuring the authorizations in this bill do not become illusory. If 
this bill is to be the success which it should be, we must assure that 
the appropriation levels match the authorization levels. Unfortunately, 
that very same appropriations bill which will fund this legislation 
provides less than one-half of the authorized amount for fiscal year 
1997. I hope that before there are too many congratulatory remarks 
about meeting infrastructure needs for drinking water, that the 
majority revisits their priorities in responding to local needs. A $1 
billion authorization, appropriated at only $450 million, is still only 
a $450 million program. Let's watch what the majority does, as well as 
what they say. I am prepared to work on a bipartisan basis to achieve 
full funding for this important program.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the culmination of a proposal first 
made by the Clinton administration more than 3 years ago. It is time to 
get this bill to the President for his signature. I hope that we will 
be able to resolve quickly any differences with the Senate and assure 
its speedy enactment.
  I am pleased to support the bill, as modified by the chairman. I urge 
my colleagues to join me with their support as well.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for addressing 
this issue in such an open manner.
  This bill represents a triumph for commonsense and science-based 
environmental strategies; it focuses on the product, rather than the 
process, and values the outcome of the regulations above the 
regulations themselves.
  Our bill will refocus our priorities toward the most immediate 
threats to the public health, provide EPA and local water authorities 
with greater flexibility in how they can administer this act, and place 
new emphasis on making sure that public water systems have the 
technical and financial resources they need to meet the standards of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I can't emphasize enough the progressiveness of this bipartisan 
bill--we moving forward toward a need and outcome-based strategy, and 
working together in cooperation instead of confrontation. This will 
help us to better serve the public health needs of the American people, 
and provide us all with a cleaner and safer environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included in the Record and I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3604, the 
bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which will 
achieve for the American people vast improvements over the existing 
inflexibilities of the existing outdated Safe Drinking Water Act 
[SDWA]. This reauthorization of the SDWA will provide a commonsense, 
science-based blueprint for how to most effectively determine and 
implement the regulation and protection of our drinking water supply.
  This bill will be a significant step forward, away from an outdated 
and ineffective process that places higher value on the regulation 
itself, toward a more progressive and outcome-based process which will 
allow us to best serve the public health needs of the American people. 
I am very proud to have been able to play a close role in strengthening 
and improving such an important statute as the SDWA. These amendments 
will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in how the SDWA is 
implemented. H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's resources toward 
those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat 
to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater 
flexibility in administering the law, and place new emphasis on 
ensuring that public water systems have the necessary technical, 
managerial, and financial resources available to comply with the SDWA.
  Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability 
to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or 
public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant 
at the time of their inception--in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not 
been reauthorized since 1986. However, the passage of time invariably 
exposes weaknesses or shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes. In 
the past, it has often been easier to confront problems by simply 
blaming a law, instead of focusing closely on whether the law in 
question is being properly implemented, or whether it is still 
effective in serving its intended purpose. These laws need to be as 
dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing environments we intend for 
them to protect.
  This means that occasionally such laws must be revisited and renewed, 
in order to reflect its original goals. I firmly believe that we ought 
not to cling to the conventional wisdom that our public health and 
environmental laws are ``set in stone,'' and incapable of being 
improved. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the 
responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can 
be applied to improve these laws, we act to do so. Many of our crown 
jewel environmental laws were written over 20 years ago, and it is 
incumbent upon us to make these needed improvements when necessary. 
With this comprehensive reauthorization, we complete a challenging but 
needed task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide, and I 
commend my chairman, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis and my other 
colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to bring 
us to this point.

  There are two aspects of this bill which are of particular interest 
to me, and upon which I would like to elaborate. Under current law, 
there is no standard for radon that occurs in drinking water. H.R. 3604 
requires that, within 3 years, EPA must promulgate a standard for radon 
in drinking water using the new standard setting provisions of the 
bill, which require the use of the best available science and the risk 
assessment process. I had several specific concerns about this 
provision, due to the unique challenges radon presents as a contaminant 
in our environment. Radon is an odorless, colorless gas which occurs 
naturally, and rises from the soil. Man has been exposed to varying 
levels of radon since the beginning of time, which makes it more 
difficult to focus on ample margins of safety within the context of the 
SDWA. Because it is a natural element, there is no way to alter its 
occurrence level in outdoor air, which is where humans receive their 
greatest exposure to radon.

[[Page H6756]]

  My concerns were that under this provision, it could be feasible for 
the EPA to promulgate a standard for radon which would require water 
systems to treat for radon in drinking water at a level well below the 
level of radon which is already occurring in ambient air; in other 
words, focusing considerable financial resources on mitigating a 
relatively small percentage of our total overall exposure to radon. For 
small water systems especially, such a scenario could result in scarce 
financial resources being diverted from other, more pressing health 
considerations, such as crytosporidium and other microbial 
contaminants. Additionally, since radon occurs at widely varying levels 
across the country, I was concerned that by allowing up to 3 years for 
the EPA to set a standard, areas which might have a more immediate need 
to address radon occurrence might not be provided with a standard as 
swiftly as could be.
  During our committee's consideration of the SDWA bill, I prepared an 
amendment to assist in these discussions with my colleagues, and which 
I was prepared to offer to the bill. It would have required EPA to link 
its level of treatment of radon occurring in water to the level of 
radon occurrence in ambient air; as mentioned previously, I believe it 
is important to consider the overall exposure risk of any potential 
contaminant, including radon. Additionally, providing EPA with this 
kind of direction would enable them to establish a standard faster, for 
areas that might have higher occurrence levels. Finally, my amendment 
would have specified that States may set more restrictive levels for 
radon, if it were determined that such a level would provide more 
health protection than the Federal standard. I ultimately chose to not 
offer the amendment, opting to focus instead on working on a dialog to 
address this with other of my colleagues who shared my concerns, and 
which I am confident will continue as this bill moves into conference.
  Clearly, radon is a complicated part of the SDWA puzzle. I worked 
closely with several Members, including my California colleague, Henry 
Waxman, to try and find a solution which would address these radon 
question adequately. We were able to recognize and identify several 
potential alternatives, and discussions as to how to best implement 
them will no doubt continue as we move into the conference committee. I 
would point out that these discussions were on several occasions 
mistakenly and inaccurately labeled as attempts to weaken the bill's 
radon standards. In truth, those of us here in Congress who have some 
experience in administering public health programs, myself included, 
are intent on providing the best possible strategies for protecting the 
public health, and our dialog was focused on that goal alone.

  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there is one section of the bill of which 
I am particularly proud. Section 410 of H.R. 3604 consists of language 
from a bill I introduced last year--H.R. 2601--to require that Federal 
standards for bottled water keep pace with our standards for tapwater. 
Because bottled water is considered a food item, the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] regulates its production and sale to protect the 
public health. The EPA, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over public 
drinking water standards. However, the FDA has not always been timely 
in issuing its regulations for elements in bottled water, after EPA has 
published its regulations for the same elements in public drinking 
water. As an example, on December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule 
for 35 elements in bottled water; however, nearly 4 years earlier, EPA 
had issued its regulations for the same elements in public drinking 
water.
  My language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a 
maximum contaminant level for tapwater, and any FDA regulation setting 
a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant take 
effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation 
within a realistic timeframe established by section 410, the regulation 
established by the EPA for that element in tapwater will be considered 
the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled water. This 
will provide consumers with the health assurances that the water they 
can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards as their 
tapwater.
  Mr. Speaker, I have several supporting documents which I would like 
to have inserted into the Record along with my statement.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of San Diego, we are 
fortunate to already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our 
drinking water; a study by a national environmental group found that 
water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health advisories 
over the last 3 years. By comparison, the same study found that an 
alarmingly high percentage of water systems in some regions of the 
country--including Washington, D.C.--reported health advisories or 
compliance failures during the same time period. Our safe drinking 
water amendments will strengthen existing law, and help bring these 
high levels of health and environmental quality which we appreciate in 
San Diego to other communities nationwide. Again, and I can't emphasize 
it enough, this is a progressive step forward, away from a 1970's-era 
process which places higher value on process and regulation itself, 
toward a more responsible and outcome-based approach which focuses on 
the product that is generated. This will help us reinforce our common 
goals of better serving the public health needs of the American people, 
and providing us with a cleaner and safer overall environment.
         County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health,
                                     San Diego, CA, June 24, 1996.
     Hon. Brian P. Bilbray,
     Congressman, 49th District,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bilbray: This letter is in response to 
     your request to provide technical input regarding draft 
     language that you may propose related to the maximum 
     contaminant level [MCL] for radon in drinking water. The 
     Department of Environmental Health supports efforts to 
     establish a maximum contaminant level [MCL] for radon in 
     drinking water that is based on an analysis of the hazards 
     that radon poses to human health.
       Your proposed amendment is based on the Conference of 
     Radiation Control Program's recommendation to establish a 
     realistic standard for radon in drinking water. We concur 
     with this recommendation. It has been estimated that the 
     nationwide average concentration of radon in groundwater is 
     351 pci, but ranges from 24 pci to 10,000 pci. Establishing 
     the level at 200 pci is not practical. In order to reduce 
     radon levels to 200 pci, the water must be treated. One 
     treatment method, using granulated activated carbon filters, 
     produces a radioactive waste. The cost of homeowners and 
     water districts could be significant.
       The significant routes of exposure, the risks of those 
     exposures, and the available water treatment technologies to 
     reduce those risks should all be considered in the 
     establishment of an MCL that protects public health. The 
     literature is lacking information on the ingestion health 
     effects of radon. Therefore, we recommend that further 
     studies be conducted to define this hazard.
       If you have any questions, or need additional information, 
     please call me at (619) 338-2211.
           Sincerely,

                                              Daniel J. Avera,

                                                         Director,
     Department of Environmental Health.
                                                                    ____



                                 Alliance for Radon Reduction,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
       Dear Representative Bilbray: On behalf of the Alliance for 
     Radon Reduction, I would like to express our appreciation for 
     your recent public statements regarding radon in drinking 
     water. As you stated during committee consideration, humans 
     have been exposed to varying levels of radon since the 
     beginning of time, and radon presents unique challenges from 
     a public health perspective.
       Our national organization is comprised of water agencies 
     and municipalities with members from fourteen states. Since 
     1992, we have been working with the Environmental Protection 
     Agency [EPA] and Congress to formulate as reasonable and 
     cost-effective ``radon in drinking water'' strategy that 
     protects the public health.
       The House Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] reauthorization 
     bill takes the approach that radon should be regulated like 
     other drinking water standards and directs EPA to promulgate 
     a standard within 3 years. Under the House bill, the radon 
     standard would be based on the standard setting and risk/
     benefit cost analysis process that is being established for 
     all other drinking water contaminants. The House bill also 
     directs EPA ``to take into account the costs and benefits of 
     control programs for radon from other sources.''
       The Senate SDWA reauthorization bill would direct EPA to 
     promulgate a standard for radon in drinking water no later 
     than 180 days after enactment at a concentration level of 
     3,000 pCi/L. This level was selected to assure that the risk 
     from radon in drinking water was comparable to the risk from 
     radon in outdoor air. (A level of 3,000 pCi/L equates to the 
     lower end of the range of national average outdoor radon 
     concentrations as determined by EPA.)
       While the Senate bill recognizes the need for radon to be 
     regulated under a framework different than the standard 
     setting process applicable for all other drinking water 
     contaminants, the House bill does not make this distinction 
     except with respect to recognizing the importance of non-
     drinking water sources of exposure.
       The primary question for Congress to consider is: Should 
     radon be regulated directly from other drinking water 
     contaminants?
       1. EPA has been trying to set a radon standard for more 
     than fifteen years. EPA's difficulty in setting a standard 
     has been largely rooted in the challenges of using 
     the standard setting process applicable to all other 
     drinking water contaminants. Given that radon is unique 
     among drinking water contaminants, traditional standard 
     setting approaches should not be applied.
       2. Radon is naturally occurring and the public is 
     continuously exposed to radon. While compounds such as lead 
     and arsenic are also naturally occurring and therefore the 
     public may be exposed, there is not the

[[Page H6757]]

     continuous, passive, unavoidable exposure that the public 
     experiences with radon.
       3. The risk from radon exposure at the naturally occurring 
     unavoidable level can not be assessed from the same vantage 
     point as other drinking water contaminants, or for that 
     matter other environmental hazards. According to EPA 
     estimates, the cancer risk from exposure to radon in outdoor 
     air is in the 1/1,000 risk range. The risk from indoor air 
     exposure has been estimated to be in the 1/100 risk range. 
     These risks are orders of magnitude greater than the risks 
     from other environmental pollutants. EPA's policy has been to 
     set standards in the 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 risk range. 
     Such a framework for standard setting should not be applied 
     to radon because the natural background level for radon in 
     air is orders of magnitude greater than the level found in 
     water.
       4. The establishment of an unnecessarily stringent radon 
     drinking water standard will divert resources away from other 
     radon public health programs. The Conference of Radiation 
     Control Program Directors [CRCPD], a national organization of 
     state radiation protection directors, recently stated support 
     for the approach taken in S. 1316 because ``it would rougly 
     result in water contributing no more radon to indoor air than 
     is present in outdoor air'' (May 3, 1996 CRCPD letter to the 
     Alliance for Radon Reduction). In an earlier August 30, 1990, 
     letter to then EPA Administrator Reilly, CRCPD notes that:
       ``A low MCL for radon in water will probably have an 
     adverse effect on the overall effort of EPA to reduce deaths 
     from radon exposure because resources that would otherwise be 
     used to address the much more serious problems of radon in 
     air will be diverted to address the much less serious 
     problems of radon in water. It is difficult to conceive of a 
     cost/benefit analysis which would support this decision.''
       In conclusion, we believe that radon should not be 
     regulated like other drinking water contaminants. Radon's 
     characteristics suggest that a non-traditional approach is 
     needed for the establishment of a standard that considers the 
     public's overall exposure to radon from all sources. The 
     approach adopted by the U.S. Senate would provide the public 
     health protection necessary to address radon in drinking 
     water and allow the EPA to move forward expeditiously to 
     estalish a standard. If the Agency is compelled to use a 
     traditional risk/cost-benefit approach for controlling radon 
     in drinking water, it is likely that we will be without a 
     radon standard for many years.
       We hope that the conferees will consider these points 
     during the process of reconciling the House and Senate 
     versions. If you need further information regarding radon in 
     drinking water, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David Reynolds,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                           Conference of Radiation


                              Control Program Directors, Inc.,

                                       Frankfort, KY, May 3, 1996.
     David Reynolds,
     Executive Director, Alliance for Radon Reduction, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Reynolds: I understand that your organization is 
     interested in a radon provision that would be included in the 
     House Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) legislation. I would 
     like to provide you with the perspective of the Board of 
     Directors of the Conference of Radiation Control Program 
     Directors, Inc. (CRCPD).
       The CRCPD is comprised of the program directors and their 
     staffs who are responsible for radiation protection matters 
     in each of the states (excluding Wyoming), and certain local 
     radiation control agencies. These radiation control programs 
     have primary responsibility for protecting the public from 
     unnecessary exposure from all man-made and certain naturally 
     occurring sources of radiation, including those which occur 
     through the various environmental pathways.
       In the past we have expressed our concerns with the EPA 
     proposed Maximum Contaminant Level [MCL] for radon. Under the 
     SDWA, as currently written, the EPA has maintained it would 
     be required to set a standard as low as 200 or 300 pCi/1.
       As radiation control professionals, members of our 
     organizations are committed to protecting human life and the 
     environment from the harmful effects of radiation. However, 
     we must be practical in our approach to providing this 
     protection and we therefore question EPA's proposed MCL for 
     radon in drinking water. In addition to placing an 
     unacceptable financial burden on individual homeowners 
     without providing commensurate health benefits, the EPA's 
     proposed MCL would result in significant administrative and 
     financial burdens on affected state programs.
       Simply stated, we believe that an MCL in the range of 200 
     pCi/1 is neither practical nor justified. A more realistic 
     standard would be in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 pCi/1. The 
     Senate bill would set a water standard at 3,000 pCi/1 that 
     could be revised based on sound science. This is a reasonable 
     approach because it would roughly result in water 
     contributing no more radon to indoor air than is present in 
     outdoor air.
       On behalf of the CRCPD, I would appreciate your 
     consideration of our concerns. If you have any questions, 
     please feel free to contact me directly.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ruth E. McBurney,
     Chairperson.
                                                                    ____

                                           Conference of Radiation


                              Control Program Directors, Inc.,

                                   Frankfort, KY, August 30, 1990.
     William Reilly,
     Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Reilly: This letter relates to U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency's [EPA] consideration of appropriate 
     standards for acceptable radon levels in drinking water and 
     is written on behalf of the Executive Board of the Conference 
     of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. [CRCPD].
       The CRCPD is made up of the program directors and their 
     staffs who are responsible for radiation protection matters 
     in each of the fifty states. These radiation control programs 
     have primary responsibility for protecting the public health 
     from all sources of avoidable radiation exposure, including 
     those which occur through the various environmental pathways.
       The EPA has proposed (Advanced Notice for Proposed 
     Rulemaking, FR 51,189, 34836) revisions to regulations under 
     the Safe Water Drinking Act which would provide for a Maximum 
     Contaminant Level [MCL] for public drinking water systems. 
     The MCL suggested for radon in water is in the range of 200-
     2,000 pCi/1. The Executive Board of the CRCPD is concerned 
     with the rationale being used by EPA in proposing these radon 
     limits for drinking water. To illustrate these concerns, I 
     bring to your attention the following points:
       The Radon Abatement Act of 1988 has the goal of lowering 
     indoor radon concentration to the same as ambient levels. The 
     EPA Citizen's Guide to Radon uses 0.2pCi/1 as the background 
     for ambient radon. Using the rule-of-thumb of 10,000 to 1 for 
     dissolved radon going from water to house air, one would 
     calculate a radon in water concentration of no less than 
     2,000 pCi/1.
       EPA estimates that 5% of the general population's exposure 
     to radon progeny comes from radon derived from water. The 
     number of deaths prevented per year is 18 from an MCL of 
     2,000 pCi/1 and 94 for an MCL of 200 pCi/1 respectively. 
     However, EPA estimates that 21,000 deaths per year are caused 
     by exposure to airborne radon progeny derived from soil, but 
     there is no effort to develop an equivalent MCL for radon in 
     air. The public will be totally confused in trying to compare 
     the EPA airborne radon action level of 4 pCi/1 with the 
     suggested MCL radon in water level of 200-2,000 pCi/1.
       An MCL of 2,000 pCi/1 will cost an estimated 35 million 
     dollars per year for public water suppliers. For this 35 
     million dollars the total estimated general public exposure 
     from radon in water will be reduced by less than 1%, or 
     approximately 18 lives saved.
       An MCL for public water supplies will likely become a 
     defacto standard for homeowners with private wells.
       An estimated 30% of private well water owners 
     (approximately 3 million homes) would exceed an MCL of 2,000 
     pCi/1. The typical cost to each homeowner to correct his or 
     her well to meet the suggested standard is estimated at 
     $2,000. To correct the problem nationally is estimated to 
     require over 1 billion dollars annually. Correcting all 
     private wells which are estimated to exceed 2,000 pCi/1 would 
     reduce the total estimated exposure from radon in water to 
     the general public by less than 10%.
       A routine and inexpensive analytical method for dissolved 
     radon is not available.
       A low MCL for radon in water will probably have an adverse 
     effect on the overall effort of EPA to reduce deaths from 
     radon exposure because resources that would otherwise be used 
     to address the more serious problems of radon in air will be 
     diverted to address the much less serious problems of radon 
     in water. It is difficult to conceive of a cost/benefit 
     analysis which would support this decision.
       The approximate indoor radon in air level across the nation 
     is 1.0 pCi/1. It is assumed that this is the risk, or 
     exposure level, which the public is willing to accept for the 
     benefit of living in a home. This risk would equate to having 
     a radon in water value of 10,000 pCi/1, assuming all the 
     radon in water would become airborne.
       A panel of radiation protection experts, assembled by EPA 
     at the National Workshop for Radioactivity in Drinking Water, 
     1985, made the following recommendation:
       ``Based on these considerations of estimated Rn exposures 
     in the United States, a derived practical limit on radon 
     concentrations in water is not less than 10,000 pCi/1. A 
     20,000 pCi/1 value is reasonable and conservative from the 
     standpoints of limiting cost of remedial action to a more 
     manageable number of houses.''
       Under the Inactive Uranium Processing Sites Regulations, 
     EPA standards for buildings specify the objective is to 
     achieve an indoor Rn-progeny concentration of 0.02 WL. This 
     would equate to an MCL of 40,000 pCi/1, assuming all radon 
     would become airborne.
       These two standards, which are both designed to address 
     risks from radon and its progeny, would place the EPA in a 
     position of making inconsistent risk management decisions.
       As radiation control professionals we are committed to 
     protecting human life and the environment from the harmful 
     effects of radiation. However, we must be practical in our 
     approach to providing this protection, and we have much 
     concern that the MCL's under discussion (200-2000 pCi/1) will 
     place an unacceptable financial burden on individual 
     homeowners, e.g., $2,000 per system. These limits would also 
     place large administrative

[[Page H6758]]

     and financial burdens on affected state programs. A major 
     concern to regulatory agencies is the shear magnitude of 
     addressing a regulatory issue in every household in the 
     land.--Resources just do not exist for such an endeavor.
       Based on the above discussion, the recommendations of the 
     Executive Board of the CRCPD are as follows:
       1. An MCL in the range of 200 pCi/1 is neither practical 
     nor justified, and the MCL should be no less than 2,000 pCi/
     1. A more realistic standard is in the range of 5,000 to 
     10,000 pCi/1.
       2. EPA should be consistent in its risk management 
     decisions to the maximum extent possible.
       3. Since the entire radon issue is bound up with an 
     extended statistical argument based upon epidemiological 
     findings (for underground miners) which may or may not give a 
     true picture for a low level indoor environment, EPA should 
     carefully evaluate any proposed MCL's for radon in air or 
     water.
       Attached with this letter is a report prepared by the CRCPD 
     Radon Program Implementation Committee which addresses these 
     concerns in more detail.
       On behalf of the Executive Board of the CRCPD, I would 
     appreciate your consideration of our concerns and request 
     your response to these concerns at your earliest convenience.
           Yours very truly,
                                                   Diane E. Tefft,
                                                      Chairperson.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to speak against pork.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the chorus of others 
who are praising the work of the committees in reporting out a bill 
that actually addresses problems that many communities around this 
country have had in maintaining a safe drinking water system and doing 
so in a way that fits within a budget and reasonable mandates.
  There are two issues here that affect the legislation that I would 
like to briefly address. The first is the issue of pork, and I only 
wish that I had time to read 300 pages and know exactly what the 
architecture of the grant arrangement is. Let me say, if there is a 75 
percent trigger figure or level that has to be reached before any 
earmarks are implemented, that does not detract, in my opinion, from 
the adverse nature of earmarking in legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that in the conference committee 
process this matter is cleaned up. It is nice to have safe drinking 
water. We want clean drinking water; let us have a clean bill.
  A second point that I would like to raise has to do with the public 
right to know. In a community that is in my congressional district, we 
ran into a rather unfortunate situation. In the context of transferring 
a home, there was a test of tap water that was run. It was discovered 
that there was lead in the tap water. The State agency administrating 
the Federal program at that point told the municipality: You must 
publish a notice in the local and the regional paper that you have lead 
in the drinking water in your city.
  The municipality said: This is not the case. the lead came from that 
home, and we can show from other tests that this lead was not from our 
municipal system, it is from the home itself.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee if he 
is aware if there is anything in this legislation that would simplify 
the situation so a municipality would be able to distinguish in any 
right-to-know publication between lead that comes from its system as 
opposed to lead that may came from household plumbing.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's frustration. As 
a former mayor, I know that the contaminant is just as likely to come 
from household plumbing as from the public water system itself. I must 
advise the gentleman, however, that the bill does not change the way in 
which lead violations are determined. The bill does give States more 
flexibility in how the public is notified about violations. I would be 
happy to work with the gentleman to make sure in the conference as best 
I can that his concerns are addressed.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that greatly, and I would like 
to again compliment the distinguished chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member for the work that they have done in bringing to the 
floor of his House a substantive measure which truly meets the needs of 
this Nation with respect to preserving the safe drinking water supply.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I grew up 3 miles out of a small town in North Dakota, and our water 
was not fit to drink. We literally carried water to our town. This is 
the state of thousands and thousands of homes today. The happy news is 
that literally thousands and thousands of homes that did not have 
drinkable water now do have because of the reach of rural water systems 
and improvements in small town water systems that afford them drinkable 
water where they did not have drinkable water before.
  Mr. Speaker, the present law needs to be changed because it is 
threatening the viability of some of these rural water systems imposing 
too many one-size-fits-all requirements out of Washington, most 
notoriously the requirement that 25 new contaminants be identified to 
be tested for every single year, which is ludicrous, and not even 
having a requirement that that be related to the public health concerns 
of the area. This is a bad law and needs to be changed.
  The bill before us makes positive changes. Specifically, the new 
revolving loan fund will help small communities fund improvements, huge 
improvements. There is greater flexibility to allow localities to 
address local concerns and special treatment recognizing the 
difficulties small systems have in maintaining absolutely sound water, 
but dealing with the high costs of treatment.
  One the other hand, I must note two great disappointments about this 
bill. The bill coming out of committee by unanimous vote was one I 
think we all could have been proud to vote for. To have the revolving 
loan fund earmarked by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in the fashion that has unfolded in the legislation 
before us is a bitter disappointment. I think all systems ought to 
compete for that money fair and square, not have some public works 
earmarks grafted in by report language, and I think that that amendment 
has indeed been highly regrettable.
  The Senate passed their safe drinking water bill unanimously. We 
could have on the House side. It is unfortunate that this change was 
made.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation but also to 
express my disappointment about the recent controversy surrounding this 
bill. It is unfortunate that once again the normal committee process 
has been circumvented and in the process, passage of this bill--which 
enjoyed broad bipartisan support--is in jeopardy. In the interest of 
providing desperately needed relief to rural water systems throughout 
the country, I will be supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress, I have visited with 
mayors and community leaders who consider reform of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act to be one of their top priorities. It is no wonder. The Safe 
Drinking Water Act is one of the most expensive unfunded mandates 
facing North Dakota communities.
  Water systems throughout the country are forced to test for an 
arbitrary number of contaminants regardless of the threat to public 
health. Many small and rural water systems simply cannot comply with 
these madates--they don't have the technology and they don't have the 
resources. This law has driven the water systems of some communities to 
the edge of viability, while others have had to ignore the law in order 
to survive financially.
  A National Rural Water Association report found that rural 
communities will spend over $639 million for redundant monitoring 
between 1994 and 1996. In order to comply with these regulations, 80 
percent of small communities surveyed will be forced to forego plans to 
hookup more families, improve water treatment, operate wells, and other 
critical functions.
  In order to help move this issue forward, I introduced the 
unanimously passed Senate version in March. Many of the provisions 
contained in that bill are also contained in this legislation. It 
reduces the regulatory burden imposed on States and public water 
systems, increases State flexibility, provides financial assistance for 
unfunded mandates, and requires that the EPA consider costs and 
benefits when setting new standards.
  The fundamental flaw of the current law is its one-size-fits-all 
approach. What makes

[[Page H6759]]

more sense is allowing water systems to focus their scarce resources on 
the real risks to human health in their communities. With passage of 
this bill, what is affordable will no longer be governed by what 
Chicago or New York can afford--system size will be taken into 
consideration when determining affordability.
  In this case, less regulation can actually mean safer drinking water. 
This legislation will not undermine the importance of the current 
drinking water laws. Rather, it will ensure safe drinking water without 
bankrupting our communities.
  I am concerned about the expansion of EPA autority into operator 
certification programs. I believe the North Dakota Department of Health 
should retain primacy over this program, because they are better suited 
to understand the certification needs of North Dakota system operators.
  As this legislation goes to conference, I will continue to work to 
see that this and other issues impacting small and rural water systems 
are addressed. I remain hopeful that we can enact a reform bill still 
this session.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  It was observed to me that pigs cannot fly, but they can swim, and 
they are in our drinking water. The Committee on Public Works, or now, 
I gather, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is it, has 
never forgotten how to put pigs in the drinking water. They have never 
forgotten how to take a fund which would benefit all of the Members of 
Congress, all of the people of the country and convert it into a 
proposal which will take care of just a few congressional districts, 
with, quite frankly, a very shameless raid upon a fund which is already 
too small to do what it has to do.
  Now, I am not going to defend the situation which triggered this. I 
am sure the natural instinct of that committee was to do exactly what 
they did, regardless of how large or how small the fund is. Because the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is it, yes, the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has never seen a pile of 
money that they did not want to use for pork, and that is what has 
transpired here.
  So I would say to my colleagues in the House, if we do not have money 
to deal with the problems of clean water and safe drinking water in our 
districts, it is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
which has very carefully extorted from us and from our districts the 
funds which would make that possible.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering 
this bipartisan environmental legislation.
  The existing Safe Drinking Water Act's intent is important and 
vitally necessary--ensuring the public has a clean water supply. 
Unfortunately, the existing law provides this public health protection 
through unnecessarily rigid mandates.
  This bipartisan legislation validates that the same level of public 
health protection can be provided, but at a lower financial cost to the 
public and those who operate water systems.
  I would like to take this chance to specifically address the Federal 
facilities provisions in title II of the bill. Ensuring the Federal 
Government's compliance with environmental laws has been a longtime 
campaign of mine.
  Historically, the Federal Government has been the Nation's biggest 
polluter. It has sought to assert sovereign immunity to escape 
accountability for its environmental violations. This is simply wrong.
  Not only does the Federal Government have the duty to follow the laws 
it enacts, but citizens living on or near Federal facilities deserve 
the same environmental protections afforded to those on private lands.
  Congress has sought to hold the Federal Government accountable in the 
context of other environmental statutes. In 1992, after years of 
effort, we won enactment of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, 
which gave States the ability to enforce Resource and Conservation 
Recovery Act standards at Federal facilities. And, last year, we were 
able to incorporate similar provisions in the Clean Water Act 
amendments now pending in the Senate.
  I am pleased that H.R. 3604 contains the parallel provisions 
necessary to ensure that Federal facilities will adhere to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this 
legislation. I am specifically encouraged that Congress is taking 
another step toward ensuring full compliance by Federal facilities with 
environmental laws.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHAEFER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just by way of observation, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act amendments were reported from the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis. We concur in 
the language in the bill, and we support the legislation and urge its 
adoption by the House.
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I am also 
pleased to be an original cosponsor and encouraged that Congress has 
taken another step forward in fulfilling compliance by the Federal 
facilities in this country the same that private industry does.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  (Mr. BLUTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act reform and urge its passage.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation which 
was originally reported out of the Commerce Committee. Indeed, there is 
general agreement that the current drinking water law is badly broken 
and needs to be fixed. There is an urgent need to make the Safe 
Drinking Water Act's regulations more flexible, and common sense in 
orientation, and less costly. Although certainly not perfect, H.R. 3604 
represents a very large improvement over the current law and this 
Member hopes that it can be further improved in conference with the 
other body.
  In particular, this Member is concerned about the Federal approach, 
H.R. 3604 takes with regard to issues such as operator certification 
and capacity development. A Federal one-size-fits-all approach is not 
the proper way to address these concerns. These are clearly matters 
better left to the States.
  This Member is further concerned with this bill's radon provisions. 
It is critical for communities throughout Nebraska and the rest of the 
country that a reasonable radon standard be developed. Without a common 
sense approach, communities across the Nation will be forced to spend 
billions of dollars to implement a regulation which would result in 
minimal health benefits since water contributes very little to the 
public exposure to radon. This Member expresses his strong desire that 
the conference acquiesce to the other body's more reasonable radon 
provisions which would provide adequate protection without 
unnecessarily burdening communities.
  Despite these flaws, this Member believes H.R. 3604 helps correct 
some of the serious problems and reduces the substantial local costs 
created by the current law. Clearly, many of the current SDWA 
requirements result in prohibitive costs without any real health 
benefit or increase in water quality. This is an issue on which this 
Member has been speaking out and seeking corrective actions by the EPA 
for some time, but without results. However, in large part, it is 
Congress which is to blame for the statutory direction we have given to 
the EPA.
  H.R. 3604 injects more reasonableness and common sense on this issue 
and allows States and communities to identify and focus on those 
contaminants which present an actual health risk in a particular area. 
Legislation enacted by Congress simply must take into account the 
economic and budgetary realities faced by States and communities. 
Blanket Federal legislation for this yet very diverse Nation is usually 
ineffective, overreaching, inflexible, and expensive for States and 
communities of all sizes. That surely is the case with various parts of 
the current Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Clearly, most Members and the informed American public now support an 
assessment of risks during the regulatory process. Clearly, some 
applications of environmental regulation has entered a phase of 
diminishing returns. Although great progress has been made in meeting 
threats to health and safety, a point has been reached where each new 
environmental regulation should undergo a cost/benefit estimate based 
on an analysis of risk.

  H.R. 3604 gives State and local officials greater responsibility in 
tailoring a safe drinking water program based on sound science. These 
officials certainly have a powerful incentive to provide safe drinking 
since they and their constituents will be drinking that water and they 
know full well where the buck stops. They certainly would not subject 
themselves

[[Page H6760]]

and their family and friends to harmful water. Instead, they will focus 
their time and money on the problems unique to their community.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a growing financial crisis for small 
communities that becomes more evident each year as new testing and 
treatment deadlines are imposed. This Member's experience in visiting 
with local officials and listening to constituents at town hall 
meetings indicates that the regulations promulgated to enforce the Safe 
Drinking Water Act have become a major Federal irritant to local 
government officials and terribly expensive--for no real benefit. These 
regulations often result in diverting scarce local dollars to address 
problems or contaminants which do not exist.
  It costs nearly as much for a very small community to go through the 
mandated testing procedures as it does for a large community. In most 
cases, therefore, residents in smaller communities will be forced to 
pay much more per person, since the costs cannot be spread out over a 
larger population. Without changes in the current law, though, 
communities of all sizes will be severely impacted.
  This bill also removes many of the rigid and arbitrary requirements 
of the current safe drinking water law. For instance, it eliminates the 
notorious and ridiculous current statutory mandate that EPA identify 25 
contaminants every 3 years for regulation and replaces it with a system 
based on contaminants that, first, represent a public health concern, 
and second, actually occur in drinking water. The legislation also 
allows States to tailor monitoring requirements to particular 
circumstances, with responsible flexibility and reasonable exemptions 
made more easily available.
  Mr. Speaker, while everyone certainly recognizes the importance of 
providing safe drinking water for everyone, this Member believes it 
should be done in a realistic manner which does not inappropriately 
burden the communities affected. As stated previously, this Member does 
not support taking any action that will cause drinking water to become 
unsafe. For instance, where there is a problem with biological 
contamination, yes; treatment is obviously necessary. However, the 
Federal Government should provide more discretion to States so that 
they can use common sense and not be subject to arbitrary nationwide 
standards that have no relevance in a particular State. For instance, 
the nature of water testing in Nebraska should reflect the State's 
uniquely strong ground water dependency. This Member has consistently 
conveyed these views to current and former EPA administrators.
  Mr. Speaker, Nebraska relies far more heavily on ground water sources 
for both drinking water and commercial uses than any other State in the 
Nation. For example, only 6 or 7 of the more than 1,395 public water 
supply entities in the State use any surface water. In a great many 
Nebraska communities, individual wells are located at various points in 
a community without being interconnected. Since most Nebraska 
communities incorporate water from their wells directly into their 
distribution systems, a requirement for chlorination would have the 
effect of requiring centralization of their water supply systems or 
chlorination would sometimes have to be provided at each separate well 
site--an action which would be almost economically impossible for many 
Nebraska communities.
  It is also important to note that Nebraska has not had a water-borne 
disease outbreak attributed to a public water supply system since at 
least 1969. That particular situation involved a transient population 
with an undetermined source or cause of illness.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the House is taking action 
on this important issue and hopes that the legislation will be further 
improved in conference and that includes a deletion of the earmarked or 
recommended projects which were added after the legislation was 
reported originally from the Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all parties, 
particularly Messrs. Bliley, Dingell, Bilirakis, and Waxman, in 
reaching an agreement on the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. This is a truly bipartisan bill which establishes good public 
policy.
  I am only sorry that in the final days before today's vote that the 
bipartisan nature of this bill was strained by jurisdictional 
disagreements. This bill should have passed by a unanimous vote with 
praise from both sides of the aisle. Instead, the debate exhibited the 
partisan nature that has become all too familiar during the 104th 
Congress--all over some additional district-specific provisions that 
could diminish the State revolving fund [SRF] as much as $375 million 
in grants.
  I hope that we can resolve the differences that were outlined today 
to ensure the enactment of a comprehensive Safe Drinking Water Act this 
year. This is a good bill that sets forth solid public policy. H.R. 
3604 grants long needed regulatory relief for small systems and 
provides needed financial resources for rural water circuit rider 
programs and for purely voluntary, incentive-based, and community-
driven source water protection programs.
  Let's resolve the remaining controversies and move towards a 
conference with the Senate. Because this bill has broad-based support, 
it would be terrible to lose this opportunity to pass comprehensive 
legislation into law this Congress.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3604, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This bill, as amended by 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will help meet the 
mandates for environmental infrastructure and a cleaner, safer, and 
healthier environment.
  First, I must congratulate and thank the leadership of the Commerce 
Committee, particularly the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Tom 
Bliley, and the gentleman from Florida, Subcommittee Chairman Michael 
Bilirakis, for their efforts regarding H.R. 3604 and their willingness 
to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Working 
together, we have combined provisions from their bill and from our 
bill, H.R. 2747, the Water Supply Infrastructure Assistance Act of 
1996, to produce a strong, bipartisan package.
  A lot of the credit also goes to the membership of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, particularly the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Ranking Democrat James Oberstar, the gentleman from New 
York, chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, 
Sherry Boehlert, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Ranking Democrat 
of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Robert Borski. Our 
efforts resulted in a broadly-supported, bipartisan bill authorizing a 
new State revolving fund [SRF] for drinking water and source water 
quality protection, as well as grants for additional, related 
assistance. The bill also helped build momentum for broader legislation 
reauthorizing and reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act within the 
Commerce Committee.
  Last week, with the assistance of the House Republican leadership, 
the two committees combined portions from both bills--H.R. 2747 and 
H.R. 3604--to help move improved legislation to the floor as soon as 
possible.
  The resulting package of amendments contains the regulatory and 
financing provisions, including the SRF, from H.R. 3604 and certain 
water infrastructure and watershed protection provisions from H.R. 
2747. The bill's new title V, Additional Assistance for Water 
Infrastructure and Watersheds, is straight from H.R. 2747 and 
authorizes $50 million a year to EPA for grants to States for drinking 
water infrastructure and source water quality protection. The 
authorization is contingent on Congress appropriating 75 percent or 
more of the amount authorized each year for the SRE--reflecting the 
policy that Congress should give priority to capitalizing the SRF. The 
package also includes provisions from H.R. 2747 to address regional 
needs in Alaska and the New York City watershed. Provisions and 
concepts from H.R. 2747 on the makeup and use of a national SRF are 
also either already part of H.R. 3604 or part of the Senate-passed 
drinking water bill.
  Mr. Speaker, because the legislative history may not be entirely 
clear, it is important to elaborate on some of the bill's provisions--
particularly those from the Transportation and Infrastructure 
committee's bill, H.R. 2747. House Report 104-515, the committee report 
accompanying H.R. 2747, describes the provisions in and intent behind 
section 15 of H.R. 2747. Essentially the only changes from section 15 
and the new title V of H.R. 3604 relate to the authorization dates and 
levels. The generic grants program is now authorized through fiscal 
year 2003, rather than fiscal year 2000, to be consistent with 
authorization dates throughout the reported version of H.R. 3604. 
Authorization dates and levels for the New York City watershed program 
are also slightly modified: The program is authorized through fiscal 
year 2003, like comparable provisions in the reported version of H.R. 
3604, and the authorization level is reduced to $8 million per year to 
reflect a comparable change made to the reported version of H.R. 3604.
  There has been considerable discussion surrounding the generic grants 
program and the mention of projects in the committee report. The 
committee believes the Administrator of EPA and the affected States 
should determine their own priorities under this program. Based on 
testimony and other information submitted to the committee, however, 
the committee urges that priority consideration be given to communities 
listed in the committee report. In no way, however, is this intended to 
preclude assistance for other communities. In fact, since the filing of 
the report, additional needs have come to our committee's attention. 
For example, Madison, OH, has waterline replacement and booster station 
needs. These, like other infrastructure projects throughout the Nation, 
could benefit from the program.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report also adds 
important language regarding land acquisition provisions and the 
requirement that they be from willing sellers.

[[Page H6761]]

Page 17 of the report elaborates further on the committee's intent; all 
of those provisions continue to apply to the provisions added from H.R. 
2747 to H.R. 3604.
  Some additional comments on the eligibilities and uses of the new SRF 
might be helpful. Both H.R. 2747 and H.R. 3604 have SRF's with 
provisions on eligibilities. From the perspective of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee, our intent is that the construction, 
rehabilitation, and improvement of water systems could certainly 
include work related to pipes and that, in limited circumstances, 
assistance from the SRF and from title V could be used to refinance 
loans as described in the report on H.R. 2747.
  I congratulate members of both committees, as well as the members of 
the Science Committee, for working together on this bipartisan 
legislation. Beyond a doubt, it will significantly improve our 
country's water infrastructure and drinking water protection efforts.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and 
the Senate as H.R. 3604 moves further down the road toward enactment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3604, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. H.R. 3604 is a sound bill, 
and I would like to compliment Chairman Bliley on his committee's fine 
work.
  H.R. 3604 was referred to the Committee on Science for consideration 
of its drinking water research provision. The Science Committee has for 
the last two decades authorized drinking water research as part of the 
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization 
Act.
  During this Congress, the committee authorized the Environmental 
Protection Agency's [EPA] drinking water research in both the Omnibus 
Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, H.R. 2405, and 1996, H.R. 
3322. Both these measures passed the House of Representatives.
  It was my intent, Mr. Speaker, to have the Science Committee mark up 
H.R. 3604 in order to reconcile its drinking water research provisions 
with those which passed the House on May 30, 1996, as part of H.R. 
3322. However, due to the looming August 1, 1996, deadline for the 
enactment of a Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization, and based on a 
request from Chairman Bliley, the Science Committee has agreed to 
discharge H.R. 3604.
  In exchange, the Commerce Committee has agreed to include a new 
research title in the bill, title VI, and support the appointment of 
Science Committee conferees to the House-Senate conference for those 
House or Senate provisions which involve drinking water research. Title 
VI reconciles the drinking water research provisions in H.R. 3604 with 
the authorization level in H.R. 3322.
  As amended by the Science Committee's new title, H.R. 3604 authorizes 
$26,593,000 a year for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for drinking 
water research. Contained within this authorization are specific 
authorizations for section 1412(b)(13) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
arsenic research, section 409 of H.R. 3604, drinking water research on 
harmful substances, and section 1452(n) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
research on the health effects of pathogens such as cryptosporidium and 
disinfection byproducts.
  Title VI also places the Assistant Administrator for Research and 
Development in charge of the quality of all drinking-water-related 
research conducted by the agency. Under the provision, the Assistant 
Administrator will be required to report to Congress on any duplicative 
or low-quality drinking water research conducted by the agency. 
Centralizing the responsibility for the quality of all drinking water 
research conducted by EPA should help ensure that the agency relies on 
the highest quality science when it promulgates future drinking water 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, title VI makes a good bill better, and I encourage all 
my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3604.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act amendments. I commend my colleagues for their strong 
bipartisan cooperation, continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that 
has characterized the Safe Drinking Water Act since it was originally 
signed into law by President Ford and reauthorized during the Reagan 
Presidency.
  Today, the Safe Drinking Water Act is revitalized by a Republican 
Congress that has put policies aside, rolled up its collective sleeves, 
and gone to work to deliver to the American people safe and pure 
drinking water. Governors, State and county legislators and mayors, 
alongside local and State water authorities, have endorsed the Safe 
Drinking Water Act amendments as representing a significant advance 
over current law.
  In Washington State, there are over 4,000 separate water systems 
impacted by the Safe Drinking Water Act and approximately 2,000 of 
these have less than 100 families connected to them. Local authorities 
can and will find effective ways of providing safe drinking water to 
their residents--if they are allowed to do so.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments establish clear priorities, 
concentrating safe drinking water programs on those contaminants that 
pose the greatest threat to human health. No longer will local water 
systems be forced to test for contaminants that responsible authorities 
have never found, and are unlikely ever to find, in the water supply. 
Instead, local water authorities will be able to harness their 
knowledge, expertise, and dedication, and focus their resources where 
it is needed the most.
  Arbitrary requirements calling for regulations on 25 new contaminants 
every 3 years are removed. Instead, the best available scientific 
evidence will be utilized to target real and documented threats to the 
public, including enhanced testing for estrogenic substances and a 
screening program for pesticides and chemicals.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation ensures that water systems will be able 
to obtain the financial and technical expertise they need to implement 
Federal water standards. The EPA is required to proactively assist 
water systems as they struggle to comply with Federal regulations by 
identifying new technologies best suited to meet their needs. Special 
technical assistance is also extended to small water systems.
  This legislation provides the resources our drinking water systems 
need. A State revolving fund of $7.6 billion is established to help 
public water systems implement drinking water standards. Funding for 
the public water State supervision grants, for use in the 
implementation and enforcement of State drinking water programs, is 
more than doubled to $100 million annually. Also, $80 million is 
provided for scientific research on the health affects and treatment of 
arsenic, radon, and cryptosporidium.
  Most important, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments vigorously 
enforces the public's right to know. The EPA is required to track 
unregulated contaminants and annually provide a consumer confidence 
report detailing each water system's compliance with safe drinking 
water standards. In addition, the public must be notified of violations 
within 24-hours rather than the current 14 days.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments harnesses sound and objective 
scientific practices, local expertise, and common sense in order to 
produce real public health benefits. Science, local flexibility, and 
common sense--rather than redtape--will help ensure the purity and 
safety of our Nation's drinking water. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of these important 
reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The fact that we need to 
protect our environment and ensure the public health is indisputable, 
and this debate focuses on how best to achieve these goals.
  H.R. 3604 demonstrates a commitment to effective, commonsense 
regulations that will guarantee safe drinking water within the confines 
of achieving a balanced budget. The bill focuses attention on those 
contaminants that pose the great risk to health and requires public 
notification of water safety violations.
  Equally important is the bill's addition of a State revolving loan 
fund to provide capitalization grants to States to further the health 
protection objectives of this bill. Without this funding source, many 
municipalities and States would face environmental mandates with which 
they could not possibly comply. I was pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of the portion of this legislation that established this 
revolving loan fund and strongly support its inclusion as part of our 
overall proposal to ensure safe drinking water.
  This legislation takes an important step beyond the campaign-oriented 
rhetoric that we have been hearing on environmental issues and moves 
toward actually ensuring the protection of our environment and health.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3604, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act amendments, and will vote for passage of the bill. 
Under our current Safe Drinking Water Act, communities do not have 
adequate resources, both financial and technical, to comply with 
Federal water standards. This legislation will provide $7.6 billion for 
grants and loans to local water authorities for compliance, activities, 
training of new operators, and development of solutions to water 
pollution. These measures will help our communities provide clean, safe 
drinking water to their residents.
  The legislation also includes a community right-to-know provision, 
requiring water systems to mail every consumer an annual report 
concerning the levels of regulated contaminants in their water. 
Consumers need to know that their water is clean and pure. Parents need 
to know that the water they give their children is safe to drink. These 
reports will put more information into the hands of consumers and 
parents, and allow them to better monitor the resources in their 
communities.
  This bill ends the one-size-fits-all safe drinking water policies 
that our current law dictates.

[[Page H6762]]

It returns the decisionmaking power to the State and local water 
authorities, who know best the needs of their community water system. 
Communities will be better able to monitor the purity of their water 
than bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Rural water system officials in 
mid-Michigan have contacted me in support of this bill, because they 
realize that less Federal control means more local control, and 
ultimately cleaner water for Michigan's communities.
  This legislation is the product of over 2 years of negotiations 
between Congress, State, and local officials, and representatives of 
virtually every public water system in the country. The Commerce 
Committee deserves credit for fashioning a bipartisan bill that reforms 
a Safe Drinking Water Act that is broken. This legislation will go far 
toward insuring safe drinking water and efficient allocation of 
Federal, State, and local resources. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this important piece of environmental legislation.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support 
and intent to vote for H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act 
amendments. Despite the inclusion of nonrelated grants under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, I feel that it is vital to the American people that 
we pass this legislation. It will enhance the safety of Americans' 
drinking water by focusing regulatory efforts on the most dangerous 
health contaminants and giving States and local water systems the 
financial and technical resources they need.
  H.R. 3604 provides $7.6 billion in direct grants and loans to public 
water systems for compliance activities, enhancement of water system 
capacities, operator training, and development of solutions to source 
water pollution. It also authorizes $80 million for scientific research 
on the health effects of cryptosporidium, as well as radon and arsenic, 
and to develop new methods for its treatment. In addition, H.R. 3604 
includes a community right-to-know provision which requires water 
systems to mail an annual report to every consumer concerning the 
levels of regulated contaminants.
  The safe drinking water amendments is a carefully crafted, bi-
partisan bill that deserves support. It provides ample resources and 
power to local communities to provide safe and clean water to their 
residents. It provides local control over local issues.
  I commend the Commerce Committee for their hard work. I am hopeful 
that differences between the Senate-passed bill can be worked out 
quickly to send this important environmental legislation to the 
President.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3604, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________