[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9485-S9498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to the conference report to accompany S. 1316, the safe 
drinking water bill, that the conference report be considered as having 
been read, and it be in order for me to order the yeas and nays on the 
adoption of the conference report at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 
     1316) to reauthorize and amend title XIV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe Drinking Water 
     Act''), and for other purposes; having met, after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of August 1, 1996.)
  Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on the adoption 
of the conference report at----
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, I think we need to 
check with our colleagues for a brief period of time to determine the 
length of time that may be required to talk on this bill. I know of 
little opposition, if any, but I do know of a number of Senators who 
have expressed a desire to speak for the legislation. And so we would 
not be prepared to enter into a time agreement, but I do not think it 
will be that long.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, let me say then that the time for vote 
will be announced later on today after consultation between the 
minority leader and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that whatever 
time is taken up, that it be equally divided between Senators Chafee 
and Baucus or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, while we are waiting for the managers of 
this bill to come to the floor, we will work on these other issues.
  I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, I would like to thank the Chair, and I would like to 
thank the majority leader for discussions and bargaining in good faith. 
I very much appreciate the action taken. I thank you.
  Mr. LOTT. I observe the absence of a quorum, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, could I ask what is the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report on the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am prepared to enter into a time 
agreement of 1 hour equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The 
agreement is 1 hour equally divided.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I will control the time on our side.
  I ask the Chair that I be notified when I have used 8 minutes of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair will notify the 
Senator when 8 minutes has expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee in bringing the conference 
report of the Safe Drinking Water Act before the Senate. The committee 
has been working on this since 1993, and our efforts have received 
broad, bipartisan support at every step. I particularly pay tribute to 
the ranking member of this committee, who was the chairman of it during 
the prior 2 years, the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. He 
has done an excellent job and has been a real stalwart in achieving 
reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. What we have before us is, to a 
considerable extent, based upon the fine work he did while he was 
chairman and the committee was under his guidance.
  We all agree reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary. 
Public health has been strengthened, there is no question, over the 
standards that have been issued over the past several years. But these 
new standards and new treatment have put a strain on the water 
suppliers. This bill includes many provisions to ease that burden.
  What is in the bill? There is a drinking water revolving loan fund 
that the President first recommended. In addition to all that, the 
States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their 
own testing requirements. The States may grant variances to small 
systems that cannot afford to comply with the national standard. We are 
not rolling back any health protection that is now provided. No 
existing standard will be weakened.
  In addition to the SRF grants, there are new programs to prevent 
pollution at the source. This program lets the cities and towns go to 
the headwaters and see if they cannot clean up the pollution there, 
rather than permitting the pollution to come down the river and then 
the city has to invest in a very, very expensive water purification 
plant. All of that makes sense.
  The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including research 
programs to determine whether some groups, like children or pregnant 
women or people with particular illnesses, are likely to experience 
adverse affects from drinking water contaminants.
  Before describing the major provisions in detail, I wish to thank our 
colleagues for the hard work they have done. Particularly, I thank 
Senator Kempthorne, who was chairman of the subcommittee that dealt 
with this bill. Senator Kempthorne, over many months with great 
patience and superb knowledge of this bill, brought forward this 
legislation which we now have before us, in essence. His efforts in 
behalf of State and local governments and others is widely recognized. 
The trust that Senator Kempthorne had built up with local officials 
was, I believe, essential in achieving the compromise that is always 
necessary when you sign a bill into law.
  Senator Reid, the ranking member of that subcommittee, was a partner 
in that effort and did excellent work. I mentioned the fine work that 
Senator Baucus has done, and Senator Warner, likewise, and others.
  I also want to thank the House leadership that we worked with, 
Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell and Waxman and others who are, 
obviously, members of the conference committee.
  We had help from the office of water at the EPA, including Bob 
Perciasepe, who heads the drinking water office.
  Mr. President, if somebody were to ask what is the one thing we can 
do that will most improve the safety of drinking water in the United 
States, I think the answer would be help the small systems. There are 
54,000 small drinking water systems in the United States, in trailer 
parks, in villages, in small communities. There are thousands of these 
systems that are operated by very small towns. Many of these very small 
systems do not have,

[[Page S9486]]

obviously, the technical or financial resources to consistently provide 
safe drinking water. They cannot keep up with the testing and 
monitoring and determining which contaminants are and which are not so 
dangerous over a short period of time. The operators have little or no 
training.

  These small systems have been overwhelmed by the regulations imposed 
by the existing Safe Drinking Water Act, so the conference report that 
we are bringing before us now, and passing, hopefully, in a short time, 
addresses the problems of these small systems. How? First, as I 
mentioned, a grant program, a State revolving loan fund starting off at 
$725 million, that is for 1 year, provides Federal assistance to build 
treatment plants, if that is what is required in these communities. 
This system was proposed in 1993 by President Clinton. As I say, we 
authorize it for $1 billion, hopefully with an appropriation this year 
of $725 million.
  That is the first big thing. The second is that each State adopts 
what they call a capacity development strategy, to help these small 
systems. A State strategy might include what the State decides when 
they ask, what can we do to help each of these small communities? It is 
not always necessarily money for investment. Sometimes it is money for 
training the operators in these small communities, or technical 
assistance on how do you develop a new safer water supply. It may be 
the ground water in the present area is contaminated but there may be 
other sources, deep wells or whatever it might be, that could produce 
new and safer water. So we are relying on the States to take the lead 
in designing this capacity enhancement strategy.
  What are some of the other things that can be done under this bill? 
The States are authorized to grant variances to small systems that 
cannot comply with the stiff requirements you impose on the big cities 
where they can afford it. A portion of the SRF funds may be set aside 
for technical assistance, as I mentioned before, the cost of training 
operators. And the States may reduce the monitoring requirements. There 
is no point in testing constantly for a substance that never occurs in 
a certain section of the country. Why make the small systems constantly 
go through that monitoring for a contaminant that is not found in that 
section of the nation, as I mentioned before?
  When we brought this bill before the Senate it passed 99 to nothing. 
The House, in many provisions, included our language word for word, for 
example, in the standard setting. The standard setting is based upon 
science and technology that I believe makes much more sense than the 
existing situation. For some contaminants, this approach to standard 
setting can impose large costs nationwide while producing only small 
gains. So we believe the science approach that we provided will reduce 
those large investments that have to be made.
  So, I believe we have here an excellent piece of legislation. Again, 
I congratulate my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Rhode 
Island his 8 minutes have expired.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair for notifying me. We will hear from 
other Members of our side who will have an opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jan 
Harrington and Mike Burton, both fellows in Senator Bob Kerrey's 
office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration 
of the conference report on this subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I, like my good friend and chairman of the 
committee, Senator Chafee, strongly support the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996.
  We all know that the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be reformed. We 
have heard all kinds of stories. They are largely true. We have had 
problems in many of our cities, our large cities. We heard about 
Milwaukee, Washington, DC, and the cryptosporidium problems, as well as 
some problems in small communities.
  It is basic, it is fundamental: Americans should be able to drink 
their water and rest assured that the water they drink is safe, that 
they will not get sick, whether they are in the comfort of their own 
home or whether they are visiting the Nation's Capital or wherever they 
might be in our country.
  The current version of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is helpful in 
this direction, but, in many respects, it produces more paperwork than 
it does progress. It is my belief that this conference report helps 
change that.
  What does it do? First, it reforms the regulatory process. This is 
very important. It makes it much more streamlined, and reduces redtape. 
It cuts monitoring costs. This is extremely important. The monitoring 
costs for some contaminants are extremely high, and Americans would be 
amazed at how expensive it is.
  The bill also creates a new revolving loan fund so communities will 
have the resources to get the technology they need. It also requires 
water systems to give the people they serve more information about the 
quality of the drinking water the system provides. Consumers will have 
more notice and more information. And the bill addresses operator 
training. It is important to have operators who know what they are 
doing.
  Overall, it cuts redtape and, at the same time, increases the 
protection of public health.
  Senator Chafee has described some measures in detail. I agree with 
his assessment. I think this bill is a solid compromise. In praising 
it, I would like to emphasize two points.
  First, as has been stated, this bill is especially important to rural 
States, to small communities. In my State of Montana, we have over 900 
separate drinking water systems. Almost all of them serve fewer than 
10,000 people.
  Some of the systems serve trailer parks and remote clusters of homes. 
They are operated part-time by folks who are just trying to be good 
neighbors. They are very small systems.
  The current version of the law requires small drinking water systems 
to install the same treatment technology as large urban water systems 
that serve hundreds of thousands of people. In some cases, this doesn't 
make sense. Small systems do not benefit from what economists call 
``economies of scale.'' That is, they cannot spread their costs among a 
large number of ratepayers. The same high cost of technology has to be 
spread among fewer ratepayers, resulting in a much higher cost to the 
ratepayers.
  If we force smaller systems to use big-city technology, not only can 
they not afford the cost, but they will go under. What will that mean? 
That means people in the area have to revert to using unhealthy well 
water, not water which is treated, but well water which is untreated.
  This point was hammered home to me by the head of the Montana Rural 
Water Association, Dan Keil. I will never forget meeting with Dan about 
6 years ago. He told me about legitimate problems with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. We were in the Heritage Motel in Great Falls, MT. 
He made a very deep impression upon me.
  I know Dan Keil is very happy today, now that the Senate is finally, 
6 or 7 years later, dealing with the problem that needed to be 
addressed. At that time, he explained to me how impractical some of the 
present requirements are. I looked into it, and I agreed with him, they 
are impractical.
  We are now dealing, I think, with most of those problems. One of the 
most important issues is the variance provision in this conference 
report. Here is how it works.
  If a system has 10,000 people or fewer, they may request a variance 
to install special small-system technology identified by EPA. That is 
important. That means that a small system that cannot afford to comply 
with current regulations through conventional treatment can instead 
comply by installing affordable small-system technology.

  The States review the variance to ensure the technology adequately 
protects the public health. In those cases where the system serves 
between 3,300 people and 10,000 people, the variance must be approved 
by the EPA. That is going to help. It is going to help address the twin 
objectives of protecting public health and using cost-efficient 
technology.
  Second, over the last few years, there has been a lot of talk about 
reforming

[[Page S9487]]

our environmental laws. No doubt about it, although our laws are quite 
good--they help make the water in our country cleaner and more pure and 
the air we breathe more healthy--they need some reform. They are a bit 
outdated.
  One noteworthy provision in this bill is transferability. What does 
that mean? Essentially, the provision allows a State to transfer 
dollars from the revolving loan fund in the Clean Water Act to the new 
revolving loan fund in the Safe Drinking Water Act. A State can loan 
the funds to a community that can use those dollars to pay for 
technology that it needs to address some of the problems in the 
drinking water.
  A State can do the opposite, too. They can transfer from the Safe 
Drinking Water Act loan fund to the Clean Water Act loan fund. This 
provides more flexibility to allow a State to meet its needs, or a 
community to meet its needs. Washington, DC, is not passing something 
on to the States that has been described in the past as a one size fits 
all, view, but rather giving a lot more flexibility to States. This is 
extremely important.
  Another innovative provision is radon. Radon has been a vexing 
problem because, the proposed radon standard for water is tighter than 
the amount of radon that occurs in outdoor air.
  Radon affects people in their homes. We have basically come up with a 
multimedia. It allows States to set a lower standard for radon in 
drinking water only if the State has an alternative indoor air program 
that achieves just as much public health protection as the drinking 
water standard would achieve.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, no legislation is perfect. This one is 
not perfect. It contains some flaws. It has a series of special 
projects, commonly known as pork, which will draw resources away from 
the new drinking water loan fund. I think those projects should not be 
in the bill, but we could not get the bill passed, incredibly, without 
some of them.
  But it is a good bill nevertheless. We have made some progress. It is 
going to help move the ball forward.
  In closing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Chafee. I must say that all of us who have 
worked with the chairman of our committee are very impressed with him. 
He is basically a down-to-Earth, commonsense fellow. He calls them as 
he sees them. He is very generous with his time, very generous with his 
compliments and very generous with the people he is working with. In 
addition, he keeps his eye on the ball; that is, moving the 
environmental ball forward in a commonsense way.
  It has been kind of tough the last couple of years. We have not 
passed environmental legislation that is solid, commonsense and 
balanced. Senator Chafee has done a good job to help advance this 
legislation.
  I also want to acknowledge the excellent work of the staff, 
particularly Jimmie Powell. I don't know anybody who knows this issue 
better than Jimmie, with the possible exception of my two staff, Jo-
Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans, who know it just as well. They have been 
just terrific.
  I am particularly appreciative of Jo-Ellen. When they were trying to 
wrap this bill up 2 or 3 days ago and they wanted to quit, Jo-Ellen 
said they were not going to leave until they wrapped it up that night. 
They didn't leave, and they wrapped it up. That is a testament to Jo-
Ellen's hard work.
  I pay particular thanks to Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the 
subcommittee. Senator Kempthorne, like Senator Chafee, is a commonsense 
fellow. Maybe that is because he is from a Western State like Montana. 
Also, Senator Reid from Nevada. He is not out there to try to harm 
anybody, does not have a political ax to grind. He is trying to get the 
job done in a very balanced way.

  I see Senator Boxer on the floor. There is nobody more tenacious and 
hard working and a greater champion for environmental causes. And in 
the case, she was particularly strong on the right-to-know provision, 
which was her brainchild. I know that Senator Boxer is very pleased we 
included that provision in the conference report.
  People worked hard on this. I am very grateful for the time and 
effort they put into it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator 
from Montana for his very generous comments about the work I have done 
and others and our staff. And I want to join him in his salute to Jo-
Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans and the others on his staff who really were 
tremendous.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, the person who took this on, mastered it, pushed it 
forward. And the bill we have before us is really, to a great extent, 
the bill that Senator Kempthorne brought from his committee that passed 
in this Senate 99 to 0. So if kudos are deserved around here, they are 
deserved by Senator Kempthorne.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much.
  May I say how much I appreciate those remarks by the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee.
  To paraphrase Samuel Taylor Cole- ridge: Water, water, everywhere, 
and with the passage of this Safe Drinking Water Act conference report, 
we'll be able to drink every drop.
  Just over 9 months ago, in a unanimous, bipartisan vote of 99 to 0, 
we passed the bill that I introduced along with Senators Chafee, 
Baucus, and Reid to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  I will say right here that without that sort of partnership with 
those Senators, we would not be here today. Our bill improved public 
health, gave States and local governments the flexibility that they 
need to target their scarce resources on on high priority health risks, 
and laid the foundation for a safe and affordable drinking water supply 
into the 21st century.
  Following the efforts of the Senate, the House of Representatives 
last month passed their safe drinking water bill, passed largely on the 
work that was accomplished here in the U.S. Senate.
  Today we have the opportunity to complete the process and approve the 
conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. 
Our job today is a significant one because, surely, there is nothing 
more important than the health of our families and friends, and in 
large measure, that is exactly what is riding on this legislation. When 
you think about it, drinking water is really the only product or 
service that communities provide that directly affects the health and 
well-being of every person every day. Unfortunately, the current law 
often makes it unnecessarily difficult and costly for many communities 
to provide safe and affordable drinking water.
  During the negotiations on the Unfunded Mandates Act, I met with 
executive committee members of the National Governors' Association to 
discuss our strategy for passage of that bill. Those Governors told me 
that after passage of the unfunded mandates legislation, their priority 
would then turn to fixing the current Safe Drinking Water Act. And so 
we moved and made that our No. 1 priority after passage of the Unfunded 
Mandates Act.
  I began the process determining that we should have three goals. We 
needed to write a law that first and foremost would protect and improve 
public health, and second, we wanted to write a law that would work, 
one that would put substance and content over bureaucracy for 
bureaucracy's sake, and, finally, we needed to write a law that would 
reduce Federal unfunded mandates.
  The bill that we are voting on today achieves those three goals. It 
was written with the advice of many public health experts, State and 
local government officials, and water providers. And I listened to what 
they had to say. So this bill reflects their concerns and their 
recommendations as to how to improve the way the drinking water is 
regulated.
  When I began working on this legislation, I determined that there 
were key factors that must be incorporated. First, we must protect 
public health.

[[Page S9488]]

 And we did. We eliminated the arbitrary requirement that the 
Administrator of EPA regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years. 
Instead, the administrator is given the authority and flexibility to 
target her regulatory resources on those contaminants that are actually 
present in drinking water and that, based on the best available, peer 
reviewed science, are found to pose a real health risk to humans.
  For the first time, we provided tens of millions of dollars for 
important health effects research, including research on the health 
effects on cryptosporidium, arsenic, and disinfectants, and their 
potential effect on other sensitive subpopulations, like children, 
pregnant women, and the elderly.
  I said we would give States and local governments greater flexibility 
to tailor Federal requirements to maximize their resources and meet 
their specific needs. And we did.
  The bill also gives States the sole authority to design and implement 
capacity development strategies to ensure that drinking water systems 
have the financial, technical and managerial resources they need to 
comply with this law. Under the old regulatory approach, we would have 
required States to adopt a strategy and submit it to EPA for review and 
approval. But we do not do that here. Once a State adopts a capacity 
development strategy, EPA has no authority under this law to second-
guess it or penalize the State by withholding Federal funds.
  The bill also recognizes that in many cases it is easier and more 
cost-effective to prevent contaminants from getting into source water 
for a drinking water system, rather than to try to remove them by 
regulation after they are in the system. This bill encourages States to 
develop source water protection partnerships between community water 
systems and upstream stakeholders to anticipate and solve source water 
problems before they occur. These are voluntary, incentive-based 
partnerships.

  Our experience in my home State of Idaho has repeatedly demonstrated 
these kinds of programs work, and work well. Locally driven solutions 
that stakeholders themselves develop in a nonregulatory, nonadversarial 
setting usually achieve a far greater level of protection than could 
otherwise be gained through mandatory restrictions on land use or other 
Federal regulations. I fully expect that these voluntary source water 
partnership programs will quickly become a valuable tool for States and 
local government to improve public health, target local risks, and 
maximize resources.
  I said that we would make this law work for small and rural systems. 
And we did.
  We allow States to modify expensive monitoring requirements for small 
systems so that they do not have to spend their very limited resources 
testing for contaminants that are not detected in their drinking water. 
In many communities in Idaho, this new flexibility alone could save 
systems hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.
  I said that we would reduce unfunded mandates. And we did.
  First of all, our bill reduces the number of mandates that are 
imposed on States and local governments under the current law. Then, 
significantly, we commit substantial Federal resources to assure that 
the Nation's drinking water supply is safe.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed our bill as is now 
required under the Unfunded Mandates Act, and just yesterday confirmed 
that this legislation does not impose unfunded mandates. It stated, 
``the bill would change the Federal drinking water program in ways that 
would lower the costs to public water systems of complying with 
existing and future requirements. On balance, CBO estimates that the 
bill would likely result in significant net savings to State and local 
governments.''
  Mr. President, in summary, I just say, for the first time ever, we 
are providing the funds to the States and communities so that they can 
deal effectively with their water systems. For the first time ever, we 
are providing for source water protection. For the first time ever, we 
are prioritizing those areas that truly are contaminants, and going 
after those.
  But I particularly want to thank my colleagues, Senator Chafee, who 
is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for his 
leadership and efforts on this bill, combined with those of Senator Max 
Baucus of Montana, who was the chairman in the previous Congress, and 
Senator Harry Reid, who is the ranking member on the Senate 
subcommittee we serve on. Again, without that sort of partnership, 
bipartisan partnership, we would not be here. I also want to 
acknowledge Senator Bob Kerrey who is one of first ones that really 
came forward and said, let us make this work. And it did work.
  I also want to thank majority leader Trent Lott for the help and 
encouragement he provided during the conference to help get this bill 
completed.
  I would like to thank my staff for their hard work and dedication to 
the cause. To Buzz Fawcett and to Ann Klee. They are truly dedicated 
and extremely talented individuals. I want to thank Jimmie Powell from 
Senator Chafee's staff. Jimmie's dedication to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act and his knowledge of the law and the facts made him invaluable to 
the process. Every State, city, and rural water district in America can 
say thank you.
  I would like to thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Mike Evans and Ann Loomis 
and Scott Slesinger, Mike Smith, Gregory Daines, and Stephanie Daigle, 
Steve Shimberg, and Tom Sliter.
  The Senate conferees remained united throughout the conference. And 
it was due to the uncommon abilities and the good humor of all the 
people that I have just named that it was successful.
  Finally, I would like to thank, on a personal note, my wife Patricia 
and my children Heather and Jeff who know about the sacrifice that goes 
into these sorts of efforts: The long hours that keep you from being 
home, as you try to make something positive happen. It is the families 
that I think really offer the sacrifice. But in this case I believe it 
is worth it, because for all the kids of this country, it is safer 
drinking water. We have done our job. We stepped up to the challenge 
and we accomplished it.

  Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member. I thank all 
Members of this Senate--99 to 0--for the tremendous bipartisan support. 
This Congress is on record. We have positive environmental legislation 
that is good public health and good for this blessed environment.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I yield now several minutes to the Senator 
from Virginia who is the second ranking member on the committee. He has 
worked very hard on this bill, and he is unable to be here long, so I 
ask that he might proceed.
  Mr. WARNER. I compliment the managers of this bill and the chairman 
of the subcommittee. Through their effective leadership in guiding this 
conference, we are able to return to the Senate an exemplary bill. I 
was happy to be a part of the conference.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill favorably addresses the 
needs of small systems and establishes a new pollution prevention 
approach under the source water partnership program.
  Mr. President, this conference report clearly demonstrates that we 
can produce legislation that strengthens our protection of public 
health, provides relief from excessive Federal regulations and offers 
more streamlined requirements for local drinking water systems to 
comply with the law.
  Our foremost priority has always been to give consumers confidence 
that the water that comes from the tap is safe to drink. This bill 
fulfills that priority.
  The cornerstone of this bill is the establishment of the State 
Revolving Loan program. Funds will be provided to States to make either 
loans or grants to assist communities with the construction of 
treatment facilities necessary to meet the Federal standards. These 
funds are critically needed by our small systems who often don't have a 
large rate base to support the construction of new treatment plants.
  Also during our conference discussions, much attention was focused on 
the need to require local drinking water systems to provide all of 
their customers with Consumer Confidence Reports. These reports are to 
inform customers of the content of their drinking water. It needs to be 
made clear that the Senate bill mandated that water systems immediately 
notify, within 24 hours, their customers whenever a contaminant exceeds 
a Federal health based standard. This is a

[[Page S9489]]

significant improvement from current law.
  I did have concerns about proposals during the Senate debate to 
expand this requirement on our drinking water systems. I did not want 
this reporting to unduly alarm our citizens about the presence of 
contaminants in drinking water. The conference report includes a 
provision on Consumer Confidence Reports, which I strongly support 
because it addresses my previous concerns in several ways. Most 
importantly, it requires the reports to include a plainly worded 
explanation of the contaminants that are found and of the health risks 
that may result from violating the Federal standard.
  It is important to make the distinction that detecting a chemical in 
drinking water, many which occur naturally at very low levels, is much 
different than violating a Federal standard. Federal standards are set 
at exposure levels which EPA determines are safe and will not adversely 
affect public health. The modification in the conference report ensures 
that the public will be fully informed about the meaning of data and 
sampling collected by a local water system.
  The conference report also ensures that the local water systems have 
the trained personnel necessary to effectively run a treatment plant. 
Virginia already requires an effective operator certification program 
and the report requires all States to implement a training program for 
water system operators. I support fully this provision because with 
relief from the current monitoring requirements, we must be sure that 
treatment plants are operated in a sound an efficient manner and that 
personnel have the expertise to respond to unforeseen problems.
  Throughout the committee's deliberations on revising the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, over the past 4 years, we have learned that small 
systems are especially burdened by the current regulatory program. 
Small systems, those serving less than 10,000 persons, represent over 
80 percent of the public water systems in this country. Monitoring 
requirements, often the most expensive activity undertaken by water 
systems, installation of treatment technologies, and funding 
constraints have all overburdened our small systems and their capacity 
to meet the stringent requirements of the current law.
  The Congress has responded to these calls for help and this bill 
holds great promise for assisting small systems. The revolving loan 
fund, alternative technologies that are affordable, monitoring relief 
and ensuring that operators are qualified to run treatment plans will 
greatly enable our small water systems to deliver drinking water that 
is safe for our citizens.

  Mr. President, the Source Water Protection Partnership Program is a 
new step in pollution prevention. Having worked on this approach for 
several years, I am pleased that the conference contains the Senate 
provision. With a modest investment of funds, source water partnerships 
will prevent problems before they occur. The positive result will be 
that water quality is improved and communities are relieved from 
building expensive treatment systems.
  A great deal of work went into the development of this approach and I 
must commend the agricultural community for their cooperative working 
relationship over the years. Our citizens involved in agriculture today 
are responsible stewards of our land and water. They want to be 
involved in a voluntary, solution based approach to these problems. I 
know from the great progress we have made under the Chesapeake Bay 
program that this approach can be extremely effective on a national 
level.
  Another issue of great concern to me has been the water quality 
problems of the Washington Aqueduct and the District of Columbia's 
water distribution system.
  Since the Environmental Protection Agency's boil-water order in 
December 1993, I have been working to resolve the long-term financial 
constraints of the system. Owned by the Federal Government, the 
Washington Aqueduct provides essentially a local service--municipal 
water supply--to the District of Columbia and the Virginia 
jurisdictions of Arlington and Falls Church.
  Currently, the system's capital improvements are financed on a pay-
as-you-go basis where the customers must pay up front the full cost of 
any construction project.
  While user fees are collected for the District of Columbia's Water 
and Sewer Enterprise Fund, these resources finance the system's annual 
operating costs and cannot begin to meet the obligations of the 
system's extensive capital improvement needs.
  The Conference Report provides for a reasonable approach to this 
problem by providing authority for the Corps to borrow funds from the 
Treasury for the next three years. These funds will be used to continue 
the improvements of the system as required by the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Within this 3 year period, the Corps and the 
customers are to work together to determine a final resolution of the 
ownership of the Aqueduct. The Corps is authorized to transfer the 
Aqueduct to a new or existing entity with the approval of a majority of 
the customers. I would have preferred that all the customers agree to 
the transfer, but that was not the view of my House colleagues. It is 
my very strong hope that the Corps and the customers will make every 
effort to reach consensus on this matter before the borrowing period 
expires.

  It is critical that we resolve this matter because if no solution is 
reached at the end of 3 years then we return to the status quo. That is 
continued Corps ownership with no ability to provide long-term 
financing of the necessary improvements. This would be tragic for our 
rate payers who would suffer from extreme rate spikes to finance the 
remaining work on the Aqueduct.
  Mr. President, I know that my colleagues expect this matter to be 
resolved within the next few years and I pledge to remain actively 
involved in this effort to see that there is a successful conclusion.
  In closing, no legislation of this magnitude and in this short time 
frame can be completed without talented and dedicated professionals. I 
want to recognize and thank the staff of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Jimmie Powell, Jo-Ellen Darcy, and Mike Evans, and the 
staff for Senator Kempthorne, Ann Klee and W.H. Fawcett.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I take this moment to pay particular 
tribute to the Senator from Virginia for the work he did in connection 
with providing funding for the city of Washington aqueduct. It 
supplies, obviously, all the residents of Washington plus some 
residents of northern Virginia. But for the attention and diligence of 
the Senator from Virginia in connection with this matter, we would not 
have dealt with it in the fashion we did.
  I believe, as a result of the efforts of Senator Warner, the problems 
of the Washington water supply system will be solved in the not too 
distant future. I pay tribute to what the Senator has done.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind remarks 
and also his strong cooperation, together with the ranking member, in 
making possible the inclusion of this provision in this important piece 
of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 9 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  I know no one who fights harder for the environment, who is more 
tenacious with a greater bulldog tenacity than the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  That is meant as very high praise from me.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Being a bulldog is not necessarily the kind of pet 
you want around the house, but it is not bad when it comes to a battle.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my satisfaction with the conference 
report and hope that our colleagues will support it. The final bill 
will enhance both the quality of our drinking water and America's 
confidence in its safety.
  Americans are concerned about the quality of their drinking water. 
The sale of bottled water and water filters is skyrocketing. Fewer 
people believe that the water out of their taps is clean and safe. 
Their fears are not illusionary. Look at Milwaukee or Philadelphia. 
Washington, the Nation's Capital has repeatedly had to tell residents 
to boil their water.

[[Page S9490]]

  Something had to be done. I believe the bill we crafted will enhance 
both quality and confidence.
  This was not an easy conference, as I am sure my colleagues will 
agree. Both bills resulted, from a set of delicate compromises, the 
House bill and the Senate bill. Any changes could raise significant 
opposition. I am happy the conferees were able to hammer out a draft 
which I believe is superior to either of the individual versions of the 
Senate or the House.
  I will elaborate on a few of the provisions. Unlike the Senate bill, 
the House version would have weakened the rights of citizens to sue for 
violations of the water standard, even when the suits were needed to 
ensure public safety. The House bill also failed to give States the 
flexibility to transfer money from the sewage treatment loan revolving 
fund to the drinking water fund and vice versa. This could delay high 
priority projects and would prove to be wasteful. I am glad the Senate 
version prevailed on that issue, protecting the rights of the citizens 
and giving flexibility to the States.
  At the same time, there is much in the House bill that is, in my 
view, superior to the Senate version. For example, I fully support the 
Boxer right-to-know amendment. As the author of a similar law that 
provides information about toxic releases, I think this kind of 
legislation is critical. Unfortunately, the amendment was not approved 
by the Senate, but the conference agreement includes provisions for a 
right-to-know law.
  Mr. President, letting people know what is in their water supply is 
not just common sense, it is common decency. The right-to-know 
provision provides consumers with information on contaminants that have 
been detected in their water, even if the levels do not violate EPA or 
State standards. Since all water includes some contaminants, the 
conference language also provides for information on the specific 
impact of those contaminants.
  I am disappointed, however, that these provisions fail to provide 
similar requirements for bottled water. Many consumers buy bottled 
water because they think it is cleaner than tap water. They have a 
right to know if that is true, and which pollutants, if any, remain in 
the bottles.
  Several years ago, Mr. President, the FDA published regulations to 
require the bottled water industry to regularly monitor its products 
for contaminants. The industry fought these provisions and the FDA 
relented. That concerned me. A study by the State of Kansas showed 15 
percent of the bottled water tested had cancer-causing contaminants at 
higher levels than allowed by EPA.
  I am disappointed the conference report was watered down in this 
area. At least it does provide for a Federal Food and Drug 
Administration study on the feasibility of such a requirement. I expect 
the FDA will find it feasible to require the bottled water industry to 
provide the same information which we are requiring of suppliers of tap 
water to communities of 500 or above. After all, if that provision is 
not too burdensome for public water providers, it cannot be too 
burdensome for the bottled water industry.
  However, if the FDA does not appreciate the importance of providing 
this information to the public, I will not hesitate to bring up 
legislation to bring bottled water under the authority of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act.
  I also urge consumer groups to conduct tests on some bottled water 
sold in their areas and to prepare consumer confidence reports for the 
general public. This, at least, will educate consumers until proper 
provisions and safeguards are in place.
  In addition to water quality, the controversial part of the 
legislation dealt with radon. I am pleased the conference came out with 
a provision that will help lower the risk from radon exposure to a 
greater degree than either the House or the Senate bill would have. Mr. 
President, radon is a naturally occurring radioactive contaminant that 
causes lung cancer by inhalation.
  In New Jersey, radon exposure is believed to cause more lung cancer, 
more than any other environmental cause. That is why I sponsored the 
Indoor Radon Abatement Act in 1988. The conference report builds on 
that act by allowing States to implement programs that will decrease 
radon in the air, as an alternative to meeting the standard for radon 
in drinking water. A State can choose this option only if the proposed 
indoor air program provides greater public health benefits in complying 
with the drinking water standard. Since radon is dangerous only when 
inhaled, this measure would significantly enhance efforts to reduce 
this deadly contaminant.
  Last, Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, 
the chairman of the Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife 
Subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, the ranking Democrat, Senator Baucus, 
in the committee and Senator Reid in the subcommittee. I also want to 
express my thanks to the staff for their hard work, Jimmy Powell, Jo-
Ellen Darcy, Michael Evans from the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, and W.H. Fawcett, representing Senator Kempthorne.
  In particular, I congratulate my staff person, Scott Slesinger, for 
his hard and diligent work. He made it possible for me to stay totally 
informed as to what was going on and to make sure that our views were 
included in any of the comments that we finally sought. Without his 
time and effort, this would have been a much more difficult assignment 
for me. I am happy we have the bill we have.

  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes. 
I want to say the Senator comes from a State with lots of small 
communities with small waterworks and he has been particularly vigilant 
in seeing that those small communities were protected not only in 
safety but also in the training of their operators who paid a lot of 
the attention to the requirements of small communities. Senator Thomas.
  Mr. THOMAS. I rise in strong support of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996. We all travel through our States extensively, and 
the topic of unnecessary regulation in the environmental areas comes up 
as often as any other topic when I hold meetings in Wyoming. Wyoming 
folks are tired of the top-down approach mandating expensive 
regulations for questionable benefits.
  This bill says we can do a better job of protecting public health, 
and at the same time, inject common sense into the process. This bill 
helps State and local communities meet Federal standards by creating a 
Federal grant program to capitalize State revolving loan funds for 
drinking water treatment.
  The mandate that 25 new contaminants are regulated every 3 years, 
whether at risk of human health or not is repealed. Finally, EPA will 
be able to prioritize efforts and cost benefits are inserted into the 
process. The State role is increased. Systems will be able to focus 
their monitoring efforts on those contaminants that actually occur in 
the systems.
  Most importantly for my State, small communities will finally be 
given special consideration and assistance under the bill. States can 
grant variances for systems that serve people under 3,300. That is 90 
percent of the water systems in Wyoming. With EPA approval that number 
goes up to 10,000. Small systems qualify for monitoring relief.
  There are a few groups that will, once again, find an excuse to 
oppose this legislation, just as they did when it passed the Senate 99 
to 0. I agree with them, this bill is not perfect. For instance, I am 
skeptical of the so-called consumer confidence report. These reports 
will not build confidence, in my judgment. They will simply create 
confusion. They will simply create confusion. I call them consumer 
confusion reports, at a cost of about $20 million per year. CBO says 
that, on balance, this bill will save local water systems in State and 
local governments millions of dollars. That is good news to the 
taxpayers.

  This bill includes several provisions to ensure that Wyoming, the 
only nonprimacy State, can take full advantage of the benefits of this 
bill. It makes sense, it furthers the protection of human health and 
enjoys widespread bipartisan support. S. 1316 is a bill the President 
can support, he should support it without reservation, and we should 
get it on his desk quickly.
  Mr. President, this is truly historic legislation and I was pleased 
to have

[[Page S9491]]

the opportunity to play a part in its development as a member of the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as well as the 
conference committee that crafted the compromise legislation before us 
today.
  This legislation is historic for both what it does, and what it does 
not do. What this bill does is trust folks in the states and local 
communities to protect their citizens, increases flexibility to meet 
standards, injects common sense into the regulatory process, allows the 
Environmental Protection Agency to set priorities and focus limited 
resources on the biggest health threats, and finally recognizes that 
small communities in Wyoming face unique challenges and need different 
strategies to meet standards than New York City does. What this bill 
does not do is impose expensive unfunded mandates on localities, rely 
on the Washington knows best command and control method of regulation 
or blindly force regulation for regulation sake without addressing the 
costs and benefits. This is a massive shift in the way we approach 
environmental regulation that allows us to increase environmental 
protection while reducing unnecessary costs to the regulated community, 
and I hope it becomes a model for other statutes that desperately need 
reform.
  I am particularly pleased with the approach this bill takes in 
helping small public water systems comply with the standards set by the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. As you know, Mr. President, small communities 
face unique challenges not found in large cities. These small systems, 
by their very nature, don't have the economies of scale found in large 
cities. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has always 
set standards and determined affordable technologies based on water 
systems of 100,000 or more. What may be affordable for a system of this 
size is obviously prohibitive in Pinedale, WY. There are several 
provisions in this conference report that will help small systems 
affordably comply with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act and 
continue to protect the health of their citizens.
  The vast majority of public water systems serve small cities. In my 
home State of Wyoming, 90 percent of our public water systems serve 
fewer than 3,300 people. This bill gives States the authority to grant 
variances from Federal standards for systems serving up to 3,300 
people, and for systems serving up to 10,000 people with the approval 
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Small systems are given 
flexibility to meet the new consumer confidence reporting requirements 
contained in this bill. Under this bill, small systems can receive 
relief from monitoring requirements that today require them to monitor 
for contaminants that don't even occur in their water. This bill 
authorizes $15 million per year to provide technical assistance to 
small public water systems and up to $30 million per year to pay the 
cost of mandated operator training for small systems. Finally, this 
bill creates a grant program for at least five university programs to 
support research, training and technical assistance with respect to 
problems experienced by small systems. These small public water systems 
technology assistance centers will provide significant assistance to 
State and local governments in the development of programs to address 
special concerns relating to the water systems of rural communities and 
native Americans. These centers will be particularly important to 
states, like Wyoming, with relatively low population density that cover 
very large geographic areas. Coordination of research, training, 
technical assistance and outreach efforts through these centers will 
play an important information role for State and local governments. It 
should be noted, Mr. President, that the Water Resource 
Research Institutes located at the land grant university in each of the 
50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, 
and Guam, can provide similar information on rural water system 
treatment technologies, development of alternate supplies, and training 
to enable compliance with State and Federal regulations. I hope the 
Environmental Protection Agency will better utilize these institutes as 
part of its drinking water programs.

  In addition to the very important accommodations made for small 
systems in this bill, important changes were made throughout the 
drinking water program. I am extremely pleased about the increased 
flexibility that the legislation brings to the standard setting process 
under the act. This legislation, with its emphasis on using the best 
available scientific methodology for standard setting, facilitates 
efforts to bring more rationality to the process. The EPA has already 
started down this road with its risk characterization policy and its 
carcinogen risk assessment guidelines and I think our approach in this 
legislation will build on that effort, hopefully leading to the 
reevaluation of the standards for a number of substances. I am also 
pleased that States retain ultimate discretion in this bill over the 
content of programs that implement a capacity development strategy, and 
that existing State operator training programs will be allowed to 
continue unchanged under this legislation.
  Mr. President, as with any compromise, this bill is not perfect. This 
bill truly is a compromise, reflecting hours of negotiations between 
Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate, then days of hard work 
and negotiations between the House and Senate. In order to move forward 
with this bill, and the significant benefits that go with it, it became 
necessary to include some provisions that I oppose. For instance, I 
strongly believe the provision in this bill that requires so-called 
consumer confidence reports is misguided, will cost local water systems 
from $15 to $20 million per year and will not result in consumer 
confidence, but instead will confuse consumers and destroy their 
confidence in their local water supply. Fortunately, the Senate was 
able to make clear that these reports should contain language that will 
tell consumers that the presence of trace elements of contaminants are 
in all drinking water, including bottled water, and this does not 
create a health hazard. We were also able to increase flexibility for 
small systems to meet this mandate.
  Despite some reservations, I strongly support this bill. We create a 
State revolving loan fund for drinking water infrastructure under this 
bill, to help local communities pay for needed improvements to their 
water supply. We increase flexibility and reduce costs to local 
communities. The Congressional Budget Office says this bill will:

       * * * change the federal drinking water program in ways 
     that would lower the costs to public water systems of 
     complying with existing and future requirements. On balance, 
     CBO estimates that the bill would likely result in 
     significant net savings to state and local governments. 
     Finally, the bill would extend the authorization of certain 
     existing appropriations and would authorize the appropriation 
     of additional federal funds to help state and local 
     governments meet compliance costs.

  Finally, this bill recognizes the unique situation of the State of 
Wyoming. Mr. President, Wyoming is the only State which does not have 
primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chairman Chafee, Senator 
Kempthorne, and Senator Baucus worked with me to ensure that the 
citizens of Wyoming would be able to take full advantage of the 
benefits of this legislation, despite the fact we don't have primacy. 
The State of Wyoming will receive a minimum allocation from the new 
loan fund and will be able to apply for monitoring relief and 
variances. Most importantly to me, the State of Wyoming will be able to 
continue their current operator training and certification program. We 
are very proud of that program, Mr. President, and it is fitting that 
States continue to be allowed to structure their own programs and not 
be forced to follow an EPA-directed structure, as the House bill would 
have required.
  Mr. President, many people deserve credit for passage of this 
legislation. I want to thank Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus, and 
Reid for their leadership. This bill would not have been possible 
without their hard work, and that of their staffs. Senator Kempthorne 
in particular took some unfair hits over the last few weeks. Well 
financed Washington-based environmental extremists attacked Senator 
Kempthorne's integrity and questioned his resolve to get this bill 
done. Mr. President, these attacks were outrageous, designed to prevent 
us from passing this important legislation and to build the coffers of 
the environmental extremists. There is no excuse

[[Page S9492]]

for this behavior and I want to make it clear that this bill will be 
signed into law thanks to Senator Kempthorne and despite the 
irresponsible behavior of a few groups who would rather scare the 
American people with distortions than see positive reform to 
environmental laws. That's unfortunate, but we overcame their 
objections to the Senate bill and approved it 99 to 0, and we should do 
the same today.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I add my voice in support of 
this bill. I want to thank, particularly, the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Chafee, the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and 
Senators Kempthorne, Reid, and the other members of the committee, who 
worked so hard. And I can say, on behalf of myself and my wonderful 
staff, Linda Delgado, that working with the staffs of the chairman and 
the ranking member has just been a joy to us.
  Of course, I have some very special feelings about passage of this 
bill today, because an amendment that I worked very hard to get through 
this U.S. Senate, the consumer right to know amendment, has been 
adopted by the conference. The Senator from Wyoming didn't think it was 
a particularly good amendment, but I have to say that when one looks at 
what we are facing--I pick up this glass of water to drink what may be 
Washington, DC, water--and I think it is important that those of us who 
drink this water, or tap water from anywhere in this country, know what 
contaminants are in our drinking water.
  I am very proud of this particular bill because, first of all, we won 
on the issue of consumer confidence reports. I disagree with my friend 
from Wyoming, because he thinks they will confuse people. I think 
people are smarter than that. I have always believed in giving people 
information. The way this information is portrayed will be clear and 
simple, and I think it will be easy to understand. If it is not, it can 
be revised so that it is even easier.
  So I am extremely proud that we will require getting consumer 
confidence reports out to people, so they will know what is in the 
water they ingest, the water that is their lifeline. It seems to me a 
very important thing.
  I have to say that the conference and the House deserve a lot of 
credit, but we built on the 40 votes we got here in the U.S. Senate. I 
want to say to all my colleagues who supported the Boxer amendment, my 
deepest thanks, because had we only gotten a few votes, we may not have 
gotten the agreement of our chair and our ranking member. Our chair and 
our ranking member knew there was support for the concept. I think the 
difficulty arose in the details of the amendment.
  The other part of this bill that gives me great pride deals with the 
section on sensitive subpopulations. We attached it to the safe 
drinking water bill in the last Congress and in this Congress. The 
language in this bill requires that EPA drinking water standards be set 
at levels that take into account the special vulnerability of our 
children, our infants, our pregnant women, our elderly, the chronically 
ill, and other groups that are at substantially higher risk than the 
average healthy adult. The truth of the matter is that vulnerable 
populations are much weaker than a 165-pound man. The way we have set 
the standard throughout history has been for that very healthy, strong 
man. A little child, or someone who is ill, or an elderly person may be 
negatively affected by water that would not hurt a healthy person.
  Mr. President, this is an important milestone, in my opinion, because 
it seems to me that we ought to do this on every bill that impacts the 
health of our people. We should remember the children, the pregnant 
women, the frail elderly, the ill. They cannot afford to hire lobbyists 
to come into the Halls of Congress to knock on my door or your door, 
Mr. President, and fight for their health and safety. They simply 
cannot do it. Little babies cannot do it. They count on us to protect 
them. In this bill, we are doing that. We are taking into account their 
special needs.
  So, today, I am very happy. In closing, I want to mention two other 
issues that relate to this bill, one of which is particularly important 
because the South Tahoe Public Utility District needs urgent help in 
replacing its wastewater export pipeline system, which protects and 
preserves the water quality in that most magnificent of all lakes, Lake 
Tahoe. We were able, thanks to the chairman and the ranking member, to 
list this as a project that should be considered by the Administrator 
of EPA, should there be sufficient funds. I hope, Mr. President, that 
the EPA Administrator will recognize the beauty and the vulnerability 
and the national gift that Lake Tahoe is, and that we will be able to 
help them fix their problem.

  On the disappointment side, I don't have many. The chairman and the 
ranking member were very helpful in getting authorization in this bill 
for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy, which 
is a consortium of universities in Mexico, California, Arizona, New 
Mexico, and other States, which is going to look into the serious 
pollution problems we have at our border region with Mexico. We had the 
authorization, but the Science Committee in the House asserted its 
jurisdiction and, unfortunately, removed this provision. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues in the House from the San Diego area to 
resolve this problem.
  To my chairman and my ranking member, let me say that a Senator could 
not be more blessed than to be able to work with Senators like you and 
staffs like the staffs that you have. I hope we can work together for 
many more years.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee I want to 
commend Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator 
Reid for their extraordinary effort on this bill.
  The safe drinking water bill we are passing today, is a significant 
step forward in helping to ensure that one of the most fundamental 
needs of any society--safe drinking water--is available to all 
Americans.
  This bill will lead to the crafting of a regulatory program to meet 
this goal at the lowest possible cost and with the most flexibility 
feasible for the thousands of local water supply systems.
  This bill makes very significant progress in the protection of public 
health. It effectively addresses legitimate concerns about overly 
burdensome regulation and lack of funding. And it establishes the 
critically important State revolving loan fund to help States and 
municipalities comply with Federal law.
  Mr. President I want to highlight two specific items included in this 
bill which I worked very hard to achieve.
  As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have for 
years worked to protect children and other sensitive subpopulations 
from contaminants in drinking water. I am therefore very pleased that 
this bill includes language that reflects the amendment I successfully 
attached to the safe drinking water bill in the last Congress, and 
worked to incorporate into the bill this Congress. The language in this 
bill requires that EPA drinking water standards be set at levels that 
take into account the special vulnerability of our children, our 
infants, pregnant women, our elderly, the chronically ill, and other 
groups that are at substantially higher risk than the average healthy 
adult. This is a very important step forward.
  I am also pleased that this bill incorporates a strong version of the 
consumer confidence reports amendment that Senator Daschle and I 
offered during Senate consideration of the bill. This is especially 
important in light of continued reports that many Americans are worried 
about getting sick from tap water contaminants.
  The new consumer confidence reports requirement means that consumers 
will once a year get a report from the water company serving their 
neighborhood, about the source, the quality, and the safety of their 
drinking water.
  The information provided in the report will be simple and 
straightforward.
  Consumers have a right to be informed at least once a year about the 
levels of contaminants found in their drinking water. These consumer 
confidence reports will empower consumers to take precautionary 
measures to

[[Page S9493]]

protect themselves and the most vulnerable members of their family, 
such as a grandparent or a young child, for example, by boiling water 
or installing special filters.
  It is a pleasure Mr. President, to see this conference report pass 
today.
  In closing I would like to briefly mention two other issues:
  I am pleased that the South Tahoe Public Utility District waste water 
export system project was included on the list of special projects to 
be considered by the Administrator of EPA if there are sufficient 
funds.
  The South Tahoe Public Utility District needs urgent help in 
replacing its export pipeline system which protects and preserves the 
water quality in Lake Tahoe. The export pipeline transports reclaimed 
water from the wastewater treatment plant in South Tahoe out of the 
Lake Tahoe basin to a nearby reservoir where the reclaimed water is 
stored and later used for irrigation and other purposes.
  The existing pipeline is reaching the end of its useful life and must 
be replaced quickly if we are to avoid the possibility of a 
catastrophic spill resulting in serious environmental harm to Lake 
Tahoe. Several serious leaks have already occurred over the last 2 
years, and the risk of a rupture increases the longer if takes to 
complete the replacement project.
  The local community has raised $10 million towards replacement of the 
pipeline, but a total of $30 million will be needed. The local 
community is already paying sewer rates substantially higher than the 
average in California. If the pipeline is to be replaced in a timely 
manner, $10 million in Federal assistance is needed. While the local 
community might be able to pay for the pipeline replacement over the 
long term by enduring high utility rates, it will not get the job done 
as quickly as it could be done with Federal assistance. Such Federal 
assistance would enable the South Tahoe Public Utility District to 
complete the project in a more expeditious manner, reducing the chances 
of a large leak with serious environmental consequences for the lake.
  Last, I would like to mention my disappointment that authorization 
for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy [SCERP], 
which was included in the Senate-passed bill, was not included in the 
final conferenced bill.
  SCERP is a consortium of American and Mexican universities that works 
to address environmental problems along the United States-Mexican 
border including but not limited to air quality, water quality, and 
hazardous materials. SCERP's members include San Diego State 
university, New Mexico State University, University of Utah, University 
of Texas-El Paso, and Arizona State University. SCERP had its origins 
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which authorized the 
establishment of an entity to research air and water quality and other 
environmental problems in the border region. Although SCERP is not 
specifically authorized, it has been funded through congressional 
appropriations for the last 5 years in fulfillment of the Clean Air Act 
mandate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her 
very kind remarks. We express our appreciation to her.
  Mr. President, I will yield soon 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Senator Smith. But before doing so, I want to say that 
Senator Smith has been deeply involved with this Safe Drinking Water 
Act from the beginning. He worked very closely with the authors of it 
and particularly was concerned about the small communities. There are 
two things he sought for these small communities. One is that they have 
safe drinking water and, two, that they have it at an affordable price. 
I pay tribute to the work Senator Smith did in reflecting the views of 
his constituents in New Hampshire. I give him sincere praise for his 
assistance.
  I yield to Senator Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Chafee, for 
his very kind remarks. It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman 
Chafee on not only this issue, but Superfund and other environmental 
issues throughout the last 2 years--actually, longer, but 2 years under 
his chairmanship.
  I also thank Senator Baucus for his good work on this. I compliment 
Senator Kempthorne, who has done an outstanding job in shepherding this 
legislation to this point.
  Everyone wants clean, safe water for drinking and bathing. But the 
ability to provide this necessary commodity at an affordable price has 
been a real challenge in recent years. I think we have gotten to this 
point because of the numerous problems encountered with the 1986 act. 
Many local governments and drinking water systems around the country, 
some of which are in New Hampshire as well as other States, have been 
struggling to comply with this long list of regulations while 
maintaining reasonable water rates. The legislation before us will help 
to address this problem.
  The folks who live in these communities do not want to drink dirty 
water, but they want to be able to do what they have to do and have the 
reasonable opportunity to do it.
  So when we talk about the issue of unfunded Federal mandates, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act is regarded by State and local governments as 
the king of those unfunded mandates. So to address it, the bill now 
authorizes $1 billion a year in a Federal grant to establish State 
revolving loan funds. This is the first time for this. These funds will 
be allocated to the States on an annual basis, which can then be loaned 
or granted to municipalities for drinking water projects. There are two 
provisions of this program that I believe deserve special recognition:
  First, the States can use up to 30 percent of the SRF to provide 
direct grants to the most advantaged communities.
  And, second, States can transfer funds between this new drinking 
water SRF and the existing wastewater treatment SRF.
  So these two provisions go a long way in providing our States 
flexibility and the communities the flexibility they need to maximize 
their resources with the environmental concerns that are of the most 
immediate nature.
  Also, the issue of radon is one that I have long been involved in, 
and there is still considerable debate about the amount of risk posed 
by low-level exposure to radon. But according to the American Water 
Works Association, capital costs alone could reach $12 billion 
nationwide. And from a relative risk standpoint, we should consider the 
fact that radon in drinking water contributes less than 5 percent to 
the total amount of radon exposure.
  So given these statistics, I believe we chose a responsible course in 
addressing the radon issue. The bill directs EPA to set a new standard 
based on risk assessment conducted by the National Academy of Sciences 
and also would allow for an alternative, less stringent standard 
equivalent to outdoor air levels. Certainly no one would want to have 
all the wells, or 90 percent of the wells, in particular States ruled 
undrinkable because of standards like that. It would just cause chaos. 
This is a reasonable solution that will both protect public health and 
save money.
  Finally, I thank the managers for also including the provision to 
establish five small-system technology centers across the country to 
develop and test new technologies for the smallest of systems. One of 
these centers, I hope, may be established at the University of New 
Hampshire, which has an extensive background in this area and will be a 
huge asset to the New England region.
  So I am pleased today that we are at the point that this bill will 
become law, that the President of the United States has indicated he 
will sign it, and that it has broad-based support, bipartisan support, 
and support among hundreds of communities throughout the United States.
  Also, I thank my staff assistant Christine Russell for her hard work 
and help on this issue throughout the year.
  With that I yield back any time I have, Mr. President.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass legislation to 
amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to give State and local communities 
the flexibility to ensure that consumers

[[Page S9494]]

have safe drinking water, and send it to the President for his 
signature. For the past several years, I have worked closely with 
communities in my State to support legislation that throws out the one-
size-fits-all approach and the costly mandates of the current law, and 
to replace it with greater flexibility and a commonsense approach. 
Today all the hard work of these communities paid off.
  Several years ago, I began working with communities across my State 
that were frustrated with the one-size-fits-all approach of current 
law. The current law tied the hands of the State to work with local 
communities by mandating prohibitively expensive treatment technologies 
on the smallest of water systems--the cost of which would have bankrupt 
some of our State's smaller communities. In 1994, I held a safe 
drinking water forum in Moses Lake, WA to hear first hand from local 
leaders how to fix the current law. Over 100 people turned out for that 
hearing, and their message was clear--the current law was broken and in 
need of repair. Together with local government leaders I supported 
legislation in the 103d Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Senate. 
Unfortunately, that legislation did not make it to the President's desk 
for his signature.
  This year, however, was different. This year, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed S. 1316. Included in that legislation, and in the 
conference report that the Senate will pass today are important reforms 
to the law that this Senator believes will ultimately facilitate 
greater compliance with the law--without the bureaucracy and redtape. 
The conference report addresses some of the most critical concerns 
raised by local governments in Washington State. The conference report 
establishes a Safe Drinking Water Act State revolving loan fund to 
assist communities in financing system improvements to comply with the 
act, similar to the Clean Water Act State revolving loan fund; throws 
out the mandate that EPA regulate 25 additional contaminants based upon 
a benefit-cost analysis; the legislation also gives States the ability 
to grant variances to small systems in order to facilitate greater 
compliance with the act.


                  section 106 of the conference report

  Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and their staff, 
for including my amendment in the conference report that recognizes 
that future treatment technologies will have the capacity to provide 
safer water than that provided by traditional filtration. Section 106 
of the conference report establishes a limited alternative to 
filtration, if the system can utilize another form of treatment that 
will provide greater removal of pathogens, than that of filtration. The 
need for this amendment was brought to my attention by the city of 
Seattle. The city has two water supply sources, the Cedar River 
Watershed, and the Tolt River supply. Because of turbidity problems in 
the Tolt supply, the city is in the process of implementing filtration 
technology on the Tolt. Conversely, the Cedar River supply does not 
have turbidity problems--it consistently tests below average for 
turbidity--and the city is seeking an alternative to filtration for the 
Cedar River supply.

  Currently the Cedar is an unfiltered system, and therefore must 
comply with the surface water treatment rule. The rule sets forward 11 
specific criteria, and calls for extensive monitoring of the system, to 
ensure that the system continues to provide clean water to its 
customers. During 1992, the Cedar violated 1 of the 11 criteria, and, 
consequently, was required to initiate filtration plans. Shortly 
thereafter the city entered into an agreement with the State and EPA 
region 10 to achieve compliance with the rule without filtration.
  Seattle has been working closely with EPA region 10 and the 
Washington State health department for the past several years to find a 
way to treat the Cedar supply, without filtration. Filtration would 
cost the city roughly $200 million, but the city believes that the 
process of ozonation would better meet the city's drinking water needs. 
The Ozonation process would only cost $68 million. Ozonation is a 
process that is considerably less expensive than filtration and is 
believed to be the next up and coming technology for ensuring clean 
drinking water.
  The ozonation process is proven to be more effective than filtration 
in getting rid of harmful pathogens in a water supply, like 
cryptosporidium and giardia. Filtration technology would inactivate 
99.9 percent of cryptosporidium, but ozonation would inactivate 99.999 
percent of the cryptosporidium. The increase of .099 is considered a 
greater increase in the level of human health protection.
  Mr. President, I want to thank all of the people in Washington State 
who took the time to call or write me about the need to reform the Safe 
Drinking Water Act--their message came through loud and clear. By 
giving State and local communities the flexibility to address unique 
drinking water problems, the conference report completely and totally 
rejects the ``Washington, D.C. knows best'' way of thinking. When this 
legislation is signed into law communities across Washington State will 
have safe and affordable drinking water. This legislation is a victory 
for consumers across our State, and for the local governments that 
worked hard for its passage. I am proud to support the conference 
report to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act, and urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act conference report. Government's most important 
responsibility is to protect public health and safety. Safe drinking 
water is the lifeblood of our society and the basic foundation of good 
health. This bill incorporates sound scientific principles and protects 
public health and safety. The Safe Drinking Water Act keeps our promise 
to the American people.
  This bill provides flexibility to State and local governments, 
enabling them to better assist water utilities in complying with 
Federal health and safety standards. This is a win-win situation 
because it provides utilities with the resources to meet safety 
standards without putting them out of business.
  This legislation not only protects the safety of our drinking water, 
it will create jobs in construction. Modernizing our infrastructure is 
one of the best investments we can make. This bill helps burst the myth 
that environmental protection comes at the expense of economic 
development. The reality is that good environmental policy is good 
business.
  Staying on the cutting edge of environmental technology presents the 
American economy with a large and growing market here and around the 
world. While the United States is already a leader in this burgeoning 
market, we should seize the initiative to expand our leadership even 
further.
  Marylanders have told me they want adequate resources devoted to 
making drinking water safe and clean. I believe this bill is the best 
way to move forward toward the safest, cleanest drinking water for 
Maryland and America.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This conference report 
represents a thoughtful, bipartisan effort which weds protection of 
public health with the flexibility necessary for cost-effective 
implementation. It emphasizes using more and better science in 
identifying contaminants, and training water system operators to meet 
the established guidelines. It will improve protection of vulnerable 
populations, including pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly. It 
creates a new Federal grant program to help water systems struggling to 
comply with Federal requirements.
  The conference report contains a provision that is of particular 
interest to New York State. Three upstate watersheds provide New York 
City with its drinking water, which has been of such high quality 
historically that the City has had no need to filtrate its water. In 
recent years, however, it has become evident that a comprehensive 
watershed protection program is necessary to preserve the purity of the 
region's water. As such, New York City and State have launched a 
collaborative effort to safeguard the fragile upstate ecosystem, an 
effort which I feel will be instructive to other cities and regions of 
the country. The bill will provide financial support for monitoring the 
success of this pilot program, which will likely prove effective for 
other municipalities.

[[Page S9495]]

  I also wish to praise the provisions of this conference report which 
will allow the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to consider 
relative costs, health benefits, and competing health risks when 
formulating new standards for drinking water. This is a rational 
approach which will help us allocate resources more effectively and 
efficiently.
  Environmental legislation places too much emphasis on risk 
assessment, resulting in an ineffective use of science. This perverse 
situation stems from directing EPA, explicitly or implicitly, to 
regulate environmental pollutants to safe levels of exposure. In so 
doing, EPA must scientifically determine what is safe.
  The problem is simple: the premise is false. Science cannot define 
safety. Decisions about what is safe--what is an acceptable risk--are 
based very much on personal or societal values--informed by science, 
yes, but based on values. Therefore, when legislation forces agencies 
to use science to determine safe levels of exposure, the effect is to 
set EPA and other agencies up for failure. Risk managers have no 
incentive to take any action other than to err on the side of safety.
  This bill enables EPA to avoid imposing costly regulations resulting 
in little or no benefit. It prudently allows EPA to incorporate 
economic, scientific, and social considerations in achieving its safe 
drinking water goals efficiently and effectively. It arms EPA with the 
best tools to address existing and potential problems with the Nation's 
drinking water supply, in reasoned and measured steps, and it 
establishes new requirements for keeping the public apprised of the 
quality of their water.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work 
and willingness to compromise on the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments, and I strongly urge its passage.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senate is about to take up and, I trust, pass the 
conference report on the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. 
This is a strong, but balanced, environmental bill. It was written with 
the advice of many public health officials across the country, 
including those who are responsible for providing the very water that 
their families and friends drink every day. Their advice helped make 
this a common sense bill that will solve real life problems, without 
creating new ones. This is legislation that will truly make drinking 
water safer for all Americans.
  Not surprisingly, this bill has strong bipartisan support in both the 
House and Senate, and the support of virtually every organization 
representing State and local governments and water agencies responsible 
for providing safe and affordable drinking water. This bill, first 
introduced by Republican Senator Dirk Kempthorne, will improve public 
health and reduce unnecessary costs and Federal regulation.
  The legislation fundamentally changes the way drinking water is 
regulated. It will improve public health protection, gives States and 
local governments greater flexibility to target their scarce resources 
on priority health risks, and reduce Federal unfunded mandates.
  The legislation requires that a meaningful cost-benefit analysis be 
done whenever EPA issues a drinking water standard. The legislation 
requires EPA to use peer-reviewed science to identify and regulate 
contaminants that pose the greatest risks to public health. This is 
critical if we are going to protect public health without bankrupting 
States and local governments that have to implement Federal standards.
  The bill strengthens the partnership between States and the Federal 
Government. For the first time, States will have the authority to 
tailor Federal requirements to meet their needs.
  The legislation helps small systems. Most small systems don't have 
the financial resources or technical expertise to meet treatment 
requirements that were really designed for very large systems. Under 
this legislation systems serving fewer than 10,000 people can get 
regulatory relief to use alternative treatment technologies that may be 
less expensive but still protect public health. Small systems also may 
receive special financial assistance.
  The legislation encourages voluntary measures to prevent 
contamination of source water. The bill provides financial incentives 
for States, communities and stakeholders to work together in a 
nonregulatory context to develop programs to prevent contaminants from 
getting into source water. This provision is endorsed by the national 
agricultural community.
  The legislation gives States financial assistance to get the job 
done. The legislation authorizes $6 billion in grants to the States 
over the next 6 years to improve drinking water, and does so in the 
context of the Republican plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. 
The States use this grant money to capitalize a loan fund for local 
communities to construct and upgrade their drinking water systems.
  The legislation reduces unnecessary unfunded mandates that increase 
the costs of drinking water without improving drinking water. The CBO 
says the Senate bill, on which this final bill was based would likely 
result in significant net savings over current law. For example, EPA 
now arbitrarily regulates 25 additional contaminants over 3 years 
regardless of whether they are found in water or whether they present a 
health risk. This mandate was expensive, didn't improve public health 
and diverted resources away from stopping killer waterborne diseases. 
In its place, this legislation gives EPA flexibility to regulate 
contaminants that actually occur in drinking water and pose real health 
risks.
  The legislation includes a modified right to know or consumer 
confidence provision. This provision was part of the House bill. Senate 
negotiators improved the House language by providing greater 
flexibility for small systems and adding language to make the reports 
more meaningful to consumers.
  This bill is important for the reforms it contains. It is also 
important for what the bill represents. This bill is bipartisan, and it 
shows that issues of public health and environment needs not be 
partisan. There are many Senators who deserve credit for passage of 
this conference report. This bill was first introduced by Senator Dirk 
Kempthorne of Idaho whose 10 months of careful and bipartisan 
negotiations led to the Senate approving his bill 99-0 last November. 
He worked tirelessly to get this bill enacted into law. Last Sunday, 
for example, he spent more than 6 hours negotiating with the House in 
writing this bill. This is Senator Kempthorne's second major bill to 
become law this Congress, and it is a remarkable accomplishment for a 
Senator in just his 4th year in the Senate. Last year, Senator 
Kempthorne led the congressional effort to pass the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. And it is significant that the Congressional Budget Office 
says this Safe Drinking Water Act comply with the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. In fact, as I have already noted, CBO says this bill will 
``likely result in significant net savings over current law.''
  I also want to commend other Senators who worked long and hard to see 
that this bill passed. Senator John Chafee, the chairman of the 
Environmental and Public Works Committee was getting this bill through 
his committee, the Senate floor and through conference. I also commend 
the bipartisan group of Senate conferees--Senators Warner, Thomas, 
Smith, Baucus, Reid, and Lautenberg who helped develop the original 
bill and the final bill with the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes remaining on your side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield all of our remaining time to the 
very distinguished Senator from Nebraska, who, I might say, Mr. 
President, although he is not a member of the committee, has been so 
deeply active in this issue to make sure that we get to the Safe 
Drinking Water Act that I at times thought he was a member of the 
committee. He is one of the main reasons why we are here today. I very 
much tip my hat to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me first pay my compliments to Senator 
Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid.
  This is a very difficult piece of legislation. If you had asked me a 
week ago

[[Page S9496]]

if I thought we would be able to get to conference and final passage 
before the August recess, I would not be very optimistic about it. In 
fact, I was prepared to take up the measure on radon in the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for the fourth year in a row. I do not know how we 
managed to get it done. I am very grateful for its completion. For all 
of the rural communities of Nebraska--90 percent of our public water 
supply is in communities under 2,500 population--they all thank you. 
This bill probably saved our State millions of dollars over the next 10 
years.
  All the consumers of drinking water will have safer drinking water as 
a consequence of this change, and we are very grateful to Senator 
Chafee, Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Reid.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. It is likely to have, 
I think, a unanimous vote here in the Senate at an age when people 
wonder whether or not Republicans and Democrats can work together. It 
is a significant improvement in our law. I am very grateful that we are 
enacting it.
  Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus deserve our thanks and 
appreciation for their leadership on this issue. I also want to thank 
Senator Kempthorne for his personal commitment to resolving the tough 
issues involved in providing the public with safe drinking water and 
for his determination and willingness to take the time necessary to 
work out a compromise, and Senator Reid who, like me, comes from a 
rural State that has a lot to gain by the passage of this conference 
report. I know they have put their best into this legislation and I 
appreciate their efforts.
  One of the aspects of this bill that I have supported since the 
beginning of the debate 3 years ago, is that it gives States and 
communities more flexibility to meet safe drinking water standards. For 
example, the bill establishes a State revolving fund [SRF] to help 
finance drinking water systems. It authorizes the fund at $1 billion 
per year through 2003. The flexibility built into the bill allows 
States to transfer up to one third of the funds between the newly 
established safe drinking water SRF and the already existing Clean 
Water Act Revolving Fund. Furthermore, the bill allows for 30 percent 
of the State's revolving fund to be used as grants for disadvantaged 
communities. States deserve a chance to put their resources where they 
are most needed.
  Nowhere is this more clear than in dealing with the public health 
threat of radon. For the last 3 years, through the appropriations 
process, I have kept EPA from publishing a drinking water standard for 
radon. The reason I did this is because regulating radon in water does 
not make sense when the known health threat for radon is through 
inhalation, not ingestion. Ninety-five percent of the risk is from 
radon in soil, not water. This bill allows States to use a multimedia 
approach, that focuses on getting rid of radon in homes and schools 
that enters these facilities through the soil, instead of putting their 
limited resources into getting radon out of water.
  I have long believed that the way to solve this issue is through a 
multimedia approach. Under this bill, EPA will use a risk assessment 
completed by the National Academy of Science to promulgate a radon 
regulation. Once the maximum contaminant level [MCL] is established, if 
it reduces radon in water to a lower level than that in the air 
outside, EPA will promulgate an alternative maximum contaminant level 
which is equal to the amount of radon in air outside or approximately 
3,000 picocuries per liter. States will be able to use that alternative 
MCL if they have a multimedia program which is approved by EPA.
  It is a win-win solution, allowing taxpayers to get the must public 
health protection for their money and ensuring the water is safe.
  This is a good approach and I'm glad that I can now stop going to the 
Appropriations Committee to ask for their assistance on the radon 
issue.
  One of the largest costs of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water 
Act is monitoring.
  States have to monitor contaminants in drinking water whether they 
exist in their water systems or not.
  All Nebraska communities have asked that the current system be 
revised to let them test for contaminants that exist in Nebraska. 
Current law allows for a waiver process. However, the process is 
expensive and time consuming, and the benefits accrue to the local 
systems while the costs are incurred by the States. I fought hard to 
see that these provisions be changed.
  This bill calls on EPA to revise current monitoring rules and it 
gives States the authority to give monitoring relief to small systems 
for a 3-year period if the systems don't have the contaminant. 
Additionally, States can adopt alternative monitoring requirements if 
they have a source water assessment program.
  Aside from radon and monitoring, standard setting posed a major 
problem. As we all know, in the 1986 amendments we decided to regulate 
25 new contaminants every 3 years whether they were needed or not. This 
strict method of establishing standards caused some contaminants to be 
regulated without a sound scientific basis.
  I pushed for a change in that process. I believe that EPA needs to 
spend more time working with other public health agencies prior to 
considering a regulation. That is why, through the new contaminant 
selection process, EPA must consult with the Department of Health and 
Human Services, more specifically the Centers for Disease Control to 
determine which contaminants should be researched to see if they should 
be regulated.
  Once contaminants are thoroughly research--and this bill provides 
money to do just that--EPA must conduct a benefit-cost analysis prior 
to the promulgation of a regulation. That's the way decisions ought to 
be made. I've fought hard to see this provision implemented and I am 
confident that it will allow EPA to make the best choices for the 
protection of public health. Decisions that will allow a State or 
community's resources to be directed toward the greatest public health 
threat.
  I fully support this bill. I have worked hard to ensure that it 
provides the best public health protection possible, flexibility for 
States, and affordability for small systems. I applaud the work of the 
committee and I thank them for their willingness to allow me into the 
debate and negotiations.
  I want to stop here so this bill can be passed and sent on to the 
President for signature.
  I close again by applauding the heroic efforts of the chairman, the 
distinguished Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, Senator Baucus from 
Montana, Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, and Senator Reid from Nevada. I 
would also like to thank their staff, in particular Jimmie Powell, 
Steve Shimberg, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, Tom Sliter, Ann Klee and 
Greg Daines. It simply would not have been possible without their 
belief that water systems in our Nation need to be safe and that we 
need to change the way we regulate in order to accomplish that 
objective.
  I am very, very grateful. But, more importantly, the people of 
Nebraska are very grateful for your hard work, your diligence, and 
eventually your success.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, for the very generous remarks he made. He was 
hip deep in this when we started some 4 years ago, and although he is 
not on the Environment Committee, he has followed it extremely closely 
and has been extremely helpful and constructive to us. So I thank him 
personally.
  In conclusion, I thank the staff: Ann Klee and Buzz Fawcett with 
Senator Kempthorne; Jo-Ellen Darcy, Mike Evans, and Tom Sliter with 
Senator Baucus; Ann Loomis with Senator Warner; Mike Smith with Senator 
Thomas; Scott Slesinger with Senator Lautenberg; Gregg Daines with 
Senator Reid; Chris Russell with Senator Smith; Diane Hill with Senator 
Kerrey, and, of course, from the majority staff of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Steve Shimberg, Jimmie Powell, who was the lead 
on this, who was absolutely phenomenal, and Stephanie Daigle. All of 
them deserve a lot of praise and thanks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 
seconds.

[[Page S9497]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of the 
committee will join with me in also thanking Administrator Browner; Bob 
Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator; and Cynthia Dougherty, and a 
former administration official who worked very hard on this 
legislation, Jim Elden.
  This administration has shown leadership on this issue by making it 
an environmental priority back in 1993. Today, we have made that 
priority a reality. We have a divided Government, as we all know. It 
takes cooperation to get things done. They were an integral part of the 
solution. We are all very thankful.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I certainly join in those thanks.
  Now we are ready to go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Before we begin the vote, I believe we are prepared to get 
a consent agreement on the next two bills, and I would liked to get 
that done. I would like to make sure that the minority leader is here 
and has a chance to read it over.
  Why not outline what we have here and when he comes, we will actually 
put it in the form of unanimous consent.
  This unanimous consent agreement would be that immediately following 
the disposition of the safe drinking water conference report vote, the 
Chair lay before the Senate the health insurance reform conference 
report, and it be considered as having been read and it be in order for 
Senator Wellstone to make a point of order that the conference exceeded 
the scope with respect to section 281 of title II, subtitle H, and 
following the ruling of the Chair, Senator Wellstone be recognized to 
appeal the ruling of the Chair; that the appeal be limited to 10 
minutes to be equally divided in the usual form; following the vote on 
the appeal, if overturned, the point of order be null and void, and 
that the Senate immediately agree to the Senate Concurrent Resolution 
now at the desk correcting enrollment of the conference report.
  So that would be the first part of how we would deal with the health 
insurance reform package. And then we would ask that after adopting the 
correcting resolution, there be 2 hours for debate on the conference 
report to be equally divided between Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy, 
with 30 minutes of the Kassebaum time under the control of Senator 
Domenici, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the 
conference report be laid aside; it would be made the pending business 
at the direction of the majority leader after notification of the 
Democratic leader, and that the Senate then proceed to an immediate 
vote on the adoption of the conference report without further action or 
debate.
  So there would be two parts to that consent with regard to the health 
insurance reform package, first the one with regard to the point of 
order on section 281, and then we would have 2 hours of debate on the 
conference report itself, with 30 minutes specifically earmarked for 
Senator Domenici.
  Then we would further ask consent, after that is agreed to, that the 
conference report to accompany the Small Business Tax Relief Act, H.R. 
3448, be limited to--we will have to get the exact time, I think 60 
minutes there--for debate, to be equally divided between Senators Roth 
and Moynihan, and the conference report be considered as having been 
read, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report without any 
further action or debate.
  Does the Senator, the distinguished Democratic leader, have a comment 
or question about this?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, our staffs are just 
now combing through the language, and I think within a few moments we 
will be prepared to enter into the agreement. I did not hear all of the 
explanation from the distinguished majority leader.

  Mr. LOTT. When the Senator is ready. I think I will read it. I will 
just read it again so everybody can hear it, but I wondered if the 
Senator had any questions he wanted to raise.
  I might note if I could, if we could get that agreed to, we would 
have this vote and then we would have a total under that of 3 more 
hours of debate on the two bills, plus the time that would be taken, 
which should not be very much, on the section 281 correction, and then 
we would couple that with votes. That would all be completed by around 
8 or 8:30. And then whatever wrap-up we would have at that point, if we 
could get an agreement on the defense authorization bill, any other 
unanimous-consent requests, of course, we would do those then. But I 
just want the Members to know it would involve a vote now, another vote 
in 2 hours, and then another vote 1\1/2\ hours or so after that.
  Mr. President, I will yield for a question of the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I do not think the majority leader would find a rebellion 
if that 2 hours of debate were reduced.
  Mr. LOTT. I would be more than willing to see it reduced.
  Mr. CHAFEE. We completed a whole conference report here in 1 hour 
equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. There are some Senators who would like to be heard on this 
health insurance issue, including, I know, Senator Domenici and Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Wellstone and others. They can always yield back 
time. I know it is not something we like to do in the Senate very much. 
If anybody would like to yield back time, I do not think Senator 
Daschle would object and I know I would not object, and we could finish 
earlier.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield----
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, I yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. To one other possibility, one other possibility would be 
to have the votes and people who care to talk about these things talk 
after the votes.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to deem all the votes having occurred now and 
have the rest of the night for debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. We ought to be able to work something out maybe during 
the course of this vote.
  Mr. LOTT. All right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps we could get a unanimous-consent agreement right 
after that vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Why not do that.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts is here. I spoke with him earlier in the day, and he 
seemed to have a case of laryngitis, I thought, and perhaps he will not 
have the steam for 2 hours or an hour. I say that hopefully.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I still have the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader still has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, since the Senator is having laryngitis, I 
will not insist that he respond at this time. Let us have the vote. We 
will work on the final time agreement during the vote, and hopefully we 
can shorten that time and we can get our work done. So I yield the 
floor.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  Mr. CHAFEE. No, they have not been ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] and 
the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne

[[Page S9498]]


     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Murray
     Pryor
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe Members will be very interested in 
this unanimous consent request. This will give them the idea of what 
will be happening over the next hour and a half, and some feel, maybe, 
of what might be in store for the balance of the night. We still have 
some things we are trying to work through. But this is a very important 
agreement. I am pleased we have it worked out. I think it is fair to 
all concerned.

                          ____________________