[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S915-S916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 223. A bill to terminate the effectiveness of certain drinking 
water regulations; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, ``Just as houses are made of stones, so 
is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a 
collection of facts is not necessarily science.''
  For the past 8 years I have questioned numerous collections of facts 
put out by the Environmental Protection Agency in the name of science 
and I have found sound science has been left out of the regulation 
equation too often. A prime example is the new arsenic standards in 
drinking water proposed last week. This new standard dramatically 
reduces the arsenic level allowable in drinking water from 50 parts per 
billion (ppb) to 10 ppb, a reduction of 80 percent.
  I believe it is essential to protect and ensure the safety of our 
nation's water supply and to uphold the principles and goals set forth 
in the Safe Drinking Water Act, but these standards were not based on 
sound science and there is no proof that they will increase health 
benefits. They were put into effect because it was the politically 
expedient thing to do.
  That is why at this time I am introducing this bill which would 
terminate the effectiveness of these new drinking water standards.
  The amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required the standards 
for arsenic in drinking water be changed by January 1st of this year. 
Because the proposed rule was issued late, I cosponsored an amendment 
to the VA HUD appropriations bill giving EPA a 6-month extension. This 
amendment was later signed into law, but was ignored by the agency.
  There was much controversy and debate surrounding the appropriate 
level for the new standard. The EPA's Science Advisory Board expressed 
unanimous support for reducing the current standard, but varied 
considerably on the appropriate level. Both the EPA and the National 
Academy of Sciences National Research Council acknowledged more health 
studies were needed to evaluate what potential health benefits, if any, 
would likely result from this lower standard.
  Arsenic is naturally occurring in my home state. In fact, New Mexico 
has some of the highest levels of arsenic in the nation, yet has a 
lower than average incidence of the diseases associated with arsenic. I 
have not seen any reasonable data in support of increased health 
benefits from these lower standards. I have only seen a collection of 
facts from studies conducted outside of the United States.
  Under these new standards states such as New Mexico, are going to be 
required to revise water treatment facilities at a significant cost to 
the general public. Such costs should not be incurred unless sufficient 
scientific information exists in support of the new standard.
  The New Mexico Environment Department estimates this new standard 
will affect approximately 25 percent of New Mexico's water systems, 
with the price for compliance between $400,000,000 and $500,000,000 in 
initial

[[Page S916]]

capital expenditures. Annual operating costs will easily fall anywhere 
between $16,000,000 and $21,000,000. Additionally, large water system 
users will see an average water bill increase between $38 and $42 and 
small system users will see an average water bill increase of $91. The 
cost of complying with this new standard could well put small rural 
systems out of business, which is the exact opposite of what we should 
be trying to accomplish--providing a safe and reliable supply of 
drinking water to rural America.
  Again, I believe that science is made of facts and I don't believe we 
have enough facts here to determine if there will be increased health 
benefits from the change in these standards. I see unintended 
consequences resulting from well intentioned motives. We should study 
this issue here in the United States and then take our best data and 
formulate standards that are scientifically sound.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 223

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

     SECTION 1. DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.

       On and after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) the amendments to parts 9, 141, and 142 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, made by the final rule 
     promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency entitled ``Arsenic and Clarifications to 
     Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring'' (66 Fed. 
     Reg. 6976 (January 22, 2001)) are void; and
       (2) those parts shall be in effect as if those amendments 
     had not been made.
                                 ______