[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15334-15342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  The World Health Organization and the European Union have adopted a 
10 parts per billion standard. Even if the United States does not adopt 
a 10 parts per billion, at 50 parts per billion, the United States' 
arsenic standard is on par with that of Bahrain, Bolivia, Egypt, 
Indonesia, Oman, China, and India.
  Countries who have adopted a 10 parts per billion standard include: 
the entire European Union (in 1998), Laos (in 1999), Syria (in 1994), 
Namibia, Mongolia (in 1998), and Japan (in 1993). Australia has had a 7 
parts per billion standard since 1996. As I said, it is time to move in 
the direction of a safer, more protective, standard.
  While arsenic levels may fluctuate over time, what is most 
significant from the standpoint of cancer risk is long-term exposure. 
Studies have linked long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water to 
cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and 
prostate. Noncancer effects of ingesting arsenic include 
cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunolog-
ical, neurological, and endocrine (e.g., diabetes) effects. Short-term 
exposure to high doses of arsenic can cause other adverse health 
effects, but such effects are unlikely to occur from U.S. public water 
supplies that are in compliance with the existing arsenic standard of 
50 ppb.
  A March 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded 
that the current standard does not achieve EPA's goal of protecting 
public health and should be lowered as soon as possible, according to 
the EPA.
  So, we should act immediately to adopt a new standard, as this 
amendment would require. We also must provide funding that is critical 
to accomplishing this goal.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to state for the record that I 
fully recognize the importance of ensuring that all Americans have safe 
and clean drinking water. As the ranking member of the Environment and 
Public

[[Page 15335]]

Works Committee, I helped author the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, I 
also understand the health hazards posed by unsafe levels of arsenic in 
our drinking water supplies.
  However, I also understand the difficulties faced by small water 
systems as they struggle to pay for the infrastructure they need to 
make sure their systems are in compliance with federal regulations. A 
lot of Montanans get their water from rural water systems. A lot of 
rural Montanans are struggling to make ends meet with low incomes. The 
last thing we want is to put small systems in a position where they 
have to charge their customers rates they just can't afford. We have a 
responsibility to these people, to make sure that not only do they have 
clean, safe water, but that they can afford it.
  I am glad that Senator Boxer and others have stated they recognize 
this problem and that they are willing to help make sure the Federal 
Government steps up to the plate with the necessary funding. I am 
pleased to hear that Senator Jeffords will take up in September Senator 
Reid's bill to help small community drinking water systems pay for 
infrastructure improvements. I pledge to do whatever I can to support 
Senator Reid's bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee and I 
will become a cosponsor of that bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to provide some 
additional materials to be printed in the Record regarding the debate 
over the drinking water standard for arsenic. These materials will 
inform our understanding of issues associated with the process used in 
developing a new arsenic drinking water standard and the science behind 
that process.
  The first item is a letter sent by me, along with Senators Domenici, 
Kyl, Hatch and Bennett, to Administrator Whitman, dated June 21, 2001.
  I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement from 
the National Rural Water Users Association on this same matter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2001.
     Hon. Christine Todd Whitman,
     Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Whitman: We are writing to reiterate our 
     strong interest in the development of a new arsenic drinking 
     water standard and to commend you for your decision to pull 
     back for further study the standard promulgated in the final 
     days of the Clinton Administration. Ensuring the safety of 
     our nation's water supply is essential, but it is also 
     important that decisions be based upon sound science and 
     consideration of the health benefits and costs that will 
     accrue to the American public. We applaud your pronouncement 
     that you are committed to such a principle, and as you 
     proceed, we encourage you to work closely with the states and 
     municipalities that will be most impacted by a new standard. 
     We are concerned, however, that you will be limiting your 
     review to a standard of between 3 parts per billion (ppb) to 
     20 ppb. This does appear to predetermine the outcome of your 
     scientific review and we would like to suggest that a more 
     appropriate approach would be to expand the review to 
     anything below the current standard of 50 ppb.
       We are extremely troubled by the way the past 
     Administration developed the 10 ppb standard. Agency staff 
     ignored recommendations from the National Research Council 
     (NRC), the General Accounting Office (GAO) and its own 
     Science Advisory Board (SAB). The NRC suggested that the 
     Agency consider a non-linear or sublinear dose-response model 
     as it examined arsenic at low levels, rather than relying 
     solely on a linear model. The National Research Council also 
     suggested that the Agency factor in the known shortcomings of 
     a thirty-year old Taiwanese study, which the Agency was using 
     extensively.
       In October, a GAO report questioned EPA's conservative 
     assumptions, its reliance on a conservative linear model and 
     its heavy reliance on the Taiwan study. The SAB added its 
     voice in December by criticizing the Agency for failing to 
     take the advice of the NRC and for not taking into account 
     the deficiencies in the Taiwan data in predicting U.S. risk. 
     Further, the Agency chose to ignore a study conducted in Utah 
     that found no bladder or lung cancer in individuals exposed 
     to arsenic at levels greater than 100 ppb because in order 
     for the linear model to determine a dose response 
     relationship, only studies that have documented cancer cases 
     can be incorporated.
       The controversy surrounding the appropriate standard 
     extends beyond the health effects evaluation. EPA has 
     seriously underestimated the cost to community water systems 
     and ultimately, to private households. In fact, a recent 
     report published by the AIE-Brookings Joint Center for 
     Regulatory Studies finds that the costs of the final rule 
     will exceed the benefits by about $190 million annually and 
     may actually result in a net loss of about ten lives annually 
     by diverting scarce resources away from meeting other health 
     care needs. In addition, the SAB expressed concerns about 
     assumptions made in EPA's analysis about the disposal of 
     arsenic residuals. For example, removing arsenic from 
     drinking water will generate wastes that will in many cases 
     be considered hazardous under applicable regulations, e.g. 
     RCRA. Further, water systems will face considerable costs and 
     liabilities for on-site storage, transport to an approved 
     facility, and suitable disposal. EPA has not considered these 
     costs. The SAB also raised concern over treatment options EPA 
     set forth as best available treatment technologies, some of 
     which have not been applied to arsenic removal on such a 
     large scale.
       The geological configurations in the West, combined with 
     dispersed population centers served by multiple, small water 
     systems, result in the Rocky Mountain States being 
     significantly impacted by imposition of any new arsenic 
     standard. For example, the State of New Mexico estimates the 
     cost of compliance with a 10 ppb standard to be approximately 
     $400 million in initial outlays, with a recurring annual cost 
     of $15 to $16 million. The State of Arizona's estimate is 
     $983 million in initial capital outlays, with a recurring 
     annual cost in excess of $26 million. Other western states 
     will be similarly impacted. Our states will be particularly 
     affected because the final rule includes non-community/non-
     transient water systems under the standard, a departure from 
     the proposed standard. Because these systems were not part of 
     the proposed rule, compliance costs--which would be 
     significant--were not included in the cost-benefit analysis. 
     Further, according to the preamble of the final rule, EPA did 
     not even consider compliance costs for the State of Arizona. 
     It is our belief, therefore, that the Agency's cost estimates 
     are vastly underestimated.
       In closing, let us again commend you for your commitment to 
     the use of the best science in establishing a new arsenic 
     drinking water standard and encourage you to continue to 
     stand above the attempts to politicize this important health 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
     Pete V. Domenici.
     Jon Kyl.
     Larry E. Craig.
     Orrin G. Hatch.
     Robert F. Bennett.
                                  ____



                             National Rural Water Association,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 2001.

Statement on VA, HUD Appropriations Amendment To Limit EPA's Review of 
                    the Arsenic Drinking Water Rule

       The National Rural Water Association (NRWA), representing 
     over 20,000 rural and small community members, urges Members 
     of the Senate not a legislatively limit EPA's review of the 
     arsenic drinking water rule in light of the rule's impact in 
     thousands of rural communities, especially their low income 
     populations.
       In 1996, with the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
     we welcomed a new law with provisions to assist small 
     communities as described by Senator Baucus on the Senate 
     Floor, ``The bill provides special help to small systems that 
     cannot afford to comply with the drinking water regulations 
     and can benefit from technologies geared specifically to the 
     needs of small systems. Here is how it would work. Any system 
     serving 10,000 people or fewer may request a variance to 
     install special small system technology identified by EPA. 
     What this means is that if a small system cannot afford to 
     comply with current regulations through conventional 
     treatment, the system can comply with the act by installing 
     affordable small system technology.''
       Since the 1996 amendments, the only variance we have seen 
     granted by EPA was for the City of Columbus, Ohio. We don't 
     feel that the 1996 Act is working the way it was intended and 
     this needs to the fixed if small communities are to comply 
     with EPA rules. The arsenic rule is a case in point. In the 
     January 22, 2001 rule, EPA chose not to allow small 
     communities to utilize the affordable variance authority by 
     finding it was not needed because the rule was 
     ``affordable.'' What has surfaced in the current EPA review 
     of the rule, by a panel which includes representatives from 
     the environmental groups, is that EPA did not adequately 
     consider the ability of low-income and rural communities to 
     afford the rule.
       Currently, under the EPA review we are working with EPA to 
     correct this and enhance the small community provisions in 
     the rule. Also, the National Research Council is reviewing 
     new research that will allow a better evaluation of arsenic 
     health effects. New evidence suggests that these risks are 
     lower than indicated in the 199 NRC report. The NEW reviews 
     are almost complete. Why would we want to stop this progress?
       The January 22, 2001 rule would likely require many small 
     towns to spend hundreds of

[[Page 15336]]

     thousands to millions of dollars to make insignificant 
     reductions in arsenic concentrations in their drinking water. 
     It would have more than tripled water rates in many small 
     communities. Such precipitous rate increases can threaten 
     consumers' and communities' ability to pay for water service 
     and other public health necessities. The unintended 
     consequence of over-regulating is that it takes away money 
     that people need to buy food, pay for a doctor, and keep the 
     house warm. Whenever we do anything to increase the price of 
     water, we are forcing millions of families to make yet 
     another tradeoff, which will directly affect their health.
       Please don't finalize a rule today (that directs EPA to 
     fine small communities who can't afford to comply) with the 
     intent of providing funds in the future. While we appreciate 
     the potential for future funding, our experience is that this 
     does not slow EPA enforcement.
       We urge you to allow EPA to continue to review the rule 
     with the hope they will be more sensitive to our concerns. We 
     feel it is imperative that the final rule process is 
     deliberative and convincing to ensure that communities forced 
     to comply feel it is necessary. We feel all scientific 
     perspectives need to be thoroughly weighed in an overt public 
     process that convincingly explains the health risks of 
     arsenic.
       Thank you for your consideration and please consider the 
     exceptional circumstances of small communities. Every 
     community wants to provide safe water and meet all drinking 
     water standards. After all, local water systems are operated 
     by people whose families drink the water every day and who 
     are locally elected by their community.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment to the pending measure offered by my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Boxer, that would require the Administration to immediately 
enact a tougher arsenic standard.
  One of the most important responsibilities of government is to 
protect our citizens from threats to their health, safety or to their 
environment. Over the past two decades, the American public has reached 
agreement that government cannot and should not be the answer to every 
problem that arises. But the public also agrees it is our duty to 
defend the citizenry when it cannot defend itself and to protect 
America's environment when it is threatened, because we are its 
stewards and trustees for all who will follow us as Americans.
  The fact is, environmental protection has been one of the most 
effective government programs of recent decades. Although the public 
wholeheartedly supports a sensible, balanced approach to the 
environment, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush 
administration does not.
  As you know, last January, the Environmental Protection Agency issued 
a new regulation that would reduce the acceptable level of arsenic in 
drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. The 
announcement was greeted with relief and appreciation by those of us 
who thought the regulation long overdue. However, acting with seeming 
disregard for science and regulatory procedure, the Bush administration 
almost immediately announced that implementation of the regulation 
would be delayed, citing the need for further review.
  Like many of my colleagues, and I would venture to say most 
Americans, I was puzzled and dismayed by the decision. What disturbed 
me about the decision was the administration's willingness to ignore 25 
years of comment, study, and debate, including a scientific review by 
our premier science organization, the National Academy of Sciences. For 
this regulation was not feverishly put together in some back room at 
EPA or the White House in the closing days of the outgoing 
administration, as some have charged. To the contrary, it was the 
product of a quarter century of public and scientific input, involving 
stakeholder consultations, peer review, and basic scientific research.
  The chronology of this regulation is clear and illustrates the 
legitimacy of the process by which the arsenic standard was developed. 
As early as 1962, the Public Health Service had recognized the toxicity 
of arsenic and recommended a 10 ppb standard. In 1986 Congress directed 
EPA to update the arsenic standard, but EPA delayed action pending 
further study. Ten years later, as part of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water 
Act, Congress again directed EPA to take action, giving EPA a more than 
generous 6 years to develop an arsenic standard. In June of 2000, after 
exhaustive review, EPA proposed an arsenic rule--a standard of 5 parts 
per billion. And finally, last January, the agency issued its long-
awaited final regulation--ultimately settling on a standard of 10 ppb. 
The Boxer amendment would bring us closer to this standard.
  EPA's regulation was clearly based on a National Academy of Sciences 
report that found that drinking water containing 50 parts per billion 
of arsenic ``could easily'' cause a 1 percent risk of cancer. The NAS 
also found that children are particularly susceptible to arsenic 
poisoning and recommended that the standard should be reduced ``as 
promptly as possible.'' This administration's decision to delay 
implementation runs counter to the best scientific judgement available 
to us.
  To put things in context, the current U.S. arsenic standard is 
equivalent to the standard employed by developing countries like 
Bangladesh and China, which may not have the financial and technical 
resources to adopt stronger standards. In contrast, industrialized 
countries like Australia or the European Union nations have adopted a 7 
ppb and 10 ppb standard, respectively. As the richest, most 
technologically advanced nation in the world, I would expect that we 
would lead the world in clean water standards.
  Beyond this decision to reconsider the new arsenic standards, I share 
the concerns of many citizens about what appears to be a disturbing 
pattern on the part of the Administration's regulatory policies. 
President Bush and his team have presided over the repeal, delay, or 
weakening of rules and regulations that would otherwise benefit the 
American people, ranging from rules to protect wilderness areas in our 
national forests from roadbuilding to regulations governing the toxic 
effects of mining on federal lands.
  I have spoken out against this emerging pattern of ``government by 
repeal.'' And I have questioned the process by which the decisions to 
rollback, weaken or delay these regulations, including the arsenic 
regulation, were reached. As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I have been conducting an in-depth examination of the 
decisionmaking process on several rules. I want to know who the 
agencies consulted or relied on in making their decisions and what 
process the agencies went through to make their hasty decisions. 
Despite initial resistance, I am pleased that we have made progress in 
protecting Congress's right to oversee the activities of the Executive 
Branch.
  I commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on this matter. I join her 
in urging our colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Corzine and 3 minutes to 
Senator Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I will be shorter than 3 minutes.
  Supporting Senator Boxer's amendment, on our side, is a statement to 
common sense. In the world I come from, people look at the facts; they 
analyze them; and then they try to take actions consistent with them.
  In science, if the people who provide water to us, as indicated by 
the Senator from California and the Administrator of EPA, who comes 
from my home State, fought for a 10 parts per billion standard, one has 
a hard time understanding why we don't think this is something in the 
best safety interest and the stewardship interest which we are 
responsible to represent in the Senate. This is one of those issues 
where I cannot understand why we cannot get together and make sure we 
have 100-percent support because we are really protecting women and 
children and future generations of our society. This is as clear an 
issue, on a commonsense basis, as I have seen since coming to the 
Senate. I am happy to rise in support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

[[Page 15337]]


  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank Senator Boxer for bringing this amendment up 
for debate and vote, and I want to add my words of strong support 
because it is clear we have a public health issue with respect to the 
level of arsenic in too many of our water supplies, particularly in the 
West but not exclusively.
  Unfortunately, the Bush administration has taken steps to delay 
rather than enforce new rules requiring less arsenic in America's 
drinking water. That is a step in the wrong direction. It is wrong from 
a legal perspective since the new standard was required to be in place 
as of June 22 of this year, and that was a statutory requirement put 
into place by the Congress.
  Perhaps most important, it is wrong from a public health perspective. 
The administration says it needs to examine further arsenic in drinking 
water, but while they continue to study arsenic, the American people 
continue to be exposed to this carcinogen.
  Senator Boxer has already talked about the studies that have been 
done affirming over and over again the public health issues relating to 
arsenic in our drinking water. The National Academy of Sciences found 
chronic ingestion of arsenic causes bladder, lung, and skin cancer.
  Another study released this past March, by researchers at Dartmouth 
University, shows low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water can 
have hormone-disrupting effects. In March, a report in the American 
Journal of Epidemiology revealed that compared to the general 
population, people who drink water with arsenic levels between 10.1 and 
50 parts per billion are twice as likely to get certain urinary tract 
cancers.
  The science is clear, and do not take our word for it. I went and 
looked on the EPA's Web site. On its Web site, right beside an April 18 
news release stating the Administrator wants to review the arsenic 
standard, there is another report issued the very next day with this 
headline: ``Arsenic Compounds May Cause Genetic Damage.''
  Clearly, the EPA's own scientists have discovered a possible link 
between genetic damage and arsenic compounds. The science is not in 
question, but the safety and health of the American public have been 
put into question because of the delay this administration has brought 
about.
  The amendment being offered by Senator Boxer, which I strongly 
support, requires the EPA to immediately put a new standard in place 
that will adequately protect public health, and it gives the American 
people the right to know how much arsenic is in their water. The House 
of Representatives passed a similar amendment this last week.
  I say to my good friend, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, 
who has done so much on so many issues that affect the quality of life 
of the people he represents, I understand Albuquerque is one of the 
largest cities in our country that has this kind of arsenic issue.
  I ask Senator Boxer for 1 more minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield an additional minute.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I want to make very clear to the Senator, and to 
everyone who represents large and small water systems, we need to give 
more help to communities to comply with water standards. This is one of 
those issues where the Federal Government must help our communities.
  I certainly will work with the Senator from New Mexico and everyone 
on both sides of the aisle to make sure a standard is put into place, 
to protect the public health and well-being of our people, that is 
matched by funds from the revolving fund aimed at cleaning up drinking 
water and any other resource available, so we do not leave people 
hanging on their own, not knowing what to do once the standard is set. 
I appreciate the financial challenge confronting some of our 
communities in meeting this standard.
  I went to Fallon, NV, with my good friends Senator Reid and Senator 
Ensign, a community that has 100 parts per billion of arsenic in the 
water. We know we have to deal with this. This amendment puts us on 
record to enforce a statutory requirement and does the right thing for 
the public health, but then we have to come back and make sure we have 
the resources to clean up the water supply so people can meet the 
standard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my friend from New York for 
bringing up a good point.
  I yield time to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Boxer amendment. Senator Boxer's amendment would prevent the 
administration from discarding the drinking water arsenic standard 
published in the Federal Register on January 22 of this year. This rule 
was designed by the Environment Protection Agency to protect Americans 
from dangerously high levels of arsenic--a known carcinogen--in their 
drinking water. The arsenic standard we are debating today was not 
dreamed up by the EPA. In fact, Congress required EPA to set a new 
arsenic standard when it passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
in 1996.
  Congress asked EPA to set a new arsenic standard no later than 
January 1, 2000. We extended that original deadline to June 22, 2001. 
Clearly there is no rush to judgment in this case as some opponents 
want the American people to believe. I did not advocate for a 
particular arsenic standard during EPA's formal rulemaking on this 
issue. I believe that setting an arsenic drinking water standard is 
EPA's job. They did their job when they published the new standard in 
January.
  The administration has not convinced me that they have a good reason 
or really any reason, to spend taxpayer dollars restudying an issue 
that has been studied to death. Instead of delaying our response to 
arsenic danger, we should begin investing resources to improve 
America's water infrastructure. We need to begin making this investment 
now because the job is a big job, which will grow much more costly if 
we wait to start. Americans expect and deserve safe tap water.
  Due to high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in many of Nevada's 
groundwater basins, the Silver State will be challenged by any new 
arsenic drinking water standard. It will cost money to meet the 
challenge. The Federal Government has a responsibility to help pay for 
the necessary infrastructure improvements.
  Earlier this year, Senator Ensign and I introduced the Small 
Community Drinking Water Funding Act, S. 503. We introduced this bill 
to help address the costs of providing safe drinking water to customers 
in small communities. This bill does not address the issue of arsenic 
contamination directly because arsenic is only one of many impurities 
that municipal water systems must control. However, S. 503 would 
address the costs of 97 percent of the communities that would have to 
upgrade their water systems to meet the new arsenic standard.
  I believe that every Nevadan, and all Americans for that matter, 
should have access to clean, safe drinking water protected by a 21st 
Century safety standard. The old U.S. drinking water arsenic standard 
was established in 1942. That antique standard is still in China, 
Bangladesh, India, and yes, the United States. On the other hand, the 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded in a 1999 report that the 
old 50 ppb standard ``does not achieve EPA's goal for public health 
protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as 
possible.''
  Citizens of the European Union, Japan, and the World Health 
Organization all enjoy 10 ppb drinking water arsenic standard. If our 
new standard is allowed to stand, Americans will finally benefit from a 
level of protection from arsenic on par with the rest of the developed 
world. I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment because it 
will help protect America's drinking water from arsenic.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Clinton raised 
a crucial point addressing her remarks to the Senator from New Mexico. 
Both Senators from New Mexico really worried about getting the funding 
to the local areas to do this infrastructure

[[Page 15338]]

work. It is the Senator from Nevada who is pushing very hard, in a 
bipartisan way, for more funding to clean up these water supplies.
  When we take everything into consideration, I hope we will pass the 
Boxer amendment tonight. I know Senator Jeffords has spoken with 
Senator Reid about this, and we will be moving on this bill so we do 
authorize, I say to the Senator from New York, more funding for water 
company infrastructure repairs.
  I yield as much time as he would consume to the Senator from Nevada, 
retain the remainder of my time, and then I know the Senator from New 
Mexico wants to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will not take all that time. I will take 
a minute and say the Senator from California and the Senator from New 
York understand clearly when people pick up a glass of water, whether 
they live in Fallon, NV, or New York City, it should be clean, pure 
water.
  What Senator Ensign and I have done is introduce the Small Community 
Drinking Water Funding Act, S. 503, to allow communities such as Fallon 
and others around America that cannot afford the money to build these 
very important water systems so the water they drink is pure.
  Fallon cannot do it. Other small communities around America cannot do 
it. So Senator Ensign and I introduced this act to make sure we 
addressed the cost of providing safe drinking water to customers in 
small communities.
  I appreciate very much the Senator from California focusing attention 
on one of the real needs in America today: safe, pure drinking water.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I do not believe I will use the 30 
minutes I have.
  I thank Senator Clinton for the kind remarks with reference to this 
Senator.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1299 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I want to take the time of the Senate 
to explain the situation. Arsenic is a poison, but arsenic appears in 
the western part of the United States in abundance in the geological 
structure of the rocks and stones in New Mexico. When the Spaniards 
came to that part of America 400 years ago, they obviously started 
drinking water. They dug holes, drilled wells, they used the river 
water, and guess what? They were drinking water that was not polluted, 
as some of the advertisements running today suggest.
  If one goes out there now and checks the water, one will find there 
is arsenic in the water because there is arsenic in the rocks and the 
geological formations.
  Interestingly enough, and I do not want to argue about the 
proposition that arsenic is serious and arsenic can hurt you, but there 
is no evidence from those early Spanish days--absolutely no evidence 
that any of the diseases we are talking about existed in that 
population. There is no evidence there was an increase in the ailments 
about which we are now talking.
  I would have liked to argue today or sometime that Southwestern 
America deserves an opportunity to prove the people there are not 
harmed by the naturally occurring arsenic in the water. Tonight I 
choose to say thank you to the Senator from California for the 
amendment she offered. I will ask those Senators from the West on our 
side to vote for it because essentially it will give the Environmental 
Protection Agency an opportunity to take into consideration, as I read 
the amendment, what I am talking about tonight. They will set a 
standard, yes. It does not say precisely what, and clearly they are 
going to take some facts into consideration that are real and that 
should be taken into consideration by a National Government imposing a 
standard on a western part of America, be it Idaho, Arizona, Utah, 
Alaska, New Mexico, or Colorado.
  Nobody is putting the arsenic in their water, as some of the 
environmental ads talk about. The arsenic is there because arsenic is 
in the ground, in the rocks, in the mountains, and therefore comes into 
our streams. When we drill wells, we get it, and in Albuquerque, they 
pump hundreds of millions of gallons of water a day from the water 
under the Rio Grande, and there is more arsenic than some think we 
ought to have.
  The bill I just introduced and the one Senator Reid introduced 
recognizes that in some parts of America--I am sure it will be my 
State, Idaho, and some others, that if we have to fix up our water 
plants, some in villages of 100 people where they have a small water 
system and no other water, it will create a significant financial 
burden. Their water is going to cost, in one case, $91 a month for 
everybody on that system.
  Obviously, we have to move in the direction of correcting the 
problem. The Government should help us correct it. The VA-HUD 
appropriations bill is, in many respects, as far as this Senator is 
concerned, a wonderful bill. EPA is treated in great fashion. There are 
a number of things in New Mexico we have asked for that have been 
treated wonderfully. When it comes to whether we should force a lower 
standard on our cities and villages in the West, and if we do, when, 
and what should the standard really be, there is plenty of room for 
serious discussion among fairminded people who are not bent on 
politics.
  If one wants to make a big political issue out of the fact that 
perhaps somebody in the White House could have handled this a little 
differently--frankly, I wish they would have talked to me before they 
handled it because they would not have had anybody mad at them and they 
would have fixed it. Essentially, the Clinton regulation did not come 
into effect until 2006. Does that surprise people? That is when it 
would have been effective if we had not had all this commotion.
  It is serious. We cannot put this into effect quickly in our part of 
the country. Originally, the implementation was to occur in the year 
2006.
  Tonight I urge everyone to vote for the amendment because it is a 
clear indication that something ought to be done. I do believe it is 
different than the amendment the House passed. I thank the Senator from 
California because her amendment is different. It gives us an 
opportunity to go to conference, work with the Environmental Protection 
Agency and others, and do precisely what the Senator from California 
wants.
  She wants the United States to move in harmony to get safe drinking 
water with the lowest amount of arsenic possible and still have 
affordable drinking water. After all, we need drinking water. We cannot 
pay $200 or $300 a month for it in New Mexico. One city is going to 
spend over $250 million to improve its water system because it has this 
naturally occurring arsenic and yet, nobody has proven this arsenic is 
harmful to anybody.
  That part of New Mexico and the areas around it have been inhabited 
by indigenous Indians longer than any of us know. The Spanish inhabited 
the area for 450 years, and Albuquerqueans--made up from all kinds of 
Americans--have been there for over 150 years. We want to give them a 
chance. We do not want the people to spend more than is necessary on 
this problem.
  Certainly, nobody is putting poison in the water. We are trying to 
purify natural water. The streams of New Mexico contain arsenic. No 
fish are dying that I have heard of and yet, there is arsenic in those 
rivers. In terms of its chemical makeup, it is the same arsenic as the 
poison and the arsenic used in mining activities.
  For those who are interested in history, it is the same arsenic that 
somebody gave to Napoleon. Those who dug up Napoleon's corpse found 
that perhaps somebody gave him regular doses of arsenic. They believe 
that is what happened to him. They think one of his

[[Page 15339]]

best friends put arsenic into his system slowly over a period of about 
20 years.
  I thank the Senator from California for the way we accomplished 
things tonight. I am sure she is going to get a unanimous vote from the 
Senate saying: Let's move ahead and resolve this issue.
  If there is no other Senator on our side who desires to speak----
  Mr. BOND. I desire to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator want of my 30 minutes? 
Five minutes of my time? I only have 30 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just need 1 minute of the remaining time. We have a 
couple minutes left.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California still has 2 
minutes 40 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. And the Senator from New Mexico?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pleasure of the Senator?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Five minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Montana?
  Mr. BURNS. If I could have 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that be the order of my remaining time, and if 
any time remains beyond that, I reserve the remainder.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would ask for a minute or two after Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise in support of Senator Boxer's amendment. I ask 
also to be an original cosponsor of the Domenici amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Boxer amendment is an excellent amendment. I 
acknowledge the validity of the concerns raised by the Senator from New 
Mexico. When we arrive at this standard, and in southern Maryland on 
our Eastern Shore we face many of the same problems that the Senator 
from New Mexico faces, and the need to modernize infrastructure and to 
come up with environmental regulations is almost teetering to a 
national crisis. Each region of the country will have difficulty in 
complying, but we believe it will be a public investment with an 
incredible public health dividend.
  I support Senator Boxer's amendment for three reasons. First, I was a 
member of the conference on the VA-HUD bill last year when we required 
the administration to develop a new standard by June 22 of this year to 
protect our children and the elderly who are most at risk for high 
levels of arsenic, and the administration did miss the deadline. It was 
a congressionally mandated deadline, and the American people deserve a 
protective standard.
  The current standard for arsenic was developed in 1942. We know much 
more today about the negative health effects of arsenic. We have the 
benefit of five studies by the National Academy of Sciences that say 
the current standard is not protective enough. Right now our current 
standard is the same as Bangladesh and China. Nothing against those 
countries, but I think we can do better than Bangladesh.
  Third, many American communities are very concerned about how much it 
will cost. Again, I acknowledge the cost of compliance is a factor to 
be considered. I believe the Domenici bill we have all cosponsored will 
address this. This is a national crisis. It deserves a national 
response. It deserves national responsibility sharing. This is why we 
will need an authorizing bill.
  The VA-HUD bill includes $850 million for the drinking water State 
revolving loan fund. This should help, but it certainly is not enough 
to meet the enormous needs of our community to keep drinking water safe 
from arsenic and other issues. We could not address all of the issues 
in VA-HUD this year, but I believe the Boxer amendment is very 
important to establish a standard and the Domenici authorization will 
be a very important way to move forward.
  I note the Senator from Nevada is on the floor. I know he and the 
junior Senator from Nevada have introduced legislation to deal with our 
incredible shrinking water infrastructure, which is deteriorating by 
the minute. We hope in the second session of the 107th Congress to make 
a major initiative to hold hearings on the infrastructure needs facing 
our communities. We will be able to protect public health, generate 
jobs, and modernize our country's water infrastructure the way we did 
at the turn of the century. We need a new turn of the wheel.
  I am happy to support the Boxer amendment, and I look forward to 
working with the Senator from New Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, most people who were raised in the 
smaller towns around this country and have experienced arsenic in their 
water, probably much less than the 50 parts, are kind of used to it. 
There is no scientific evidence that water ever hurt anybody in our 
country. We have it naturally. But I tell you something we don't have 
naturally, and that is enough money to build an infrastructure for a 
small town of, maybe, 300 people, some of them 200 people and some 
100--real people with real faces who are faced with bills that you 
can't believe who have to live on the land and pry a living from the 
land, and then be told they have to spend everything they make to redo 
a water system when there is no scientific evidence at all that their 
water is bad in the first place and it has ever hurt them. That is what 
this is about.
  We should be sensitive to public health. We should be sensitive to 
water systems. But don't take at issue a water system that is not that 
harmful or has any harm at all with the levels of arsenic we find 
naturally in the waters of the West. I oppose this amendment on the 
grounds that we do not have the money and the cost it would bring to 
those small towns.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their very 
thoughtful debate. I believe tonight if people are listening they 
understand some of the difficulties we face. Nobody wants to see 
arsenic in drinking water. It has been so eloquently stated by the 
Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Montana. There are parts 
of our country where arsenic occurs naturally. One of the actions we 
need to take is to make sure we improve the quality of our drinking 
water and lessen exposure to arsenic but do so in a way that does not 
cause greater dangers.
  One of the greatest dangers that we face as we listen to our 
colleagues from the States where there are small water systems which 
have naturally occurring arsenic from geological formations in their 
drinking water, we need to make sure the burdens of meeting a very low 
standard are not so significant that a lack of resources forces those 
public water systems to shut down. The result of imposing too great a 
financial burden on those small water systems could be they shut down 
and people have to go back to drinking well water or other untreated 
water with potentially even higher levels of arsenic. That is a part of 
this debate in the past that has not been fully set out.
  I call the attention of my colleagues to an amendment offered last 
year to strike the provision in the bill that delayed until June 22 of 
this year the deadline for finalizing the rule on arsenic in drinking 
water. I supported the inclusion of that measure in the VA-HUD bill 
because we noted in 1996 Congress set a schedule under which EPA was to 
update the arsenic standard for drinking water. At the time EPA told us 
they were behind schedule and they would not be fully prepared. Last 
fall the EPA told us they would not be ready until April or May and 
they had not had time to evaluate the concerns expressed about the 
proposed rule that had been issued on the delayed basis. Many small 
communities expressed their concern about the proposed rule because if 
it were implemented it would prove prohibitively

[[Page 15340]]

expensive for their customers and they set out lots of specific 
examples.
  For example, in Utah, the Heartland Mobile Home Park would have to 
charge $230 per month per customer under the rule. So they said let us 
delay the rule.
  In the bill last year we said: Delay the implementation of the EPA 
standard until you have had a chance to look at it.
  I am pleased to say that 63 Members of this body agreed with us and 
tabled the amendment that would have stricken that provision. 
Therefore, 63 Members--45 Republicans, 18 Democrats--said: Yes, it 
makes sense to delay the final issuance of this arsenic rule. It is not 
to be effective until 2006, not until 2006. So we said: EPA, get the 
job done right before you issue the regulation.
  There has been so much misinformation about this rule that I thought 
we ought to take a moment to set out what it does and does not do. We 
know it will be 5 years, 2006, before the new standard is implemented. 
Whether the new standard was set last January or June or November or 
February, the current year will not matter because we will still hit 
the same implementation time deadline.
  There is no greater danger for people living in areas with high 
naturally occurring amounts of arsenic. I think the concerns of the 
communities in New Mexico, Michigan, Montana, and other States need to 
be addressed. But I express my sincere thanks to the Senator from 
California for having offered an amendment which says, in essence, what 
EPA needs to do, what they are committed to do, and what they are on 
track to do, and that is to establish a new national primary drinking 
water regulation that establishes a standard providing for the 
protection of the population in general, taking fully into account the 
special needs population.
  That is what this amendment does, and I think that is a happy 
resolution of this situation. We need to realize that the standard goes 
into effect in 2006. Last year, 63 Members of this body said we ought 
to delay the issuance of that standard until June. When the new EPA 
came in and delayed the standard, people said many things that were not 
true. They overlooked the fact that 18 Democrats had voted with 45 
Republicans to say it is time to delay it.
  By the time this bill is enacted into law, the National Academy of 
Sciences will tell us the standards necessary to protect our health, 
the administration will complete the standard in a way that protects 
our health and does not impose unnecessary costs on our small towns or 
force the closure of water systems in small towns whose absence would 
lead to a much higher level of arsenic in well water or other sources 
of drinking water for the inhabitants, and we will meet the original 
implementation deadline.
  I believe we have reached an appropriate accommodation. I thank the 
Senator from New Mexico particularly, who has been a very thoughtful 
participant in all of these discussions and has articulated well the 
serious problems faced in these small communities, for his agreement 
that this amendment is appropriate and will allow the EPA flexibility 
to develop a safe, commonsense arsenic standard. It is my 
understanding, although I do not have a written copy of any approval, 
that the administration believes this is an appropriate way to deal 
with this question of arsenic in drinking water, particularly the 
naturally occurring arsenic.
  I thank all of my colleagues. I urge an overwhelming support of this 
requirement that the EPA set a drinking water standard for arsenic.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes of my time to Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague yielding me 
time to speak, both on the amendment the Senator from California has 
offered and also on the bill he has just introduced. I support what the 
Senator from California is trying to do with her amendment. I think it 
is a good resolution. It calls attention to the fact that we need this 
issue resolved.
  I also support what my colleague, Senator Domenici, is trying to do 
in the bill he has introduced, which I am pleased to cosponsor. It is 
similar to the bill that Senator Reid has earlier introduced. This 
makes the case clearly that the Federal Government needs to help these 
communities meet whatever standard we establish as a safe standard. I 
am not persuaded, as is the Senator from Montana, that we know the 
extent of the health risks. I think we still are learning precisely 
what the health risks are and we need to continue studying that.
  But in the meantime, we need to set a standard and we need to assist 
these communities in meeting that standard. I am persuaded that the 
technology is being developed which will allow these communities to 
meet that standard at a much lower cost than they have traditionally 
had to consider for meeting this type of standard. But I think we need 
to support that research as well. I know some of it is going on in the 
National Laboratories in our State, and I am encouraged that they are 
finding new ways to eliminate arsenic entirely from drinking water for 
a relatively small cost.
  Again, I compliment my colleague and look forward to supporting this 
amendment and also supporting his bill once it is called for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman be added as an 
original cosponsor of S. 1299, and I thank the Senator for his kind 
comments with reference to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I understand that Senator Domenici 
has just introduced legislation providing grant funding for communities 
to improve their water systems and adhere to the new arsenic 
regulations. This program will be very important for communities across 
America and also in my home State of Texas.
  I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor of S. 
1299.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have 2 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Reid, Senator 
Daschle, my cosponsor, Senator Nelson, my other cosponsor, Senator 
Domenici, for his remarks, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Bond.
  I want to make a point, building on what Senator Bond said when he 
pointed out 63 Members voted to slip the date for the new standard 
until June 22, 2001. That is true. The problem is there was not a new 
standard. That is why we have this amendment, which is not a sense of 
the Senate. I want to express that point. I hope I do not jeopardize my 
vote, but it is a real law. It says the administration shall act 
immediately, and that is a term of art. They must act immediately to 
set the new standard and take into consideration the vulnerability of 
kids and the rest.
  This is real. It also says the community must have a right to know 
how much arsenic is in their drinking water. That will happen 
immediately.
  So this is real, and I hope it will survive the conference. I say to 
my friend, Senator Burns, who has left the floor, that I know it is 
much easier to say if it is naturally occurring it does not hurt us. 
Radiation from the Sun is naturally occurring and it hurts us. Arsenic 
hurts us. We have the latest, most prestigious Journal, the American 
Journal of Epidemiology, March 1, 2001. Based on a study in Taiwan 
following real people, it says:

       Compared to the general population, people who drink water 
     with arsenic levels between 10.1 ppb and 50 ppb are twice as 
     likely to get certain urinary cancers.

  We have the science. We know the science. I have talked to Christie 
Todd Whitman about this many times. When she was Governor of New 
Jersey, she suggested a 10-part-per-billion standard. Why would she do 
that? Because she wants to be with those countries

[[Page 15341]]

that have a 10-part-per-billion standard. I think we need to look at 
these countries one more time.
  We are at 50 parts per billion. That is where George Bush has put us. 
We share that 50-parts-per-billion standard with Indonesia, India, 
China, Bolivia, and that great leader of public health, Bangladesh.
  We don't belong here. We belong in this tier: Australia, the European 
Union, Japan, and the World Health Organization. They are 10 parts per 
billion or less.
  This is a debate that I think has been good. I am very pleased that 
we have won some fine support from the other side of the aisle. I hope 
we will send a rip-roaring message to the President: Set the standard, 
set it low, set it fast.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from California for the eloquent summary of this issue that she just 
made, as well as for offering this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will propound a unanimous consent 
request. If we get this agreement at this time--in consultation with 
the Republican leader and the two managers, and I compliment them--we 
will make this the last vote of the evening.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list I will send to the desk be the 
only first-degree amendments in order to H.R. 2620, that these 
amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that upon 
disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment be agreed to, 
if not previously ordered; that the bill be read three times, and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage of the bill, the 
Senate insist on its amendments and request a conference with the 
House, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, with the 
above occurring without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, it is acceptable on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            ORDER FOR RECESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I especially thank our manager and the 
ranking member, as well as our distinguished colleague from Nevada, who 
works so ably on both sides of the aisle, for reaching this agreement.
  We have a lot of work to do. But we know what the work is. I hope we 
can work expeditiously tomorrow morning.
  This will be the last vote of the evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield back 
all his time?
  Mr. BOND. What is the time remaining of the Senator from New Mexico?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield that time to Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will yield that back. I only want to 
correct the Record. The administration has indicated they will 
promulgate, or intends to promulgate a new regulation based on science. 
There was no intention of staying at the 50 parts per billion, which 
had been the standard throughout the previous administration. They have 
said they needed to review the science and listen to the communities 
that would be affected, and also take into account, as the Senator from 
New Mexico has proposed, the extraordinary hardships that meeting this 
standard would impose upon many small communities, with the possibility 
that the shutdown of those small community water systems would impose a 
far greater danger on the inhabitants.
  Madam President, having corrected the Record and thanking all of our 
participants for helping shed some light on and remove some of the 
political misinterpretations that have been placed on this issue, I 
thank my colleagues and I urge a favorable vote on the amendment before 
us.
  I yield such time as may be remaining on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1219. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Stevens
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Lott
       
  The amendment (No. 1219) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold the suggestion?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise tonight to speak in support 
of the international space station in this VA-HUD appropriations bill. 
I urge my colleagues to pause and reflect on America's great 
accomplishments in space and the great successes that lie ahead with 
the space station.
  The House of Representatives has fully funded the President's request 
and has taken important steps to fund the space station's future needs 
such as a crew rescue vehicle and a six-person crew habitation module. 
The Senate bill cuts the space station by $150 million.
  I hope to work with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Bond, to 
restore some of this into the program. It should be restored with 
strict controls and standards to assure the station will be safe and 
productive and on budget.
  I am concerned, as I know many others are, about the recently 
projected cost growth for the international space station. I do want it 
to be fully functioning. In order to achieve that goal, NASA must work 
within the budget that Congress has given it.
  At the same time, I understand the difficulty in estimating the cost 
of such an amazing engineering feat. We are now within a year of the 
station being ``core complete,'' and I believe Congress must adequately 
fund the station so we can begin to see the benefits of its unique 
scientific research.

[[Page 15342]]

  NASA's projected 5-year cost growth of over $4 billion includes many 
program liens that reflect 2 years of actual operational experience for 
the station. That on-orbit experience has eliminated many unknowns and 
has significantly enhanced NASA's awareness of what it takes to operate 
a space station. Unfortunately, the greater awareness has come with a 
pricetag that threatens reaching the full capability of the space 
station as originally planned in terms of research, a permanent crew of 
six, and a crew rescue vehicle.
  I believe NASA is dealing with the budgetary challenges and has 
proposed a ``core complete'' plan for the station to stay within budget 
constraints. Importantly, NASA and OMB have put into place an 
independent external review board to assess the space station's budget 
and to assure the station will provide maximum benefit to the U.S. 
taxpayer. This external review board will evaluate the cost and 
benefits for enhancing research, a habitation module for a crew of six, 
and a crew rescue vehicle.
  It will be my goal in conference that we not preclude the full review 
of these potential enhancements by the independent external review 
board and not obstruct the ability of NASA to undertake these 
enhancements in order to ensure the originally planned capability for 
the space station.
  I want to work with Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond to make sure we 
do not cut off capabilities of the space station and thereby never see 
the scientific contributions for which we have already made a 
significant investment.
  The international space station is the greatest peaceful scientific 
project ever undertaken. Since 1993, the United States has worked with 
our international allies, including Russia, forging relationships of 
mutual respect, on the space station.
  The efforts and resources of 16 nations are involved in the 
construction and operation of the orbiting lab. Assembly of the space 
station is nearing ``core complete'' and within a year we expect new 
and exciting scientific experiments to begin. Its successes will be 
felt by all of us here on Earth.
  A project of this magnitude is certain to face a multitude of 
unknowns, and NASA has confronted many of them. As always in its 
courageous history, NASA has and will continue to overcome these 
obstacles and we will reap the rewards. Simply, the space station will 
maintain U.S. global leadership in space science and technology.
  The unparalleled scientific research opportunities aboard the space 
station will enable advances in medicine and engineering. Most 
important are the health benefits that we have in the microgravity 
conditions in the space station. You cannot--no matter what technology 
you have--reproduce on Earth the gravity conditions that are in space. 
We know those microgravity conditions will allow us to watch the 
development of breast cancer cells and osteoporosis in a weightless 
environment. Perhaps this will help us find the cure for breast cancer, 
or we will learn how to combat osteoporosis.
  The absence of gravity in the space station will allow new insights 
into human health and disease prevention and treatment, including 
heart, lung, and kidney function, cardiovascular disease, and immune 
system functions. The cool suit for Apollo missions now helps improve 
the quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis. In recent 
years, NASA has obtained scientific data from space experiments that is 
five times more accurate than that on Earth. None of these benefits 
will be available in the future unless we have a space station on which 
we can perform adequate research.
  Some will say that similar research can be conducted on the space 
shuttle. Although I believe valuable research should continue to be 
performed on the shuttle, the fact is, a longer period of time that can 
only occur on the space station is absolutely necessary for many 
important experiments.
  During his last year in the Senate, Senator John Glenn spoke 
passionately in defense of the space station. He quoted a friend of 
mine, Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the surgery 
department at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, TX, who said:

       The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical 
     research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. 
     Present technology on the Shuttle allows for stays of space 
     of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to 
     only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for 
     cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to 
     years--to obtain research results that may lead to the 
     development of new knowledge and breakthroughs.

  So you take all these scientific wonders and ask: How does it make my 
life better? It does make our lives better. It makes our health better. 
It gives patients who have multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, or cancer 
a better chance for a quality of life. I reject the idea that we would 
walk away from the space station and from the possibilities for the 
future for better health and better quality of life.
  The international space station, along with the space shuttle 
program, is our future in one of the last unexplored regions of our 
universe. It will discover untold knowledge and could catapult us into 
a greater understanding of our world and, yet, undiscovered worlds. The 
space station will provide us with fantastic science, but that is only 
one of the known successes. The unknown successes are limitless.
  Madam President, if we do not continue funding of the international 
space station at the anticipated cost levels, valuable experiments and 
progress will be abandoned. The project is long underway and, for the 
sake of future generations, we should not leave it unfinished. I look 
forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of this 
subcommittee to make sure we do fully fund the space station, but with 
strict requirements for budgetary control and making sure we do 
everything to keep our costs in line. But let's not walk away from this 
important research for our future.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________