[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19263-19264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       COMMUNITY FIRE SAFETY ACT

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 3588, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3588) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to 
     exempt fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of lead 
     pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 3588) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. To go over what happened, this is on behalf of myself 
and Senator Toomey. It is a bipartisan bill.
  There was a recently released Environmental Protection Agency 
interpretation of a law that could cost local governments, 
municipalities, and taxpayers across the country millions of dollars 
and undermine public safety.
  It is a classic case of the Federal bureaucracy and restriction 
harming our local communities and their budgets. No one would believe 
this, but it is about one of the most basic functions of government--
fire hydrants.
  Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking 
Water Act, legislation with an admirable goal, a goal that is spelled 
out right in the name, and the law is set to be implemented on January 
4, 2014.
  As we know, Congress intended for this law to direct the EPA to make 
rules that would keep our drinking water safe from coming into contact 
with lead-based parts. Congress did that and EPA exempted parts in 
bathtubs and showers that don't have direct impact on the quality of 
the drinking water, such as the knobs, the hot and cold knobs. Of 
course, the faucets would be under the law.
  But at the end of October, suddenly, the EPA released a new 
interpretation of the law that for the first time put fire hydrants 
under the new standard set by law, meaning everyone needs to buy and 
install new and upgraded fire hydrants that contain less lead.
  It took everyone by surprise. Only a small fraction of fire hydrants 
are ever used for drinking water. Even when they are, lead poisoning is 
associated with long-term exposure, which does not occur on the 
occasions when someone might drink from a hydrant.
  While that surprising rule was announced at the end of October, the 
EPA expects all new fire hydrants installed after January 4 to be of 
this new reduced-lead standard. No manufacturer can make fire hydrants 
that quickly. If the interpretation stands, cities and county water 
authorities would be forced to throw out hundreds of hydrants now in 
stock, wasting millions of dollars and passing that waste on to 
consumers in terms of rate hikes. At the same time, there would be no 
new hydrants they could install when a fire hydrant malfunctioned, when 
it was run over by a car in an accident or when a snowplow knocked it 
down.
  We are pleased this legislation we have just passed--my colleague 
from Pennsylvania and I--will now exempt fire hydrants from the reduced 
lead standard, just as bathtub and shower pieces that don't have 
contact with the water are exempt.
  Simply put, the EPA's interpretation of reduced lead standards 
unnecessarily imposed a huge burden on municipalities and first 
responders without any discernible safety benefit. We have now undone 
that danger.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Would the Senator yield?
  I yield to my colleague from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I wish to thank the Senator and our colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, for the work on this issue.
  Municipalities all around the country, including my State of Ohio, 
were shocked to hear about this. I appreciate joining my colleague from 
New York in a letter to the EPA.
  Cash-strapped cities in New York, Ohio, and other States are happy to 
know they are not going to have to take on this burden. It makes sense 
to stop, take a look at this, and be sure we are not forcing these 
hydrants--that are otherwise in good shape--to be repaired and 
replaced. It is not something that is in the budgets of these cities.
  I appreciate the Senator's work on it and look forward to ensuring 
that this does not move forward into regulation but also that we figure 
out a more sensible way to deal with the issue.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Ohio. We appreciate his good 
work. We have now saved municipalities millions of dollars, as well as 
ensured safety in our communities because the fire hydrants that are in 
stock will be able to be used.

[[Page 19264]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. On the last vote, I wish to mention to my colleagues 
what happened and what has happened. A major bill dealing with the debt 
of the United States was supposed to come out of a budget conference 
committee and come here.
  The budget conference committee failed to complete its meetings and a 
piece of legislation was sent to the Senate. That legislation has not 
been subject to amendment.
  The majority leader decided there would be no amendments, and he 
would simply tell us that if we have amendments that will kill the bill 
or if we have amendments that will make us delay, we can't do it and we 
will not do it and we will not get an amendment.
  A number of good amendments have been filed. The one we just voted on 
was one of the more egregious. That amendment reduces the retirement 
pay of the U.S. military without reducing the retirement pay of anyone 
else who served in government, only the military. So I moved to table 
the filled tree that Majority Leader Reid has been using to block 
anybody from having amendments in the Senate on serious legislation.
  I mean, this is serious legislation we didn't get to vote on. So the 
choice for our colleagues, when they cast their vote, was would they 
vote to allow an amendment to be voted on that would protect veterans, 
military retirees, from having their pensions reduced; or would they 
support the majority leader in his determination to block any 
amendments to the legislation? So a majority has voted. They voted to 
block the classical rights of Senators to have amendments and therefore 
to protect the leadership and the domination of this Senate in an 
unprecedented way by the majority leader.
  He has already filled the tree more times than the previous four 
majority leaders combined--more than twice as often. On every bill now, 
it seems, he fills the tree. To get an amendment, he has to approve it 
or you don't get it. If he decides there are no amendments, there are 
no amendments. So this is contrary to the tradition of the Senate, and 
we have to change this. This highlights the danger of supporting that 
kind of process because it keeps us from fixing bad legislation and 
improving it.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________