John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator a question, if it is possible to reach a time agreement on this?

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask the sponsor. We are all here. Can we arrive at a time agreement?

Mr. CHAFEE. You are in such flying form. You have all of your engines running.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, with the principals in the Chamber here, I wonder if it would be possible to set a specific time that we might vote. I know a lot of Senators are out, so I do not think we are in the position [[Page S 18218]] where we can go immediately to a vote in 15 minutes or so. I would offer the suggestion that we agree to vote at 8:30, while allowing time for the Senator from Ohio and others to speak. I defer to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CHAFEE. Fine. I am just I suppose a catalyst here. But I do know that people are away, so that as much notice as can be given the better. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first of all, if it involves treaties, then, of course, it goes to the Finance Committee. The last place in the world it should go is the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAFEE. We have no need for further time, Madam President. Vote on Amendment No. 3078

Mr. CHAFEE. No. Under the new provision, a connection is not considered, for purposes of determining whether an entity is a public water system, if the water is treated by a pass-through entity to achieve a level of treatment equivalent to the level provided by applicable drinking water regulations. In the case you describe, the municipal water system would be providing such treatment, and the irrigation system's provision of water to the municipal water system would not be considered a connection.

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The Safe Drinking Water Act defines a public water system as a system for the provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals. In describing a public water system, EPA's regulations and guidance use such terms as ``serves'' and ``delivers,'' usually in the context of ``customers.'' These terms are clearly contrary to a situation where the irrigation system does not either consent to having water withdrawn for human consumption, or know that such withdrawals are occurring with respect to the requisite number of connections or customers.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, while we are preparing several colloquies to submit for the Record, I will take this brief opportunity to thank everybody involved. Particularly, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, for his splendid work on this. He has really been a tower of strength and the leader of this whole effort. Also, I thank the ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Senator Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and all the staff for their wonderful work. I particularly thank Jimmie Powell on this side, who really was very, very effective. public water system definition

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the delay here is we are waiting a possible additional colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Madam President, how much time of the 10 minutes is left?

Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. The purpose of this statement is to establish that in one sense the new authority contained in section 1412b(5) does apply to the stage I rulemaking. As I said, we are attempting a delicate legislative task here. We are changing the statute to provide EPA with explicit authority to set standards that balance risks. But we do not want the detailed provisions of this new authority to upset a specific rule of that type that has recently been proposed. We want to make clear that EPA is authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act, as it is amended by this bill, to issue the stage I rule. If this bill is enacted and the stage I rule is promulgated as it was proposed, no one could bring a court challenge against the rule on the grounds that it wasn't authorized by the statute. At the same time, the stage I rule is not to be tested against the specific provisions of the statute to determine whether it is consistent in every respect. it may not be. So long as the final stage I rule stays within the parameters of the agreement negotiated by the parties, it is authorized by the statute as amended. The bill applies to the stage I rule because EPA is given general authority to issue a rule that is consistent with the negotiated agreement; but the specific provisions of the risk balancing authorities in the new subsection 1412(b)(5) are not to be applied by EPA or by the courts in determining whether the final rule is in accordance with the law. That determination is to be based on the agreement that was signed by the parties to the negotiation. Nothing in this bill affects the applicability of new subsection 1412(b)(5) to the stage II rulemaking on disinfection by products. Madam President, that completes everything on this side. I inform all Senators, immediately following the vote on the motion to table the Boxer amendment, we will then go to final passage. I ask, if proper, for the yeas and nays on final passage at this time.

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that the agreement negotiated by the parties to the disinfection byproducts rulemaking does provide that the final stage I rule may include modifications if new information warrants those changes. The bill does not preclude changes that are within the scope of the agreement. However, these new standard setting authorities are not to be the basis for making changes in the rule as it was proposed, nor was it our intent to require the Administrator to repropose the stage I proposed rule to conduct additional risk balancing under new section 1412(b)(5). However, if subsequent to enactment, someone should discover an inconsistency, the bill specifically precludes a change in the proposed rule to resolve that inconsistency. Furthermore, the bill insulates the rule from a court challenge on the basis of any inconsistency, should one be found. We do not intend to disrupt the results of the negotiation.

Mr. CHAFEE. If the Senator from California wished that minute, this is the time, if she would like. Amendment No. 3078

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I would like to clarify the application of the new standard setting authorities established by the bill to the stage I rulemaking for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts that EPA has proposed. The use of chlorine to kill pathogenic organisms in drinking water presents a real challenge. On the one hand, disinfection of public water supplies is a public health miracle. One of the witnesses at our hearings on this bill called it the single most important public health advance in history. On the other hand, the use of chlorine as a disinfectant may produce chemical byproducts in the water that present other health risks. EPA has proposed a rule for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts that attempts to balance these risks. The proposed rule was developed through a regulatory negotiation that included representatives of local governments, water agencies and water supply districts, and public interest groups. EPA used this approach because current law does not contain explicit authority to balance risks in the way that EPA has proposed to do in this rulemaking. Presumably, one reason for the negotiation was to avoid a subsequent court challenge to the rule. Now, we are changing the law and we are including explicit authority for the Administrator to take a risk balancing approach where it is appropriate. These changes would authorize EPA to issue the type of rule that has been proposed in stage I for disinfection byproducts. But in passing this bill, we face a delicate legislative task. We want to endorse the risk balancing approach that EPA is taking and make it clear that the statute as amended authorizes such a rule--including the stage I rule--but we don't want these new statutory provisions to disturb the negotiated agreement that is incorporated in the rule that EPA has proposed.

Mr. CHAFEE. I completely understand the concerns of the Senator from Wisconsin, and I agree that the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program is one of the most outstanding water quality programs in this country. In that context, I want to assure the Senator that S. 1316 in no way discriminates against the Wisconsin program, or any other State program, on the basis of that program's enforcement authority. While States choosing to participate in the new Source Water Quality Protection Partnership Program are required to use the voluntary approach, other sections of the bill would provide programs like Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program access to funding from the State revolving fund. States that choose the Source Water Quality Protection Partnership approach are also authorized to use SRF funding.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I move to table the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE. We yield back the balance.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, let me just say this to the very able arguments of the Senator from California. They are able arguments. I suppose that when she makes the point that the Governor can opt out or that it does not apply to those systems of 10,000 or less that it works the other way around. If this is such a vital amendment and so necessary, why do we have it that a Governor can just opt out of it? Or if it is so important, why do we exclude 87 percent of the water systems in the Nation? Madam President, 87 percent of the water systems in the Nation serve 10,000 or fewer people. [[Page S 17771]] That is not to say that 87 percent of the population is served by that. I am not making that suggestion. But 87 percent of all the water systems in the Nation are small ones. They are exempt from this bill. Madam President, I say this is a good piece of legislation. One of the things we have done here is to provide money to train the operators of these systems to be better. We have provided for better technical assistance than previously existed. We encourage consolidations. I think we have done a lot of things to improve the safety of the water that the users drink, in addition to the provisions that I have previously mentioned that deal specifically with notification in case the water is not safe. I do appreciate the arguments of the distinguished Senator.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this authorizes the expenditure of $15 million a year for 7 years to the year 2003 for the protection of the watershed of the city of New York. This is a very unusual approach that they are trying in New York in which, instead of building very, very expensive water treatment facilities that would amount to more than $1 billion, they are trying to protect the watershed; in other words, the headwaters of the rivers that provide the waters for the city of New York up in the Hudson River Valley. This provides authorization for $15 million for 7 years to be of assistance in that effort. As I say, this is an amendment by both New York Senators, Senators Moynihan and D'Amato. I think it is a good amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.