John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska had two amendments and both of those, it is my understanding, could be resolved and accepted. Frankly, we are in the midst of working that out now. Why not go ahead and describe the amendment, and at the conclusion of the Senator's description maybe we can arrive at a position where the amendment could be accepted.

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

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment. What it does is it modifies the standard-setting provisions of the bill for one contaminant, sulfate. What is sulfate? It is a naturally occurring substance that contaminates some groundwater used for drinking water, particularly in the Western States. The 1986 amendments required EPA to issue a standard for sulfates. It is one of the 83 contaminants we previously discussed. But EPA has not completed the job yet. Part of the problem has been inadequate scientific information on the adverse health effects caused by sulfate. We know that adverse effects occur, but we do not know exactly what concentration levels must occur to cause the effects. This amendment requires EPA and the Centers for Disease Control to collect more information before a standard is set. The amendment also delays the deadline for issuing a standard so that this research might be completed. Senators Pressler and Daschle from South Dakota and Senator Grams from Minnesota have expressed particular interest in resolving the scientific questions associated with sulfate, and we thank them for their interest and help in preparing this amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an additional managers' amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me briefly say what this is. The managers' amendment does the following: It clarifies the new definition for the term ``public water system.'' It strengthens standard setting for bottled water as recommended by the bottled water industry. It allows EPA to list more cost-effective, point-of-use treatment devices as best available technology; it includes Lake Champlain in the program to control the infestation of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes; it authorizes assistance to a university consortium called the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy; it requires EPA to conduct a screening program for the estrogenic effects of pesticides, and it makes two changes to the loan provisions of the new SRF program, State revolving loan fund program. Overall, it clears seven issues that Senators have brought to our attention. So, Mr. President, I urge adoption of the managers' amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be adopted, en bloc, and that the bill, as amended, by the committee amendments then be considered original text for the purpose of additional amendments.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Baucus, for his kind comments. I know that we all share the sentiments that we work together to get something done. We are very fortunate in this committee to have a heritage, if you will, of cooperation. It has extended way back to Jennings Randolph and then to Bob Stafford, to Senator Pat Moynihan, and to the distinguished Senator from Montana himself when he was chairman of this committee. We have always tried to bring things out with bipartisan consensus, so we can move ahead. This legislation represents that. I am very pleased to be chairman of this committee when we have this heritage that I mentioned, and I want to pledge to all that I will continue that effort to bring everybody together, listen to each side and then have something--we will not always be as successful as this, 16 to 0 in the committee, not a single dissenting vote from either side. That is what we want to use as a standard for the future. When the distinguished ranking member was chairman of the committee and brought this bill to the floor a year ago, it passed 93 to 3. It is pretty hard to beat that. If we can emulate that today or tomorrow, I will be very, very happy. Committee Amendments, En Bloc

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, we now have before us the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1995, which is S. 1316. I am pleased to join with my colleagues to bring this bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation has broad bipartisan support. It has been a high priority for the Environment and Public Works Committee and was reported by unanimous vote; Democrats and Republicans in the committee voted for it 16-0. [[Page S 17720]] We all agree that reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary. Public health protection has been strengthened by the many new standards that have been issued over the past few years. Of all the ways of keeping our public healthy, it seems to me few are more important than having the water that they drink be safe. But the pace of standard setting and the costs of new treatment and monitoring requirements have been a strain for water suppliers, especially smaller communities. This bill includes many provisions to ease that strain on the smaller communities. There is a new grant program for drinking water revolving loan funds, which President Clinton first recommended. The States are authorized to reduce monitoring costs by developing their own testing requirements, tailored to meet the conditions in their region. This is very important. The States have this authority in this legislation. Under this bill, States may also grant variances to the small systems that cannot afford to comply with national standards. Now, we are not rolling back health protections that are now provided. No existing standard will be weakened. The bill includes many new initiatives that will keep the national program moving forward. In the SRF grants--the State revolving loan fund grants--there are new programs to prevent pollution of source waters which are used for drinking water supply. There is a program to develop technical capacity in small systems. The bill pushes hard for more and better science, including a research program to determine whether some groups, like children, pregnant women, or people with particular illnesses, are more likely to experience adverse effects from drinking water contaminants. Mr. President, before describing the major provisions of the bill, I want to thank our colleagues for the hard work they have put into this legislation. Senator Kempthorne chairs the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the drinking water program. Senator Kempthorne is the principal author of this reauthorization bill and has spent months going over every detail of the legislation. So Senator Kempthorne deserves tremendous credit for what we are bringing before the Senate today. I wish to take this opportunity to thank him. Senator Reid, the ranking member of the subcommittee, has been a partner in that effort and always has been very constructive. Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the full committee, blazed the trail for us last year with the safe drinking water bill that passed the Senate 95-3. The committee was assisted in the development of this bill by the fine staff of the Office of Water at EPA, including the Assistant Administrator for Water, Bob Perciasepe, and Cynthia Dougherty, who heads the drinking water office. We also thank the many State and local drinking water officials and the representatives of their organizations who worked long and hard on this bill. Their expertise has been very helpful. Mr. President, if we ask what is the one thing we can do that would most improve the safety of drinking water in the United States, I believe most of us would answer: Give some help to the small drinking water systems. If you can believe it, there are 54,000. I will repeat that. There are 54,000 small public water systems in our country. What is a small system? It is one that serves fewer than 3,300 people. Some serve as few as 100 or 125 people, and some even 25 people. Some of these drinking water systems are owned by homeowners associations or trailer parks. Some are operated by town governments. A significant number of these very small systems do not have the technical or financial resources to consistently provide safe drinking water. They cannot keep up with the testing and the treatment and the maintenance that is necessary to provide safe water every day. These are systems where the operator has no training, the consumers pay no fees for the water sometimes, and where the supply and distribution systems simply do not get the attention that is needed to keep contaminants out of the water. The bill we are bringing before the Senate addresses this is problem in several ways. First, it establishes a grant program to provide Federal assistance to build the treatment plants that are essential to the provision of safe drinking water. EPA estimates that capital expenditures needed nationwide to comply with current requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act total approximately $8.6 billion, that is, if we brought all the systems up to snuff, and approximately 40 percent of these expenditures will be required of small systems. Many systems are not able to build the treatment facilities to comply with these regulations unless they get some help. Other Federal statutes mandating investment in local utility services have provided grant assistance to go along with the mandates. In other words, when we mandated from the Federal Government for clean water bills, for example, the Congress, which has provided help, and, indeed, in that particular example, the building of sewage treatment facilities, Congress has appropriated over the years $65 billion to meet the secondary treatment requirements required by 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act. We have not provided any sort of similar assistance under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past. In early 1993, President Clinton proposed creation of a State- revolving loan fund for those funds for drinking water capital investments modeled after the Clean Water Act loans. This bill authorizes $600 million in fiscal year 1994 and $1 billion per year through fiscal year 2003 for this new SRF Program. This authorization is sufficient to cover the capital investments in treatment needed to comply with Federal health standards. Priority funding would go to projects to address the most serious public health problems and to communities most in need. Who will get the money? Those communities that most need the help as determined by the States--not by big brother in Washington, but by the States--and those projects that needed to address the most serious health problems. In contrast to the SRF Program under the Clean Water Act, States may provide grants to systems. In other words, from this State-revolving loan fund in this bill, in safe drinking water the State can give grants to systems that cannot afford to repay. As a second step to help small systems, the bill asks each State to adopt what is known as a capacity development strategy to help the small systems. What is this all about? A strategy might include training for the operators of drinking water systems, or technical assistance to develop new and safer water supplies, or it might encourage consolidation or regional management to make better use of the resources. We are relying on the States to take the lead in designing capacity strategies for the small systems. This is not some heavyhanded mandate from Washington to the States, but, instead, it is up to the States. We do not, from Washington, enforce the direction of operators who do not get training, for example. But we suggest it be done and we give assistance to do it. We are looking to the States, to the Governors, and to the legislatures to take the big steps. Here is a chance to show that a major problem can be resolved by the States through cooperation and incentives rather than by command and control from Washington. The ultimate judgment on the success or failure of this bill will depend in large part on what the States do with this opportunity. There are several other provisions to help small systems. States are authorized to grant variances to small systems that cannot afford to comply with national primary drinking water regulations. A portion of the SRF funds may be set aside for technical assistance, as I mentioned, to small systems, and the cost of training operators may be included in the SRF grants or loan. States may reduce monitoring requirements. This is very important. The States do not have to meet a certain steady monitoring system. They can reduce those requirements for many contaminants for small systems that do not detect a contaminant in the first test of a quarterly series. There are two other major provisions in this bill that I wish to describe briefly. The first relates to the criteria that EPA uses to select contaminants for [[Page S 17721]] regulation. The second concerns considerations that go into establishing national health standards. Because EPA failed to take action to set national standards for contaminants that were of public health concern, the 1986 amendments listed 83 specific contaminants and required EPA to set standards for those by 1989. The legislation--here was a big problem with that legislation we passed--directed EPA to set standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years beginning in 1991. This single provision--that is, adding 25 new contaminants every 3 years--has provoked more critical comment than virtually any other element that we have dealt with in all the environmental laws we have. Some of the 83 contaminants for which standards are required occur so infrequently that the costs of monitoring far outweigh any health benefits that could be realized. The mandate that EPA set standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years, regardless of the threat posed by those contaminants, was for many the quintessential example of an arbitrary Federal law imposing burdens on consumers and the taxpayers with no rational relationship to the public benefit that might be realized. This bill repeals the requirement that EPA regulate an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years. Instead, there is a selection process that gives EPA the discretion to identify contaminants that warrant regulation in the future. How do you do this selection process? Every 5 years EPA publishes a list of high-priority contaminants that should receive additional study. EPA may require monitoring at public water systems for up to 20 unregulated contaminants, to gather information on the occurrence of these contaminants in public systems. Decisions made by EPA under the act are to be guided by new principles for sound science. EPA is to set aside $10 million from the annual appropriations for SRF, for the State-revolving fund grants, to conduct health effects research on contaminants that are candidates for regulation. In other words, EPA gives a hand with all of this. Every 5 years, EPA is to make regulatory decisions for at least 5 contaminants, announcing whether they warrant regulation or not. Finally, let me turn to the issue of standard setting. This has been the most contentious issue in this reauthorization debate. I believe the committee has developed a sound compromise that deserves the support of all Senators. Under current law, EPA establishes drinking water standards through a two-step process. First, the administrator identifies the maximum contaminant level goal reflecting a concentration of the contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse effects will occur. Then, the administrator sets an enforceable standard as close to this absolutely safe goal as possible, as feasible. ``Feasible,'' what does that mean? That the level can be reached by large regional water systems applying best available technology. In other words, what is the policy to meet these goals. We do not use what the little systems can do, but what the big systems can do. EPA takes into account the costs to identify the best available technology. The treatment system must be affordable. What is affordable? Well, they use the standard that it costs less than $100 per household per year for the large systems. Now, this approach is all right because 80 percent of the population--this is a very important statistic--80 percent of the population of the United States receives its drinking water from large systems. Safe water can be provided to this 80 percent at an affordable cost. They can afford the best available technology. Indeed, the compliance cost for large cities average not $100 per household, but $20 per household per year. However, there is a problem with this system. There are three problems. First, the treatment technology affordable to the large systems may be unaffordable to the small system and would push the per household cost way up for these small systems. Second, for some contaminants, this approach to standard setting can impose large costs while producing only small gains in public health. Although the treatment technology may be entirely affordable for the large systems, the incremental health benefits of addressing the relatively small health risk presented by some contaminants do not justify the aggregate cost. It is just not worth it for the small systems because the benefit you get is so small for the cost. Third, the use of some treatment technologies may actually increase risk from some contaminants. For example, chlorine is used to kill pathogenic organisms, but that may result in increased cancer risk from disinfection byproducts. In other words, you take care of something and it causes a greater risk of something else. Now, read literally, the existing statute requires EPA to overcontrol some contaminants to a degree that overall public health risks from drinking water would be greater using this new technology. The bill we bring to the Senate today includes several provisions to respond to these problems in standard setting. The States may provide variances to small systems. If it is all right for the big system, not very expensive because you have so many households, the States can say to the small systems: No, you do not have to do that. We give you a variance. EPA may balance competing risks from several contaminants if the treatment technology to control one would increase the risk from the other, which I just previously mentioned. EPA may set standards at a level less stringent than ``feasible'' if the costs of a standard reflecting best available technology are not justified. In other words, this is not somebody in EPA saying you have to reach this standard even though the costs are astronomical. Costs can be figured in. There is a cost-benefit factor involved here. The unique characteristics and risks of some contaminants, including arsenic, radon, or sulfate, are addressed with special standard-setting provisions. Although the bill includes new risk assessment and cost- benefit considerations to address unresolved problems, EPA may not use this authority to relax any existing standard unless new science indicates that a less stringent standard would be equally protective. It appears we have secured broad bipartisan support for a series of reforms to this act, a law that has, indeed, been controversial. Achieving this reflects the contributions of many Senators, as I mentioned. Reaching this degree of consensus has generated much controversy, and the fact that we have this unanimity so far is quite an achievement. So, again, I congratulate Senator Kempthorne for his work. I know he joins me in extending appreciation to Senator Reid, Senator Baucus, and all the others I previously mentioned. We are ready to go, Mr. President. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I think the words that we ``celebrate the life of Richard Halverson'' are appropriate. Richard Halverson, as has been pointed out, served as Chaplain here for 16 years. As has been mentioned, he did not restrict his duties to just the opening prayer. He came to see us when we had difficulties. He was a constant mentor, as has previously been suggested, and a constant good example. He epitomized what leading the Christian life is all about. So we have been blessed to have known him. His life is one we all should celebrate and try to emulate to the greatest extent possible. So to all of his family, we send our very best wishes at this extremely difficult time, and our deepest condolences. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I say this to the distinguished Senator. If we are going to vote and people know we are going to go to final passage right after this, frankly, if we have nothing to do, no cleared amendments, I see no reason that there even would be 10 minutes. So let us see how it works out. I will say this to the Senator. If there is a long intervening time, I will make sure she gets a minute to explain her amendment.

Mr. CHAFEE. All ready to go. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 3078

Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time on the Boxer amendment, the amendment be laid aside and there be 10 minutes equally divided between the two managers to offer a series of cleared amendments, and following the disposition of those amendments and the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Boxer amendment, to be followed immediately by third reading and final passage of S. 1316, as amended, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I am always very, very reluctant to oppose any amendment by the distinguished Californian who is a member of our Environment and Public Works Committee, a very able member of that committee and contributes a great deal. So it is with some trepidation that I rise to differ with her views on this particular amendment. It seems to me that this is not a necessary amendment, and, frankly, I do not think we should be adopting amendments that do not seem to have a necessity to them. Now, as has been pointed out, in the legislation we have submitted, S. 1316, if one looks at the report of the committee on page 136, it starts setting forth there what are the requirements that we have regarding notice. And indeed, on page 137, under (D)(1), ``Regulations issued under subparagraph (a) shall specify notification procedures for violations, other than the violations covered by subparagraph (c), and the procedures specify that a public water system shall provide written notice to each person served by the system by notice in the first bill prepared after the date of occurrence.'' In other words, if there is a violation of the law, then it is required that notice be given. I think that is adequate. Madam President, as the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, just pointed out, there is a system for not only this notification, but if we want a more broad notification, then go ahead and do it. The States can pass such a law. Indeed, let me just demonstrate here, if I might, a two-sided piece of paper which is, I suppose, something like 14 inches long, issued by the State of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland law, by the Patuxent and Potomac Water Filtration Plants. It is just unintelligible. I think this is what everybody is going to receive. Let me give an illustration. It says down here, ``1-1, dichlorothane; 1-3, dichloropropane.'' That goes on to say that it deals with a number of micrograms per liter. It is not detected, it says, in Patuxent and in Potomac. Again, ``maximum monthly averages not detected.'' And it goes on to say that there is no limit established up or down by EPA on this. In other words, apparently, the Maryland law is that there must be close to 80 substances or potential contaminants that have to be notified. Anybody that receives this--99.9 percent of the people that receive it must say, ``What is this?'' and dispose of it in the wastebasket. It seems to me that it is really an unnecessary expenditure. So, Madam President, I reluctantly oppose the amendment by the Senator from California on the basis that if some State wants it, go ahead and do it. That is their business. If they do not want to do it, then we have some protective provisions in the current law, as I have previously pointed out.

Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding we have 10 minutes equally divided to wrap up amendments or statements before we go to the vote. Amendment No. 3079 (Purpose: To provide that monitoring requirements imposed on a substantial number of public water systems be established by regulation)

Mr. CHAFEE. I have one last amendment, Madam President, that I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides. As you understood from the reading of it, it deals with those very low-income settlements along the United States side of the United States-Mexican border, and it is of particular concern to the senior Senator from New Mexico, and I am sure for the junior Senator from New Mexico likewise.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. CHAFEE

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