J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I do not know if the distinguished Senator from Connecticut said anything between the time I left my office and came here to the floor with which I disagree, but in the time that I watched him from my office and listened to his words from my office, and from what I have heard him say in conclusion, I have come before the Senate and I don't disagree with a single word that the Senator from Connecticut has said. I have passed a few words my way at the direction of the President from time to time, some of them a bit more harsh than I would have liked and preferred. It is sometimes my nature to say things a little too loudly than is deserved in a particular situation. And I have at the same time praised, as I heard the distinguished Senator from Connecticut do, the President's numerous accomplishments. And they are numerous. I do not question his patriotism. I do not question his instinct for service. I have praised his job as Commander in Chief and have said to the country that there is no better example than Bill Clinton that a civilian with no military service can be our Commander in Chief and can learn as he did, the hard way in Somalia. There are tremendous responsibilities that come with that job; and he has listened to the men and women who serve our country. He has been an exceptional Commander in Chief. I praised him on a number of other occasions where he has performed in a remarkably generous and good-hearted way. I have found, as the Senator from Connecticut did, much with which I disagreed in his statement. I believe it is important for those of us who serve, especially in leadership responsibilities, as I do on the Democratic side, chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, to come and say that this is not just inappropriate behavior. I have heard the Senator from Connecticut and his leadership in calling our attention--by that I mean those of us who serve here in Congress. We all get, from time to time, a bit isolated. I work hard and long trying to do the best that I can for the people of Nebraska. It doesn't give me much time to watch daytime television, to watch what is being broadcast, to listen to what is being said, to consider how this could damage the moral fiber of our Nation, especially the moral fiber of our children upon whom we depend for so much. And he has come to us and told us what is going on and called to our attention that we need to be mindful of the things that we say and the things that we do because our young people will very often do as we say, far less than they do as we do--they will follow our example. Thus, it seems to me what the Senator from Connecticut has done is come as an American--not as a Democrat, but as an American, as a U.S. Senator. I wish to join him and say that the President has got to go far further than he did in his speech to the Nation. This is not just inappropriate behavior. This is not a private matter. This is far more important for our country and threatens far more than his Presidency, unless we deal with it in a more honest, and as the Senator from Connecticut has said, noncondemning fashion. Lord knows, I am the last person--the Senator from Connecticut said he was a sinner, and I am at least as big. I do not come to the floor arguing that I have superior moral authority to comment on the President's behavior. I am coming simply to say that it is far more than inappropriate, and it is, unquestionably, public. It is serious beyond our ability to do our work. I think that we can come back as a Congress and finish out our business and perform our responsibilities and do the things that we ask permission to do and we sought the power of this office from our people to do. But there is a moral dimension to what we do that in many ways may be more important than any legislation that we enact. So I have come here to thank the Senator from Connecticut. It was a thoughtful presentation. They were words that we needed to hear. I believe, in fact, they could become the foundation, the basis, for us to heal a wound that will otherwise not just divide Democrat from Democrat--which is likely to occur--but open up a fissure in America that will make it difficult for us to do what all of us, I believe, think is the most important thing to do, and that is to help our children acquire the character they need not just to be good working people but to be good human beings. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my thoughts on the bill currently pending before the Senate. In particular, I would like to comment on the inclusion of the $14.5 billion to replenish the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) capital base and the $3.5 billion for the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). I appreciate the responsible action taken by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee in including these provisions in this bill. The continuing international financial crisis poses too great of a threat to the economic prosperity of the American people for Congress to delay action on funding the IMF. The economic disruptions in Asia are impacting U.S. export markets and having an adverse effect on the U.S. economy as a whole. In my home state of Nebraska--where 45% of all exports go to East Asia and support 56,000 jobs in agriculture, food processing, transportation, and manufacturing--people have already felt the effects of the Asian crisis. The economic repercussions in the United States of a further spread of the Asian financial flu should not be underestimated. For this reason, swift Congressional action is necessary to restore confidence and hedge against future disruptions. Aside from the economic consequences, I am deeply concerned this crisis could affect our security interests. For anyone who doubts the national security ramifications, all you have to do is to turn on the television to see the effects of spreading instability. The political chaos in Russia that has resulted from their economic troubles threatens not only Russia's free market reforms but the historic democratic achievements of the Russian people. The political and economic collapse of Russia would favor elements intent on returning to the days of dictatorship and central economic planning. Cooperation with Russia would be replaced with conflict; our peace and security would be threatened. The Senate passed legislation earlier this year as a part of the FY98 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill that would have provided the full $18 billion requested by the President for the IMF. However, funding for the IMF became mired in non-related, political battles and was not acted upon by the House of Representatives. The failure to act at that time was irresponsible. The failure to act now would be disastrous. Mr. President, while there is no guarantee that timely Congressional action on IMF funding could have helped avoid the current difficulties in Russia and Asia, we should not wait for economic instability to spread and to further jeopardize the economic health and safety of our nation. We must act now to restore confidence and promote economic growth in the United States and in the global economic system. I yield the floor. Global Environment Facility

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Dodd that requires the declassification of information pertaining to human rights violations in Guatemala and Honduras. Americans citizens and their relatives, as well as many Guatemalan and Honduran citizens, were victims of gross human rights violations in these nations, and it is our government's duty to provide them with as much information as judiciously possible. Further, I believe the release of this information will help the democratic governments of Guatemala and Honduras pursue justice, acknowledge the truth, cement the rule of law, and help enable the healing of these societies rent by decades of civil war. When we deal with the declassification of intelligence information, the issues are never simple. The mission of our intelligence agencies is to collect information that will protect American lives and preserve our national security. But, in order to provide this vital information, our intelligence personnel must persuade clandestine sources to provide information covertly, and they must use specialized methods that help collect and protect those secrets. Revelation of sources and methods, even if done in pursuit of moral ends, will only increase the threat to American lives and security. Revelation of sources and methods would, ironically, diminish America's ability to get information on human rights abuses. This amendment has been crafted with an awareness of the need to inform Americans more broadly while at the same time protecting intelligence sources and methods. I appreciate Senator Dodd's understanding of these issues and his leadership on this amendment. American citizens and their relatives have been wrongfully imprisoned, injured, raped, and killed during the course of the civil wars in Guatemala and Honduras. Our government may not have all the information they seek about what occurred in these countries, but what relevant information we do have we should provide them. This amendment will help their pursuit of justice and hopefully provide answers to the many questions that surround these events. Fortunately, the violence and strife that plagued Guatemala and Honduras over the years has abated. These nations now have democratic governments that bring hope and promise to their citizens. But, each of these nations must face their past in order to build a just and prosperous society in the future. The Guatemala Clarification Commission and the National Human Rights Commissioner in Honduras are integral to this process. The information that will be provided to these groups under this amendment can only help bring healing and promote peace in our hemisphere.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to address a very serious problem facing U.S. telecommunications service and equipment suppliers. The International Telecommunications Union is currently considering the implementation of a family of world standards for the next generation of digital wireless communications. These ITU standards will have a significant impact on the ability of American telecommunications equipment and service suppliers to compete in the competitive world telecommunications market. European nations, working through the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), proposed a standard to the ITU based on Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM), the only digital standard permitted by law in Europe. The ETSI proposal is not compatible with American developed CDMA technology and if adopted by the ITU it could have the affect of shutting U.S. CDMA manufacturers out of the world market and rendering such investments obsolete. In light of the EU's decision to only submit a GSM standard to the ITU it is important that the United States take steps to ensure that American developed technology is not left behind. The sense of the Senate I offered today with Senator Lott, sends a strong message that the Federal Communications Commission and other appropriate executive branch agencies should take all appropriate actions to promote U.S. technology in this ITU proceeding. At the conclusion of the World Trade Organization Basic Telecommunications Agreement, the Administration assured Congress that the telecommunications markets of America's largest trading partners would be open to U.S. companies. However, the European Union is considering a technical standard for itself that could lock U.S. manufacturers out of the European market. A similar result in the ITU would be devastating. I am pleased today that the Senate has sent a clear statement to U.S. negotiators that the pending ITU standards must not reflect a narrow and harmful standard that locks American wireless technology out of world markets. Instead, U.S. negotiators should promote a family of standards that are compatible with U.S. technologies and safeguard American interests. The ITU is now on notice that whatever standards it may adopt next, such standards must be harmonized or compatible with each other. amendment no. 3538 On page 38, line 22, delete $69,000,000 and insert in lieu thereof $75,000,000. On page 7, line 21, delete $1,890,000,000 and insert in lieu thereof $1,904,000,000.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I am delighted to be joined by Senators Moynihan and Breaux in offering this important Sense of the Senate on reducing the payroll tax burden. This Sense of the Senate is simple: the payroll tax is the biggest, most regressive tax that working families in this country face. According to the CBO, 80 percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Here's what that means. The average household income in 1996 was $35,492. That family, taking the standard deductions and exemptions, paid $2,719 in Federal income tax. But they paid a whopping $5,430 in payroll taxes--double what they paid in income taxes! What this Sense of the Senate says is that if we talk about relieving the tax burden on American's families, we ought to look first at the payroll tax burden. After all, of the over $1.5 trillon surplus we expect to generate over the next ten years, all but $32 billion is being generated through payroll taxes. If anyone is going to get tax relief in this country, it ought to be the working people responsible for that surplus. I urge my colleagues to support this Sense of the Senate.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support for this amendment from the National Governors' Association, the Central Nebraska Mayor's Association, the League of Nebraska Municipalities, the city of Columbus, the city of Hastings, the village of Snyder, and the village of Fairmont be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by myself and Senator Hagel be withdrawn.

Mr. KERREY. Do we need to yield back time in opposition?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. We intend to talk on it for a brief period of time and then we will withdraw the amendment. I offered this amendment in a similar fashion on the HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. We, since that time, entered into negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and it is possible that the problems we have in Nebraska will be resolved. It is also possible that the issue does not get resolved. If that is the case, I want to alert my colleagues that there will be an opportunity to vote on this amendment at some point, if Senator Hagel and I and the rest of the Nebraska delegation are not able to get satisfaction from the Environmental Protection Agency. As I said, they are attempting to work with us at this point to try to resolve this problem. The problem simply stated is that, under the rulemaking of the Safe Drinking Water Act, there was established a lead and copper rule. Under the procedures of the Safe Drinking Water Act, these rules get reviewed every 6 years, so it is an appropriate time--it has been 7 years--an appropriate time for us to be reevaluating the science supporting the rule itself. That is essentially what we are challenging to begin with. There is not a single city in Nebraska that has copper in excess of 1.3 milligrams in its water supply. So, you say, what is the problem? The problem is that if water sits in copper pipes overnight, the first draw on that water will produce copper in excess of 1.3 milligrams in some of our systems. Thus, our cities are being asked to invest millions of dollars to take care of the problem by removing the copper in a manner that is acceptable to the EPA. That will become a very critical part of this issue, because the EPA tells us what is and is not acceptable to take care of a problem that, as I said, has not produced a public health problem in Nebraska. We don't have a public health problem in Nebraska. We don't have any public health people saying we believe there is a clear and present problem with copper, a problem such as exists with lead. With lead, there is a public health problem, although not in Nebraska. With copper, we have no public health problem. What we have, instead, is a scientific evaluation by EPA which has caused them to say we should not allow any more than 1.3 milligrams per liter of copper in drinking water. And as a consequence, all across the country EPA is asking cities to invest substantial amounts of money to treat and reduce the concentration of copper below 1.3 milligrams. I have a chart here. Some statements have been made by other institutions in regard to what is a safe amount of copper, which I would like to read, just to establish that there is a significant amount of dispute on the science of this. Not a small amount of dispute, but a significant amount. The World Health Organization has established 2 milligrams per liter as their standard for copper in drinking water. That is 60 percent higher than 1.3 milligrams per liter. In Canada, they have declared 5.3 milligrams per day as the lowest oral dose at which local GI irritation was seen. The National Academy of Sciences in 1977 said: Limited data are available on the chronic toxicity of copper. The hazard from dietary intakes of up to 5 milligrams per day appear to be quite low. A longer statement, made in 1994 by the Centers for Disease Control in regards to a study in Nebraska--this study is currently being peer reviewed, which EPA needs to have in order to make a final determination: . . . at the time of the survey, people were not experiencing GI related to the level of [copper] in their drinking water, even though 51 of the selected homes had [copper] drinking water levels that were greater than two times the EPA action level the year prior to the study. . . There is a significant amount of scientific disagreement as to what the standard ought to be. Again, we are not experiencing a public health problem. If we are experiencing a public health problem, let's get after it and deal with it. That is what the Safe Drinking Water Act is all about. If you don't have a public health problem, you should not, in my judgment, be requiring the municipalities to make an investment that produces no benefit. That is basically what we are talking about here. The municipalities have a limited amount of money. They have to go to their taxpayers to pay for any treatments to drinking water. We go to taxpayers through the state revolving loan fund. We then provide funds to the States and the States and municipalities make the determination: How do we spend our money so as to maximize the public health in our community? The states and the municipalities are telling us that they don't see a public health problem with copper, but they are willing to try to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to solve this problem. Mr. President, first of all, we have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to allow the National Academy of Sciences to impanel a study group to evaluate the science that underlies this standard--a peer reviewed evaluation--and come back and say, ``This is our current estimate of the situation, our current estimate based upon reviewing all the science, particularly the peer-reviewed science that is out there; this is what we see the current situation to be.'' Allow EPA, in short, to do what the Safe Drinking Water Act says it is supposed to do, which is to review these regulations once every 6 years. It has been 7 years. There is plenty of evidence that would indicate it is time for EPA to review this standard, including other people's evaluations, and as I said, the presence of an overwhelming fact, which is that we are not experiencing public health problems in Nebraska. In our negotiations--Senator Hagel, Congressmen Bereuter, Christensen and Barrett--we had a meeting yesterday with EPA. We are asking EPA to empower and to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to do a study of the science underlying this rule to determine whether 1.3 milligrams per liter is reasonable. If we get a ``yes'' on that request, which we don't have at the moment--as I said, my colleagues may be spared the opportunity of coming down here and voting on this amendment. There is another problem we are experiencing with EPA. Again, we talked with region 7, and we talked, as well, with Administrator Browner, and perhaps we can get true flexibility. We have asked for flexibility in dealing with this problem. I will describe for my colleagues one of the things the Nebraska department of health asked the Environmental Protection Agency for, in terms of flexibilities in implementing this rule, and the answer from EPA was no. They asked if it would be OK if the State of Nebraska paid for the removal of copper piping and copper fixtures, get rid of the copper altogether as a solution to this problem. The answer from EPA was that this is not one of the acceptable solutions that is on their list. Eliminating the copper was not an acceptable solution to the EPA, Mr. President, nor was it acceptable to engage in a significant public health campaign to help people understand--and to ask them to flush, once a day, the water in their systems to remove the copper that leached into the water after sitting overnight in the pipes--especially in smaller communities where you have a relatively small audience. EPA was saying things like, ``Well, yeah, but somebody could get up in the middle of the night and have to go to the bathroom and maybe forget and take a drink of water.'' This is the sort of reason given to people to support legislation like the Safe Drinking Water Act? We want the Government to be a positive force in keeping our people safe, but when we hear rationale like this, we scratch our heads and wonder whether or not it is all worthwhile. We seem to frequently run into this sort of inability to bring common sense to the process. I am hopeful that Administrator Browner--she was very positive yesterday--I am hoping Administrator Browner will, first of all, ask the National Academy of Sciences to do a study of the underlying science, which is overdue given the conflicting analyses we have seen; and, second, to direct region 7 to work with us to get a flexible plan that enables us, bottom line, to have our cities and our States saying to us, ``We have identified a solution here; we have a means of dealing with this; here is what it is going to cost us; we are willing to make this investment.'' Understand, at the community level where they are drinking the water, they are saying, ``There are public health problems that are much larger than this. We don't have anyone getting sick from copper. We understand you all think we ought to be getting sick at these levels, but we are not. We are willing to work with you and willing to make an investment, but we want that investment to be justified. We want the cost to track somehow with the benefit. We want to be able to say here is the benefit we are getting with the cost of the expenditure itself.'' I am pleased to inform my colleagues, at the conclusion of Senator Hagel's and my remarks on this, we are prepared to withdraw this amendment and not put you through the process of voting on this at this time. But if we are not able to get a satisfactory answer from Administrator Browner, I inform my colleagues there will be an opportunity to vote on this amendment. My guess is that any of you out there who have municipalities that are discussing this with the Environmental Protection Agency--I guarantee you, all you have to do is talk to your colleagues in Minnesota and ask them how it worked. They implemented the EPA plans for copper removal, and it hasn't worked in nearly half of the 130 water systems they were forced to treat. They did everything the EPA told them to do to reduce copper levels and it didn't work. They still have the problem and are now scratching their heads and trying to figure out what they are going to do next. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire and other colleagues. I look forward to coming to the floor and saying that this issue is satisfactorily resolved. Administrator Browner, I believe, is making a good-faith effort, but we have a ways to go before we are certain we don't have to come back and appeal to our colleagues, who are likely experiencing similar things, to give us a change in the law that will give us time to allow these scientific studies to be reviewed, and possibly, this rule revised. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. I do not know if--Senator Chafee is probably not going to speak because I told him we would withdraw the amendment. I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if you don't want to take the additional 10 minutes, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, the issue of Social Security has been given a new bit of attention this week. Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator John Breaux of Louisiana announced their intent to introduce legislation that effectively takes the recommendations of a year-long study and recommends a number of changes. I like their proposal, Madam President. Senator Moynihan and I earlier introduced legislation that proceeds along similar lines. Senator Gramm and Senator Domenici are working on their own proposal. The President has suggested that we have a year-long discussion of Social Security and that sometime in the latter part of this year/first of next, he will call the congressional leadership in and we will try to solve this problem in 1999. That will be very difficult to do unless these discussions are conducted in an environment where we make a real effort to educate the American people about what Social Security is and what Social Security isn't. There was a recent Town Hall meeting on Social Security in Providence, RI. I attended the first meeting in Kansas City, MO. Indeed, the President was at Georgetown when he kicked this whole thing off earlier this year. When he was introduced at Georgetown, a woman who is a student at Georgetown did something quite interesting and quite common in the Social Security debate. She said when she took her first job, she noted on her paycheck that there was a person called FICA. She went home to her mother and said, ``Mom, who is this FICA person, and why are they taking so much money from me?'' She had discovered the payroll tax, which is the largest tax burden on working Americans today. I note that there is growing interest in using the surplus, that we have to use it to do some kind of a tax cut. I intend to argue that if taxes are going to be cut, it ought to be the payroll tax that gets cut. FICA is the largest tax for nearly 70 percent of Americans. The median family in Nebraska will pay twice as much in FICA taxes--in payroll taxes--as in income tax. As this young Georgetown woman went on to say, her mother told her that FICA is a payment she is making into Social Security that she will get back out when she retires. And she hopes, she said to the President, that their discussion will lead to the protection of the money she has paid in over the years. Relevant to the discussion of Social Security, one of the things I hope the President and the Vice President will do when they are having a discussion of Social Security--is to allow workers to have just that--the ability to use a portion of their payroll taxes to create wealth for retirement. You hear other people describe Social Security as a program with a poor rate of return. As I said, I did not go to the Providence discussion, but I sent staff to it and they reported back that numerous people expressed the view that Social Security is a savings program, that individuals are making a contribution into it, and all they are getting back is what they paid in. It is not a savings program. You own nothing with Social Security. Social Security is a payroll tax, and it is a tax that is imposed upon people who are working. The proceeds of that tax come to the Federal Government, and are distributed to people who are eligible, based on virtue of meeting the test of age, disability, or survivorship of a person entitled to Social Security benefits. For retirees, there is an early eligibility age of 62, and there is a normal eligibility age of 65. There are also many people who actually choose to take a later eligibility of 70, where they can get a higher level of benefits. This is very important. As the President goes forward with the discussion on Social Security, he is the principal leader in this regard. He has the bully pulpit. I praised him before and I praise him again for taking this issue on. It is an extremely important program and has benefited Americans enormously. It has changed the face of this country. It is a moral commitment that we make. But, it is not a rate of return program. I urge the President and the Vice President, when they are leading these discussions, if there is any confusion, to say to Americans that this program is an intergenerational commitment. By maintaining the current program, those of us who are working allow ourselves to be taxed at a fixed rate, and to let the proceeds be transferred in a very progressive fashion. As I mentioned earlier, we let the proceeds be distributed to people who are eligible, based on virtue of meeting the test of age, disability, or survivorship of a person entitled to Social Security benefits. If the American people don't understand that, we need to inform them--especially retirees. If people over the age of 65 believe that all they are getting back is a monthly check that is based upon what they contributed, this debate will reach a dead end. I have heard many, many elected politicians essentially pander to the audience and lead the audience to believe all they are getting back is what they paid in. They let them believe that it is their Social Security--they paid it into it all their lives. In reality, it is a tax on people who are working. That young woman who introduced the President had it half right. There is a 12.4 percent tax on wages, which is transferred to people who are eligible. If anybody right now is struggling under the burden of Social Security, it is people who get paid by the hour, particularly low income people--people who earn their living as a consequence of their work and the wages paid to them. For example, in 1996, the median household income was $35,492. A family earning that amount and taking standard deductions and exemptions, paid $2,719 in federal income taxes, but lost $5,430 in income to the federal payroll tax. What we need to be doing is giving some of this payroll tax money back to these families so they can participate in the growth of the American economy--so that they can accumulate wealth for their retirements. Since 1983, the payroll tax has been higher than necessary to pay current benefits. I come to the floor today to praise Senator Gregg and Senator Breaux for their proposal, for their courage, in introducing this piece of Social Security reform legislation. Most importantly, I come to the floor to urge President Clinton and to urge Vice President Gore, when they are having these discussions, to describe this program honesty. Describe it as it is. Don't allow individuals, especially people over the age of 65, to presume that all they are getting is a monthly check that represents what they paid in over the course of their working lives. It is a tax, transferred in a progressive fashion, to people who are eligible. Furthermore, don't allow the notion to lie on the table that the age of 65 is a retirement age. It is not a retirement age--people can retire at any age they choose. Sixty-five is an eligibility age. There is an early eligibility. There is a normal eligibility. There is a late eligibility. One of the most frustrating things that I suspect Senator Gregg and Senator Breaux face, is people saying, ``Senator, you are trying to move the retirement age.'' It is eligibility, not retirement. There are many people who retire early, they retire later, and as a consequence their benefit levels will be adjusted. They understand these adjustments, and as a consequence they make choices based on it. I hope this debate will continue, but unless it continues in an honest fashion, with the program being understood for what it is, it will hit a dead end. This is a very easy program to demagogue. It is a very easy program to misrepresent. There is a large percentage of people who do not understand what this program is. Unless we increase the number of people who do understand what the program is and decrease the percentage of people who misunderstand it, it is likely this entire year's discussion will lead to nothing more than political warfare with people misrepresenting the program in order to achieve political advantage. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business until 11 o'clock.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, copper is a substance that at certain levels will cause gastrointestinal problems. That is the issue here. Unlike lead, it is a different sort of public health problem. Again, it is an essential element. Understand, that the estimated content in mother's milk in some cases will exceed 1.35--will exceed 1.3 milligrams per liter. You can imagine what the EPA would say if we gave them the authority to regulate mother's milk. Perhaps they would require some sort of contraption to be applied in order to make certain that babies are not getting a dose in excess of 1.3 milligrams, even though no scientific study, Mr. President, has concluded that there is a problem. The EPA will say, remarkably, ``Well, the World Health Organization has a standard of 2.0 milligrams per liter, and 1.3 milligrams per liter is close.'' Two is almost twice of 1.3. It may look close if you are calculating the size of the deficit, but it is not very close as a multiple of 1.3. They set a level, Mr. President, an arbitrary level, that cannot be supported by science. All we are asking for is delay. I would be willing to accept some change in the law, some report language that would enable Nebraska to say, ``We will, with our public health effort, make certain that no one in Nebraska is going to get sick. But, for gosh sakes, don't make these Nebraska communities invest millions of dollars in water treatment efforts.'' Some of these communities have very, very small budgets. You are asking them to invest substantial amounts of money even though there isn't a single person in their communities getting sick--no one. There is no public health problem. And what we are being told--we tried to get this amendment accepted. We tried to get EPA to change their rule. They said to us, ``We don't care. We don't care, Senator, that science demonstrates that 1.3 milligrams is not really supportable. We don't care that nobody in Nebraska is getting sick. We are not concerned.'' ``Please, do not offer this because of the political problems of another rider on this bill.'' Mr. President, this is one of the reasons that people like myself-- that have supported the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act--we struggle to sustain our support for this kind of effort because time and time again we find ourselves faced with a situation where common sense and science combine to say the EPA should not be given authority to require local communities to make these kinds of investments because there is no public health case that can be made to require them to do it. This amendment, Mr. President, is propublic health and pro- environment. I, too, seek public health protections, and I seek environmental protections as well. Senator Hagel and I see this as an amendment that says that money spent on threats that do not exist is money that cannot be spent to prevent actual hazards to health or the environment. I am not seeking to overturn EPA regulations, and I am not seeking to instruct EPA on scientific issues on which myself and the legislative branch are not qualified to provide instructions. I am seeking, Mr. President, to have the EPA give adequate consideration, evidence from another Federal agency that is amply qualified in this respect, an agency, Mr. President, that is charged with ensuring public health and safety, and that is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mr. President, whatever you think on this issue, we should all agree that the people of this country who are drinking the water and who are paying the bills should at least have a say in this matter. And they should have a say through their elected officials. The argument that comes from the EPA that Congress does not have the right or the responsibility to question regulations or to weigh in on regulatory debates is an argument that government should not be held accountable to the people. Mr. President, that is an argument that I do not support. And it is an argument I hope we would all dismiss outright. But, Mr. President, beyond this argument--and there is a truly valid argument against that scientific basis for this EPA rule which I, tonight on this floor, challenge with this amendment. I challenge any of my colleagues to come to the floor and dispute the evidence that I offer. The rule pertains to copper levels in drinking water, and the requirement that communities treat their water supplies to remove copper when it is present at levels higher than EPA's `action level' of 1.3 milligrams per liter (mg/l). There are currently 60 communities in Nebraska that are being required by EPA to begin treating their water to remove copper. I have here in my hand two studies conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate the drinking water in these communities is safe, and is not causing any illness or adverse health effects. One of the studies was conducted in my state of Nebraska. However, the EPA will not consider these studies until they are peer reviewed and published. Fair enough, I say--they are scheduled to be published before the end of the calendar year, and likely sooner than that. So my amendment simply states that EPA wait until these studies are published, and that they review these studies, and any additional peer-reviewed data pertinent to this issue, to determine whether the CDC is correct, and perhaps this copper action level is not set at the appropriate level. There is also a savings clause in my amendment that will allow any state that so chooses to continue to implement and enforce, if they desire, the copper treatment aspect of this rule. If a community or a state is currently treating its water supplies to reduce copper, or chooses to implement treatments based on copper levels, nothing in my amendment precludes them from doing so. Mr. President, I support fully the efforts and the importance of the mission and the work of the Environmental Protection Agency. I support fully the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and all the other acts under whose auspices the authorities of the EPA lie. However, I support these Acts based on the assumption that all the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the agency are based on sound science. But in this case--in the case of a copper action level in drinking water supplies--we do not have sound science at work. What we are seeing here is a level that has been set that cannot be supported by science--a level that even the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, EPA's sister agency, says in at least two different studies causes neither illness nor adverse health effects. The CDC has indicated that in my home state of Nebraska, and in Delaware, copper in drinking water supplies that is in excess of EPA's action level does not cause any illness or adverse health effects. But 60 small- and medium-sized communities in Nebraska are being forced to implement expensive water treatment activities to remove the copper from their drinking water. One community alone, Hastings, Nebraska, with a population of 23,000, has estimated the costs of this treatment at $1 million to start, and $250,000 annually thereafter. That is for one community alone. In the Village of Snyder, which has a population of 280, and an annual water budget of $31,000, the estimated cost to treat two wells is $30,000 for building modifications and equipment purchases, plus an additional annual cost of $12,000 for chemicals, training, administrative, and repair and maintenance costs. For the first year, then, this figure represents $11,000 more than the Village of Snyder's annual water budget--or a total first year cost of $42,000. Multiply these figures and these hardships by 60 communities, we are talking about an inordinate amount of money to remove an essential mineral, a naturally occurring element, from drinking water when there are no known or associated adverse health effects at the levels that it is present at. But that's not the most unreasonable aspect of this issue, Mr. President--because there is more. Here's the rub. The ground water that these public water supplies rely on for drinking water in these 64 Nebraska communities does NOT contain copper in excess of EPA's action level. As a matter of fact, none of the natural groundwater supplies in Nebraska exceed the copper action level as established by EPA. Not one. The problem is the method EPA requires that States use when testing for copper. EPA requires that the water be tested only after being undisturbed for at least 6 hours--that is, the water must be sitting in the pipes and plumbing of a home for at least 6 hours, or overnight, before being tested. And while the water sits in these pipes, copper leaches out of the pipes, and the ``action level'' is exceeded. Why does this happen? It so happens that the acidity of the ground water in my state of Nebraska causes the copper to corrode, or to leach out when it sits in pipes for a long period of time, such as overnight. However, if you run this water for a few minutes before testing it, or before drinking it, the copper action level set by EPA are not exceeded. But even the CDC has questioned this testing method. In one of its studies, the CDC states: We encourage further investigations of the health effects of copper in drinking water. We also encourage further work to evaluate the reproducibility of the sampling method recommended by EPA to establish compliance with the drinking water standard for Cu (copper) and Pb (lead). But even beyond that, even at the levels that are coming out of these pipes now, and that the people of these Nebraska communities are drinking now, there is no incidence of illness or other deleterious effects from this water. My amendment will simply delay some costly requirements to remove copper from water that is not causing illness. So the issue immediately at hand, at best I or anyone else can discern, is really an issue of testing. Despite the fact that none of the groundwater in Nebraska exceeds EPA's copper action level, the manner of testing required by EPA results in some communities actually exceeding the action level. Flushing for a few minutes prior to testing, or to drinking, would result in copper levels in the water that are below EPA's action level. And it is likely that an improved testing methodology will result in none of these water systems exceeding the copper rule. But until this is reviewed, we have no way of knowing. Beyond the testing issue is the greater issue of the validity of the rule. No, I am not a scientist qualified to decide this issue, but some of the scientists that I have talked to about the issue agree that the science is insufficient to support EPA's action level for copper. Even government scientists who have studied copper their entire careers agree that the evidence just isn't there--and I'm talking about human nutrition scientists, not just the scientists who conducted the studies at the CDC. Scientists have told me that there is little evidence of chronic health effects caused by ingestion of copper at the levels we are talking about in our communities. There is even preliminary evidence that seems to suggest that elevated copper plays a role in reducing or preventing the incidence of osteoporosis, a disease which causes significant suffering, discomfort and associated medical problems, primarily in the elderly. What this underscores is the lack of definitive knowledge about this substance. My colleagues in the State of Nebraska have tried to work with the EPA on this, and have tried to offer reasonable alternatives and solutions that will prevent costly and needless treatments from being required. My colleagues in Nebraska asked the EPA if it would be acceptable to implement an educational program to get folks in these communities to run the water for a time, to flush out the water that may have absorbed some copper, before drinking it. EPA said no. My colleagues asked the federal Centers for Disease Control to study the issue in the state, and determine if the copper was causing any illness or adverse health effects. The CDC did this, and found no adverse health effects. EPA's response is that they cannot consider this data because it is not yet peer-reviewed and published. That is what bring me here now. What frustrates me most about this is that I am a staunch proponent of the role of the federal government in protecting the safety and health of the people. This role is perhaps one of the greatest issues separating our country from many other industrialized and non- industrialized countries--we protect our nation from potential hazards in our food and drink, and from many other hazards that may befall us. But I am also a proponent of a government that is of, by, and for the people--of a government that serves to protect when protection is needed, but that does not intervene needlessly when intervention is not needed. Yet here we have evidence that a regulation promulgated by a federal agency will cost Nebraska communities millions of dollars, and will have no apparent impact on the health or safety of the people. So I am here to ask for a delay before costly treatment is required in these communities, a delay to allow these studies to be published, which they imminently will be, and a review of the data, to include these studies. To help my colleagues understand how deeply flawed this action level may be, and thus, how inappropriate is the insistence of the EPA that these small Nebraska communities spend millions of dollars to correct a ghost problem, let me share with you some additional information on how copper in drinking water is treated elsewhere. On an international scale, the World Health Organization, or WHO, which is recognized worldwide as the preeminent public health and welfare agency in both developed and underdeveloped nations, has declared that: In view of uncertainties regarding copper toxicity in humans, a provisional guideline value for copper of 2 mg/ litre was established in the 1993 WHO guidelines for drinking water quality. The WHO further states that: A copper action level of 2 mg/litre in drinking water will be protective of adverse effects of copper and provides an adequate margin of safety. It is also noteworthy that copper is an essential element. This provisional, international action level for copper of 2 mg/l is set at a level that approaches twice EPA's action level of 1.3 mg/l. Yet EPA cites this level as evidence that their level is ``not far off'' from the WHO level, and thus is supportive of their 1.3 mg/l level. Mr. President, there are two last, astounding pieces of information. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has established a recommended daily allowance for copper of 3 mg, with an adult toxic dose of 100 mg. These recommendations are for adults. But more astounding is the following information, published in peer reviewed literature: ``Copper levels of human milk range from 0.15 to 1.34 mg./litre.'' Human breast milk, Mr. President, contains up to 1.34 mg/litre of copper, which is in exceedance of the EPA copper action level. There is much more evidence to support my contention, Mr. President, that there is cause to review the data and perhaps revise EPA's action level for copper, and I am more than willing to share it with my colleagues. At the moment, however, there is great urgency in offering this amendment and approving it to prevent needless costly treatments from being implemented in many small American communities that will be more harmed from the economic impacts of this rule than from the potential adverse health effects from copper. The EPA says, ``We don't care''--the EPA says, ``We don't care. This is a political issue.'' I say wait a minute, what is the purpose here? ``We don't care.'' Reject it out of hand, ignore the scientific evidence, and say we are concerned that this is one of these riders. They are not willing to come and debate each rider on its merit. They say ``rider''; we rule out of hand. I would love to have Administrator Browning come to Hastings, NB, and explain that to my citizens in Nebraska. She would not be able to do it. That is what I have to do. I have to go home and explain these rules. When I go home and explain these rule to these 60 communities where nobody is getting sick, why they have to spend millions of dollars to invest in their water systems, they say this doesn't make any sense at all. So I invite any Senator who opposes--I would love, if they take the EPA position--come out to Hastings, NB. Come out to my State and talk to the community and explain to them why, if nobody is getting sick, I have two CDC studies saying there is no health problem and yet the rule still is going to be enforced. As I said earlier, I am not looking to overturn the EPA regulation. Indeed, in this amendment there is a savings clause that allows any State that so chooses to continue to implement and enforce the copper treatment aspect of the rule. If the communities--or State, is currently treating its water supplies to reduce copper, or chooses to implement treatments based on copper levels, nothing in my amendment precludes them from doing so. I see both the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Alabama. It looks like they have an amendment. I would like to talk longer, and I apologize to the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland. I know both they and I would like to go to sleep. I would prefer a healthier debate. Unfortunately, what will happen is, we will talk tomorrow, we will have 2 minutes equally divided, the opponents will offer some reason to oppose this amendment, and everybody is likely to walk down and oppose it. What will happen is, I will have millions of dollars' worth of investments that will have to occur and there will be a deterioration of support for any regulation of this kind. I am willing to stop and allow the Senators from Montana and Alabama to offer their amendment. I don't know how long they will take.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I am not sure I understand what it is you are trying to do. First of all, I ask the Senator from Montana, how long does he and the Senator from Alabama want to take?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I guess--as I said, I am willing--I don't know how long the Senator from Montana and Alabama want to talk. I intend to talk further. I appreciate what will happen tomorrow is, there will be 2 minutes equally divided and Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus will come down here and they will say, ``We don't necessarily disagree with you but we have a letter from the EPA and they are saying for rules''--blah, blah, blah--``we don't care that there is no public health problem. We don't care that nobody is getting sick, and we are willing to be flexible.'' Well, I appreciate you are willing to be flexible, but the problem is, we don't have a public health problem. What are you talking about, you want to be flexible? Thank you, Mr. Perciasepe. I appreciate you being willing to visit these communities, but I have 60 communities you are asking to spend millions of dollars. You have a rule that you are going to enforce it even though there is no public health problem. I know we have a dilemma here. It is 10:30 at night and the unanimous consent procedure requires me to talk for however long I am prepared to talk, and then we will have 2 minutes tomorrow. I will have 1 minute, Senators Chafee and Baucus will come down here and they will say whatever, and this thing will get knocked out. Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues, this is not something that is a small item. Nobody is going to walk down here. I suspect the Senator from Missouri will not stand up and say that there is a compelling public health reason why Nebraska citizens and their communities should have to make these investments. EPA doesn't. They don't make a case that it is a public health problem. They don't come to Nebraska and say, gee, there is somebody getting sick that we haven't noticed. Copper is different from lead. We are not talking about something that has the dangerous properties of lead. This is an essential element. This is an element that is contained in mother's milk, for gosh sakes. And in some cases the mother's milk is at a level higher than what the EPA will allow in drinking water. Nebraska is being forced to sue the Environmental Protection Agency because the Environmental Protection Agency is unwilling to be flexible. I seek a remedy to this, Senators. You are saying you don't accept the amendment, fine. I am prepared to talk, then, further, because I want to make certain that Nebraskans understand what is at stake here--that even though nobody is getting sick, even though there is no public health problem, even though there is no safety issue at all in our State, it doesn't matter; the Federal Government is still going to require and this Senate is going to say, ``Well, it is a rider, we will accept the EPA's recommendation, regardless. We will vote to table or we will vote no on the amendment, we don't care. It doesn't matter.'' It seems to me that what we have here is a reasonable request by a State that has an unusual situation that deserves to be remedied. It is not enough for the EPA to say,''We are willing to be flexible.'' It doesn't work. Their flexibility still, at the end of the day, will say, ``You will have to get your copper levels down to 1.3 milligrams per liter in the first burst of water that comes out of the faucet,'' even though nobody in Nebraska is getting sick, even though no faucet is at 1.3 milligrams per liter. Only the first burst has the problem. I go back to my statement here and continue.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment together with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, to delay implementation of a rule that has been promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. This delay would be required until the agents review existing scientific data to determine whether there is ample evidence to support the rule. Mr. President, this rule, together with the rule on lead, is there to protect Americans, to give us safe drinking water. Unlike lead, however, copper is an essential element and is regulated in a much different fashion. I intend with my statement to lay before the body an appeal. Nebraska has an unusual situation. Perhaps other States do have a similar situation. But ours is essentially this: The Environmental Protection Agency has a limit with their rule of 1.3 milligrams per liter. There isn't a single city in Nebraska that has 1.3 milligrams per liter. Here is the problem. In some communities, the water level is sufficiently acidic if it remains in the pipes for 6 hours or longer. When you turn the water on, you will get more than 1.3 milligrams per liter. Run the water for a minute, and the water drops below 1.3 milligrams per liter. The EPA is saying, it does not matter. The EPA is saying, ``We test the water. It comes out of the pipe immediately. It is over 1.3 milligrams; therefore, you have to make investments, substantial investments.'' Hastings, NE, is having to invest about $1 million initially, and $250,000 per year. Sixty communities are being asked to make substantial investments in their water systems to remove copper from their water, even though not a single citizen in Nebraska is getting sick--not a single person. I emphasize this. The EPA comes into Nebraska and says, ``You are right, Senator, nobody is getting sick.'' I say, ``Wait a minute, what is the Safe Drinking Water Act for?'' They say, ``Well, it is to make the water safe.'' I say, ``The water is safe, is it not? If somebody was getting sick, then we would have unsafe water.'' They say, ``Yes, that is right. But we have established 1.3 milligrams per liter as the level allowed.'' And even though there is not a single community with 1.3 milligrams per liter--if it sets in the pipe 6 hours--even though it is flushed out immediately, and even though the State public health people are willing to implement a program of public education to make sure they stay below 1.3 milligrams, the EPA says, ``It doesn't matter.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, this has become one of those litmus test issues. I have talked to many people in the environmental community. And they have said to me, ``Gee, Senator, you can't put this on this bill because it is another rider.'' They compare it to the 1995 bill--I guess it was 1995 or 1996--the year when a lot of riders were attached. ``We don't want another rider.'' I said, ``Well, what does that have to do with anything? Do you think the public health data supports what you are trying to do in Nebraska? Is there a reason?'' They say, ``No, it doesn't matter. What we are talking about here, Senator,'' they say, ``is politics. We don't disagree with the public health aspect of this.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two studies be printed in the Record, both done by the Centers for Disease Control, that say there isn't a problem.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in that case, I would like to continue with my statement. Again, I don't mean to tie up the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland here unreasonably, I appreciate that I am, but this is a very serious issue in my State. We have a UC here that gives me very limited options. The unanimous consent puts me in a position where I have 1 minute tomorrow, and the authorizers are going to come down here and they are going to merely say, ``we object.'' They are not going to offer any science, or refute the scientific evaluation, or argue what the CDC has said. They are not going to present a case that 1.3 milligrams is reasonable. They are not going to refute statements about nobody getting sick in Nebraska, or they are not going to say what EPA is doing is reasonable. We are left with a situation where the State of Nebraska is going to have to sue the EPA. That is what we are left with. Again, I am willing to step aside here and allow the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Montana to do their work. I guess what you are seeking is an opportunity to go into morning business so you could all leave and I can stay here and talk. Is that basically what you are saying?

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

Mr. KERREY. That is my hope.

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.