J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. Well----

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

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I will yield only for that purpose, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

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

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

Mr. KERREY. I sincerely thank the Senator from Missouri and I thank the Senator from Maryland. I know the hour is late. I regret that I am in the Chamber dragging you beyond what is a reasonable hour. I appreciate very much your willingness to try to work with both Senator Hagel and I, and I will assure you that I will talk to the chairman and ranking member, Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus, to try to come up with some report language that will satisfy EPA. One of the reasons we are here today is the flexibility offering that the EPA made to the Department of Environmental Control in the State of Nebraska was so insufficient the State attorney general has filed a lawsuit against EPA as a consequence. So we have reached this extreme situation, and I am very grateful for the willingness of both Senators to cooperate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I sent to the desk earlier be withdrawn.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have spoken to the managers of this bill, the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I appreciate, very much, their cooperation. I understand why they have to oppose this amendment. I know that they have experienced very frustrating situations themselves with regulations that are being imposed with no benefit attached. What I would propose to do, and I would like to ask the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland just to engage me in a little bit of colloquy on this, I would be prepared to withdraw this amendment and to work with the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland as well as the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana, the ranking members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and with Administrator Browner of the EPA, to see if some kind of report language could be included in the conference that would allow us to apply some common sense to the implementation of this rule without sacrificing the public health objective, which is all that I want to accomplish.

Mr. KERREY. First of all, let me say that I appreciate the good-faith effort to try to accommodate this. I know that both the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland are in a bind. You were facing the situation in your State before. And I know it has been frustrating. I have spoken with both of you about these kinds of regulations and how they can decrease our citizen support for environmental regulations. I have all week long been approached by environmental organizations begging me not to offer this amendment, and not a single one of them, by the way, being able to offer a single shred of evidence as to why this rule ought to be enforced--not a one of them--just saying, ``for political reasons, we would rather the Senator not offer it.''

Mr. KERREY. I would be willing to do a UC and let the Senators from Montana and Alabama go to theirs.

Mr. KERREY. But not on this bill.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that. The Senator from Missouri knows that a couple of years ago we did the very same thing with the radon rule the EPA had and the Senator from Missouri cooperated. We knew what the impact was going to be, and we delayed or withheld the money from EPA to enforce a radon rule that we all knew was unreasonable. We did that because they could not make a scientific case that the rule that they had was going to increase public health. We withheld their money. As I recall, the Senator from Missouri supported that. I appreciate what you are saying. I understand I am pushing here to a point where you are saying that if I continue doing this I am going to get less than I would likely get by trying to work cooperatively. I regret that at 11 o'clock at night that I am in that position. I am prepared to call Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus to ask them. I am prepared to talk to them to see if there is some flexibility to achieve it either in report language or in some fashion. But I appeal to my colleagues. The flexibility offered by the EPA, as you know, is not sufficient. They have the law on their side. They are going to enforce 1.3 milligrams per liter. They are not going to give us any testing flexibility. They are going to force 1.3 milligrams per liter even though nobody is getting sick. I have communities investing enormous amounts of money. Again, you are hearing this for the seventh or eighth time, this argument. Again, I would be willing to allow this thing to come to a painful close. The Senators are saying if I talk to Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus that they are willing to consider some sort of report language and this thing will move in committee if I can get some report language.

Mr. KERREY. I would agree to in some sort of consent agreement. I don't want to surrender the floor and then end up with my amendment tabled with no capacity to appeal for some sort of flexibility in law or report language that would enable me to satisfy the concerns that I have. I think what you are asking for is reasonable. I would be willing to talk to Senator Chafee, Senator Baucus, and Administrative Browner, and see if they would accept some kind of report language that would do precisely what you are saying. I would say to the Senator from Missouri that I would be willing to go right this minute to the cloakroom and make those calls. But I would like to resolve it without having my amendment tabled, because I know I am going to have to bring a report back to you and say what they said and see if you would agree with it.

Mr. KERREY. In conference, you would be willing.

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. I appreciate that. I didn't know at 8 o'clock this morning that we were going to be taking this thing up.

Mr. KERREY. I would accept report language that would say the State of Nebraska would be allowed to make a public health investment in those communities where there is in excess of 1.3 milligrams that first minute. I would allow Nebraska to be permitted to experiment with the different testing methodology--anything that would give me something that would say to the communities in Nebraska that the Federal Government is prepared to be reasonable, other than just surrendering me to the good wishes of the EPA, saying they are willing to come out and be flexible. We all know what that means. I would be willing, I say to my colleagues, to accept report language and not put this amendment up for a vote--accept report language that made an attempt to rectify this situation. You know what we are dealing with. I see heads shaking there. Are you saying no?

Mr. KERREY

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. Mr. President, I want to say amen to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. KERREY. I move to table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize seventeen outstanding young Nebraska women who have been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award, the highest achievement award a U.S. Girl Scout can attain. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishment in leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. This year's winners completed projects such as creating a multicultural mural at a local school; cleaning, rust-proofing, and painting bathhouses at Two Rivers State Park; and building a large scale doll house that will teach independent living skills to children at the Hattie B. Munroe Center. The Nebraska recipients were honored by the Great Plains Girl Scout Council in Omaha, Nebraska. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over two and a half million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girls Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. The Gold Award represents the culmination of the achievement of many goals. I would today like to honor these Nebraskans for their exceptional efforts in attaining the Gold Award: Megan Rachel Adams, Alyssa Ann Arthur, Gina R. Dowis, Elizabeth Ann Holland, Melody E. Jones, Sara Anne Jones, Kjirsten R. Kellogg, Stefanie Kudera, Tera R. Maeder, Katie Michalski, Stephanie Jane Patton, Kelly Peters, Marie Roscoe, Melissa Jo Scurlock, Elizabeth A. Sigler, Karianne Sis, and Samantha Waterman. I salute them for their significant service to their community and our country.