Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa who has always been one of the strongest watchdogs on defense spending. I appreciate his work with me on this amendment. At this time, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman].

Mr. KOHL. I would like to make a comment or observe that when Senator Byrd talked about $7 billion, he talked about what an enormous sum of money that is. I do not know if he said it or not, but it is true that here in Washington we spend $7 billion as if, sometimes, it were $7,000 or $700. That is because we are used to dealing with such large sums of money, so it is not acceptable but it is understandable. But it is not acceptable. Mr. President, $7 billion--I come from the city of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin, but I live in the city of Milwaukee. Milwaukee is a middle-size city in our country which has a host of problems which are characteristic of the problems in our country today: crime problems, drug problems, problems with our educational systems, problems with our infrastructure, problems with our inability to train people for jobs that are availables. All the problems that exist in our society--to the degree we are not satisfied with the conditions of life in America-- exist in Milwaukee. Mr. President, for $1 billion--not $7 billion--for $1 billion, which is an imaginative sum for the city I come from, but for $1 billion we could change the face of Milwaukee for 50 years in all the areas I just discussed: The areas of crime, drugs, welfare, job training, education, infrastructure, with just $1 billion out of the $7 billion that we are going to be spending on defense unnecessarily in this next year if we do not defeat that proposal. And $264 billion is on the table. For $1 billion we could change the face of Milwaukee for the next 50 years. So we are talking about a lot of money that could be used to improve the quality of life throughout our country without in any way taking away from the level of necessary defense which all of us support.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. We appreciate very deeply his comments. Before I speak, does the Senator from Iowa wish to wrap up for a minute?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Dorgan. It was an eloquent statement he made. As usual, he is right on target. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of how those Senators voted in May when we fixed defense spending at $257 billion.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.

Mr. KOHL. I yield 13 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia [Senator Byrd].

Mr. KOHL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Lautenberg].

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming down to speak in behalf of this amendment. His words are appreciated.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I believe very strongly that it can be a very useful, in fact, perhaps decisive tool in order to avoid the budget impasse and a breakdown of the whole process, in order for us to avoid having the kind of a ``train wreck'' that will not allow us to pass a budget come this fall. It was in the Contact With America. Not only Democrats but also Republicans are very supportive of the line-item veto. And there is a suspicion that the only reason we are not going to pass it right now is because we have a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican. That is not the way to conduct budget policy in this country. That is the way to conduct politics. I think it is the kind of Government that the American people are sick and tired of. They do not want to see a continuation of it. They are supportive in overwhelming numbers of the line-item veto. It is something that we can do. It is something that will contribute to an effective budget come this fall. I think we are all winners. There are no losers if we pass the line- item veto. So I support this amendment by the Senator from North Dakota. I think that we, as a body, should encourage the House to appoint their conferees so that we can resolve the minor differences between the House and the Senate on the line-item veto and get on with the important work in behalf of the American people. Mr. President, as I said, I am an original sponsor of the pending sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and it states simply that the House of Representatives should move to appoint conferees on S. 4, the line-item veto bill, and that we should not send appropriations bills to the President until we pass line-item veto legislation. It may seem odd to see two Democratic Senators calling for action on the line-item veto, one of the most popular plans in the Contract With America. But as long time supporters of the line-item veto, we are unhappy that such an important tool for budget discipline has apparently been lost in the bog of balanced budget politics. We ought to move the line-item veto legislation because it is a tool that can trim the fat of Government and highlight the spending choices that must be made if we are going to balance the budget. We ought to move the line-item veto legislation now because it is a tool that could save us from the budget impasse that we may be facing. Many now speculate about the coming budget train wreck. The President has already threatened to veto six of the appropriations bills passed by the House. Veto override vote counts are taking place on a tax bill that hasn't even been drafted. And White House Chief of Staff Panetta is drawing up plans for the anticipated shut down of the Government at the beginning of the fiscal year. It does not have to happen this way, and it should not happen this way. The 104th Congress could be remembered as the Congress where balanced budget changed from a slogan to the status quo. The House passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment; the Senate is one vote away from doing so. The Republican majority passed a Budget Resolution that balances the budget. The Democrats proposed an alternative that does the same, and a vast majority of our party voted for it. The President has his own balanced budget plan on the table. No longer is the debate over whether we should balance the budget--we are now talking about how we will balance the budget. This remarkable change in business-as-usual could all be lost if the debate shifts away from budget priorities and toward budget politics. Passing the line-item veto is one way to stop that from happening. If the President has the line-item veto, he does not have to shut down whole agencies because he disagrees with one or two riders in the bills that fund those agencies. He can line-item veto out the pork or the politics and send just those items back to Congress for further debate. No unnecessary show down--just a straightforward debate on spending priorities. Similarly, if the President has the line-item veto, he doesn't have to veto an entire tax bill because he objects to specific items. He can line-item veto his objections, send them back to Congress for another vote, and again force a clear national debate on spending priorities. Balancing the budget means hard choices about where taxpayer dollars should go and should not go. It is debate about what we are as a nation and what we will become. It is a serious debate--not one that ought to disintegrate into a chaotic Government shut down. Giving the President line-item veto will focus the debate on priorities and away from political points. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a strong message to the House: Pass the line-item veto that was in the Contract With America. Pass the line-item veto that passed the House and the Senate. Don't let budget politics keep us from doing what most of us believe is good budget policy. Give the President the line-item veto. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the remarkable record of public service of Brig. Gen. Michael R. Lee, the commander of the 440th Airlift Wing based on General Mitchell International Airport Air Reserve Station, Milwaukee, WI. General Lee is also responsible for the wing's subordinate groups, the 910th Airlift Group in Youngstown, OH, and the 928th Airlift Group in Chicago. He began his military career in the Reserve Officer Training Program at Oregon State University. There in 1963 he earned an undergraduate degree in business administration. After receiving his commission he went to James T. Connally Air Force Base in Texas where he completed his navigator training and went on to B-52 crew training at Castle Air Force Base in California. He then served until 1969 as a B-52 navigator at Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington. While General Lee left active duty in 1969, he continued to serve his country as a pilot in the Air Force Reserve. At Hill Air Force Base in Utah he flew C-124 transports while working as a stock broker. General Lee began to move up through the chain of command taking on more responsibility and demonstrating his strong leadership skills. During his distinguished career he has served as chief of operations plans for the 940th Air Refueling Group in 1977, in 1981 he was transferred to Headquarters 4th Air Force at McClellan Air Force Base, CA, as the director of tactical aircraft. In 1986 General Lee received his first command as commander of the 914th Tactical Airlift Group in Niagara Falls. He returned to McClellan Air Force Base in 1988 becoming the deputy chief of staff for operations at Headquarters 4th Air Force. He took command of the 445th Military Airlift Wing (Associate), at Norton Air Force Base in California and assumed his current position as commander of the 440th in Milwaukee in April of 1991. Recognizing his leadership skills and ability to earn the respect and best efforts of the men and women who serve under him, Mike Lee was promoted to the rank of brigadier general on August 12, 1992. General Lee is a highly decorated officer with more than 5,500 flying hours. His tireless service has earned him the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters, and an Air Force Commendation Medal. These honors are well deserved as the 440th, under General Lee's leadership, earned an unprecedented five awards, including Best Air Mobility Wing in 1993 at the Air Mobility Command's Worldwide Airlift Rodeo, and received his second Air Force Outstanding Unit Award in its history. Perhaps his greatest achievement while he served at the 440th was saving the Air Reserve Station at General Mitchell International Airport, from being closed. Joining forces with the local community and political leaders, the men and women of the 440th succeeded in convincing the Base Closure and Realignment Committee that their base was too valuable to be closed. I had the pleasure of working with him in this effort and was impressed with his hard work, professionalism and his ability to build such a broad coalition of support from across the State on short notice. Unfortunately for the 440th he will be leaving us to become the commander of the Air Force Reserve 22d Air Force at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia. There he will lead more than 20,000 Reservists in 14 States, control over 70 aircraft, 9 reserve wings, and 19 flying squadrons. He will be sorely missed in Wisconsin but he leaves behind one of the most capable and combat ready [[Page S 10776]] forces in the Air Force Reserve. General Lee is moving on to new challenges and opportunities and I wish him, along with his new wife, all the luck in the world, and success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and enthusiastic supporter of S. 641, the Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization. The AIDS epidemic is a continuing crisis in our Nation that shows no sign of abating. Once a problem for only a few big urban areas, the crisis has increasingly impacted people in smaller cities and rural areas. More and more Americans are seeing friends and relatives stricken with HIV disease and are struggling to find adequate services for their loved ones. Mr. President, over 2,700 Wisconsinites have been diagnosed with HIV infection and AIDS since 1985. As of March 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported 481,234 cases of AIDS nationwide. The Ryan White CARE Act has been critical for communities responding to the AIDS crisis by helping to establish coordinated health care systems. Over 300,000 people afflicted with the disease receive life-prolonging treatment through the act. This bill continues programs that help hard-hit municipal areas, support coordinated State efforts to combat AIDS, and provide primary care to special populations, including pregnant women and children. The Ryan White CARE Act represents the most effective type of government initiative; it targets State and Federal Government resources to fund comprehensive plans under the guidance of community leaders, medical professionals, affected populations, and officials at municipal, State, and Federal levels. Since the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act, Wisconsin has utilized its limited allocations to reach underserved areas of the State while concentrating resources on hard-hit communities. Care is available to citizens in every part of the State, not just a few cities. All funding in Wisconsin is provided through a consortium of community-based groups. This community oriented approach has allowed delivery of services to AIDS patients in their home, avoiding costly long-term hospitalization until absolutely necessary. The result is compassionate care for the afflicted and considerably less Medicaid spending, which saves State and Federal resources. The Ryan White CARE Act has proven invaluable in meeting the AIDS crisis, but like most government programs, has room for improvement. I am pleased to say that this bill does not simply continue the status quo of the original legislation. There are substantial changes that better target Federal resources while meeting the current threat of HIV and AIDS. These consensus changes were carefully worked out with input from those who fight the AIDS tragedy every day. The bill resolves longstanding formula inequities that pitted groups against one another. The new formula responds to the evolving dynamics of the epidemic. Using General Accounting Office recommendations, funding would now be distributed based on those currently living with AIDS and the changing cost of care. States where AIDS is widespread, but without cities designated as ``eligible metropolitan areas,'' have not qualified for title I funding. Such States, like Wisconsin, have relied on limited allocations of title II funding in order to reach the afflicted in both urban and rural areas. The revised bill changes title I and title II funding by including an estimation of the number of individuals currently living with AIDS and the costs of providing services. The new title II formula is adjusted so that cases are not double counted, which unfairly advantages some States that also have title I cities. Provisions are also included to prevent service disruptions due to the formula changes. We must improve our response to AIDS given the alarming growth of the epidemic. Few would question that AIDS is one of the leading public health threats facing our Nation and the world. As such, a unified response must be maintained. This bill contains positive changes to equitably distribute funding and allows communities to continue working together to provide the most effective treatment for AIDS victims. Mr. President, let us not get bogged down in extraneous issues that cloud the purpose of this legislation. The nature of this crisis demands targeted, compassionate treatment for those afflicted with a devastating disease. Women, children, and men of all ages and backgrounds are victims of HIV. Families and whole communities have been devastated by AIDS. They deserve our continued commitment. The Ryan White CARE Act received strong bipartisan support when originally enacted. With 63 current cosponsors of S. 641, the Senate's resolve to advance this important measure is clear and should remain undeterred. I urge my colleagues to support the Ryan White CARE Act and provide quick passage.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction Subcommittee, I voted to have the fiscal year 1996 military construction appropriations bill brought to the Senate floor. The military construction bill is $2.4 billion more than what we spent last year on military construction and $461 million more than the administration's requested level of spending for military construction. If we truly intend to reduce the budget deficit, we cannot exempt the military construction account from cuts. Especially given that the Bingaman amendment to eliminate $300 million in add-ons failed, I will be voting against final passage of the fiscal year 1996 military construction appropriations bill.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Reform Act of 1995, which I am proud to cosponsor with my friend and colleague, Senator Cohen. Our legislation offers the middle ground: it will help stop violence before it starts, and make Federal prevention programs work more efficiently and effectively. The good news, Mr. President, is that overall crime rates have bucked this trend. So we need more police officers on the streets, and more certainty of punishment. Nevertheless, prevention must also be part of our strategy--because we cannot afford to lay aside any weapons in the battle for safe streets. After all--what kind of reasonable society would pay billions for prisons, while doing nothing to prevent crime in the first place? Prevention is essential because there is empirical evidence indicating that many prevention programs now on the chopping block do stop crime before it happens. For example, a Milwaukee program, called ``Summer Stars,'' combining recreation, employment counseling and coaching resulted in a 27-percent decrease in robberies and a 40-percent reduction in auto thefts in targeted areas. And in Madison, WI, President Bush's ``weed and seed'' program reduced serious crime by almost 20 percent. Moreover, Lansing MI found that crime fell by 60 percent in two troubled neighborhoods after a cooperative effort among local law enforcement officers, schools, and social service agencies began. Yet despite the success of crime prevention efforts--and past bipartisan support led by Senator Biden--the 1995 prevention debate has been skewed by overblown rhetoric. While some opponents of prevention have simplistically labeled all programs ``pork,'' some defenders of prevention have fought only for the status quo, without answering the legitimate questions about whether each prevention program actually works--and whether all programs target those most in need. Mr. President, neither side is right. While we must not reject all prevention, there is considerably more research to be done before we can confidently assert exactly which prevention strategies work best. And there is waste and duplication among prevention programs created and expanded upon in the crime act. Our proposal takes the sensible middle ground. While preserving essential prevention programs, the bill also consolidates and eliminates others, and requires all prevention programs to prove themselves. Specifically, the bill will achieve these results in three ways. First, because there is much more we need to know about prevention programs, the evaluation mandate in our bill requires rigorous, independent evaluation of each and every prevention program funded in the compromise package; and it will require grantees to collect the data necessary for thorough evaluations to occur. In other words, you don't collect the data, you don't get the funds. Second, too much duplication has resulted in a multitude of programs where fewer could do the job. For example, the local partnership act funds largely the same kinds of programs as the local crime prevention block grant. By consolidating these programs, and eliminating the administrative structure for the local partnership act, we can save millions of dollars. Finally, in an effort to target at-risk juveniles, and in recognition of our responsibility to the American taxpayer, this legislation will either eliminate or consolidate 12 Federal crime prevention programs. The remaining programs are redirected to one of four core prevention initiatives. The net fiscal result: a cut of more than $1 billion from current crime act prevention funding levels. While I am not entirely happy about pursuing this cut in prevention funds, I propose it only as a reasonable alternative to the Republican plan for outright elimination of crime prevention funding. Mr. President, I reject the elimination of prevention because we must not give up on our young people, and resign ourselves to more victims, more criminals, and more prisons. We must ensure community safety, but merely building more prisons is like paying billions for ambulances at the bottom of a cliff yet spending nothing to build guardrails at the top. That just doesn't make sense. We must also be sure, however, that the guardrails we invest in do the job efficiently and effectively. While continuing the fight to prevent crime, our legislation will also give us more bang for our crime prevention buck. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Cohen and myself in this effort.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I would like to thank very much my colleague from Ohio for the kind words he said about this amendment and, of course, for the arguments most importantly that he has presented in support of this amendment. In the aftermath of the Milwaukee incident, Mr. President, EPA negotiated a package of regulations to protect citizens against future outbreaks. All interested parties participated in this regulatory negotiation, people like water utilities, local officials, public interest groups, and others. And now all parties have agreed to these regulations. They feel strongly about moving ahead as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the very broad list of groups that have participated in the very cooperative, commonsense regulatory process.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to insert in the Record supporters of the Kohl amendment to exempt microbial and disinfection byproduct rules from S. 343. Those organizations are: American Oceans Campaign, Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, National Association of People with AIDS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. [[Page S 9785]]

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

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, we have heard the arguments made by proponents of S. 343 stating that the emergency exemption section of this bill will protect urgent health and safety regulations in the pipeline. However, a careful reading of the legislation reveals that many essential regulations would not be protected under this section or the bill as a whole. My amendment will address a particularly serious omission: namely regulations to protect the public from the dangers of cryptosporidium and other drinking water hazards. Simply, what my amendment does is exempt pending EPA regulations regarding cryptosporidium and related waterborne parasites from the strictures of this bill. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with the cryptosporidium parasite because of the recent outbreak of this waterborne disease in my State of Wisconsin. As many may recall, the water supply in Milwaukee was contaminated with this parasite in 1993, and 104 people died. Let me repeat, 104 people died. And more than 400,000 became severely ill as a result of drinking ordinary tap water. As we continue this debate, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind, this bill is not just about how many forms businesses should be required to fill out, this bill is about peoples' lives. Over the years, we have come to take for granted the safety of our drinking water. We have done much to protect American water consumers from devastating waterborne disease and death that plagues so many other countries in the world. But we have become complacent about the safety of our drinking water--perhaps too complacent. In the aftermath of the Milwaukee cryptosporidium outbreak, EPA, water utility organizations, local government officials, and public interest groups have worked together to agree upon a plan of action. All parties agree that the cryptosporidium problem must be addressed. And now all parties have agreed on the way to fix this problem. EPA is in the process of issuing three regulations to implement this agreement, in order to prevent the devastation that crippled Milwaukee from occurring again. But S. 343 threatens to stop the process dead in its tracks. While that may not be the intention, I believe that that will be the outcome. In cooperation with the regulated industry and public interest groups, EPA is moving forward on three regulations: First, the information collection rule, which requires water utilities to collect data about the contaminants, like cryptosporidium, in their water. Based on the information collected, the next two regulations will be finalized. Second, the enhanced surface water treatment rule, which, based on the information collected, will require new treatment and filtration methods to protect against cryptosporidium and related parasites, and Third, the disinfectants/disinfection byproducts rule, which will propose standards on certain harmful byproducts that are created as a result of using chemical disinfectants to treat drinking water. This is not an example of a Federal agency issuing ridiculous regulations in a vacuum. Instead, this is an example of the Federal Government finally addressing a problem that should have been addressed long ago. And it is an example of a cooperative effort with all involved parties. Given the overwhelming need and support for these regulations, we should not be subjecting these regulations to the time consuming and extremely complicated labyrinth of S. 343. I would like to briefly mention just a few of the problems that S. 343 poses for the pending cryptosporidium protection regulations. [[Page S 9784]] First, S. 343 would stop EPA from gathering information on cryptosporidium. One of the first things EPA is doing, even before setting drinking water standards, is to gather information from water utilities to gain a better understanding of the problem. This is a common sense approach. The information gathered will help the agency and the water utilities gain a better understanding of the nature of the cryptosporidium problem and other less-known waterborne parasites. The rules cost would make this information collection rule subject to the strictures of the bill. But this creates a catch-22: The whole purpose of this rule is to gather information to be able to judge the costs and benefits of creating new standards to protect against waterborne diseases. So it would be impossible to do a cost benefit analysis on the effort to gather data. This makes no sense. A second problem with S. 343 is that it could stop EPA from issuing stronger drinking water rules altogether. Without the information collection EPA has proposed, it will be impossible for EPA to conduct a full risk assessment as required under S. 343. Further, S. 343 makes it nearly impossible for EPA to specify the technology needed to adequately treat water to address cryptosporidium. Instead, the bill requires use of least cost alternatives, and establishment of vague performance goals that make it difficult to protect consumers. It is highly unlikely that these regulations would be covered by the emergency exemption in the bill. How could the EPA possibly win a court challenge--and I am certain there would be a court challenge--on whether this rule is responding to an emergency? The information collection rule, which starts the whole process, is to determine the extent to which there is an emergency. Certainly for those of us who have watched the human devastation in Milwaukee, there is no question that an emergency exists. And I know that my colleagues from Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Nevada, and other States that have had recent outbreaks view this as an emergency, as well. But we still must determine the extent of the problem nationwide. And that's a time consuming process. Can you imagine the opponents saying, ``Well, if you're planning to spend 18 months collecting information it can't really be an `emergency.' '' One final note on the emergency exemption we have been hearing so much about. The emergency exemption just delays the cost benefit analysis requirement by 180 days. It does not waive the cost benefit analysis. Having to do a risk benefit analysis mid stream would disrupt the data collection process. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to protect the drinking water rules which are in the works. More than 45 million Americans use tap water from systems that have been found to have cryptosporidium. Everyone agrees that we have a problem here. And, everyone agrees on the solution. My reading of the Dole-Johnston bill is that it would certainly delay and even stop this solution. My amendment would ensure that does not happen. Madam President, S. 343 is intended to streamline the regulatory process and bring common sense to government. However, there are times when lack of action on the part of the Federal Government does not make sense. If we had stricter water treatment standards in place, maybe the tragedy in Milwaukee would not have happened. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I could not agree more with his comments. He is talking very clearly about the things that affect human health and safety, the things that the American people have repeatedly insisted that they care about, are concerned about, and do not want to see any mistakes made concerning their human health and safety. What happened in Milwaukee, which has happened to a lesser extent in other communities, but what happened in Milwaukee, we lost 104 people because the water developed a parasite that was not protected. What the EPA now is doing, I want to say again, the EPA is now in the process, along with water utilities and other concerned interest groups, without anybody disputing the process that is unfolding, the EPA is in the process of collecting information which will result, finally, in setting up rules and regulations regarding the treatment of drinking water. Now, I would challenge any Senator, the Senator from Utah or any other Senator, to come to Milwaukee and tell the people that in this regulatory reform bill the Milwaukee situation and the EPA process which is now unfolding is or is not absolutely protected. I think if we would have to tell them that we think it is protected but we cannot absolutely guarantee that the process that is unfolding is protective, I do not think that any public official could stand up in Milwaukee and make the case and satisfy people in Milwaukee that he or she was doing his job. We had the outbreak. We lost 104 people. And 400,000 people got sick. There is a process of unfolding to see it does not happen again, not only in Milwaukee but all across the country. What we are simply asking is that this process be guaranteed to unfold, and that there not be any chance that S. 343 could impede that happening. It seems to me, I suggest to my colleague from Utah, that is a reasonable request to make, and a reasonable assurance to ask for, as we move ahead with S. 343.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will take a minute to summarize again what my amendment is all about. We have a problem of cryptosporidium in this country. We had an outbreak in Milwaukee, and we lost 104 people, leaving 400,000 people seriously ill. We had outbreaks in a dozen other communities in the country. I will not enumerate all of those communities. But San Antonio, Jackson County, OR, Las Vegas, and we had something here in Washington, DC, recently. There is no question about the need to promulgate rules and regulations. As I said, the involved water utilities--and other interest groups-- all of them have agreed that we must set in motion the process we have to collect information and then promulgate rules to protect our water supply in this country from another outbreak of cryptosporidium. No disagreement. And that process is now under way. Now, people who have looked at S. 343, lawyers and other people--I am not a lawyer--have assured me that there is a real danger that under S. 343 as it is written the EPA process that is underway will be sidetracked, may very well be sidetracked. Some believe that it will. Some believe that it may be. What we are asking for in S. 343 is assurance that the process now underway and agreed to by EPA and water utilities and other interest groups will not be sidetracked. That is all this amendment says. Let us see to it that the process is not sidetracked. So I ask my colleagues to consider that simple consideration when they [[Page S 9791]] decide how to vote on whether or not to table this amendment which, as I understand, is going to be asked for by the opposition. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Delaware.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to make it clear that I believe this is an emergency, and I would like to think my colleague from Utah agrees we have an emergency situation here. But we also have to understand this is not a situation where there can, under any circumstances, be quick action. This is not a situation where there can be an immediate order. We understand in order to gather the information necessary to promulgate the rules and regulations some amount of time necessarily, if unhappily, but necessarily will take place, and that is why, first, we have to understand we have to gather information. So I say to my colleague from Utah that if he believes that this situation is covered in the bill, then let us just make it clear. There is no sense getting involved in belaboring the point. Again, if, as my colleague from Utah says, this matter is already addressed in the bill--I do not believe it is--but if he believes that it is addressed in the bill, then there should be no harm in reiterating this point. What I am saying is, let us not leave it later on to lawyers to dispute and to decide, to argue whether or not the bill covers this particular cryptosporidium problem. Let us simply make it clear with this amendment that it does insert it into the bill in any way in which my colleague from Utah wishes to do that, because I think I hear him saying that there is a problem with cryptosporidium that needs to be addressed. I think he has said that very clearly. He is saying that the bill addresses it. What we are saying--and what many people would say--is that the bill does not address it. So I do not think it is too much to ask of my colleague from Utah to understand that people are terribly concerned that S. 343 will not derail the cryptosporidium problem and that we are asking for his assurance in the bill that the cryptosporidium problem will not be put off the tracks because of the way in which the bill is written and because of the way in which lawyers then will be able to bring all kinds of arguments against taking action on cryptosporidium. So I think that is a reasonable request insofar as our colleague agrees that the cryptosporidium problem needs to be addressed and should not be set aside by S. 343.