[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4839-S4840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. SARBANES):
  S. 2377. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that 
the District of Columbia and States are provided with a safe, lead-free 
supply of drinking water; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead-Free 
Drinking Water Act of 2004 with my colleague Senator Sarbanes. We are 
joined by our colleagues, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Waxman, and 
others, who will be introducing the House companion bill today.
  I was horrified, as I imagine we all were, when it was first reported 
that lead levels in DC public water system was significantly higher 
than Federal guidelines, and had been so for at least two years. I 
asked myself the same thing thousands of DC residents were asking 
themselves--why weren't we told about this sooner. How much water did I 
drink? How much water did my children drink? What are the effects of 
lead in our blood stream? What are the long-term effects? What are we 
going to do about it?
  This is a pretty sad situation no matter where you live, but it is 
especially upsetting when you live in the Capital

[[Page S4840]]

of the free world. Clearly, mistakes were made and changes are needed--
because if it can happen in Washington, DC or Boston, it can happen 
anywhere.
  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the 
ranking member, held a hearing on this issue last month, and we heard 
some pretty compelling testimony from DC residents, health experts, 
risk management professionals and government officials.
  But we are going to do more than just hold hearings; today we are 
introducing the Lead-Free Drinking Waste Act of 2004.
  Our bill will overhaul the Safe Drinking Water Act to strengthen the 
Federal rules governing lead testing and regulations in our public 
water systems to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens--infants, 
children, pregnant women, and new moms--are not harmed by lead in the 
drinking water.
  Specifically, the bill requires the EPA to re-evaluate the current 
regulatory structure to figure out if it really provides the level of 
public health protection required.
  The bill calls on the EPA to establish a maximum contaminant level 
for lead at the tap, and if that is not practical given the presence of 
lead inside home plumbing systems, the bill requires EPA to re-evaluate 
the current action level for lead to ensure that vulnerable populations 
such as infants, children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers receive 
adequate protection.
  I look forward to working with EPA on this evaluation to determine 
which approach is most feasible and which provides the greatest level 
of public health protection.
  EPA has three choices--keep current standard, an ``action level'' at 
15 parts per billion; lower the current action level below 15 parts per 
billion; or establish a ``maximum contaminant load.''
  For example, it is clear that a maximum contaminant level, which is 
measured at the water treatment plant, would do little to protect 
people from lead-contaminated drinking water at their faucets. Our bill 
requires that standards be measured at the top.
  It is also clear that a low lead action level measured at the tap 
could provide more protection than a high MCL measured anywhere in the 
system if there were extremely strong and effective public notification 
procedures in place.
  Public notice is the key to success of any lead regulation-parents 
say to me, ``If only I had known, I could have protected my family.'' 
It is our job to be sure the public notice system we have in place gets 
people the information they need when they need it.
  The bill will require that information such as the number of homes 
tested, the lead levels found, the areas of the community in which they 
were located, and the disproportionate adverse health effects of lead 
on infants, be made public immediately upon detection of lead.
  In addition, the bill requires that, as part of routine testing 
conducted, any residents whose homes test high for lead receive 
notification within 14 days, and appropriate medical referrals.
  Finally, we don't want the day of an exceedance to be the first time 
people have heard about lead in drinking water. The bill establishes a 
basic public education program to ensure that people have a basic 
understanding that lead may be present in drinking water and what the 
corrective actions might be even before their water system detects a 
problem.
  Right now, EPA can't say if we have a national problem or not. We 
need one-time nationwide testing for lead in drinking water at all 
water systems to determine if DC is an isolated case or if there are 
other ``sleeping giants'' out there.
  The bill requires increased water testing and lead remediation in 
schools and day-care centers nationwide. This provision exists in law 
today, but it was affected by previous litigation. This bill corrects 
the problem by requiring the Administrator to execute this program if 
States choose not to. It is wholly unacceptable to do anything less 
than provide a learning environment for our next generation that does 
not degrade their intellectual capacity. Our bill provides $150 million 
over five years for this program. And we strengthen existing 
requirements to ensure that ALL lead service lines will be replaced by 
a public water system at a rate of 10 percent per year until they are 
gone. It provides more Federal funding to upgrade water distribution 
systems to replace lead service lines.
  This is common sense--let's get rid of the lead in our distribution 
systems and get rid of the lead in our water.
  Our bill makes the water systems responsible for replacing lead 
service lines, including the privately-owned sections, once a system 
exceeds lead standards. Homeowners have the final say in whether their 
line is replaced. We provide $1 billion over five years for lead 
service line replacement.
  The EPA estimates that our Nation needs 265 billion dollars to 
maintain and improve its drinking water infrastructure over the next 
twenty years. If we don't address this, we will be facing more and more 
health and environmental issues as our Nation's water infrastructure 
degrades.
  Lead service lines are only one part of the picture. Leaded solder 
was banned in 1987. However, ``lead-free'' plumbing fixtures are 
currently allowed to have eight percent lead. Our bill bans leaded 
plumbing fixtures and components.
  It is time to get the lead out of our pipes, out of our water, out of 
our families and out of our lives. Safe drinking water is not a 
privilege; it is a right--whether you live in Washington, DC, or 
Washington State or Washington County, VT.
  We hope to move this bill this year. My Committee is scheduled to 
consider water infrastructure legislation later this month, and I think 
the ``Lead-Free Drinking Water Act of 2004'' would be an important 
addition to that bill.
  I just want to say it has been an honor to work with Senator 
Sarbanes, Congresswoman Norton, and Congressman Waxman on this vitally 
important issue.
                                 ______