[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1505-1511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     CONTAMINATED WATER IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the cities of 
America--at least many of the cities of America.
  While I was waiting for the opportunity to speak to the House and 
people of America, I went into the cloakroom and pulled out today's 
Roll Call, one of what we call the Hill rags. These are one of the 
newspapers around the Hill.
  It says ``Lead in the Water, Way Beyond Flint,'' and it talks about 
the issue of contamination in our water supplies. Indeed, they are 
quite correct.
  This would be one of maybe 20 different slides I could put up here. 
What do these cities of America have in common: Flint, Michigan; 
Toledo, Ohio; Sebring, Ohio; Baltimore, Maryland; Brick Township, New 
Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Wayne County, North Carolina; Greenville, 
North Carolina; Lakehurst Acres, Maine; Chicago, Illinois; Porterville, 
California? The list goes on and on and on. These are cities that have 
or have had contaminated water in the last couple of years. Some of 
these are ongoing.
  We hear a lot of discussion about Flint, Michigan, and the tragedy of 
the water supply in Flint, Michigan, the lead contamination, the 8,000 
or 9,000 children who have been inflicted with lead poisoning, and the 
incredible, awful effect that that will have on the development of 
their brain and of their future.
  This issue is one that we are becoming aware of. Actually, we have 
been aware of it for a long, long time. The problem is that we haven't 
done anything about it or we have done very, very little about it.
  Tonight we are going to talk about contaminated water in America, 
America's cities and towns that are providing water that is not fit to 
drink.
  So what to do? Well, we are going to have to deal with the realities 
of 8,000 to 9,000 children, their development, the potential problems 
that they face in their lives ahead. That will be basically dealing 
with the fact that we had contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, and in 
a host of other cities.
  We can't live without water. The human body requires it. If you don't 
get it, you are going to die very, very quickly. The fact of the matter 
is I am not at all sure you can live with contaminated water.
  That is the actual water that was available to residents of Flint, 
Michigan: yucky, yellow, contaminated, polluted water. Not just lead, 
but yuck. Why would you want to drink that? Well, it is all you have. 
So you don't want to, but you really don't have any choice. 
Contaminated water, what to do?
  Tonight we are going to discuss this issue. I guess one thing you can 
do is

[[Page 1506]]

what California did. In Porterville, California, when the wells went 
dry, they brought a cattle water trough similar to what I have on my 
ranch to provide water for my cattle. This water trough provided water 
for the children of Porterville, California.
  Now, there is a solution to the water crisis in California. 
Porterville isn't the only city or town in the San Joaquin Valley. In 
fact, there are dozens of towns in the San Joaquin Valley of 
California, the largest State, the richest State.
  We like to think of California, my home State, as being ahead of 
everything. I guess we are ahead in providing cattle water troughs to 
provide water for children in California. We ought to be ashamed.
  What are we going to do about it? There are 435 people here in the 
House of Representatives, and I guess there is another 100 Senators 
across the way, a President, and all the administration. What are we 
going to do about it? I guess we can look at our report card.
  This is from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Let's see. The 
2013 report card for America's infrastructure: Aviation, D; bridges, C 
plus; dams, D; down here, schools, D; roads, railroads, Cs; water--oh, 
here we are--water, a D.
  We asked them about this. We said: Why a D?
  They said: We would give them an F, but it is too much trouble to try 
to figure out how to do an F. So we just go to the lowest, which is D.
  You don't get any lower than a D from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers. That is our report card in America, folks. It is not just 
water. It is the entire infrastructure system.
  You are wondering why. Why does that happen? Take a look at this 
little chart. A sharp drop in government infrastructure spending. Let's 
see. That is 2002.
  In 2002, $330 billion spent on all infrastructure: roads, bridges, 
airports, water systems, sanitation systems. $325 billion in 2002.
  And in real 2014 dollars, nondefense spending on infrastructure, here 
we are in 2012, 2013. We are down to about $200 billion, about $125 
billion less spent on infrastructure of all kinds.
  Oh. Back to water. What about water? Where did we go with water? 
Spending on clean water and drinking water infrastructure in 2014 
deflated dollars, go back to 1973.
  In 1973, the Vietnam war was still going on. Let's see. That would be 
somewhere around $10 billion in 2014 dollars in 1973. In 2016, we are 
down to $2 billion.
  Don't be surprised when you see a list such as I put up a moment ago 
of cities in the United States that have water problems. Aging 
infrastructure, lead pipes.
  Here is a picture of a lead pipe. Corroded. You wonder why kids get 
lead poisoning. If you don't spend money on infrastructure, you are 
going to wind up with sick kids, you are going to wind up with bridges 
that collapse, you are going to wind up with a second-rate economy and 
a third-world water situation.
  By the way, that is the bridge on Interstate 5, the road from Canada 
to Mexico down the Pacific coast. The bridge collapsed.
  What happens when you don't spend money on infrastructure? Your 
economy fails, your kids get sick, and they are forced to drink water 
out of a water trough. This is not the America we want to live in. This 
is not the America the public sent us here to provide for them.
  We like to think of ourselves as the strongest, biggest, best country 
in the world, and we are in many respects, but when it comes to 
providing for the fundamentals of life--water--we get a D rating.
  We get kids getting their water supply out of a water trough. We get 
kids in Flint, Michigan, who are poisoned with lead. That is not the 
only city. It is across the United States, city after city.
  In the Central Valley of California, it is arsenic, it is lead, it is 
other contaminants. Huh-uh. We have got work to do here in the House of 
Representatives. It is our responsibility. It is our task. We can't 
toss it off to somebody else.
  So, yeah, Roll Call, you are correct: ``Lead in the Water, Way Beyond 
Flint.'' Arsenic in the water. Fecal contamination in the water. You 
name it. City after city, ancient systems, more than 100 years old, 
lead pipes which were put in the ground a century ago, leaching lead 
into the food supply. That is America.
  What would it cost? About $348 billion just for the water systems. 
How can we pay for it? Well, there is a way.
  Oh, America, are you aware that we are into a new nuclear arms race? 
We are. In the next 25 years, a trillion dollars of your tax money is 
going to be spent on a total rearmament of our nuclear weapons systems: 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, submarines, 
stealth aircraft. A trillion dollars.
  City after city in America limps along, poisoning its children with 
100-year-old water systems. We have got some choices to make here. What 
are we going to spend your tax money on? New nuclear bombs or new water 
pipes? Choices.
  Joining me tonight to discuss these sets of issues are some of my 
dear friends. Paul Tonko and I have been working on this infrastructure 
issue for 5 years now, what we call the East Coast-West Coast. I am 
going to ask Paul if he would wait just a few moments.
  Sheila Jackson Lee, you were in Flint, Michigan, last week--I guess 
yesterday, actually, for a discussion in Flint, Michigan. Share with us 
briefly, if you would, your reflections on what you saw there.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. And I thank the gentleman from 
New York for his kindness in my brief support of all of you on the 
floor.
  Let me first of all acknowledge, as I indicated, your potent and 
powerful question to America of $348 billion to solve our problem and 
are our children that valuable or are our children worth it. My answer 
is yes.
  Let me add my appreciation, though I know that he would not want to 
be in this predicament, to Congressman Kildee and the entire Michigan 
delegation who were there on Saturday.
  They stood arm in arm listening to Flint residents just to see how 
painful it is to hear a mother talk about a child with spots all over 
his body and to have her point to other children and say, ``They are 
getting sick, and I have lost my hair'' or a teacher say, ``I have 
children coming to school with pus sores.''

                              {time}  1930

  So, let me say a few points. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. And 
also have the privilege of sitting on the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee as a guest. I just want to say that we need to hold 
someone accountable, which will then generate into what the solution 
is.
  April 2014, a nonscientist--I just came out of the Rules Committee on 
science legislation--made a decision to go to Flint River. He had no 
anti-corrosion plan. Really, there lies the source of problems 
throughout a number of these cities that you have indicated. You had 
one with non-toxins. They were just breaking the law and suffering 
because of lack of money. Saving $5 million has resulted in spending 
multiple millions of dollars--maybe $1 billion-plus--to try and salvage 
this great city.
  With Governor Snyder, of course, there is no accountability. Just to 
show you an example, it is very difficult to read these emails that 
were released. The Governor indicates that this was not relevant to the 
issue.
  The main point is that while we are talking about the 
infrastructure--and I do support Mr. Kildee's effort as well as our 
colleagues in the Senate to help this city of 765 million, we must also 
hold ourselves accountable--this body of Republicans and Democrats who 
know that we must invest in infrastructure.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I sent a letter early in 
January asking for an investigation by the Department of Justice. The 
FBI is now investigating. We want to make sure there is a review of 
whether there is malfeasance.
  So, I come to the floor today to say there are many questions and 
there

[[Page 1507]]

must be many answers. I want to make sure there is an accountable 
standard. I want to say to the American people that we can't have a 
city like Flint, where decisions are made--General Motors, by the way, 
stopped using the water--that we have no anticorrosion plan. This is 
happening across America, partly, because cities are broke and because 
we have not invested in the overall infrastructure of America, as you, 
Mr. Garamendi have said on the floor over and over again.
  So, I wanted to come to the floor to thank my colleagues. Knowing how 
painful it is to represent that area, I thank Congressman Kildee for 
his leadership. Congresswoman Lawrence, who is a neighbor, is working 
with him. Congressman Conyers, Congresswoman Dingell, Sandy Levin, and 
some Senators have all been working so hard on this issue.
  Count me in as a collaborator as we stand before the American people 
and say: Send me. We are prepared to fight for more infrastructure to 
help cities across America.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. I know that your 
concerns are very real. You traveled to Flint, and you have been 
working on these issues for many, many years. Thank you for your 
participation.
  Tomorrow, the Democrats are holding their own committee hearing on 
this issue. I am certain that we will go through the issues that you 
talked about: what actually happened and who is actually responsible. 
So, that will be a discussion for tomorrow. Perhaps we will cover it on 
the floor tonight.
  Let me now turn to my colleague from New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, for 
the continuation of the East-West show.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for leading us in 
what is a very important bit of discussion.
  In a broad term, infrastructure is something that needs our immediate 
attention because of years of neglect, but it comes to that water 
infrastructure that has been highlighted of late. I like to call it the 
hidden infrastructure. It can't be out of sight, out of mind. That 
would be a very painful outcome if that is the approach that is taken 
by certainly us as legislators or by society at large.
  You are right: for a number of years, we have been discussing 
infrastructure. I have made it my goal to invest in water 
infrastructure for a number of reasons, but also because of my 
assignment on the Energy and Commerce Committee as ranking--the lead 
Democrat--on the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, which 
reports to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is through that 
subcommittee that the assignment of the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
housed. So it is important for us to maintain a vigilance, if you will, 
for the outcomes that are deemed acceptable--and that is that we do not 
receive a D on our report card for water infrastructure.
  When you shared that information, Representative Garamendi, I thought 
to myself that if any of us brought home a D on a report card, there 
would be a little bit of a challenge offered our way to improve that 
report card with the next semester. So, I believe that we have failed 
in this effort to maintain a strong Federal partnership.
  There has been a lot of finger pointing going on since the Flint, 
Michigan, issue arose in the public's awareness as a national issue. 
That finger pointing won't solve anything. But if we are going to 
finger point, we need to also internalize that. We need to look at 
Congress and what it has done.
  When you talked about the levels of funding, in the early seventies, 
I came onto my county board in 1976, in Montgomery County in upstate 
New York. I can vividly recall that we had a very lucrative revenue 
flow from the Federal Government for our water systems.
  Today, what we look at is something like a 4 percent investment 
coming from the Federal Government on the total bill. That is grossly 
inadequate. The fact that we can turn our backs on this infrastructure 
and allow situations like Flint, Michigan; Sebring, Ohio; Troy, New 
York; or Los Angeles, California, to grip us, to shock our senses and 
not respond, leaves us in a very pitiful state, I believe.
  We need to do better than that. We need to form a plan of action. 
That plan of action must include a stronger investment in the water 
infrastructure of this country.
  Now, some of that also requires, I think, an enhancement of the 
investment made in the drinking water SRF, or the State Revolving Fund. 
That fund has not been reauthorized since 2003. So we need to go 
forward and reauthorize and enhance the SRF so that our States, as 
partners with the Federal Government, can then go forward and have some 
relief in responding to the strapped cities that are really impacted by 
a declining tax base, in many cases, and the very small bit of 
population in some of our rural communities that are trying to maintain 
systems that want to speak to public health and public safety and to 
offer a commodity that is not only important, but essential.
  It is essential for the quality of life in our homes, it is essential 
for small businesses, it is essential for our manufacturing base, it is 
essential for our farming community. All of this requires water. Many 
suggest that we are transitioning from an oil-based economy to a water-
based economy.
  So, if we are anticipating greater use and reliance on water as a 
commodity, let's put our act into working order. That means that you 
invest not like we did last year, where the outcome was at some $843 
million, which was some $43 million worth of a cut. That is completely 
going in the wrong direction. That is not listening to the needs of 
local government or to the basic, core essential need of sound drinking 
water, clean drinking water.
  It is blue infrastructure. That is what we need to invest in--making 
certain that we have an abundance and an essential supply of clean 
drinking water. It is absolutely mandatory in a modern economy. If we 
are going to compete effectively in an innovation economy, we need to 
provide the essentials, including water, to the business, residential, 
and ag community.
  When I look at some of the neglect, it is so interesting to see that 
we wait for crises like that of Flint. Does Flint require Federal 
investment? Absolutely. I stand ready and willing to assist Flint. I 
would rank what happened there as immoral.
  So, we need to move forward and assist Flint, but the saga shouldn't 
begin and end there. We need to create a national response that 
empowers our communities across the country. We need to have 
interaction and dialogue at the table to best understand where we have 
fallen down, where we have failed.
  We need to have officials from Flint, Michigan, and from the State of 
Michigan here to testify. I don't think it is appropriate for Governor 
Snyder of that State to walk away from that invitation.
  It is important for us to go forward with the sort of communication, 
the dialogue, that will build the soundest response. And if we do not 
respond out of necessity to Flint, Michigan; Troy, New York, Sebring, 
Ohio; and Los Angeles, and the list continues to grow, we will then 
just see these issues keep rising in our communities.
  When I last saw Troy, New York's dilemma, they were repairing things 
in the worst weather--conditions that were near zero, where they needed 
to heat the site in order to weld the materials that were completing 
the project. A major line, Representative Garamendi, broke. It was 
their main line. A 33-inch pipe was shooting water 100 feet into the 
air. Ten million gallons of water went into the street.
  Are we going to sit back and say that is acceptable in a Nation like 
this--a Nation of abundance--that considers itself a world leader? No 
world-leading nation can ignore its infrastructure like we have ignored 
the water infrastructure.
  Blue infrastructure is what we should be about: providing that clean 
drinking water. We have nearly a quarter of a million breaks annually 
in the systems from coast-to-coast. A quarter of a million. There are 
700-some breaks per day.

[[Page 1508]]

  Think about it. That wouldn't be acceptable to an ordinary business 
plan of any type. It should not be acceptable to the Federal Government 
plan in assisting communities with the sound commodity of drinking 
water.
  So, Representative Garamendi, I am just thrilled to join you this 
evening to continue to carry the message forward that we need action, 
we need a plan of action, we need commitment, and we need resources. It 
begins now. Every missed opportunity here will perhaps cause the 
opportunity for yet another tragedy in a community that just should not 
happen.
  Again, it is about investing soundly, effectively, and appropriately, 
in what it is an essential commodity: water for our communities.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very, very much. You brought 
to this issue enormous facts and passion. Your work as the ranking 
member on the subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
positions you in a very, very important place. Your passion and 
knowledge should help carry the day on this.
  Mr. Tonko, if you can stick around, we will come back to this one 
more time.
  I would like now to call on my colleague from California, Mr. Ted 
Lieu from Los Angeles.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for 
your work on clean water and for highlighting this issue in Flint, as 
well as in communities across America.
  I sit on the Oversight Committee. On February 3, we held a hearing on 
the Flint water crisis. Based on the information presented, it is clear 
to me that what happened in Flint was a crime of epic proportions. Tens 
of thousands of women, children, and men were poisoned when lead 
leached from lead pipes into the drinking water. Those who were most 
responsible know who they are. They should resign. Some of them should 
be prosecuted.
  We need to make sure that we do what is right for the residents of 
Flint, as well as other communities across America, and make sure this 
never happens again. It is clear that this is not an issue just in 
Flint, but the problem with toxic water is an issue across our Nation.

                              {time}  1945

  Washington, D.C., had elevated levels of lead in 2000. Sebring, Ohio, 
now has elevated levels of lead. And there was a report by the Natural 
Resources Defense Council in 2011 that showed 19 cities had toxic 
issues with their drinking water.
  There are a variety of solutions. First of all, we need to fund the 
CDC lead abatement program that had been cut by the Republican 
legislature in 2002. We need to restore funding and fully fund that 
program.
  We need to also make a strong investment in improving our water 
infrastructure. I sit on the Budget Committee. I will be putting in 
amendments to make sure that we increase funding to water 
infrastructure across America.
  And we need to look at alternatives to lead pipes. An article in 
Salon noted that we have many cities across America now using PVC 
pipes, also known as plastic pipes, as an eco-friendly alternative.
  Canadian and American cities have had success with these pipes. They 
last longer than metal pipes, over 100 years. They do not corrode. They 
do not leach, and they do not contain lead.
  What is happening in Flint, they are looking at a short-term 
solution, which is to recoat their lead pipes. I believe that is not 
acceptable. I believe the Governor needs to come in and replace all the 
lead pipes with a nonlead alternative.
  The mayor of Flint has called for full replacement. I support that. I 
know Representative Garamendi and others support that.
  I want to give great credit to the great work by Representative 
Kildee for his constituents in Flint.
  I also want to note that if we don't do something now, who knows 
whether your children or your grandchildren will be poisoned by lead in 
your drinking water.
  It is very important that we make enormous infrastructure 
investments, and the time to do that is now.
  Thank you again, Representative Garamendi, for highlighting this 
issue.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Lieu, you said you are on the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee. You had the hearing last week and began 
the process of developing an understanding of what happened and who was 
responsible. Critically important.
  You also said you are on the Budget Committee. So if I might just 
lobby you for a moment--
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Absolutely.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me just lobby you. You are going to be taking up 
the budget--I think tomorrow, actually.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. We have various markups coming up. That 
is correct.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Okay. So the budget is going to be coming up, and that 
is the allocation of the $4 trillion that the Federal Government will 
spend. We will be spending it on education. We will be spending it on 
roads, on the military and the like.
  Let me just toss you some numbers for your consideration. Now, these 
are adjusted 2015 dollars, so we are keeping equal-value dollars.
  In 2007, the State Revolving Fund for Drinking Water, which Mr. Tonko 
talked about, had $957 million for that program. That goes to the 
States to repair their water systems. And it stayed around $900 million 
the next year.
  And then we had the stimulus bill in 2009, and we spent $3 billion. 
Then we went back down, $1.5 billion, $1 billion, $947 million, and we 
stayed somewhere in the range of $900 million through 2016. So that is 
the current year. And that is $863 million that we are spending this 
year on the State Revolving Fund.
  Keep in mind that it is estimated that we need $328 billion to repair 
all the pipes.
  Now, the President's budget has $1.2 billion for the coming year. He 
just introduced that today.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Right.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Okay. Also, in the President's budget, he has $1.36 
billion for the new Long Range Strike Bomber; $113 million for a 
ground-based strategic deterrence; $1.4 billion for the Ohio class 
submarine--those are nuclear submarines; the new long-range cruise 
missile, $995 million; to rebuild the B61 bomb, $137 million; and the 
total amount that the National Nuclear Security Administration is 
spending this new year, 2017, $9.24 billion.
  Now, it would seem to me that this is just in the nuclear enterprise. 
These are our nuclear weapons.
  So my lobbying is this: When you put together the budget, could you 
somehow squeeze out of the nuclear arms race that we are engaged in 
about a billion dollars so that we can stop poisoning our children?
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. You made some very good points. And, as 
you know, America is the leading economy in the world. Our GDP is 
greater than the next two countries combined. We certainly have the 
resources to make sure we don't poison our kids with lead in their 
water or other toxic material.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Just double, if you would, just double the amount we 
are spending for the clean drinking water programs at the Federal level 
from about $1 billion to, let's say, $2 billion, or maybe even $3 
billion, by squeezing some of the expenditures that we find in other 
accounts.
  My particular target is the nuclear weapons account, which will in 
the next 25 years cost the American taxpayers $1 trillion. So when you 
go to the hearing, keep that in mind.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Thank you for raising that issue. I will 
absolutely look into it. I am glad you brought it up. So let me look 
into that issue.
  I do want to say something about what Representative Tonko mentioned, 
which is the hundreds of water main breaks we have daily. That just 
shows a crumbling infrastructure. In America, in the 21st century, that 
should not be happening.
  What we saw in Flint and we are seeing in other cities across America 
is a

[[Page 1509]]

result of disinvestment in our government, in cities and 
municipalities. You get what you pay for, and right now, we are getting 
children that are being poisoned with lead. So we need to increase 
investment.
  I will look into the issues you raised, Representative Garamendi. 
Thank you for highlighting these issues.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the opportunity to lobby you. You are in 
a very important position, as are all of us; 435 of us are going to 
make choices about what is important and how we spend our constituents' 
tax money. And these are choices we are going to make.
  We often don't really look at it, but the budget that will be 
forthcoming, the President's budget, and then the response of this 
House to that budget, will allocate that $4 trillion across a whole 
variety of programs.
  We really do have the opportunity here, as we put together the budget 
and then the appropriations following, to take up the challenge that 
Mr. Tonko put before us in the State Revolving Fund.
  Mr. Lieu, thank you so very much for joining us.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Thank you. I look forward to working with 
you and Representative Tonko and others to make sure we invest in 
America.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We appreciate you being here. Thank you so very much.
  Well, Mr. Tonko, lead pipes.
  Mr. TONKO. Lead pipes. The $863 million in the Drinking Water SRF of 
which I spoke is a lot of money. But when you put it into context of 
maybe 10 million lead service lines in the country, when you think of 
infrastructure that is beyond 100 years old--when I did tours--I have 
been doing tours in my district of the water systems, and I have found 
systems as old as 145 years. That is when Rutherford B. Hayes was in 
the White House.
  And I saw pipes that were 8-inch in diameter reduced to 4-inch flow 
because of calcification. I saw pipes removed because of corrosion by 
the acidity of soils that has taken its toll.
  You think of new technology, invention, innovation, gauges that can 
be utilized, liners that can be put in certain pipes for extending the 
useful life, things that we can be doing that provide for preventative 
maintenance and speak to public health and public safety.
  You know, it is a bit of wonderment, isn't it, that we will trade our 
cell phones every other year, or perhaps every year, because they have 
got a new product on the shelf; or will trade in our screens, our TV 
screens, because they are simply not big enough; or the car has got too 
many miles or we just came to dislike the color, and so we trade in the 
automobile every three, 4 years. But we are content to live with water 
pipes for 145 years. It defies human logic. Why do we accept that?
  Why don't we dig into this hidden infrastructure and invest in a way 
that will avoid thousands of families being impacted by contamination 
of lead?
  Children, innocent children impacted by societal neglect. Investment 
that ought to be highest priority, not put on the back burner.
  Well, the response, as we know, is: How are you going to pay for it? 
What is the cost?
  What is the cost of doing something? Let's contrast that with the 
cost of not doing something.
  What are the bills going to be?
  For Flint, Michigan, alone, we don't think people are going to stay 
silent with this tragedy in their lives. What is the impact to 
industry?
  When I saw these lines burst in the city of Troy, New York, this 
winter, businesses were shut down. Schools were shut. They were closed 
for days. Families didn't have water in their homes.
  What is the cost? What is the price tag?
  So it needs to be a framework that is large enough to calculate the 
human impact, the financial impact, societal impact, the economic 
consequences. These are real.
  Again, we are a country, a people that can claim the pioneer spirit 
within our DNA. How do we dare say ``no'' to what ought to be a sound 
investment, to grow jobs, maintain jobs, to compete effectively on a 
global scale in an innovation economy?
  We can do better. We must do better.
  And when we look at the situations out there where we have convinced 
ourselves that we are not worthy of investment, that is not leadership. 
We are trying to stall and pass it on to the next generation.
  Well, this generation that will be that next generation of leaders is 
being impacted healthwise as we speak. Unacceptable. Immoral. We can do 
better.
  Representative Garamendi, I know there are voices that really want to 
produce here and do this progressive bit of investment that will 
strengthen our communities.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. As you were talking, I think back when I was growing 
up, and we used to call this, not infrastructure, we used to call this 
``public works.'' Public works.
  This is for the public. It is infrastructure, but this is the public 
investment in the things that an individual, even a private company, 
cannot do. This is something that we do as a community in the public 
domain.
  It is work. We are talking, if we were to invest $2 billion this 
coming year in these community water systems, we would actually 
generate thousands of jobs, and we would increase the economic growth 
immediately.
  It has been estimated that for every dollar you put into public 
works, infrastructure, you immediately increase the economy by $1.3, 
$1.4. So this is a way of investing immediately, putting people to work 
in good, middle class jobs, and laying in the public works for future 
economic growth and, as you just said so eloquently, protecting our 
health, our children's health. So this is absolutely essential.
  We are at a very propitious moment. The President proposed today the 
budget for the United States of America's next fiscal year, beginning 
October 1, 2016.

                              {time}  2000

  It is his proposal on how to spend about $4 trillion of taxpayer 
money and debt. We, as the representatives of the people of the United 
States, will take that and modify it.
  What if we just made one modification in that $4 trillion and said: 
We are going to spend an additional billion dollars or an additional $2 
billion on public works water systems? What would it mean?
  The 140-year-old pipes that you talked about, could they be replaced? 
Could the 250,000 water main breaks across the United States be reduced 
to maybe just 200,000?
  People going to work, engineers designing the system, financiers 
figuring out how to put together the local money, the State money, and 
the Federal money, generating jobs, growing our economy, and stopping 
the poisoning of our children.
  The President proposed his budget today. Tomorrow our colleagues take 
up the budget and begin to decide how to move that money to things that 
are a priority. Here we are.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, when we talk about the 
infrastructure hidden beneath the surface of the streets and scape of 
our communities, it is hard to imagine wooden pipes along with those 
decrepit 145-year-old pipes in calcification galore.
  The enormity of the situation needs to be perhaps graphically shared. 
Under the city of Albany, the capital of New York, which is part of the 
20th Congressional District that I represent, happens to lie 317 miles 
of pipe, drinking water infrastructure.
  You could travel from Albany, New York, to Baltimore, Maryland. That 
is the sort of linear responsibility associated with that system. 
Should we anticipate rightfully that there may be some bumps along the 
road of that 317-mile stretch in any given year?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. A pothole, maybe?
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. So let's think of it in those sorts of terms 
so that we can have a better understanding and awareness of an aged 
infrastructure, which, by the way, is also accompanied by a 
discontinued inventory in many cases.
  Valves that are required are no longer manufactured. So we have to

[[Page 1510]]

come up with some innovative response when there is a break.
  While we have talked a lot about capital improvements, capital 
infrastructure, and physical infrastructure that is required to pay for 
and build back these systems, there is also that third leg of the 
stool: human infrastructure.
  When I tour these water systems in my district, one of the learning 
curves is the declining effort of professionals--not their effort--the 
declining numbers of professionals who have the awesome responsibility 
of operating and maintaining these systems.
  So the education, the training, the retraining, the higher education, 
and the certification of individuals who make these systems work and 
provide for that water when you turn on the tap, they are there.
  But there is an aging out because I think we have ignored this. So 
career paths have not been developed in the minds of students to go 
into this sort of science. And it is an important, awesome 
responsibility.
  Will that institutional knowledge be passed on or will we just go 
without? So the human infrastructure is an important piece of this 
puzzle, also, to have the qualified women and men conducting their 
professionalism to serve the community.
  So when you turn that tap on and anticipate--rightfully again--that 
clean drinking water is the result, think of all the decisionmaking, 
think of all the investment, think of the stewardship, and the 
operating know-how that is required. It is awesome.
  It is also a system, as we have been shown, that, when there is 
failure, you can have a large number of people impacted and in severe 
measure.
  So I believe that this Nation cares about its drinking water capacity 
and state of purity and sound condition. They want that abundant supply 
of clean water, and we need stronger partnership from the Federal level 
being more committed, more lucrative funding streams to the States, and 
then the States incorporating with their local communities to come up 
with innovative concepts.
  My gosh, we are producing new materials that perhaps won't corrode as 
easily or that can retrofit the given systems. We have gauges that can 
tell us where the next break may come. So you are dealing with the 
know-how that provides for the most effective and efficient outcome 
from a taxpayer perspective.
  All of this technology with software to accompany it is available. 
But, again, the technical assistance, the grants, the loans--affordable 
loans--that we can advance to the communities are important steps in 
the process of providing for a 21st-century infrastructure.
  We shouldn't be content with a D on our report card. D means 
devastating. D means dangerous. D means in decline. Let's move forward 
and advance for that A on the report card.
  I know you wanted those As on your report card, Mr. Garamendi. I 
wanted them on mine.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The art of the possible. The art of the possible is 
what we have here.
  Mr. Tonko, I don't know where you were when I brought this up. This 
is the drinking water in Flint, Michigan. That is a recent photo from a 
water tap in Flint, Michigan. Unacceptable. The bottom line is it is 
unacceptable. Not only is it dirty, it is poisonous.
  Mr. TONKO. And frightening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It is poisonous.
  So we are going to make some choices. My plea to my colleagues here--
and it echoes what you said--you can talk about it in terms of jobs. 
Thousands and thousands of jobs would be created if we invested in our 
infrastructure, our public works, and the water systems.
  Is the money available to do it? If we make the right choice, it is. 
If we make the right choice to invest in ending the poisoning of our 
children, it is there. We can move $4 trillion around in one way or 
another and build modern infrastructure. We could do that.
  We are going to do it now. We are going to do it now. The issue of 
the budget begins today. In the United States Congress, 535 American 
citizens are brought to this Capitol to make decisions about the health 
and the safety of their children. We have been given that 
responsibility.
  God knows there is enough money around $4 trillion to find a way to 
spend the money to build the water systems to stop the poisoning of our 
children. It is just a matter of choices.
  What do we choose to do? Refurbish a nuclear bomb that, God willing, 
we would never ever even think about using? That is our choice. It is 
our choice.
  As your representatives, we can move money into providing the public 
works to meet the fundamental human need, in this case, drinkable, 
potable, safe water. It is fundamental.
  You cannot live but 3 days without water, and the last 2 days aren't 
worth living anyway because you are comatose. Water. Choices. Public 
works. Investment in the future. Jobs today. Engineers, as you talked 
about. Financial. All of that.
  It is disheartening. I hear my colleagues like Sheila Jackson Lee 
come in and talk about going to Flint, Michigan. I will never forget 
Mr. Kildee on the floor last Thursday.
  I asked him to talk to me about that young child that you saw in your 
community that you represent. He said the kid turned to him and said: I 
am not going to be smart enough. We make choices.
  Mr. TONKO. Think of the reduction in the quality of life there. We 
commend Representative Kildee, Representative Lawrence, and all of the 
members of the Michigan delegation for the work that they have done.
  Again, to the price tag, the cost, let's look at the other side. 
Earlier I talked about 7 billion--7 billion--gallons of water lost with 
these main breaks, with these breaks of any kind. 7 billion gallons.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Can we talk about the California drought in this 
context?
  Mr. TONKO. Exactly. Can you ill afford any waste of water? But it is 
not just water coming through those pipes. It is tax dollars flowing 
with that water. It is treated water.
  So it is foolish for us to continue along this path of hidden 
infrastructure mentality because, when it is not addressed, water and 
tax dollars--hard-earned constituent money--are flowing out of those 
pipes.
  Before I came here, Representative Garamendi, you know that I worked 
at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy, Research, and Development 
Authority.
  We got national awards for energy efficiency incorporated at water 
treatment facilities. So we took that effort to reduce the price tag of 
day-to-day operational costs.
  There are ways to save money. A broken pipe is pouring money down the 
drain. So let's stop that foolish expenditure and go wisely to the 
investment that enables us with our intellect, our passion, and our 
sense of virtue to get things done correctly.
  Generations before us had that vision. Pioneers built this country. 
People came here as immigrants and tethered their American Dream.
  They climbed the ladder of opportunity and built strong communities 
based on that American Dream, and we in our present moment can't find 
it within ourselves to address those basic core needs?
  We pride ourselves on being a modern society and having the luxury of 
clean water. The blue infrastructure moment is now. Let's invest in 
that clean water infrastructure. Let's not torture our communities. 
Let's not disrespect our children. We are better than that.
  We have the engineering savvy. We have the academic prowess. We have 
the intellectual capacity. Now do we have the will? I believe we do.
  I believe this country, if asked: ``Do you want to invest in 
America's drinking water systems?'' would say a resounding yes. Flint, 
Michigan; Sebring, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; Troy, New York--the 
list goes on and on.
  If we do nothing, we should anticipate that this list will continue 
to make a growing, passionate statement that we are dragging our feet. 
We are allowing a hidden infrastructure to be truly that, hidden, out 
of sight and out of mind.
  Don't burden us with the responsibility. Don't share the facts. It is 
too

[[Page 1511]]

painful. I don't want to hear that it is going to cost us something.
  We see what the cost is. Representative Garamendi held up the photo 
of that polluted water, that poisonous water. That is unacceptable in a 
country as great as America. Unacceptable.
  We have invested in the soundness of education, research, and 
innovation, and to not utilize the byproducts of those investments is 
sheer foolishness. It is not exercising the love of country that needs 
to be engaged in this Chamber and across the country.
  We can get this done. I am a firm believer--firm believer--that, with 
voices resonating in chorus about this issue and the connected 
tragedies of disinvestment, we will get it done. We will get it done.
  Representative Garamendi, I appreciate the efforts you make to bring 
these issues to the attention of the American public.
  For those who listen at home and watch at home, encourage your 
representatives to get on board with the investment in our clean 
drinking water infrastructure. It is so critical.
  This moment can bring us together. This isn't about a partisan issue. 
We didn't ask those children what party their families may be assigned, 
have chosen. This serves us all.
  Let's go forward united in the voice and the passion to get it done, 
the determination and the integrity to say that we had a challenge and, 
in the old American way, we responded to it and succeeded.
  Again, thank you for bringing us together.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, I wasn't in Flint, Michigan when 
Representative Kildee spoke to that young child--I think he was 
probably 4 or 5--who had been drinking this lead contaminated water, 
and was aware that he had been drinking the water. When that young kid 
turned to Mr. Kildee and said: I am afraid I won't be smart enough, I 
visualize it.
  My question to you, to myself, and to my colleagues here in the House 
of Representatives and across the way in the Senate is: Will we be 
smart enough to protect our children? I think we must be smart enough 
to do that.
  Mr. TONKO. When it comes to smart, incorporating this work with the 
appropriate agencies--the EPA and the DEC in my home State of New 
York--there is a situation very close to my district in Hoosick Falls 
that is going through a similar contaminated water situation critical 
to their quality of life and their public health.
  We need to advance that partnership, that soundness of checks and 
balances, that will make certain that every bit of the way it is based 
on responsibility and professionalism and good faith efforts.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I was just thinking about your community that you 
mentioned, Albany and the like. I represent the University of 
California, Davis, in Davis, California. I think they have got maybe 12 
wells that provide most of the water. About half of those wells are 
contaminated. They are building a new water system, and it should go 
online in the next few months, or maybe a year, or maybe sooner. They 
are investing. Perhaps they got some of this money from the State 
revolving fund.
  It is an example of a community that wrestled with this for about a 
decade. They turned out to be smart enough to address it. They did it 
with their neighboring community of Woodland. A new water system is 
going into place. They will have safe drinking water.
  There are other communities spread throughout California that don't 
have the same opportunity. It is our task to address this. I think we 
are smart enough to do so. I think there is enough money in the system 
to do it.
  Mr. Tonko, would you like to do a quick 15 second wrap?
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the speaker for the opportunity to share thoughts 
on the floor here this evening.
  Blue infrastructure, let's get it done. Let's provide America one of 
her core basic needs.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________