The Subcommittee will now come to order and the Chair wishes to recognize himself for five minutes for the purpose of delivery an opening statement.

In late January of this year, the local press here in Washington began reporting that the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) had found elevated lead levels in the drinking water of more than 4,000 homes in Washington, DC, during testing done in 2003. This news in and of itself would have been cause for concern, except these reports signaled that not only was WASA, once again, having problems complying with Federal advisory levels, but it was now the only large municipal drinking water utility whose chronic problems could not be remedied.

Between that time and now, several congressional committees have tried to understand this situation and the Safe Drinking Water Act as it applies to lead levels. I applaud them for their earnestness, however, I am afraid that in their rush to show outrage and interest in drinking water standards they failed to obtain any meaningful answers to the plight of those people who live and work in D.C. I believe that in order to fully grasp the issues in D.C., you have to understand the Federal rules for lead in drinking water. To appreciate these regulations, you have to comprehend the Safe Drinking Water Act. To completely take hold of the Safe Drinking Water Act, you have to understand public health and the things that go into protecting it from the source.

As the Subcommittee with sole jurisdiction over the drinking water act and one that is charged by the House of Representatives with defending public health, I wanted to ensure that any work done by our panel be thoughtful, comprehensive, deliberate, substantive, and meaningful. On March 15, 2004, I launched a full inquiry into this matter by sending letters to WASA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to do a full study of the matter, and asking staff to research and understand the intricacies of the problem and to examine places that needed follow-up.

Today's hearing gives us all a chance to digest many of things this inquiry has uncovered and I am glad that this committee resisted style for substance. First, it talks about the many places where the D.C. situation went wrong, what is being done to make it right, and the lessons learned along the way. Second, it allows us to look at issues within the Lead and Copper Rule, including public notification, and how other communities have used this rule to handle elevated amounts of lead in their drinking water. Finally, this hearing will allow our panel to delve into the issue of providing safe drinking water and how our nation's infrastructure is presenting both a problem and a solution for this future need.

Some have tried to use the plight of D.C. to argue for an overhaul of existing lead standards, suggesting that the Federal standard for lead in drinking water is too high and should be tightened. As the father of three young boys, I am well aware of the dangers lead presents to young minds. However, as we enter this hearing, I am not convinced that this situation demands that we need to make drinking water utilities face tougher standards. Rather, I believe that we need people to live up to the full extent of these standards as written. I believe that what has happened to the drinking water in our Nation's Capital is that persons have failed them, not laws.

Let me cite a few examples:

• WASA's problems with lead advisory compliance levels include three (3) instances between January 1992 and 1994.
• A report from the Inspector General of the District of Columbia, dated February 2002, recognized non-compliant levels of lead in employee drinking water fountains at WASA's Blue Plains Water Treatment facility.
• WASA-provided drinking water exceeded the Federal limit three (3) more times between 2002 and the present. Many of these test readings showed elevated lead in WASA-provided drinking water went beyond the Federal standard by 200 times.
• WASA employees attempted to invalidate drinking water test results that would have otherwise clearly have shown a problem needed to be addressed.
• From March 26 to April 6, 2004, sampling at D.C. public schools found 43 drinking water fountains and sinks with excessive levels of lead in the water -- one school had a fixture with a lead level of 7,300 parts per billion - reaching more 487 times the Federal standard.
• This spring, WASA struggled to follow Federal guidelines to alert the people of D.C. to the high levels of lead in the drinking water as well as provide its customer base with devices to help them filter their water.
• Last month, EPA determined that WASA had failed to comply with numerous lead sampling, public notification, and reporting requirements. This will probably result in several criminal and civil proceedings that will tarnish WASA's reputation and damage public confidence in its product.

That being said, we also need to make sure the drinking water problems in D.C. are not a national phenomenon. I do not believe it is, but our witnesses here will help us begin to understand the efforts of 54,000 community water systems to provide about 90 percent of Americans with their tap water. Two years ago, our Subcommittee heard testimony from many of the water utilities that the greatest challenge facing community water systems today is aging pipes and other water infrastructure. We need to understand if this priority has changed and, if so, how much? In addition, as authorizers, we need a better command of the financial needs of the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). Our Subcommittee should not let the House Appropriations Committee shortchange the important work of this SRF, simply because they do not understand it.

Before, I conclude my remarks and recognize the Gentle lady from California, Mrs. Solis, for some opening remarks of her own, I want to thank the witnesses for their time today. Some of them are getting very familiar with each other, probably more familiar than some of them would like. Regardless, each of them provides invaluable insight into the problems we are confronting today and I want them to know we appreciate the sacrifice they are making to be with us.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and now recognize, Mrs. Solis for five minutes for the purposes of delivering an opening statement.