It has been many months since we first learned from The Washington Post that drinking water in the Nation's capital is contaminated with lead and is frequently not fit to drink straight from the tap. Multiple hearings have already been held in the House and Senate since the story broke. This is the first opportunity, however, that we have had in this Subcommittee to deal with this and other pressing drinking water issues. This Subcommittee is charged with oversight of drinking water matters in the House and so we have a special responsibility to ensure that we exercise vigorous oversight to protect the public interest. I welcome the chance to begin to get to the bottom of this and other pressing drinking water concerns.

The origin of the drinking water crisis in Washington appears to stem in part from problems in management and communications at the local and federal level. But the drinking water crisis here in Washington also highlights the apparent absence of adequate regulations in this area. I, along with Rep. Solis, and several colleagues in the U.S. Senate, have asked the GAO to evaluate the effectiveness of the lead and copper rule and we are very interested in the results of that effort.

I understand the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also currently reviewing the lead regulations and has held a few workshops on the matter. I look forward to hearing more about what specific steps are being taken and I would like to know what the time-line is for action in this effort. Given what may be at stake, including the health of our children and grandchildren, I suggest that an aggressive and rapid response is in order.

A broader problem highlighted by the Washington drinking water crisis is the neglected and decayed infrastructures of our public water systems. These systems protect the public health and provide safe drinking water for our citizens, yet are often aging and often in disrepair. For example, in Detroit, pipes that were first installed in 1887 - over 100 years ago - are still being used. The EPA reported in 2001 that the current needs to ensure provision of safe drinking water to our people are $102.5 billion and growing - a huge sum of money. Billions more will be needed for future years.

At the last subcommittee hearing on this issue in April 2002, witnesses from the Association for State Drinking Water Administrators, American Metropolitan Water Association, National League of Cities, and the American Water Works Association all supported a $20 billion increase over five years in the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund authorization. That would increase the $1 billion authorized by the 1996 Drinking Water Amendments to $4 billion a year. Some thought it should be even higher.

Against the well-documented financial needs for replacement and rehabilitation of aging drinking water infrastructure, the President's budget for FY 2005 was only $850 million for the State Revolving Loan Fund - $150 million less than the $1 billion Congress authorized when the Fund was created. I now understand that Administration budget proposals maintain this flat-line funding of $850 million per year for the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund until 2018. This level ignores the needs of our cities and public water systems.

Yet another threat to our drinking water is EPA's failure to set standards for contaminants such perchlorate which we now know are widespread and pose a serious threat to public health. The Department of Defense is refusing to clean up perchlorate contamination at more than 50 facilities nationwide until the EPA sets a maximum contaminate level (MCL) for perchlorate. I look forward to hearing what, if anything, EPA is doing to address this problem.

Immediate action is necessary to address the threats to safe drinking water that we are currently facing. But we continue to see only slow progress and little financial commitment to one of the nation's most important resources. Ignoring the problem, or postponing needed fixes, will only put the public health at greater risk and make eventual corrective action more costly.