Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, good morning. I rise in opposition to Senate bill 3874 that was introduced by Barbara Boxer of California, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I want to be clear that simply by opposing this bill, I do not support lead in drinking water, obviously. Let's clear the air on that. Rather, I am opposed to the manner in which this bill tackles the problem and, simply, Mr. Speaker, the unintended consequences that could result. So bear with me.

This legislation lowers the Federal limit for lead allowed in the manufacturing of certain plumbing fixtures that come into contact with water that Americans drink. However, reports in The Washington Post and testimony before Congress suggest that lead service lines are the biggest culprits of leeched lead. People should not mistake this bill as a panacea when other actions like corrosion protection and other treatments, including some lead line replacement, have just as much, if not more, impact on what this legislation purports to do.

Second, we need an education component to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can get an education component part of it. I am concerned that do-it-yourselfers, much like me, are going to see this legislation pass, think that their existing faucets are toxic fountains, go to their hardware store to get a new faucet, cut their home piping, thereby releasing lead shavings into their home's pipes, and wind up with water streaming from their faucets with even more lead than had they just left the faucet alone.

And, third, I know many of this bill's supporters believe we need this bill in order to prevent disparate standards among the States and that much of the industry is either meeting the most stringent State standards or is ready to make the move to do so. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced, though, that this bill will provide the kind of preemption that prevents States from enacting different laws after this bill's enactment. The 50 States could do that. If the major producers of faucets in this country are already making the kinds of changes that the bill seeks, and the bill does not solve this preemption problem, then why do we have to pass a Federal bill in the first place?

And, finally, my colleagues and, importantly, the Congressional Budget Office estimate for identical provisions in a House bill projected the cost of the mandate in this bill, introduced by Barbara Boxer, would be the additional costs to manufacturers, importers, or users associated with producing or acquiring compliant products.

So based on information from industry sources, CBO wrote on July 27, 2010, to expect that some manufacturers would already be in compliance with the new standard because of existing

standards in some States, for example, California, Maryland, and Vermont: ``However, information from those sources suggest that the incremental cost of manufacturing or importing such products would total hundreds of millions of dollars to the private sector in at least some of the first 5 years the mandate is in effect.'' Some of those costs could be passed through to end users, including public entities.

While the additional cost to State, local, and tribal entities could be significant, CBO estimates that those costs would total less than the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act in 1995 for intergovernmental mandates.

Now what does that mean? Let me just explain. Just because it doesn't create unfunded mandates on the United States Government doesn't mean it is not going to create a huge amount of unfunded mandates on the private sector. In fact, this would be a large cost for the private sector, even though the advocates for this bill will say there is no unfunded mandates on the government.

To be fair, the industry has challenged these figures that the proponents of this bill have suggested, and most companies will just simply pass their costs along in a highly competitive market. When you look at this bill, the industry is saying that at a maximum the best guess would be almost a 3 percent increase to consumers if and when they need a new faucet valve or fitting. This is not the kind of disparity that we need. We should be able to reconcile these numbers before American jobs are challenged by this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are probably some very worthy reasons to pass this bill, including perhaps stopping bad products produced overseas from entering the stream of U.S. commerce, and we know counterfeit products will be provided. However, and unfortunately, the issues that I have mentioned outweigh the good intentions of this bill that was introduced by Barbara Boxer in California, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman will realize, of course, that oftentimes a bill has a wonderful-sounding name on it. And bills sometimes pass here by unanimous consent; and lo and behold, we go back and find there are unintended consequences. I submit to the gentleman that when the Senate passed this, they might have done that under the same auspices. And I suspect if they looked at it carefully, particularly some of the folks over there that I know, they would not have been in unanimous support of this.

Also when you talk about the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, as you know, lots of times when people are quoted down here, there are sometimes, and I'm not saying this is always true, but sometimes there is vested interest in an issue. We see sometimes on the floor some people are proponents of an issue, and lo and behold there is some perhaps indirect, discrete, perhaps some vested interest. I have not seen the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute letters, I am not familiar with that, but I suspect I could find a letter on this side that would refute the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute. In fact, we have many people who have pointed out to us that this is going to increase cost.

So your other argument that people will not react, I have seen people react, particularly young families who perhaps think that there might be lead in the water with their infants, and they might overreact. And what happens when new detection levels are achieved?

So I would say to my friend that we have here a clear case of a difference of opinion. Here we are in 2010 before the Christmas holidays, and we are still talking about something that I think for the most part even you admitted it, a lot of the States are complying and are underneath the requirement. So if that is true, why do we need the bill? You are even making my argument of why do we need this bill that would have unintended consequences when you admit yourself that the States now are underneath the requirement.

I think all of us do not want to have lead in our water. All of us believe that there is some reason for Congress to get involved and to make sure that States comply to Federal preemption and that we also continue to monitor this and see what the latest detection levels are.

But I submit I have been in Congress a number of years, just as you have, and we have specified again and again requirements to not have lead in our water. So I think at this point this bill is probably an overstep, an overreach. And taking your own comment that a lot of the States are underneath the requirement, I'm not sure that we need the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first of all say, when you are quoting conservatives, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ranking Member Joe Barton, is against this bill. So when you talk about who is the spokesman in the House, Joe Barton on Energy and Commerce is the spokesman. You serve on Energy and Commerce, so you obviously would respect his opinion.

Also, I would say to my colleague, we are not a subcommittee of the Senate. We are an independent body. So as much as I respect your voicing accommodation to the Senate frequently here, I submit that the House of Representatives is a totally different body and represents closer to the people, the people who go to Lowe's, the people who go to the hardware stores, and the people who don't want to have over- regulation and are trying to create jobs in this economy.

You keep mentioning how the Senate overwhelmingly supports this bill. I would say rhetorically to you: Did you support the tax cuts last night? Did you support the tax cut extension? A lot of people on the majority did not; yet in the Senate, it was overwhelmingly supported. So oftentimes there is a different approach in the Senate than in the House.

And I suspect if you get elected every 6 years as opposed to every 2 years, you are going to have a little more close relationship with your constituents. You will do town meetings. You will do telephone town meetings. Whereas if you are a U.S. Senator, perhaps you have a large State, you will be doing it through the media. But if you are there in a town meeting when somebody comes up to you face to face and says, Stearns, why are you going to put this new requirement in? I thought we had the proper levels already in place, and why are you stipulating more regulation?

And so I go back again to your statement that basically this is a case where the States are underneath the requirement. Going by your own statement, I think you have summed up my argument that the bill is not needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

At that point, that was not the bill that Barbara Boxer introduced in the Senate. That was a bill that was instituted and created in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This debate has probably gone on too long for this. I will wrap up and just say to my colleagues that at the point that Mr. Barton had an understanding with Mr. Waxman, it was under different understandings for the funding of the bill, the science of the bill, and the labor provisions. These things have since changed.

As you know, if it was the same bill, it would come back under a House bill number, but it is coming back as a Senate bill that was introduced by Barbara Boxer. So, as you would realize, this is not the same bill; otherwise, what Mr. Barton agreed upon with Mr. Waxman, that would be the bill that we would be voting on. As you know, this is not the bill. This is a different bill.

I urge my colleagues, with that, to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time so we can move on to other important bills.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3874) to amend the Safe Drinking Act to reduce lead in drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to manage consideration of S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This is the Senate companion to Ms. Eshoo's bill, the Get the Lead Out Act. This bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faucets and fixtures which currently contribute up to 20 percent of human lead exposure, according to the EPA.

In a 21st century America, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure acquired through plumbing systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which determines the national lead content standards, currently allows up to 8 percent lead content for faucets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leach from plumbing into drinking water.

But health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure can have serious impacts on children and adults, including kidney disease, reduced IQ, hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage. States have recognized this threat, and in 2006, California enacted the toughest lead content standard for drinking water faucets, fittings, and plumbing systems anywhere in the world. Since then, Vermont and Maryland have also adopted identical laws, and the District of Columbia and Virginia are considering similar legislation.

This bill mirrors the California legislation and will provide for a consistent and effective national standard to ensure that no one will be exposed to a serious health threat which can easily be avoided. This legislation has garnered the support of State health officials, numerous children's health organizations, prominent national environmental organizations, local governments, scientific associations, and national drinking water associations. The Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, the association that represents all major faucet companies and other manufacturers of drinking water plumbing fittings, also supports this legislation.

On December 16, this bill passed the Senate unanimously with bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for this critical bill in the House today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend--and he is my good friend--that the bill passed unanimously in the Senate. I know he likes to invoke Senator Boxer's name a lot. But the fact of the matter is, every Republican and every Democrat in the United States Senate supported this bill.

I would like to make a couple of points. He talks about the lead in the service lines. And that's true, utility companies--and we have literally dozens of utilities that are in support of this bill--are already constantly making efforts to get lead out of their lines. What we are trying to do is not to make that an exercise in futility by allowing the faucets to return the lead into the lines that they are working so hard to take out.

We talk about preemption. Right now, the standard is 8 percent, so that's a maximum. And the gentleman is correct: a lot of States have gone under that 8 percent limit. But the new standard that we are proposing, the 0.25 percent, is state of the art. That is about as low as you can get it, based on the technology that we have available today. So in effect, the idea that States would somehow be able to preempt and go below that, it just isn't possible as we speak today. So it sort of deals with the preemption issue.

The bill doesn't require people to buy replacements. No one is forced to replace their faucets. And lastly, and dealing with the issue of cost, I have a letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and I would like to quote from it. In the one paragraph dealing with cost, it says: ``It is safe to say that this one-time cost for faucet manufacturers will not be anywhere in the magnitude of `hundreds of millions of dollars' as set forth in the House report for H.R. 5320, the AQUA bill. Unfortunately, the faucet industry source for those numbers failed to vet the calculations with the industry representatives prior to providing the estimate to CBO. We find those numbers to be unreliable and greatly exaggerated.''

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

So when you put this all together and you see that we have a piece of legislation here which passed the Senate unanimously, and we have an opportunity to set a national standard which is state of the art with the technology that we have today, at a cost that the industry has said is minimal, and many are already complying with, it seems that it would be a shame to let this opportunity pass to protect the health of millions of Americans by making changes that are not onerous on the industry by their own letter, and they endorse the bill and it had unanimous support in the Senate. I would hope that my colleagues in the House will see fit, in a bipartisan fashion, to do this for Americans, make people more safe, improve the quality of water that Americans drink, and do so at a cost that is not onerous to the public or the industry.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would just say to my friend that Senator Inhofe and Senator Alexander are cosponsors of this bill. I think those two gentlemen, very conservative gentlemen, I think my friend would agree, have looked at the bill and are cosponsors of the bill. I would also say to my friend that I would be happy to share a copy of my letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute with him if he would like to share a letter that he has from anyone who contradicts this. I believe we have shared this letter with your staff, and I hope you would look it over.

I would say to the gentleman and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think we

should try to do the best we can do for the American people when it comes to their health. It is true that a handful of States have already adopted lower standards, but it is just a handful of States. We have 50 States, and over 40 still have not done this. So I think it is important we set a national standard. This will in effect set a national standard which uses the best technologies available to get us as low as we can based on what we know today.

The industry has said that we can do this at minimal cost to the industry. We force no individual to buy replacements. This is something people can choose to do if they want to. I think most families will take advantage of this. For the average faucet, if you look at a faucet that is about $85, and everyone knows when you go into a store, you can buy faucets that cost $500, and you can buy faucets that cost $30 or $40, or anywhere in between. But if you look at the average, which is around $80, what we are talking about is somewhere between $1.70 extra on a faucet, so we are not talking about a big cost.

As I said, I have the industry letter, which I am happy to share with you, saying that they think that it is a good thing, too.

So I would just say to my colleagues, let's do the best we can for all of America. Sure, a handful of States have already taken the lead and have gone further.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

When people's health and safety is involved, we should never skimp on that. If we are going to err, let's err on the side of doing the most we can do based on the technology we have with a bill that does not put any onerous burden on manufacturers, by their own statements, and which many dozens of organizations and utility companies support and that has the support of conservative Senators, cosponsors like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma and Senator Alexander of Tennessee, and a unanimous vote in the Senate. Let's have a unanimous vote here in the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to my friend, the one thing I would agree with my friend on is that the House of Representatives is not the United States Senate. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I would also say to my friend, and I believe he may not have been present that day, but on May 26 of this year, we had a vote in committee on this bill, and Representative Barton voted for this bill in committee as part of our drinking water bill. So did 18 other Republicans. So the bill passed our committee with 45 members voting in favor.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, that bill was the companion bill here in the House, which was the same as the Boxer bill. It was Ms. Eshoo's bill, which passed the committee 45-1, with 18 Republicans supporting it, including Chairman Barton, who is my dear friend.

So I would just say to my friend that I would be more concerned with someone coming up to a town hall meeting to me and asking me why we haven't done everything we could to get lead out of drinking water. The standard is 8 percent in my State; to my knowledge, we don't have a lower standard. So I certainly appreciate legislation like this which sets the lowest standard we can attain with the technology we have and do so in a way that's not onerous to either the public or the manufacturers who support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank my friend for this debate. I would say to my friend that this bill is identical to the bill that we had in the House. It is an identical bill. It is identical in portion. It is not the entire bill that we had in the House, but this portion of the bill is identical to the bill that we had in the House.

I would hope my colleagues would join our colleagues in the Senate in supporting this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes from Friday, December 17 through Wednesday, December 22, 2010. I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes:

Friday:

H.J. Res. 105--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey--Appropriations) (Voice vote)

1. H. Res. 1377--Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Representative Honda--House Administration)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1107--To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'' (Representative Conyers--Judiciary)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 628--To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges (Representative Issa-- Judiciary)

4. H. Res. 1733--Recognizing Mark Twain as one of America's most famous literary icons on the 175th anniversary of his birth and the 100th anniversary of his death (Representative Snyder--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. H. Res. 1621--Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of Catholic Charities USA (Representative Holt--Oversight and Government Reform)

6. H. Res. 1767--Commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid (Representative Baldwin-- Education and Labor)

7. H. Con. Res. 335--Honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the monumental contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict (Representative Lowey--Foreign Affairs)

8. S. 3874--Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Senator Boxer-- Energy and Commerce)

9. H.R. 6533--To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service (Representative Doyle--Energy and Commerce)

10. H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

11. H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform)

12. H.R. 5510--Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010 (Representative Kaptur--Financial Services)

Tuesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5116--America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)(228-130)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform) (216-139)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2751--FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Representatives Waxman/Dingell--Energy and Commerce) (215-144)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey-- Appropriations) (193-165)

1. S. 3592--A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' (Senator Chambliss--Oversight and Government Reform)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 81--Shark Conservation Act (Representative Bordallo--Natural Resources)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5809--Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Representative Inslee--Energy and Commerce)

4. H.R. 6540--To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess (Representative Inslee--Armed Services)

5. H.R. 6547--To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees (Representative George Miller--Education and Labor)

6. S. 118--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act (Senator Kohl--Financial Services)

7. S. 1481--Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Senator Menendez--Financial Services)

8. S. 3243--Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Senator Pryor/ Representative Shuler--Homeland Security)

9. S. 2925--Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010 (Senator Wyden--Judiciary)

10. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4748--Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Representative Owens--Judiciary)

11. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1746--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 (Representative Oberstar--Transportation and Infrastructure)

Wednesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (Representative Maloney--Energy and Commerce)(206-60)

Bills Adopted By Unanimous Consent (13):

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

2. S. 3481--Amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution (Senator Cardin--Transportation and Infrastructure)

3. House Amendment to S. 372--Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Senator Akaka--Oversight and Government Reform)

4. H. Res. 1461--Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants (Representative Langevin--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. S. 4036--A bill to clarify the National Credit Union Administration authority to make stabilization fund expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury (Senator Dodd--Financial Services)

6. S. Con. Res. 67--A concurrent resolution celebrating 130 years of United States-Romanian diplomatic relations, congratulating the Romanian people on their achievements as a great nation, and reaffirming the deep bonds of trust and values between the United States and Romania, a trusted and most valued ally (Senator Voinovich-- Foreign Affairs)

7. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6560--Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Representative Hank Johnson--Judiciary)

8. H. Res. 1779--Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders (Representative John Lewis (GA)--Judiciary)

9. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5901--Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010 (Representative Joe Crowley--Ways & Means)

10. H. Res. 1783--Technical Correction to H. Res. 1757 (Representative Brady (PA)--House Administration)

11. S. 4058--Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010 (Senator Kerry--Veterans' Affairs)

12. S. 3903--To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Senator Udall--Natural Resources)

13. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6517--To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes (Representative Levin-- Ways and Means)

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, December 14, I requested and received a leave of absence for December 16 and December 17, 2010.

For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, below is how I would have voted on the following votes I missed during this time period.

On rollcall 640, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 841, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 641, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3860, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 642, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3447, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 643, Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 644, On Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 645, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 987, To protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 646, On Agreeing to the Levin Agreement, H.R. 4863, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 647, On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amdt to the House to the Senate Amendment H.R. 4853, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 648, Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshino Mineta, H. Res. 1377, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 649, An act to enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'', H.R. 1107, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 650, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, H.R. 6523, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 651, An act to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges, H.R. 628, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 652, Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Con. Res. 336, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 653, Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, H. Res. 1776, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 654, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, H.R. 2142, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 655, Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010, H.R. 5510, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 656, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, S. 3874, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute.

I rise in strong support of S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to uniformly reduce the allowable lead content in solder, flux, pipe and fixtures.

It is important to strengthen and clarify national standards for lead in drinking water. Our families and children should feel comfortable knowing that the water they drink is safe. In my district, California's 43rd, we are faced with many water issues and the most severe is perchlorate found in our ground water. Our drinking water was compromised.

No one should have water compromised by perchlorate or lead. This bill is a positive step forward in eliminating the serious health threats and economic burdens caused by lead exposure.

In California, we have a new lead free standard that requires manufacturers to phase out potential exposure from materials in drinking water plumbing by this year. With S. 3874, families in other states will have greater protection from lead exposure.

I urge my colleagues to show their commitment to the safety of America's families and support S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act.