By Giles Bruce

In the summer 2016, I was talking to Kate Long, the mentor for my Center for Health Journalism fellowship project, about why so many babies in Indiana didn’t survive past their first birthdays.

“What about pollution?” Long asked me.

I hadn’t seriously considered the environment as a cause for my then-home state’s high infant mortality rate. Public health officials in Indiana often pointed to other reasons: a lack of prenatal care, too much smoking among pregnant women, not enough breastfeeding.

That week, we toured a lead-contaminated East Los Angeles neighborhood and heard harrowing stories from community members fearful about what the toxin was doing to their bodies. Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, then walked us through the overwhelming science showing that lead exposure harms our health. Throughout my project, Lanphear sent me studies showing that exposure to lead and other toxic chemicals is particularly dangerous for fetuses and babies.

The $1.2 trillion U.S. infrastructure bill includes billions of dollars to replace the nation’s estimated 6 to 10 million lead water service lines. It amounts to the largest investment in water infrastructure in the nation’s history. But is it enough to clean up our water and make significant improvements in public health? I asked Lanphear.

“If there was a way for Biden and subsequent presidents to keep up this kind of investment in infrastructure, certainly that would have a positive impact not only on reductions in lead exposure but hopefully diminish the polarization that we’re seeing in politics,” Lanphear said.

“One of the challenges, of course, is that these investments and infrastructure are coming after decades of no investments, certainly no sizable investments. And so this really should be just seen as the first big installment of what should come next.”

In the months and years to come, journalists will want to follow how this money is spent in their coverage areas, whether the cleanups are done safely, and whether the investments ultimately boost public health in the United States. Now is a good time for reporters to assess existing water quality and contamination in their communities. 

Of the $55 billion allocated to water infrastructure, $15 billion is to replace lead pipes, and $10 billion will go to clearing contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, chemicals used to produce things like Teflon, waterproof clothing and firefighting foam.

Being exposed to lead is an inevitable part of living in an industrial society. “Even though we can take some comfort that blood (lead) levels have declined by over 95% since the peak in the 1970s, our blood levels today are still 10 to 100 times higher than our preindustrial ancestors,” Lanphear said.

Twenty percent of Americans’ intake comes from lead service lines. The federal government banned them in the 1980s but they still deliver water to an estimated 7% of U.S. households and 400,000 schools and day care facilities. Many are in older cities and neighborhoods that are more likely to house communities of color.

Lead, Lanphear noted, has been linked to premature births and low-birth weights, lower IQs and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, and coronary artery disease in adults.

Lanphear said he hopes municipalities that replace lead pipes protect residents in the meantime, by providing water filters to use before, during and shortly after the restoration and, ideally, by testing the tap water. People should also be aware that lead can get trapped in faucet aerators, so they may need to be cleaned or replaced.

“If we’re not careful, we can inadvertently increase the exposures that children and pregnant women and families have during the replacement,” Lanphear said. He pointed to the city of Pittsburgh’s approach as one that could be emulated elsewhere.

PFAS, another widely prevalent group of chemicals in water, soil air and fish across the nation, have been linked to fertility problems in women, developmental delays in children, and an increased risk of certain cancers.

Lanphear was involved in research showing that prenatal exposure to PFAS raised the risk of children developing ADHD and becoming obese. It also hindered breastfeeding. The studies looked at Cincinnati residents exposed to the toxins, which were thought to have originated at a chemical plant about 250 miles downriver.

The Environmental Working Group has an interactive map on PFAS contamination. Other PFAS data sources include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the PFAS-Tox Database, and the Green Science Policy Institute’s PFAS Data Hub. CalMatters did an exposé about the extent of California’s PFAS problem.

For lead, EWG has a tap water contaminant database, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a state-level blood lead surveillance system, and the U.S. Census Bureau has information on housing with lead risk. In 2016, Vox created an interactive lead exposure risk map of the United States, while Reuters published a report on places where lead poisoning was worse than Flint, Michigan. 

Lanphear said the new legislation doesn’t address every issue affecting the country’s water supply. More than 43 million Americans rely on private wells that can contain arsenic, manganese and fluoride, chemicals that may diminish IQ scores, affect birth weight and cause bone fractures in adults, among other health problems.

Five years ago, the advice from Long and Lanphear helped change the course of my infant mortality reporting project. I detailed how not only lead but also air pollution were likely factors in the high rates of birth complications and sick babies in Indiana.

Lanphear told me a smarter strategy than spending money to ameliorate environmental disasters — not to mention the health and social costs associated with them — would be to better regulate new chemicals in the first place.

“Industry contributes very little to these cleanups to fixing the problem,” he said. “And yet the lead industry went around the cities around the country promoting these things, convincing, if not bribing, local political leaders to require lead service lines in their municipal bylaws, despite the fact that we knew [the consequences] for centuries. 

“Part of the reason the Roman Empire declined was because of widespread lead poisoning, oftentimes used in lead pipes to transport water. The real long-term issue is how do we start regulating these chemical industries so that we’re still not cleaning up their mess in 50 years?”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The new infrastructure bill makes historic investments in water cleanup appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — What does Bitcoin have to do with roads and bridges?

A lot right now in the U.S. Congress. One way lawmakers propose to pay for the $1 trillion infrastructure bill the Senate approved Tuesday is by imposing tax-reporting requirements for cryptocurrency brokers, the way stockbrokers report their customers’ sales to the IRS. It could open the way for tighter regulation of cryptocurrency — something the Biden administration is moving toward as it also pushes for tax compliance.

The plan could raise about $28 billion in revenue over 10 years, congressional accountants estimate.

The $28 billion could get stretched very quickly. Take bridges, for example. It would cost an estimated $25.6 billion to replace all the bridges in the country that are classified as structurally deficient, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

So, currency you can’t hold in your hand would effectively pay for roads, bridges, water systems, internet broadband access and shoring up the electrical grid, what President Joe Biden called “a generational investment” on par with building the transcontinental railroad in the 1800s or the Interstate highway system in the ’50s. That’s testament to the explosive growth of cryptocurrencies in recent years — an enticing potential revenue source — and the mounting push by some government officials to put new reins around a largely unregulated market.

After weeks of wrangling, the Senate passed the bipartisan infrastructure package in a 69-30 vote. It now moves to the House.

A look at the situation:

__

WHAT’S THE STORY WITH CRYPTOCURRENCY?

The market for cryptocurrencies has ballooned to an estimated $1.8 trillion. They’re basically lines of computer code that are digitally signed each time they travel from one holder to the next. Not tied to banks or governments, they allow users to spend or receive money anonymously. That appeals to libertarians, off-the-grid types and risk-taking millennials who believe the financial system is rigged.

But it’s also favored by international criminals, money launderers, drug dealers and ransomware hackers.

The most widely traded cryptocurrency is Bitcoin, now worth around $45,000 each, down from a high in April of about $64,800. It’s notoriously volatile, in some instances spiking or plunging on public pronouncements by Elon Musk, the provocative Tesla Inc. CEO. Some businesses now accept Bitcoin as payment. Other well-known cryptocurrencies include Ethereum, Dogecoin, Ripple and Litecoin. All told, there are thousands. Bitcoin and others can be bought and sold on exchanges with U.S. dollars and other national currencies.

__

WHERE DO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS STAND?

On both sides of the coin.

Some lawmakers see cryptocurrency as a font of technological innovation, especially in the development of blockchain, the digital ledger that records transactions.

Top U.S. regulators, on the other hand, are flashing danger signs. Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by Biden, said last week that investors need more protection in the cryptocurrency market, which he called “rife with fraud, scams and abuse” and “like the Wild West.” While the SEC has won dozens of cases against crypto fraudsters, Gensler said the agency needs more authority from Congress — and more funding — to regulate the market.

The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is considering developing its own digital currency pegged to the U.S. dollar. A so-called digital dollar could enable faster payments among banks, consumers and businesses.

“You’ve got federal agencies not talking on the same page,” says Suzanne Lynch, a professor at Utica College who focuses on financial crime. “It’s so grey right now.”

__

WHAT’S THE CONNECTION WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL?

The debate over cryptocurrency landed in the middle of the Senate’s work on the massive infrastructure package. An earlier plan to pay for the legislation, by bolstering IRS enforcement to crack down on tax cheating by individuals and businesses, went down as Republicans objected to expanding the agency’s reach. That would have brought in an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

Going back to the drawing board on revenue raisers, the plan was hatched for stricter tax-reporting requirements for cryptocurrency brokers. The estimated $28 billion it would generate over a decade is only about a quarter of what the IRS crackdown proposal envisaged. But it’s still the biggest revenue raiser of several in the infrastructure bill.

It raised objections from some senators and unleashed an opposition lobbying blitz from the cryptocurrency industry as well as internet freedom advocacy groups.

The provision defines brokers too broadly, opponents say, potentially stifling innovation by unfairly putting new tax-reporting obligations on software developers and crypto “miners” — users who create coins by lending computing power to verify other users’ transactions and receive coins in exchange. Those people don’t have access to cryptocurrency users’ data the IRS would be collecting, opponents say.

Opponents brought forward amendments to the provision and a compromise emerged. But it failed to muster Senate approval, pushing the debate over cryptocurrency, taxes and brokers to the House.

__

WHAT’S THE SITUATION NOW WITH CRYPTOCURRENCY AND TAXES?

Some cryptocurrency brokers already report transactions to the IRS, though most don’t, experts say. Brokers place buy and sell orders for users on the cryptocurrency exchanges.

The exchanges are required to collect personal identifying information from users and report their annual activity to the IRS.

The IRS defines cryptocurrency as “property” similar to stocks or gold. That means you pay capital gains tax when you sell it or cash it in at a profit.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post EXPLAINER: How cryptocurrency fits into infrastructure bill appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — With a robust vote after weeks of fits and starts, the Senate approved a $1 trillion infrastructure plan for states coast to coast on Tuesday, as a rare coalition of Democrats and Republicans came together to overcome skeptics and deliver a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s agenda.

“Today, we proved that democracy can still work,” Biden declared at the White House, taking note of the 69-30 vote that included even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

The approval provides momentum for the first phase of Biden’s “Build Back Better” priorities, now heading to the House. It also sets the stage for a much more contentious fight over his bigger $3.5 trillion package that is next up in the Senate — a more liberal undertaking of child care, elder care and other programs that is much more partisan and expected to draw only Democratic support. That debate is expected to extend into the fall.

A sizable number of lawmakers showed they were willing to set aside partisan pressures for now, eager to send billions to their states for rebuilding roads, broadband internet, water pipes and the public works systems that underpin much of American life.

Infrastructure was once a mainstay of lawmaking, but the weeks-long slog to strike a compromise showed how hard it has become for Congress to tackle routine legislating, even on shared priorities.

“We can still come together to do big things, important things, for the American people.,” Biden said.

There was Republican praise, too, though less exuberant.

“This infrastructure bill is not the perfect bill,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, one of the negotiators. She said the senators kept at it, believing, “It’s better to get some of what our constituents want rather than none of it.”

Tuesday’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act started with a group of 10 senators who seized on Biden’s campaign promise to draft a scaled-down version of his initial $2.3 trillion proposal, one that could more broadly appeal to both parties in the narrowly divided Congress, especially the 50-50 Senate.

It swelled to a 2,700-page bill backed by the president and also business, labor and farm interests. It drew an expansive alliance of senators and a bipartisan group in the House.

In all, 19 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting for Senate passage. Vice President Kamala Harris, as presiding officer, announced the final tally.

While liberal lawmakers said the package doesn’t go far enough as a down-payment on Biden’s priorities and conservatives said it is too costly and should be more fully paid for, the coalition of centrist senators was able to hold. Even broadsides from former President Donald Trump could not bring the bill down.

The measure proposes nearly $550 billion in new spending over five years in addition to current federal authorizations for public works that will reach virtually every corner of the country — a potentially historic expenditure Biden has put on par with the building of the transcontinental railroad or interstate highway system.

There’s money to rebuild roads and bridges, and also to shore up coastlines against climate change, protect public utility systems from cyberattacks and modernize the electric grid. Public transit gets a boost, as do airports and freight rail. Most lead drinking water pipes in America could be replaced.

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, the lead Republican negotiator, said the work “demonstrates to the American people that we can get our act together on a bipartisan basis to get something done.”

The top Democratic negotiator, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, said rarely will a piece of legislation affect so many Americans. She gave a nod to the late fellow Arizona Sen. John McCain and said she was trying to follow his example to “reach bipartisan agreements that try to bring the country together.”

Drafted during the COVID-19 crisis, the bill would provide $65 billion for broadband, a provision Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, negotiated because she said the coronavirus pandemic showed that such service “is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity.” States will receive money to expand broadband and make it more affordable.

Despite the momentum, action slowed last weekend when Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican allied with Trump, refused to speed up the process.

Trump had called his one-time Japan ambassador and cheered him on, but it’s unclear if the former president’s views still carry as much sway with most senators. Trump issued fresh complaints hours before Tuesday’s vote. He had tried and failed to pass his own infrastructure bill during his time in the White House.

Other Republican senators objected to the size, scope and financing of the package, particularly concerned after the Congressional Budget Office said it would add $256 billion to deficits over the decade.

Rather than pressure his colleagues, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stayed behind the scenes for much of the bipartisan work. He allowed the voting to proceed, and may benefit from enabling this package in a stroke of bipartisanship while trying to stop Biden’s next big effort. He voted for passage on Tuesday.

Unlike the $3.5 trillion second package, which would be paid for by higher tax rates for corporations and the wealthy, the bipartisan package is to be funded by repurposing other money, including some COVID-19 aid.

The bill’s backers argue that the budget office’s analysis was unable to take into account certain revenue streams that will help offset its costs — including from future economic growth.

Senators have spent the past week processing nearly two dozen amendments, but none substantially changed its framework.

The House is expected to consider both Biden infrastructure packages together, but centrist lawmakers urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the bipartisan plan forward quickly, and they raised concerns about the bigger bill in a sign of the complicated politics still ahead.

After the Senate vote, she declared, “Today is a day of progress … a once in a century opportunity.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Big win for $1T infrastructure bill: Dems, GOP come together appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators and the White House were locked in intense negotiations Tuesday to salvage a bipartisan infrastructure deal, with pressure mounting on all sides to wrap up talks and show progress on President Joe Biden’s top priority.

Despite weeks of closed-door discussions, senators from the bipartisan group blew past a Monday deadline set for agreement on the nearly $1 trillion package. They hit serious roadblocks over how much would be spent on public transit and water infrastructure and whether the new spending on roads, bridges, broadband and other projects would be required to meet federal wage requirements for workers. They’re also at odds over drawing on COVID-19 funds to help pay for it.

Republican negotiator Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who took the lead in key talks with a top White House aide, insisted the bipartisan group was “making progress.” Biden struck a similarly upbeat tone, telling reporters at the White House he remained optimistic about reaching a compromise.

But as talks drag on, anxious Democrats, who have slim control of the House and Senate, face a timeline to act on what would be some of the most substantial legislation in years. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told senators Tuesday they should be prepared to work through the weekend to finish the bill.

Biden met Tuesday morning with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, one of the Democrats’ leaders in the infrastructure bargaining, at the White House to discuss the talks, said two people who acknowledged the session only on condition of anonymity.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said after the president’s meeting with Sinema, “They are very much aligned on the path forward.”

Psaki said the administration is “not setting new deadlines” for a deal, but sees “good signs.”

The White House wants a bipartisan agreement for this first phase, before Democrats go it alone to tackle broader priorities in a bigger $3.5 trillion budget plan that’s on deck. A recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC found 8 in 10 Americans favor some increased infrastructure spending, and the current package could be a political win for all sides as lawmakers try to show voters that Washington can work. Securing the bipartisan bill is also important for some centrist Democrats before engaging in the broader undertaking.

The House will also have a chance to weigh in on the legislation if it clears the Senate.

At a private meeting of House Democrats on Tuesday, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee called the infrastructure measure that senators of both parties are struggling to complete “crap,” according to two Democrats who attended the session. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the Senate effort was being led by “three Republicans” — Portman, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sinema, D-Ariz., a centrist distrusted by some Democrats.

DeFazio’s remarks illustrated the tensions between Democrats in the two chambers over the budget talks. The Democrats spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the closed-door session.

The bipartisan package includes about $600 billion in new spending on public works projects, with broad support from Republicans and Democrats for many of the proposed ideas.

Yet there was little to show Monday after a grinding weekend of talks, putting the deal at risk of stalling out.

The Democrats and the White House had sent what they called a “global” offer to Republicans on remaining issues late Sunday, according to a Democratic aide close to the talks and granted anonymity to discuss them.

But Republicans rebuffed the ideas, saying the new proposal attempted to reopen issues that had already been resolved, according to a GOP aide also granted anonymity to discuss the talks.

Collins said it’s time for Biden to become more involved. “I think it’s imperative that the president indicates strongly that he wants a bipartisan package,” she said.

While much of the disagreement has been over the size of spending on each category, labor issues have also emerged as a flashpoint.

Democrats are insisting on a prevailing-wage requirement, not just for existing public works programs but also for building new roads, bridges, broadband and other infrastructure, according to another Republican granted anonymity to discuss the private talks.

At the same time, transit funding has been a stubborn source of disagreement.

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees public transit, raised questions about the size of the transit funding increase. He cited, in part, previous COVID-19 federal relief money that had already been allocated to public transit.

Democrats and public transit advocates don’t want spending to go any lower than what’s typically been a federal formula of about 80% for highways and 20% for transit. They see expanded public transit systems as key to easing traffic congestion and combating climate change.

The senators also appeared to still be debating money for public water works and removal of lead pipes after Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, raised questions about the amount.

Also unresolved is how to pay for the bipartisan package after Democrats rejected a plan to bring in funds by hiking the gas tax drivers pay at the pump and Republicans dashed a plan to boost the IRS to go after tax scofflaws.

Funding could come from repurposing COVID relief aid, reversing a Trump-era pharmaceutical rebate and other streams. It’s possible the final deal could run into political trouble if it doesn’t pass muster as fully paid for when the Congressional Budget Office assesses the details.

The final package would need the support of 60 senators in the evenly split 50-50 Senate to advance past a filibuster — meaning at least 10 Republicans along with every Democratic member. A test vote last week failed along party lines as Republicans sought more time to negotiate.

Meanwhile, Democrats are readying the broader $3.5 trillion package, which would go beyond public works to include child care centers, family tax breaks and other priorities. It is being considered under budget rules that allow passage with 51 senators in the split Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris able to break a tie. That package would be paid for by increasing the corporate tax rate and the tax rate on Americans earning more than $400,000 a year.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Senators, White House in talks to finish infrastructure bill appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.