[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 74 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2314-S2323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2021--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 914, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 914) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
     programs under those Acts, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Duckworth (for Carper/Capito) amendment No. 1460, in the 
     nature of a substitute.


Amendment Nos. 1471, As Modified; 1461; 1469; and 1472 to Amendment No. 
                                  1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the following 
amendments are the only amendments in order to S. 914, which the clerk 
will report by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes amendment 
     numbered 1471, as modified, to amendment No. 1460.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows

   (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to allotments under the 
                  Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

        At the end of section 210 (relating to clean water State 
     revolving funds), add the following:
       (c) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Allotments.--
     Section 205 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and heading and all 
     that follows through the end of subsection (a) and inserting 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 205. ALLOTMENTS.

       ``(a) Fiscal Years 2022 and Thereafter.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Buy american oversight.--The term `Buy American 
     oversight' means any activity carried out by the 
     Administrator for the management or oversight of the 
     requirements of section 608.
       ``(B) United states territory.--The term `United States 
     territory' means--
       ``(i) American Samoa;
       ``(ii) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
       ``(iii) the United States Virgin Islands; and
       ``(iv) Guam.
       ``(2) Initial allotments.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2022 through 
     2026, of the amounts made available to carry out this section 
     for the fiscal year, the Administrator shall provide for each 
     of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, any other territory or possession of the 
     United States, United States territories, Indian Tribes, and 
     Buy American oversight an allotment equal to not less than 
     the allotment described in the following table:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        ``Recipient                           Allotment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................       0.005
 Alaska....................................................       0.005
Arizona....................................................       0.005
Arkansas...................................................       0.005
California.................................................       0.005
Colorado...................................................       0.005
Connecticut................................................       0.005
Delaware...................................................       0.005
District of Columbia.......................................       0.005
Florida....................................................       0.005
Georgia....................................................       0.005
Hawaii.....................................................       0.005
Idaho......................................................       0.005
Illinois...................................................       0.005
Indiana....................................................       0.005
Iowa.......................................................       0.005
Kansas.....................................................       0.005
Kentucky...................................................       0.005
Louisiana..................................................       0.005
Maine......................................................       0.005
Maryland...................................................       0.005
Massachusetts..............................................       0.005
Michigan...................................................       0.005
Minnesota..................................................       0.005
Mississippi................................................       0.005
Missouri...................................................       0.005
Montana....................................................       0.005
Nebraska...................................................       0.005
Nevada.....................................................       0.005
New Hampshire..............................................       0.005
New Jersey.................................................       0.005
New Mexico.................................................       0.005
New York...................................................       0.005
North Carolina.............................................       0.005
North Dakota...............................................       0.005
Ohio.......................................................       0.005
Oklahoma...................................................       0.005
Oregon.....................................................       0.005
Pennsylvania...............................................       0.005
Puerto Rico................................................       0.005
Rhode Island...............................................       0.005
South Carolina.............................................       0.005
South Dakota...............................................       0.005
Tennessee..................................................       0.005
Texas......................................................       0.005
Utah.......................................................       0.005

[[Page S2315]]

 
Vermont....................................................       0.005
United States territories..................................       0.015
Virginia...................................................       0.005
Washington.................................................       0.005
West Virginia..............................................       0.005
Wisconsin..................................................       0.005
Wyoming....................................................       0.005
Indian Tribes..............................................      0.0025
Buy American oversight.....................................       0.001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       ``(B) Additional allotments to states, district of 
     columbia, and puerto rico.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, for each of fiscal years 2022 
     through 2026, of the amounts made available to carry out this 
     section for the fiscal year remaining after all allotments 
     under subparagraph (A) are provided for that fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall provide an additional allotment to each 
     of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in an amount based on the 
     proportion that, as determined in the most recently published 
     annual estimate of the Bureau of the Census--
       ``(i) the population of the State, District of Columbia, or 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, respectively; bears to
       ``(ii) the total population of all States, the District of 
     Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1461 to amendment No. 1460.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To expand the eligibility under the State response to 
                         contaminants program)

       At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 1__. STATE RESPONSE TO CONTAMINANTS.

       Section 1459A(j)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300j-19a(j)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``an underserved community'' and inserting ``a community 
     described in subsection (c)(2)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``such 
     underserved'' and inserting ``that''.

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes amendment 
     numbered 1469 to amendment No. 1460.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
  Agency to carry out an annual study on the prevalence of boil water 
                              advisories)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ANNUAL STUDY ON BOIL WATER ADVISORIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall conduct a study on the prevalence of boil 
     water advisories issued in the United States.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the most recent study 
     conducted under subsection (a) as part of the annual budget 
     request transmitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (2) Requirement.--In the annual report required under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include a description 
     of the reasons for which boil water advisories were issued 
     during the year covered by the report.

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes amendment numbered 
     1472 to amendment No. 1460.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating 
                          a national monument)

        At the end, add the following:

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 301. RESERVATION OF WATER RIGHTS AT NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Water Rights.--
       ``(1) No reservation of water rights.--In designating a 
     national monument under subsection (a), the President may not 
     reserve any implied or expressed water rights associated with 
     the national monument.
       ``(2) Applicable law.--Water rights associated with a 
     national monument designated under subsection (a) may be 
     acquired for the national monument only in accordance with 
     the laws of the State in which the water rights are 
     located.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                                 S. 914

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the Senator is now considering S. 914, 
the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021. This 
legislation was reported unanimously last month by the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works on a vote of 20 to 0.
  I rise today to join Senator Capito to urge our colleagues to join us 
in voting for the adoption of this legislation. The legislation will 
help upgrade our Nation's drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure--investments that are sorely needed.
  So that our colleagues understand the real need for drinking water 
and wastewater investments, let me just begin today by sharing a bit of 
my own personal history on these issues and invite our colleagues to 
maybe recall a bit of their own history.
  My sister Sheila and I were born in Beckley, WV, a coal mining town 
in the southern part of the State. For 2 of the 6 years that our family 
resided in the Mountain State, we lived outside of Beckley, a coal 
mining town, and we lived alongside a stream known as Beaver Creek. We 
lived outside of Beckley by a couple of miles.
  Sometimes, my sister and I, along with other kids in our tiny 
community, would play on the banks of Beaver Creek, chasing frogs, 
trying to catch the small fish that swam there. We were never allowed 
to eat fish caught in Beaver Creek, though, and our neighbors didn't 
eat them either. Why? Because we were told in no uncertain terms by our 
parents that it wasn't safe to eat those fish.
  In time, we learned some of the reasons why it wasn't safe. Some of 
the septic tanks that nearby residents relied upon were not well 
maintained, and as a result, raw sewage and other pollution would 
sometimes end up seeping into Beaver Creek.
  My sister Sheila and I would go on to grow up in Danville, VA, 
located right along the border with North Carolina. Danville, VA, had 
once been the last capital of the Confederacy. By the time we got 
there, it had become the home of Dan River Cotton Mills, as well as the 
world's biggest tobacco market. Even our radio station was WBTM, 
World's Biggest Tobacco Market. We lived in what I suppose was a 
middle-class neighborhood just outside of town, and we drank water from 
a well in our own backyard that was located less than 100 feet from our 
septic tank.
  My senior year in high school, I was fortunate enough to win a Navy 
ROTC scholarship and attended Ohio State University. There, in 
Columbus, OH, we drank water provided by the city of Columbus, which 
also treated the sewage of the city's close to half a million 
inhabitants.
  Several years after graduating from Ohio State in 1968 and while 
deployed to Southeast Asia as a naval flight officer fighting during 
the Vietnam war, I would learn that the Cuyahoga River, which flowed 
through Cleveland, OH, had actually caught on fire. I dubbed it ``the 
fire heard around the world.'' It served as a wake-up call to our 
Nation to get serious and begin addressing the air and water pollution 
that were all too prevalent in much of our country.
  Spurred by this wake-up call, our President at the time, Richard 
Nixon, by Executive order and affirmed by the Congress, created the 
Environmental Protection Agency in 1970.
  Inspired in part by the burning Cuyahoga River and outrage at the 
indiscriminate dumping of pollution into rivers, streams, and wetlands 
around this country, Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 over 
the veto of then-President Richard Nixon.
  The goals of the Clean Water Act are at the same time simple and 
profound. These are the words: to ``restore and maintain the chemical, 
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

[[Page S2316]]

  Let me repeat this: to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''
  In the Clean Water Act, Congress ambitiously declared that the waters 
of the United States would be fishable and swimmable by 1983 and that 
there would be no more pollution discharged into our waters by 1985.

  Two years later, in 1974, then-President Gerald Ford signed the Safe 
Drinking Water Act into law.
  In the years that followed, cities and communities across our country 
applied to EPA for grant funding to help build new drinking water 
systems and improve existing ones. Similarly, with the help of EPA 
grants, communities across America built or upgraded wastewater 
treatment systems to clean up the wastewater being discharged into 
rivers and streams.
  Over time, grant requests greatly exceeded the funding available 
through EPA grants. During the Reagan administration, a controversial 
new approach was proposed--the creation of revolving loan funds 
administered and managed by each State. After considerable debate and 
compromise, this proposal was enacted into law. I was serving in the 
House of Representatives at the time and ended up supporting that 
proposal. Thus, the concept of State revolving funds was born in 1987. 
The Clean Water Program was an alternative financing mechanism for the 
construction of wastewater facilities. Congress extended the same 
revolving loan fund concept to Federal drinking water programs in 1996.
  Federal funds seeded revolving funds in all 50 States and in Puerto 
Rico and provided support for projects in the other territories and in 
the District of Columbia, right here. This Federal support leveraged 
State and local funding, along with revenues generated by utilities.
  In the years immediately following the creation of these funds, 
Congress periodically modified them to meet the changing needs in 
cities and communities across our country and inspire the use of new 
technologies.
  In more recent years, however, the programs languished, and the 
authorizations for the State revolving funds were in dire need of 
updating.
  In 2018, for the first time in 22 years--22 years--Congress 
reauthorized the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It did so for 3 
years. The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund, used for wastewater 
and other vital needs, has not been reauthorized in nearly--get this--
35 years, and now the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is set to 
expire at the end of this year.
  Somebody should do something, and that somebody is us. Needless to 
say, we have fallen woefully short of Congress's lofty ambitions to 
create fishable and swimmable waters by 1983 and to eliminate the 
discharge of pollution in navigable waters by 1985. It is also clear 
that the system we have now, despite our best efforts, isn't enough to 
meet the needs of our communities, particularly those who cannot afford 
to participate in loan programs to upgrade increasingly inadequate 
drinking water and wastewater facilities.
  For far too many families in this Nation, access to safe, clean 
drinking water and a healthy environment is, frankly, a dream, just a 
dream, and a lot of folks, too many folks, face a real crisis.
  All too often, we see headlines telling of the poor state of water 
infrastructure in our country and its lack of resilience in the face of 
severe weather. Not that long ago in Texas, earlier this year, nearly 
15 million people--15 million people--lost access to clean water when 
plummeting temperatures broke water mains and brought power down at 
drinking water facilities across that State. In Jackson, MS, that same 
harsh weather caused over 80 water main breaks and left tens of 
thousands of people without water, particularly in predominantly 
African-American neighborhoods.
  But, as we all know, this goes well beyond a few isolated cases. The 
problem of water in our Nation runs much deeper. Millions of Americans 
still lack consistent access to clean drinking water today.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers' 2021 report this year 
reported that America's infrastructure--they give out grades: A, B, C, 
D, E, F. They gave our water systems a grade of C-minus.
  I don't know about my colleagues, but I never got much of a pat on 
the back when I brought home a C-minus on my report card, and neither 
did my sister. C-minus is not satisfactory in my family or, I think, 
for our country.
  That same report early this year also revealed that there is a water 
main break every 2 minutes--every 2 minutes--in the United States and 
that 6 billion gallons of treated, drinkable water are lost each day to 
leaks and crumbling water supply systems. That begs the question: How 
much is 6 billion gallons, anyway? Well, it is enough lost water to 
fill 9,000 swimming pools. Let me repeat that. It is enough water to 
fill 9,000 swimming pools--not each year, not each month, not each 
week--every day. Some communities report losing a quarter or even half 
of their drinking water to leaking pipes.

  In my own State of Delaware, where Senator Coons and I come from, 
communities like Ellendale, DE, in the southern part of our State, 
struggled for years to find and afford safe alternatives for 
increasingly polluted drinking water wells. Ellendale is not alone. 
Thousands in communities of color and Tribal communities, rural 
communities, and others struggle, not only with access to clean water 
and wastewater treatment, but also with the capacity to afford the 
infrastructure necessary to provide and meet those services.
  Let me emphasize: Clean water is an essential part of our healthy 
lives, healthy economics, and a healthy environment. But for those 
communities who simply cannot afford to pay back loans for needed water 
infrastructure, we have to find a better way.
  I think by working across the aisle and working hard, our committee--
the Environment and Public Works Committee--is suggesting that by way 
of this legislation before us today.
  I am pleased to report that these are the challenges that we have 
sought to address head-on with this legislation. This bipartisan 
legislation that we consider today authorizes more than $35 billion for 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure programs at the 
Environmental Protection Agency over the next 5 years. These programs 
will create jobs and make our communities healthier by building, by 
repairing, by upgrading, and by modernizing our Nation's aging drinking 
water and wastewater infrastructure systems.
  Here is how.
  First, the measure takes the historic step of reauthorizing the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund for the first time in 35 years--35 years. 
And it does so by increased funding levels for the first time since 
1987. This legislation also reauthorizes the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund, a program whose authorization expires, I mentioned 
earlier, at the end of this year. This fund helps to ensure that clean 
water flows whenever we turn on our faucet--that clean water comes out 
of it.
  Next, this bill makes sure we are helping our fellow Americans most 
in need--the least of these, the most in need--by boosting funding for 
programs that fund projects in low-income areas, rural communities and 
Tribal lands, and communities of color that have historically been left 
behind by investments in our water infrastructure. According to a 
recent analysis, water systems with multiyear Safe Drinking Water Act 
violations are 40 percent more likely to be in places with higher 
proportions of people of color. Drinking water quality violations are 
by far the most frequent in low-income rural communities, where local 
governments struggle to finance the most basic water infrastructure 
needs.
  To help resolve this historic injustice, more than 40 percent of this 
bill's investments are targeted to help disadvantaged communities. Our 
bill authorizes more than a billion in new funding to reduce lead in 
drinking water. And particularly for our country's rural areas, Tribal 
populations and low-income neighborhoods, our bill invests another 
billion into programs to connect households to drinking water and 
wastewater systems and services.
  Wide disparities in opportunity and investment are also present in 
Tribal communities. Our legislation grows the Tribal Drinking Water 
Program by 20 percent and reforms programs to help

[[Page S2317]]

Tribal education agencies remove lead from their drinking water 
systems, too.
  This legislation does far more than just fix what is broken. To 
borrow a phrase from our President, Joe Biden, this legislation 
actually does ``build back better'' by fortifying water infrastructure 
for new and worsening climate realities.
  I will be honest with you, Madam President and colleagues. In this 
country, ours is a future that promises more severe weather events like 
hurricanes, like floods, droughts, and bitterly cold weather. It is a 
future, like it or not, with more and more people living on the 
frontlines of sea level rise, like my home State of Delaware, the 
lowest lying State in our Nation.
  To that end, the bill provides a combined $500 million to make our 
water infrastructure systems more resilient and adaptable in the face 
of extreme weather events. Within that historic investment is a new 
$125 million program which will, for the first time, provide grants to 
communities seeking to fortify their wastewater systems against climate 
change's impact.
  Finally, with our eyes focused on the future, our bill expands 
government's role in researching and developing the water technologies 
for tomorrow, by investing in technologies to improve, for example, 
storm water control and waste management. By doing so, we can help 
American companies export innovation while not exporting jobs, rather 
by creating them right here. This is not just a bill to spend and build 
on but legislation that would direct our Agencies to build and spend 
more wisely. We know that investment in innovation, as envisioned in 
the bill before us, can have a profound positive impact on our economy, 
creating jobs and fostering growth for our entire Nation. We can, in 
short, seize the opportunity in the face of so much adversity. As we 
say in Delaware, ``Carpe diem. Seize the day.'' Actually, we say: 
``Carper diem. Seize the day.''
  There is an old African proverb that comes to mind that goes 
something like this: If you want to go fast, travel alone. If you want 
to go far, travel together. On this bill, I can proudly say Senator 
Capito and our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee 
have chosen to travel together. The Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act of 2021 passed out of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee with a resounding vote of 20 to 0.

  And from outside the Halls of Congress, this bill has earned praise 
from across the political spectrum, from big cities to small 
communities. A group of government officials that includes the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors wrote that this measure will ``help address the 
many water infrastructure challenges that communities face. Local 
leaders support the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act as 
a reliable, long-term and increased federal investment in water 
infrastructure.''
  Representing our less-populated areas of the country, there are 
places like Raleigh County in West Virginia. Raleigh County is where I 
was born, where my sister and I were born. Senator Capito knows it 
well. Senator Manchin knows it well. His wife is from there. 
Representing places like Sussex County in southern Delaware, the Rural 
Community Assistance Partnership says this about our legislation: 
``Proud to support this bill because Americans deserve clean, safe, 
reliable, and affordable drinking water, regardless of the community's 
size or zip code.'' I could not agree more.
  We know that access to safe, reliable and healthful water isn't a 
blue State or red State issue. It is an issue that goes to the core of 
the promise afforded to every American in Thomas Jefferson's 
Declaration of Independence--largely penned by Thomas Jefferson--with 
these words: a promise of ``Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of 
Happiness.'' If we would be honest with ourselves, none of us can 
expect to pursue, much less enjoy, this American ideal if we don't have 
access to clean water to drink, because without water we have no life.
  The need for action on this issue is clear. To that end, I have been 
grateful to the partnership of our ranking member, Senator Capito. I am 
proud this measure is the very first piece of infrastructure 
legislation, I believe, to be reported out of a Senate committee in 
this the 117th Congress. The Environmental and Public Works Committee 
has a long tradition, as some know, for working across the aisle to get 
significant legislation over the finish line. This bill is the latest 
example of the kind of work that we do.
  I would like to say we are work horses, not show horses.
  This is the first one that Senator Capito and I have been able to 
work on together, and I am grateful for all that she and her staff have 
done to help get us here to this day. I oftentimes say that bipartisan 
solutions are lasting solutions. Think about that: Bipartisan solutions 
are lasting solutions. That is how I think we should approach almost 
all of our work here in the Senate--by reaching out to our colleagues 
across the aisle, where we can, creating lasting solutions to problems 
and challenges facing our Nation. This bill before us today is a 
product of that kind of partnership.
  The legislation is the result of tireless, dedicated work by the 
ranking member, Senator Capito, by her staff, and by my own. I want to 
thank them and every member of our committee for all their outstanding, 
bipartisan work and for all their contributions to helping us craft 
this legislation over the last several months.
  I especially want to note on my staff: John Kane, sitting behind me; 
Margaret McIntosh, known as ``Mackie''; Tyler Hofmann-Reardon; and our 
fearless staff director, Mary Frances Repko. And I want to thank 
another member of our team, who used to be a part of our EPW team and 
is now leaving our staff. This is her last day--Ashley Morgan. We want 
to thank her for all her help in the last couple of years. I also want 
to thank Adam Tomlinson for his leadership with Ranking Member Capito 
and her EPW team, including Jess Kramer and Travis Cone. We thank them 
all very, very much.
  Finally, a big shout out to our Water Subcommittee chair, Senator 
Duckworth, for taking the lead to introduce this excellent measure, 
along with Senator Cardin and EPW subcommittee ranking members, Senator 
Lummis of Wyoming and Senator Cramer. It has been a pleasure to work 
with each of you and your staffs. I would go so far as to say that it 
was a labor of love.
  With this bill's level of support, it is my hope that we can seize 
this momentum and pass this measure quickly this week. I urge all my 
colleagues to join Senator Capito and me in supporting this excellent 
bill.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to reflect on last night and the 
address that was brought to us by our President from Delaware, Joe 
Biden, a long-time friend and colleague. I was encouraged by his 
remarks. He is not a very partisan person, and I think he reached out a 
hand of friendship to the other side of the aisle, in both the House 
and the Senate, to try to work together.
  I am a retired Navy captain, a Vietnam veteran, and a big believer in 
leadership by example. In our committee, the Environmental and Public 
Works Committee, Democrats and Republicans--Senator Capito and, before 
that, John Barrasso; before that, Barbara Boxer and, gosh, Jim Inhofe, 
as chairs of our committee--we have sought to provide bipartisan 
leadership and show by example, and we are trying to do that again here 
today.
  My hope is that, God willing, about a month from now, we will bring 
another bill up for a vote for debate in our committee on surface 
transportation, roads, highways, and bridges, and maybe continue to set 
a good example for this body and for the administration and the House, 
too.
  With that in mind, I am looking for Senator Capito. I don't see her 
on the floor, but I do see the whip, my friend Senator Thune. I think 
maybe I should yield to him.
  I should tell you guys that Senator Thune and I, almost every 
Thursday, are joined with the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, Barry Black, 
a retired admiral who is Chaplain of the Senate now. He is good enough 
to host a Bible study in his office space. We usually end up sitting 
there. It is one of my favorite parts of the week.
  Almost every week he reminds us of Matthew 25. Senator Thune knows 
the Bible better than most pastors. It is true. Senate Chaplain Barry 
Black will oftentimes remind us of Matthew 25. It starts like this: 
``When I was thirsty, you would give me to drink.''

[[Page S2318]]

  We have, I think, a moral imperative to act on this legislation, to 
make it better, and to be able to hammer out a compromise with the 
House and the administration. There is a moral imperative to pass 
legislation of this nature.
  There is also a fiscal imperative. I spoke about filling up how many 
thousands of swimming pools from one water leakage a day.
  There is a health imperative here in the middle of the worst health 
crisis in 200 years.
  There is an economic imperative, as well. It is hard to foster 
economic growth and development in communities where wastewater is not 
treated and there is drinking water you can't drink. Who wants to set 
up a business and go into business in places like that?
  There are a lot of reasons we need to embrace this legislation, make 
it better if we can, and send it off to the House and get it to 
conference.
  We have been joined by a new Presiding Officer. He has just joined us 
straight from New Jersey. For many years, he, Senator Booker, has 
joined us in our Bible study. He, Senator Duckworth, and I formed a 
caucus that is designed to make sure we don't overlook the least of 
these, and I salute him for his leadership and good work in that 
regard.
  With that, I see Senator Capito here. I am not sure if I should yield 
to the whip, Senator Thune, or yield to her.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would echo what my colleague from 
Delaware has said about the Chaplain's Bible study on a weekly basis. 
That, I think, is the highlight for many of us throughout the week.
  I would also say that the Senator from Delaware also has a very good 
command of the Holy Scriptures, and I appreciate the opportunity that 
he and I and others have, on a weekly basis, to participate in that 
study and would encourage other Members to join us. It is truly an 
inspirational time and is something that, I think, we all need with the 
busyness that we have on a weekly basis here in the Senate.
  (The remarks of Senator Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1458 and S. 1475 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                      State Water Rights Amendment

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, water is one of our most precious resources, 
and it is vital to life. It is necessary for agriculture, industry, 
recreation, conservation, the development and growth of cities, and so 
many aspects of our day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, for States like 
Utah--States with a lot of Federal land and States that are dry in many 
areas--our supply for this critical resource, water, is threatened 
under the Antiquities Act.
  Why is this the case? Well, let's review the background.
  Back in 1908, the Supreme Court concluded that, when the Federal 
Government reserves land for an Indian reservation, it also implicitly 
reserves sufficient water on that land to fulfill the purposes of the 
reservation, creating the ``Federal reserved water rights'' doctrine. 
In later cases, the Court expanded that doctrine to apply to other 
Federal properties--other Federal properties like national forests and 
recreation areas.
  Then, in 1976, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine applied to 
national monuments created by the President. In other words, it 
affirmed the President's authority unilaterally to change the legal 
water rights within a State simply by designating a monument under the 
Antiquities Act
  Now, under the Antiquities Act, the President has the authority and 
the discretion to create a monument, as long as there is Federal land. 
So it makes a State like mine, 67 percent of which is owned by the 
Federal Government, a sitting duck for abuse.
  Now, we have talked about Antiquities Act abuses in other contexts. 
Here, I am focusing in on a very narrow ramification of Antiquities Act 
abuse, which relates to water rights. It is only that narrow 
ramification that I am trying to address with this amendment.
  Monument designations can be and often are made without the approval 
of the State and its inhabitants. And, unfortunately, in recent years, 
these designations have grown rather significantly in size and in 
scope.
  The result for public land States, like Utah, is involved in access 
and use to the water supply being significantly curtailed. In some 
cases, privately held water rights are even terminated altogether, and 
it opens up the door to even greater abuse under the Antiquities Act 
down the road.
  Imagine for a moment if a proposal for a national monument were 
designated in just one river basin, such as the Grand Canyon. In order 
to preserve the flow of water on the Colorado River through the Grand 
Canyon, water rights--legally established, longstanding, long-
established water rights--could be eliminated, completely eliminated in 
Colorado, in Utah, in Arizona, in Nevada, in California through the 
stroke of the executive pen.
  A reservation of water could reduce or eliminate drinking water for 
communities across the West. It could eliminate irrigation water for 
almonds or grapes in California or Sudan grass in Utah. The perils are 
endless.
  That is why I am introducing an amendment that would prevent the 
President from unilaterally creating reserved water rights when 
designating a national monument.
  Now, it is important for me to mention--now that I have explained 
what this amendment would do, I want to talk about what it would not 
do.
  My amendment would not prevent the President from creating a national 
monument itself. And, furthermore, it would still allow for water 
rights to be acquired for a monument through the State system in which 
the water rights themselves reside.
  It would simply and fairly give States a say in the process, 
regardless of how you feel about national monuments or about the 
Antiquities Act. I have made clear in the past I have got grave 
concerns with the Antiquities Act, and I believe it needs to be 
repealed. This bill does not do that. This bill simply cabins off water 
rights and says that water rights need to be handled through the legal 
process to which they would otherwise be handled, to which they would 
otherwise be subjected.
  This is a simple, commonsense solution to ensure that Utah and other 
States where there is a lot of Federal public land are guaranteed the 
protection of their existing water rights and a reliable water supply. 
It would be easy to dismiss or denigrate or downplay the importance of 
this if you live in a State where there is not much Federal land. But 
if you live in a State like mine, where most of the land is owned by 
the Federal Government, you can understand how quickly this could 
become destructive, if abused, and that is exactly why we need this 
amendment.
  I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, my neighbor, I want to take a few minutes 
this morning--additional minutes this morning to discuss the water 
issues facing rural America, and the Presiding Officer comes from the 
Garden State, and a lot of people who have heard Senator Coons and me 
talk about our State think of us as the poultry State. We think, for 
about every person who lives in Delaware, we have got about 300 
chickens. We raise a lot of the corn and soybeans to feed those 
chickens. So almost every State is a rural State in one way or the 
other.
  But the issues facing rural America often do not get the same level 
of attention or assistance with drinking water and wastewater programs 
that larger, more urban or suburban areas receive.
  As our Committee on Environment and Public Works was drafting the 
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021, the 
legislation before us today, many of us focused on the need to invest 
in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities because they often--to 
be honest with you, often get left behind.
  These communities are overlooked or overburdened when it comes to 
addressing the drinking water and wastewater needs of their residents 
too often.

[[Page S2319]]

  Most of our country's drinking water and wastewater utilities are 
small. Approximately, 80 percent of the country's almost 17,000 
wastewater utilities serve a population of fewer than 10,000 people. 
More than 90 percent of the country's 43,000 community water systems 
serve a population of fewer than 10,000 people.
  Small and rural communities have more difficulty affording public 
water service. These communities lack the population density needed to 
financially support a public drinking water system, and if they have 
managed to build a system, they often lack the people to properly staff 
it.
  In fact--I was shocked to hear this, but 43 percent of small water 
systems are operated and staffed by one person, by one single person. 
Forty-three percent of small water systems are operated and staffed by 
one person.
  These rural towns' and villages' drinking systems face the same 
challenges as large systems, larger systems, in making sure that water 
is safe, making sure the water is clean, making sure that the water is 
reliable.
  Complicating matters, these communities have to do it with far fewer 
resources, in many instances.
  I want to share just a couple of examples of challenges facing these 
communities just from my own home State, and I am sure every Member of 
this body can provide examples in their own States.
  For example, there is a town called Selbyville. It is right on the 
Delaware-Maryland line, not too far from Rehoboth Beach and Dewey and 
Bethany Beaches. But Selbyville is currently operating without a fully 
licensed water treatment operator due to the death of a longtime 
operator who passed away after a long battle with cancer. The only 
other licensed operator for the town is currently out on disability, 
and the remaining two operators are not fully licensed.
  Through the Technical Assistance Program that this bill would 
reauthorize, the town has been able to obtain the required training to 
prepare the two partially licensed operators for the State licensing 
exam.
  This program has helped to train these individuals in areas like 
disinfection control, filtration, provide the onsite technical 
assistance for leak detection and hydrant maintenance.
  Another example, the Pepper Ridge Mobile Park in Frankford, DE--not 
too far away--suffered many years of waterline breakage, low water 
pressure, no hydrants, valves, levers, and inadequate distribution 
lines.
  The Delaware Rural Water Association, through our State revolving 
fund, was able to obtain funds to do a full water line upgrade.
  And incidentally, we will also reauthorize this program at an 
increased level of funding.
  This legislation before us today specifically helps rural and 
smalltown America by reauthorizing critical programs like the ones I 
just mentioned in my own State and by adjusting the cost share for 
these communities to make these infrastructure upgrades more affordable 
to ratepayers.
  Passing this legislation will be an important step toward addressing 
the overwhelming infrastructure needs of 43,000 water systems in rural 
communities, many of which have one person operating that system.
  According to the most recent EPA drinking water infrastructure 
assessment, rural drinking water needs are currently estimated at $74 
billion over the next 20 years, including $3.3 billion just for Indian 
Country.
  To help rural communities, this bill expands drinking water technical 
assistance opportunities for rural communities by authorizing more than 
$75 million in technical assistance grants.
  We have been joined on the floor by the prime author of this 
legislation, the Senator from Illinois, and I am just going to stop 
where I am in my discourse on rural American water needs of a lot of 
our rural communities and to yield the floor, unless Senator Capito--
no. Senator Duckworth.
  I just want to thank Senator Duckworth for being the prime sponsor of 
this legislation, for allowing the rest of us--we have a big racetrack, 
Dover Downs NASCAR track, we use the term ``drafting,'' when one car 
gets really close behind the other and kind of holds on, but we want to 
thank Senator Duckworth for allowing the rest of us to draft on her 
legislation that she and Senator Lummis from Wyoming have introduced, 
and we are grateful for her leadership
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I remember sitting in a House Oversight 
Committee hearing years ago on the Flint water crisis. At the time, my 
oldest daughter Abigail was just a year old.
  I remember looking out into the audience and seeing just a hand 
holding a baby bottle up from the middle of a crowd in that hearing 
room. That baby bottle looked exactly like the one that my own baby 
drank out of. It was a little bottle with a pink top.
  But unlike my daughter's bottle, the water in this one was brown, a 
muddy, murky brown.
  I couldn't, and all these years later I still can't, begin to imagine 
what it would have been like to have to drink that water while I was 
pregnant or to have no choice but to give it to my baby because the 
system that I trusted to provide my family with clean, safe drinking 
water had failed me.
  But that kind of nightmare remains the everyday reality for far, far 
too many parents across this country.
  It has been 7 years since the leaders of the city of Flint tried to 
save a few dollars by swapping out its drinking water supply from 
Detroit's system to the Flint River, setting off a chain of events that 
poisoned nearly 9,000 kids in just 18 months.
  But the damage inflicted on that community will never go away, and 
while Flint was a tragedy, it was not an anomaly. According to both the 
EPA and CDC, there is no known safe level of lead in a child's blood. 
Yet more than 6 million homes continue to get water from lead service 
lines, including in my own home State of Illinois, which has more known 
lead service lines than any other State in the country.
  And despite lead service lines being banned nearly 35 years ago, as 
of 2019, roughly half a million children under the age of 6 still had 
elevated levels of lead in their blood--something that can cause 
permanent brain damage.
  And lead is just one of the many issues that communities struggle 
with every day due to our outdated and dilapidated water systems.
  But instead of working to address these known issues, the Federal 
Government's share of capital spending in the water sector fell from 63 
percent in 1977 to a meager 9 percent in 2017.
  And now, our dwindling Federal and State investments into our water 
infrastructure are allowing countless Americans to be exposed to 
pollutants, whether it is from taking a sip from their kitchen faucets 
or even just living near an outdated stormwater system.
  Part of the problem with water infrastructure is that it is expensive 
and no one sees it--out of sight, out of mind. But that only lasts 
until there is a major problem, like in Texas, where over 15 million 
people were temporarily left without access to clean water.
  Well, we have to stop waiting for our infrastructure to fail before 
we invest in it. We cannot wait around for another crisis to sicken our 
families before we decide to put real State and Federal dollars into 
rebuilding our drinking water and wastewater systems.
  Imagine if your child was one of those who had gotten sick because 
legislators refused to take action on such an obvious crisis. Imagine 
if you had to be the one to get your newborn to sip on water too opaque 
to see through.
  We should not let even one more parent suffer through that worst-case 
scenario. Access to clean water is a human right, and every American 
deserves access to clean water, no matter their ZIP Code, the color of 
their skin, or the size of their income.
  It is long, long past time that we turn that right into a reality by 
investing in the kinds of projects that would put Americans back to 
work rebuilding our crumbling water infrastructure. We must 
dramatically increase Federal investments to provide every family 
access to the most basic human needs--clean water.
  That is one reason why I introduced the Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act of 2021. If our Nation

[[Page S2320]]

truly wants to build back better, we can't only pour money into fixing 
our roads while failing to repair the pipes beneath them.
  Because water infrastructure is infrastructure, everyone needs it in 
every corner of this country.
  My bipartisan bill would invest significant Federal dollars to help 
States, communities, and schools fix and upgrade aging water systems to 
improve water quality, while fostering economic growth throughout the 
country.
  Our legislation seeks to reauthorize and enhance State revolving loan 
funds, which are the most effective tools we have to provide States 
with Federal investments that empower local leaders to modernize water 
systems, implement lead reduction projects, and rebuild stormwater 
overflow infrastructure.
  Our bill would also continue getting shovels into the ground and 
support quality jobs by reauthorizing the WIFIA financing program, an 
initiative that already helped finance nearly $20 billion for water 
infrastructure projects and created 49,000 jobs in just under 7 years.
  It would provide more than $700 million in lead testing and reduction 
programs, in part through a program very close to my heart, the 
voluntary lead testing in schools and childcare facilities program, 
expanding it to go beyond testing to include lead reduction
  Of course, it is not sufficient to simply increase investment 
levels--we must enact policies that effectively distribute critical 
dollars in a fair and just manner that prioritizes the most vulnerable 
Americans, and the most pressing public health and safety needs.
  That is why my bipartisan legislation prioritizes environmental 
justice by providing direct help to small, disadvantaged, rural and 
tribal communities that have been ignored for far too long.
  By lowering non-Federal cost-shares, creating new grants and allowing 
for debt forgiveness, we can help communities that typically struggle 
to afford traditional loans. This includes Centerville, IL, a community 
that needs resources to kick start projects that will rebuild their 
catastrophically failing systems that allow sewage to seep into my 
constituents' homes whenever it rains.
  Look, we must face the awful reality that a community's racial and 
economic composition are the top predictors of waste facility 
locations--and we should be outraged that these environmental justice 
communities are often neglected in favor of wealthy areas that are home 
to rate payers that can cover the cost of safe water.
  Congress cannot abandon American communities simply because they 
cannot afford to update their water infrastructure . . . especially 
when we know that the Federal Government failed to prevent this crisis 
from happening.
  Concerns about the health effects of lead pipes date back all the way 
back to the late 1800's--yet Congress didn't ban the use of lead 
service lines until 1986! And even then, the Federal Government allowed 
lead pipes already in the ground to remain . . . forcing too many of 
our communities to essentially drink through a ``lead straw'' to this 
very day.
  We helped create this problem. Now, it's on us to help fix it.
  Our mission lies right before us: work together to protect the health 
of our most vulnerable neighbors and achieve a reality where: no 
elementary-schooler is scared to use their school's drinking fountain;
  no parent questions whether it's safe to give their child a glass of 
water before bedtime; and
  no family comes to expect that their house will be flooded by sewage 
every time it rains.
  At the end of the day, it's simple the condition of our water 
infrastructure is a crisis. It is a crisis that is daunting, yes, and 
devastating, certainly--yet it's a crisis that is solvable. Every 
dollar we spend improving our water systems can help save the health of 
our future generations. And that is why I hope my colleagues will join 
me in voting yes on the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure 
Act of 2021.


         Amendment No. 1471, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes for remarks equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
1471, as modified.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, this amendment No. 1471 is our amendment, 
and it would modernize the formula by which this money is distributed.
  This formula is 34 years old. It privileges a handful of States over 
the vast majority--I think the number is 15 over the other 35. And it 
is not just me saying it; the EPA issued a report that stated that the 
current formula does not meet the wastewater needs of all of the States 
and recommended that it be updated regularly. Notably, from the EPA's 
report, it says that the EPA does not know how the current allotment 
formula was developed. It says:

       The weighting and factors that were used to establish the 
     formula for the original allotment are not known.

  My home State of Florida is one of many that are disadvantaged under 
the current formula, and the result has been obvious over the years.
  I think most of my colleagues would agree that distributing funds--
let alone $14.4 billion--to States without rhyme or reason is not 
beneficial and isn't fair.
  It is not just States, by the way. This amendment, if passed, would 
secure more equitable allotments to Native American Tribes and 
territories.
  Unfortunately, I made--in our drafting of this amendment, there was a 
small technical error in which, instead of stating that it should be 
0.025 in the distribution for Native American Tribes, it says .0025.
  So I ask unanimous consent to further modify amendment No. 1471 with 
the changes that are at the desk so that the right number is on there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object, I cannot agree to this 
unanimous consent request because this is the exact reason why we don't 
amend complicated formulas on the floor with limited oversight.
  This bill was hotlined last night, I think, with the current language 
from Senator Rubio, and now he would like to change it here literally 
at the last moment. With all due respect, I just cannot agree to that.
  I said to him in a conversation on the floor that I think he knows me 
well enough that I am willing to work with him and others who would 
like to see some modifications in this formula going forward. This is 
not the end of the trail. We will have a conference with the House. We 
will have negotiations with the White House.
  I just want to say to Senator Rubio that I look forward to working 
with him and Senator Capito to consider the changes that he is 
proposing but not to do it at the last minute here on the floor. I am 
unable to do that.
  I reluctantly object, but I am going to have to do that. I object
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, in my remaining time--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time remaining.
  Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I just want to state that we are not 
changing the formula. There is an extra zero, and it is literally a 
typo, the kind of typo people make every single day in the Senate. 
Instead of saying ``.025,'' it says ``.0025.'' Everyone knows what it 
was intended to do. That is the way we talked about it. That has been 
objected to. The Senate is now a place where you cannot amend a typo by 
unanimous consent. That is unbelievable. It is unreal. I, frankly, find 
it unacceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, our committee has worked on this 
legislation all year. We have had hearings. We have had meetings, 
discussions at the staff level and Member level to try to come to an 
agreement on all kinds of provisions to the bill, and we are prepared 
to do more of that once this legislation is adopted.
  But we reported this bill unanimously because it will benefit 
citizens across our Nation, better ensuring that, no matter where they 
live, they will have access to clean and safe water.

[[Page S2321]]

  Our bill ensures that every State, territory, and Tribe will receive 
more funding to make critical investments in clean water projects. But 
by proposing a formula that only takes population growth into account--
only takes population growth into account--Senator Rubio and Senator 
Scott's amendment will ensure that many States, including rural States, 
territories, and Indian Tribes, will lose water infrastructure funding, 
in some cases as much as 80 percent.
  We cannot afford to take money away from these governments when their 
needs are so great, especially in communities that have historically 
been underfunded and underserved. That is why more than 50 different 
organizations, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the League of 
Conservation Voters and a whole lot of others in between, oppose this 
amendment.
  As a result, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
list of those organizations--a growing list of those organizations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Organization

       AFL-CIO,
       Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie,
       Alliance for the Great Lakes,
       American Council of Engineering Companies,
       American Littoral Society,
       American Rivers,
       American Sustainable Business Council,
       Anthropocene Alliance,
       Associated General Contractors of America,
       Black Women's Health Imperative,
       Cahaba River Society,
       Clean Water Action,
       Clean Water Action Minnesota,
       Ducks Unlimited,
       Earthjustice,
       Endangered Habitats League,
       Environment America,
       Environmental Defense Fund,
       Environmental Law & Policy Center,
       For Love of Water (FLOW),
       Grasslands Water District,
       Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association,
       GreenLatinos,
       Healthy Gulf,
       Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC,
       Hydraulic Institute,
       Ilinois Council of Trout Unlimited,
       International Union of Operating Engineers,
       International Union of Operating Engineers (Also in WIN 
     Joint Letter),
       Laborers' International Union of North America,
       Leadership Team, U.S. Province of the School Sisters of St. 
     Francisisters of St. Francis United,
       League of Conservation Voters,
       Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District,
       Milwaukee Riverkeeper,
       National Association of Clean Water Agencies,
       National Association of Counties,
       National Association of Regional Councils,
       National Coalition for Legislation on Affordable Water 
     (NCLA-WATER),
       National Conference of State Legislatures,
       National Electrical Contractors Association,
       National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association,
       National League of Cities,
       National Parks Conservation Association,
       National Wildlife Federation,
       Natural Resources Defense Council,
       Natural Resources Defense Council (Also in LCV Joint 
     Letter),
       North America's Building Trades Union,
       Ohio Environmental Council,
       Onondaga Audubon,
       Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes,
       Rural Water,
       Sierra Club,
       Southern Environmental Law Center,
       Surfrider Foundation,
       United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters,
       United States Chamber of Commerce,
       United States Conference of Mayors,
       United Steelworkers,
       Vinyl Institute,
       Water Infrastructure Network,
       Water Systems Council,
       Waterkeeper Alliance.

  Mr. CARPER. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Capito in 
voting no on this amendment--again, looking forward to subsequently 
working with Senators Rubio and Scott to see if we can come to a 
consensus on these changes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address this 
for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I just want to join with Senator Carper in opposition to 
this amendment. While I think it is well-meaning for the State of 
Florida, and I think that both Senator Rubio and Senator Scott have 
made us aware of this issue, I think that in order to update these 
formulas, we should have hearings. We should actually do this in a more 
studied, more detailed way than this amendment presents for us to do.
  With that, I join my colleague and my chair in opposition to this 
amendment.


                Vote on Amendment No. 1471, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1471, as modified.
  Mr. RUBIO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 81, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--14

     Burr
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Kelly
     Lee
     Ossoff
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Sinema
     Tillis
     Warnock

                                NAYS--81

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Paul
     Rounds
     Shelby
  The amendment (No. 1471), as modified, was rejected


                Amendment No. 1461 to Amendment No. 1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1461.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CARPER. I yield time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 1461, and I want to 
thank Senators Collins, Gillibrand, King, Rounds, and Peters for 
cosponsoring this amendment and also thank Chairman Carper and Ranking 
Member Capito for their support for the amendment.
  As we all know, you can't put a price on safe drinking water, but for 
too many communities and too many households in this country, costs are 
a real barrier to contamination.
  This bipartisan amendment will help States address pollution not just 
from regulated contaminants like arsenic but also from unregulated 
contaminants like PFAS. It does this by expanding an existing grant 
program to help small and disadvantaged communities, not just those 
defined as underserved. It would also help households with private 
wells.
  We have to provide more tools to ensure that all Americans have 
access to clean, safe drinking water. My amendment would do just that. 
I urge its adoption, and I would be very happy to have this done by 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator

[[Page S2322]]

Shaheen's amendment. I urge its adoption.
  Representing, as I do, a State where there are a great number of 
people who receive their drinking water from wells, it is really 
important that we extend this program to identify contaminants there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Shaheen-Collins amendment makes 
changes to the State Response to Contaminants Program. Specifically, 
the amendment expands the provisions for the State Response to 
Contaminants Program from covering just underserved communities to also 
small and disadvantaged communities, to allow communities that are 
financially unstable, which cannot afford to address contaminants, or 
small, which means less than 10,000 people in population, to qualify 
for grants to address contaminants in the drinking water.
  This is a good amendment, and we thank the sponsor and also join here 
in cosponsoring. I urge a ``yes'' vote and a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I would also join in the positive 
comments to say this meets two issues that I care deeply about and 
certainly hit my State, which is the PFAS issue and also small and 
disadvantaged communities. It very much helps with safe and clean 
drinking water
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of 
Senate amendment No. 1461, which I have offered to expand a key program 
that helps address contaminated drinking water. But before I do, I 
would like to commend Senator Duckworth, Chairman Carper, and Ranking 
Member Capito for developing the bipartisan legislation currently 
before the Senate, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure 
Act. This bipartisan bill will invest more than $35 billion for water 
infrastructure across the country. This can't come soon enough for 
States like New Hampshire.
  Like most States, New Hampshire is suffering from aging 
infrastructure, much of it is between 50-100 years old. And 
unfortunately, our State government and municipalities simply do not 
have the ability to fully fund the hundreds of millions of dollars 
needed to address the rising costs of failing infrastructure, 
population growth, and changes in regulation. Communities across the 
country are facing similar financial challenges.
  That is why Congress must pass sweeping legislation to tackle our 
Nation's water infrastructure problems, build climate-resilient 
systems, and ensure that all Americans have access to clean and safe 
water. The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act is a good 
first step, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to do more.
  The amendment I am offering today with Senators Collins, Gillibrand, 
King, Rounds, and Peters will help more people impacted by drinking 
water contaminants, including those who rely on wells. While America's 
drinking water is among the safest in the world, unregulated 
contaminants, such as PFAS, are increasingly being detected in drinking 
water across the country. This is a problem in particular for New 
Hampshire's southern cities and towns, including Merrimack, 
Londonderry, Portsmouth, and Dover.
  It is not just unregulated contaminants. Pollutants and known 
carcinogens like arsenic, radon, iron, and manganese have been found in 
New Hampshire groundwater sources at levels that threaten public 
health. According to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services, approximately 98,000 Granite Staters who utilize private 
wells have unsafe levels of arsenic in their water.
  As I have heard again and again, discovering that you have been 
drinking contaminated water can produce a range of emotions, from anger 
and fear to guilt. It is heartbreaking to hear stories of parents 
worried about what their kids' exposure will mean for their health. I 
am committed to finding every opportunity to improve this situation. 
That is why I am proposing to expand a key part of the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Assistance for Small and Disadvantaged Communities 
Program to help States respond to water contamination in more places.
  I want to make clear that States have flexibility to support a range 
of projects to address contaminants including in underground sources of 
drinking water, which will help households relying on well water. In 
New Hampshire, a little over half of our population gets its drinking 
water from public water systems that provide water from lakes, rivers, 
and wells. The remainder get their water from residential wells. All of 
them deserve healthy and safe drinking water. My amendment will help do 
just that. And I urge my colleagues to support it.
  As I said at the outset, this bill we have before us today is a good 
step in addressing our water infrastructure needs, but there is more to 
be done. For instance, Congress must address outstanding issues 
affecting water infrastructure financing. The 2017 tax law repealed a 
longstanding incentive under section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code 
known as the Contributions in Aid of Construction exemption, or CIAC. 
Communities across New Hampshire have been planning projects for years 
that are now threatened by these tax changes. For example, the 
Hampstead Area Water Company reports that it is facing a $1.5 million 
tax bill on an infrastructure project aimed at providing more customers 
access to clean drinking water. And what is worse, these tax increase 
may be passed on to utility customers, increasing their water bills. 
That is why I have filed an amendment to undo these harmful changes, so 
that our Tax Code once again encourages these critical investments. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to fix this.
  We must also provide increased support for water systems in small 
rural communities across the country that are struggling as a result of 
this pandemic. The financial impacts of COVID-19 on systems serving 
10,000 people or fewer is estimated to be at least $3.6 billion. Yet no 
support for small rural water and wastewater systems has been included 
in COVID relief legislation to date. That is why I have joined with 
Senator Tillis to introduce the Emergency Assistance for Rural Water 
Systems Act, legislation that would provide critical funding to small 
and rural communities during this challenging time.
  Finally, we must address PFAS contamination and its effects on our 
communities. As many of us know, PFAS chemicals impact drinking water 
sources in and around military bases, manufacturing sites, airports, 
and other places across the country due to their widespread use in 
firefighting foam and consumer products. In my State of New Hampshire, 
the city of Portsmouth closed a major water supply well at the former 
Pease Air Force Base due to PFAS in the drinking water. And several 
communities in southern New Hampshire are struggling with groundwater 
PFAS contamination near the Saint-Gobain plant in Merrimack. Residents 
near the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in North Hampton and Greenland 
are concerned about high levels of PFAS found in nearby surface waters.
  We owe it to the American families in New Hampshire and across the 
country who live and work near sites contaminated by these materials to 
invest at the scale necessary to fix the problem. That is why I have 
championed legislation, the PFAS Testing and Treatment Act, which would 
deliver robust Federal resources to support State efforts to address 
PFAS through remediation and clean up. I hope to work with the chairman 
and ranking member, as well as House and Senate leaders, to move this 
proposal forward.
  Access to safe, clean drinking water is essential. While I am only 
seeking a vote on amendment No. 1461 today, I will continue to work on 
all of these issues. I look forward to passage of the Drinking Water 
and Wastewater Infrastructure Act and continuing to work to address 
these outstanding issues in future infrastructure bills.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1461

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1461) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1469 to Amendment No. 1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1469.
  The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page S2323]]

  

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk briefly about boil water 
advisories. They are more than just frustrating. They are more than 
just inconvenient. They can be dangerous.
  I don't know about the Presiding Officer's community or my 
colleagues' communities, but they have been happening more and more 
frequently in Louisiana. Since 2005, we have had 9,661 boil water 
advisories. We had 1,600 of them last year alone.
  I thank the EPW Committee for working with me and all of my 
colleagues. My amendment would require the EPA to provide us an annual 
study on the prevalence of these boil water advisories and the reasons 
therefor so we can decide whether to take action, if any.
  I would appreciate my colleagues' support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kennedy's 
amendment because we need to know more about boil orders, something 
that I, frankly, hadn't heard a lot about. I thank the Senator for 
bringing it to our attention.
  We are in support of this amendment. These are frequently used, and 
transparency is needed on them.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for this. I pull 
up my local newspaper, and the first thing that comes up is listing the 
boil water advisories. This is absolutely needed. I think it is a great 
idea. I am very much in support of this.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1469

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1469) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1472 to Amendment No. 1460

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1472.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment by 
Senator Lee. His amendment would amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit 
the President from reserving water when designating a national 
monument.
  The amendment states that any water rights associated with a national 
monument may only be acquired under State law. The Lee amendment 
overturns decades of Supreme Court precedent that when a President 
designates a national monument under the Antiquities Act, the 
designation reserves the right to use enough water to fulfill the 
purpose of the monument.
  But the water infrastructure bill is not the appropriate place for 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, we yield back our time.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1472

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Paul
     Rounds
     Shelby
  The amendment (No. 1472) was rejected
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). On this vote, the yeas are 41, the 
nays are 54.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1472) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1460, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1460), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for a 
third time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to raise an issue at this point 
that is not relevant to the water bill. I ask unanimous consent to be 
given that opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________