Livestock Regulatory Protection Act of 2021

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.''

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

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I yield time.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November 1 haying and grazing date for cover crops.

Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality, and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before they can be used for hay and grazing.

The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1 in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to benefit from these crops.

Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy, but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life, as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges.

Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.

I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing everything they can to promote the health of their land.

There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of land, and somehow the government will manage it properly.

Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life.

Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our environmental problems by giving the government more than it can handle.

I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental gains over the well-being of the American people

Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2 years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag. There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.

To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in 2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this, but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is notable for its complete lack of specificity.

It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10 years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.

So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.

Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I am introducing today.

There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.

First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a government program to help

them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program, and there is no reason they should have to.

Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S. emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef even more wrong-headed.

Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple. It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of livestock.

We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long- term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by overzealous environmental crusaders.

I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural resources.

I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and other biofuels.

The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S. Department of Energy's GREET model.

I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely used in States like California.

My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the research and facility investments they have made and improve their operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential market.

Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.

So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for our environment and good for American families.

That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the 2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for farmers.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

Mr. President. A vibrant and independent media and public access to accurate information are critical to the functioning of any democracy. A free press is so important that our Founding Fathers explicitly guaranteed that right in the First Amendment of our Constitution, and the United Nations defined press freedom as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But today--as democracies worldwide are facing growing challenges from authoritarian leaders, censorship, and disinformation campaigns-- foreign journalists are facing unprecedented dangers that put their profession, and their lives, at risk.

The nature of threats against journalists is shifting. While the number of journalists killed in war zones continues to drop, the number of journalists killed or targeted in countries at peace continues at historically high levels. Fifty journalists were killed because of their work in 2020, and 68% of these deaths occurred outside of conflict zones. Most of those who perpetrate attacks are never held accountable. Worldwide, there was complete impunity in 86% of cases of murdered journalists occurring between September 2019 and August 2020. In addition, the number of journalists imprisoned remains at historically high levels, with nearly 400 behind bars as of December 2020. And authoritarian governments are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for censorship, restricting reporters' freedom of movement, and harassing them.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Graham marks World Press Freedom Day by honoring journalists not only with words but with action. It builds on the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act, signed into law in 2009, to take concrete steps to ensure the wellbeing of journalism as a profession, and of individual journalists themselves. This legislation creates a new fund for programs to help keep foreign journalists safe, whether they are operating in dangerous environments or need to be re-located for their safety, and authorizes $30 million for this purpose. It uses existing funding to help nations prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes against journalists overseas. It creates a new non-immigrant visa category to allow journalists in danger to come to the United States. And it creates a Coordinator for International Press Freedom at the State Department to serve as a focal point for advancing the right to freedom of the press and freedom of expression abroad.

I am proud to join Senator Graham in this effort to ensure that the free press that we value so highly in the United States is protected and promoted around the world, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President. As we work to support American families, stimulate the economy, bolster small

businesses, protect health care workers, and sustain our industries, investing in child welfare is imperative to supporting these efforts. The coronavirus pandemic has further highlighted that the development of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is central to improving outcomes for children and families across the United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high rates of turnover and professionals who are more susceptible to burnout and compassion fatigue.

For the past 15 years, child welfare turnover rates have been estimated between 20 percent and 40 percent. In 2017, Virginia reported a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving an agency.

More needs to be done to ensure that individuals pursuing careers in child welfare receive appropriate training and support to improve the sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Maintaining a high-performing, engaged, and committed workforce is vital to providing families with the quality supports they need to stabilize, reunify, and thrive. Research suggests that positive child welfare outcomes depend largely on the capacity and competence of the child welfare workforce.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act with my colleague Senator Baldwin. This bill directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in this space.

I hope that as the Senate considers reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act and recognize the vital role that child welfare workers play to improve outcomes and protect our most vulnerable infants and children.

Mr. President. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment compared to non-LGBTQ youth. Because of limited exposure to mandated reporters as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the unfortunate truth is that the maltreatment that some youth experience have experienced has gone unrecognized and underreported. Research prior to the pandemic demonstrated that LGBTQ youth were more likely to experience physical abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual peers. Risk for harm of vulnerable youth also extends far beyond physical safety. LGBTQ youth are at a disproportionately high risk for depression, suicidal ideation and suicide, and self-harming behaviors, with rates of attempted suicide of around 2 to 10 times those of peers.

These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space. Additional research is needed to understand the risk of abuse among LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. This information will yield invaluable information to be used in developing targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood experiences of LGBTQ individuals.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act with my colleague Senator Baldwin. Our bill amends the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and calls for HHS and other federal agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands current practices around demographic information collection and reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth, and will be pivotal in our understanding of abuse and neglect following the pandemic.

I hope that as the Senate moves to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by LGBTQ youth and the best ways to protect them.

Mr. President. While cancer is the leading cause of death by disease among children past infancy, childhood cancer and other rare pediatric diseases remain poorly understood. According to the National Cancer Institute, an estimated 15,590 children and adolescents under the age of 19 will be diagnosed with cancer, and 1,780 will die of the disease in the United States in 2021.

This is why I am pleased to be introducing the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act 2.0 with Senators Jerry Moran, Mark R. Warner, and Bill Cassidy. The legislation provides a new source of funding for the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program (Kids First) by redirecting penalties collected from pharmaceutical, cosmetic, supplement, and medical device companies that break the law to pediatric and childhood cancer research. The bill is named in honor of Gabriella Miller, a Leesburg, Virginia resident who died from a rare form of brain cancer at the age of 10. Gabriella was an activist and worked to raise support for research into childhood diseases like cancer until her death in October of 2013.

The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Program has supported critical research into pediatric cancer and structural birth defects and has focused on building a pediatric data resource combining genetic sequencing data with clinical data from multiple pediatric cohorts. The Gabriella Miller Kids First Data Resource Center is helping to advance scientific understanding and discoveries around pediatric cancer and structural birth defects and has sequenced nearly 20,000 samples thus far. While Congress has appropriated $12.6 million for the Kids First program annually since Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, this legislation would make additional funding streams available to appropriators to further support pediatric and childhood cancer research.

Gabriella Miller was a passionate activist and fighter. In 2014, I was a strong champion of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which established the Ten-Year Pediatric Research Initiative at the NIH and authorized $12.6 million per fiscal year through FY23. We honor Gabriella's memory by continuing her work in making sure pediatric disease research is a priority. This bipartisan legislation would provide a critical source of funding to improve research in pediatric cancer and diseases, and I urge my colleagues to support it.'

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2 years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag. There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.

To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in 2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this, but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is notable for its complete lack of specificity.

It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10 years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.

So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.

Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I am introducing today.

There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.

First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a government program to help

them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program, and there is no reason they should have to.

Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S. emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef even more wrong-headed.

Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple. It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of livestock.

We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long- term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by overzealous environmental crusaders.

I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural resources.

I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and other biofuels.

The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S. Department of Energy's GREET model.

I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely used in States like California.

My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the research and facility investments they have made and improve their operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential market.

Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.

So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for our environment and good for American families.

That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the 2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for farmers.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

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

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