PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 52.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jun 29, 2021
Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2021
This bill provides support for drinking water infrastructure and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the safety and affordability of drinking water.
Specifically, the bill reauthorizes and establishes several programs for drinking water infrastructure. For example, it reauthorizes through FY2031 the drinking water state revolving fund.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In addition, the bill revises requirements concerning the safety of drinking water, including by requiring the EPA to promulgate national primary drinking water regulations for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (commonly known as PFAS), microcystin toxin, and 1,4–dioxane. PFAS are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. A variety of products contain the compounds, such as nonstick cookware or weatherproof clothing. Microcystin is a toxin that is produced by certain algae. The solvent known as 1,4–dioxane may also have adverse human health effects. It is used in variety of products, such as adhesives, sealants, and printing inks.
The EPA must also implement a residential emergency relief program that assists customers of public water systems with paying drinking water bill. Under the program, the EPA must provide payments to public water systems to reimburse them for forgiving their customers' debts or fees for services provided since March 1, 2020, in order to help the customers retain, reconnect, or restore water services. Public water systems that receive payments may not disconnect or interrupt their customer's service because of such debt or fees.
Finally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to report on issues relating to the potential for consolidation of certain distressed and small public water systems.
People & committees
Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 52.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 117-76.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 117-76.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 32 - 24.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9 .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2594)
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3291 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3291 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3291 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3291 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.