Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 40 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 40 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2321-H2330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 215 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 700.

{time} 1244

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 700) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend
the pilot program for alternative water source projects, with Mr.
McNulty in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.

{time} 1245

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.

[[Page H2322]]

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities
Water Supply Act of 2007. This important legislation would reauthorize
appropriations of $125 million for the EPA's alternative water sources
grant program.
Mr. Chairman, rapid population growth and development along with an
increased awareness of the impact of massive water withdrawals and the
threat of global climate change have forced many local communities to
explore alternative sources of water.
H.R. 700 provides one alternative for meeting these future water
needs by encouraging the testing and implementation of technology that
reclaim and reuse water from municipal, industrial and agricultural
needs.
I applaud the efforts of my colleagues on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Congressman McNerney and
Congresswoman Tauscher, for their efforts in moving this legislation
forward and ensuring that communities are able to meet current and
future water needs.
This committee approved similar legislation in the 109th Congress,
and it is my hope this year Congress will finally approve legislation
and forward it to the President for his signature.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply
Act of 2007. I want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member, Mr.
Baker, for their hard work on this particular bill.
H.R. 700 extends the pilot program under the Clean Water Act for
alternative water source projects.
Growth in population, increasing demands for water, and drought are
resulting in water shortages in many areas around our Nation, both in
the west and the east.
Many communities are finding that their water supply needs cannot be
met by existing water supplies. As a result, many communities and their
water resource development agencies are looking at alternative ways to
alleviate their water shortages and enhance water supplies to meet
their future water needs.
This is an important issue not only for my home State of Arkansas but
for the many other parts of the country facing increasing demands for
water.
Adequate water is needed to sustain our country's economic growth and
viability. Some of the approaches they are looking at involve
reclaiming, reusing or conserving water that has already been used.
H.R. 700 provides an authority to help communities meet some of their
critical water supply needs through water reclamation, reuse,
conservation and management.
H.R. 700 authorizes $125 billion for the EPA to make grants to water
resource development agencies for these sorts of alternative water
source projects. The program leverages non-Federal resources by
requiring a non-Federal cash of 50 percent.
I urge all Members to support this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairmen Oberstar
and Johnson and Ranking Members Mica and Baker for their leadership on
clean water issues and for their work to bring the legislation we are
considering today to the floor. In addition, I would like to thank my
colleague and good friend, Mrs. Tauscher, for supporting this
legislation with me. Mrs. Tauscher and I have adjoining districts in
California, and we have similar water needs.
My bill, H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007,
is straightforward and helpful legislation that I hope both parties
will support.
Everyone recognizes the need for clean water. It does not matter
whether you live in a city or in the rural, it does not matter what
your political persuasion is. We all need clean water. Therefore, it is
vitally important to identify new water sources for use in agriculture,
industry and for residential consumption.
In the past, the State Revolving Loan Funds and Clean Water Act
construction grants were available for identifying new water sources.
But communities now increasingly depend on those funds just to provide
for the maintenance and upkeep of existing water infrastructure, rather
than finding new and potentially less expensive water supplies.
H.R. 700 will provide $125 million so that local governments can
innovate to collect, clean and distribute new sources of water. The
Healthy Communities Water Supply Act will encourage municipalities,
public and private water agencies and nonprofit organizations to find
ways to provide new sources of water.
For the small investment of Federal funding provided in this bill, we
can spur innovation in water resources and move towards solving the
increasingly pressing need to ensure clean water for drinking, for
family farms, for businesses and for households.
H.R. 700 encourages innovation by funding pilot projects and forward-
thinking ideas that lead to practical solutions, which can be applied
across the board. This legislation means jobs in local communities by
spurring the kind of research that can create new businesses and make
our towns and cities more livable at the same time.
The constant threat of drought in the Western States, along with the
reality of global warming, emphasizes why the Healthy Communities Water
Supply Act of 2007 is so important. We must begin to investigate
alternative water sources now, so that we can make strides in ensuring
that we have water that we need in the future.
I am hopeful that we can move quickly to pass H.R. 700 and to work
with the other body so we can provide water relief for our communities.
Again, I urge all my colleagues to support the Healthy Communities
Water Supply Act.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time
as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the full committee,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the subcommittee,
the gentlewoman from Texas, for yielding the time and compliment her
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for developing this legislation and preparing it and
bringing it so early in the session to the House floor. I also
appreciate the bipartisan cooperation with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the full committee, and it is good to
have the gentleman from Arkansas on the floor and managing the bill. I
thank the gentleman for his ever thoughtful approach to legislation.
This alternative water sources initiative is not something that we
developed in the course of this Congress. It started way back in 2000,
in fact, earlier than that, as the committee held hearings over a
period of several years to raise the visibility of issues of water
supply and groundwater withdrawals and needs of communities well off
into the future.
In fact, I should point out that a former colleague of ours, later
Speaker, Jim Wright, in 1958 wrote a book entitled, ``The Coming Water
Famine,'' where then new Congressman Wright gathered enormous amount of
data about water usage by industry, by agriculture, by homeowners, and
did a calculation that showed the rising use of water intersecting with
a line of steady availability.
All the water there ever was, there ever will be, is available now.
We will not create new water, and he showed that in the 1980s the lines
would intersect, and that, at that point, the Nation and the Congress
need to face up to the need to assure the continuity of availability of
water supplies, that continued withdrawal of water from the Ogallala
aquifer that covers west Texas and eastern Oklahoma, a huge area of the
central portion of the United States, could not continue forever. That
water would be withdrawn, and there would be no further water
available, just simply was not replenishing as fast as surface needs
were drawing upon it.
That was the background. That was the stimulus for the alternative
water

[[Page H2323]]

sources program that our committee included in the Estuaries and Clean
Water Act of 2000, which passed the House, the Senate and was signed
into law.
The legislation was developed to address the concerns by communities
all across the country over availability of water to meet their future
requirements, especially in the more arid regions of the country, as we
have already heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney)
and Mrs. Tauscher, also from California, who was the initiator of this
legislation in previous Congresses.
I have read a great deal about climate change that followed the
enormous amount of scientific data pouring forth from the international
geophysical year by the United Nations scientific panel, scientists in
the U.S. who are reporting on global climate change, and the effect
that it is having upon weather and the increasing volatility and
variability of the amount, timing and distribution of moisture, not
just rainfall but moisture that comes in the form of snow or freezing
rain. There is consensus among the climatology scientific community
that the timing, intensity and duration of floods, droughts and high-
intensity storms are going to continue to plague us over the decades
ahead.
Pressure for additional sources of drinking water, usable water for
industry and agriculture will only grow and magnify across this
country, putting greater pressure on reclamation, on reuse, on advanced
wastewater treatment, and even on desalination, as many countries in
the world are doing.
In the 1970s, there was an experiment by a Saudi prince who chartered
a vessel to go to Antarctica and harness an iceberg, put a huge plastic
wrap under that iceberg so it would not melt and had it towed by tug
boats to a point off the shore of Saudi Arabia. Then they drilled a
hole in the center of it and pumped the water out for several years to
bring fresh water to Saudi Arabia. There are not going to be very many
icebergs left to be towed as the polar caps melt faster than we can
harness the icebergs.
Furthermore, that experiment proved enormously expensive. It also
demonstrated that there is a considerable amount of loss of iceberg
water capability as the 'berg is towed.
We have to do much better than just towing icebergs. We create with
this legislation a modest start on a program to help communities
provide for their current needs, for household requirements, industrial
needs, for agricultural uses of water, well off into the future.

{time} 1300

This is but one important step in the long-term effort we must make
to ensure the availability of water supplies and the viability of those
water supplies off into the future in this time of highly uncertain
climate conditions.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee chairman's
comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what time do we
have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas has 18 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Arkansas has 28 minutes remaining.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the gentlewoman from California, the primary author of the
legislation, Mrs. Tauscher.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank my friend, Chairman Johnson, for the
opportunity to speak today in support of the Healthy Communities Water
Supply Act.
Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you how pleased I am to have joined my
good friend and neighbor, Jerry McNerney, in introducing H.R. 700. As
Californians, Mr. McNerney and I know how precious every drop of water
is to our communities, our economy, and our way of life.
Our legislation provides a real Federal commitment to exploring
alternative water sources now so we can have the water supplies we will
need in the future. This legislation will reauthorize a critical EPA
program which was authorized in 2000 by the then Republican-controlled
Congress.
Unfortunately, the Republican Congress' commitment to the program and
water supply reliability ended with words, not deeds. The program was
never funded, and the EPA never implemented it.
Fortunately, today is a very new day. This Congress has the
opportunity to provide local communities with the means to invest in
critical alternative water source projects.
By providing a modest $125 million authorization for this EPA
program, we will help communities plan for their future; and investing
in innovative projects such as water recycling, water reuse and aquifer
storage will allow our local communities to use water more effectively
and efficiently.
In my own district, these types of projects are already under way and
will benefit from today's legislation. Projects like the Bay Area
Regional Water Recycling Program and the Bay Area Regional Desalination
Project are all advancing alternative water sources now and will be
able to continue their work through access to these grants.
If we are effectively to plan for our Nation's future to use critical
resources, there has to be Federal investment and innovation. The
passage of H.R. 700 will clearly indicate that this Congress is ready
to lead.
Today, some are trying to say that this program is duplicative, that
these types of projects can already be funded through existing sources.
First, let me say that we all understand that programs such as the
Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds can be used for
alternative water source projects.
However, in fiscal year 2007, the President's budget cut the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund by 22 percent, and in the fiscal year 2006
he recommended that the fund be cut by $370 million.
So let me ask a simple question: Where will our communities find the
resources to maintain and improve critical infrastructure and plan for
the future if the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress
keep cutting the funds? It is disingenuous for anyone to claim that
there are already resources available for these critical water projects
while they are cutting the funds.
So it is time for us all to be responsible. It is time to make
critical investments in water infrastructure which have been neglected
for all too long, and it is time to ensure our communities can plan for
their future water needs.
Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting
H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, which was passed by
a voice vote in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I urge
all of my colleagues to support this very important legislation.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise to support this bill, very
much so. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Johnson, Ranking
Member Mica and Ranking Member Baker and their staffs for their hard
work and the efforts that they put into this.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further
requests for speakers. I want to express my appreciation to all of the
staff of the committee. I ask for support of H.R. 700.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support
H.R. 700, Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007, a
reauthorization of a Pilot Program for Increasing Usable Water Supply.
As you well know, this Pilot Program for increasing usable water supply
was authorized for 2002 through 2004, but the previous majority never
appropriated any funds and let the authorization expire.
I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues just how
important it is to supplement existing water supplies by providing
reliable high-quality sources of water, particularly in areas of the
country that are under the threat of the desert. In California,
especially in Orange County, the population is increasing; so is the
need for water.
For over 15 years, the Orange County Water District has maintained a
Groundwater Replenishment System designed to reuse advanced treated
wastewater to recharge the County's groundwater aquifers and basin.
This will help them meet the annual water needs of over 144,000
families that keep growing. Also, the county is barely 3 miles from the
coast and has an added need to protect the Basin

[[Page H2324]]

from further degradation due to seawater intrusion. To this end, the
OCWD under its Phase I project provides over 72 million gallons of
water per day to replenish its aquifers as well as protect them from
seawater intrusion by pumping water through injection wells. This phase
will end in September, 2007.
In Phase II of the project, they will be able to process over 250
million gallons of wastewater per day and have enough to support the
recharge effort and combat seawater intrusion. There are currently 30
such injection wells that can pump water up to 60-100 feet depth.
The beauty of this project is the collaboration the Water District
has with the County's Sanitation District (OCSD) who provides the
wastewater that would have been pumped out to the ocean thereby which
would have deprived the Water District of the water that is now being
reclaimed for the replenishment of groundwater aquifers. And the State
Health Department provides the oversight, to make sure water quality is
maintained.
With projects like this, communities such as Orange County will
benefit tremendously. This OCGW project has attracted experts in public
water management systems from other States and countries (Japan, Korea,
and Taiwan) who come to Orange County to look at this tertiary system
and learn from it. So, this is of national and even internatIonal
significance. Also, projects like the OCGWR provides for the necessary
investments to ensure water security for the future.
This bill will help improve water availability and quality by
authorizing a total of $125 million to fund projects that increase
usable water supply by encouraging innovation in water reclamation,
reuse and conservation. The Orange County Water Reclamation Project is
a perfect example of such a project and I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 700.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise in strong support of H.R. 700, the
``Healthy Communities Water Supply Act of 2007'' which authorizes $125
million to enhance water supplies in shortage-plagued areas through the
development of such alternative sources as waste water reuse and other
water recycling projects. The funding will be used to help finance
pilot projects to recycle water for drinking and agricultural use in
states like Texas that have long faced chronic supply shortages amid
continuing population booms. States would have to pay half the cost of
the projects.
Mr. Chairman, the new majority in this House understands that
ensuring clean water is a top priority for America's working families.
A clean and healthy environment begins with clean water. H.R. 700 will
help to make the Nation's water supply cleaner and healthier by
utilizing alternative water sources such as waste water and recycled
water. If we explore alternative water supplies now, we take a giant
step toward ensuring that we will have adequate supplies in the future.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Tierney). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 700

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Healthy Communities Water
Supply Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.

Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000 for
fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting
``$125,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments
printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it
to be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 2, after line 5, insert the following:
(a) Eligibility.--Section 220(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(c)) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end ``and the entity does
not permit the use of its water for retail sale of water in
containers of 5.7 gallons (20 liters) or less''.
Page 2, line 6, before ``Section'' insert ``(b)
Authorization of Appropriations.--''.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700, the Healthy Communities Water
Supply Act, is designed to help communities with current or impending
water shortages. I support the bill.
We know that such shortages can have many causes. For example, global
warming is likely to cause or exacerbate water shortages in the U.S.,
especially in the Southwest. Under those conditions, alternative water
sources will be more important than ever, but communities all over the
United States are also fighting to protect their water supplies from
overpumping by bottled water companies, who are making billions of
dollars from this public resource. My amendment would remove from
consideration for these Federal subsidies those areas where bottled
water companies are contributing to the demise of the water supply.
According to the International Bottled Water Association, the volume
of water privatized has increased between 8 and 12 percent every year
since 2001. In 2006, bottled water companies enjoyed $11 billion in
revenue from the United States alone. It is estimated that about 25
percent of the bottled water consumed in the United States comes from
municipal water supplies.
The effects of the excessive influence of the bottled water industry
can go beyond the regional confines of water source depletion and
environmental destruction. It codifies a preference for corporate
access to water over public access.
I represent the Cleveland area, that, like many cities nearby, relies
on Lake Erie for drinking water. A few years ago, there were two
instances in which a company received a permit to privatize Great Lakes
water in bulk.
In both instances, the projects were abandoned because of the public
outcry. In response, the Great Lakes States, with assistance from
Canadian Premiers and other stakeholders, attempted to negotiate the
conditions under which water could be withdrawn from the lake.
As the negotiations closed, bottled water companies managed to wedge
their language into the final agreement. The language also allowed
virtually unlimited withdrawals for bottled water companies, while
attempting to protect against other privatization attempts.
Such unprecedented favoritism can actually represent a giant step
backwards for the notion of water as a public trust. The loophole
leaves the entire agreement open to commerce clause challenge or to a
challenge in the World Trade Organization. If such a challenge were
successful, there would be no limits to privatization of Great Lakes
water. It would open the water of the Great Lakes to use by the growing
and increasingly thirsty regions where they are having water shortages
and where water shortages make it financially viable to pipe water
across several States. We would not just be back to square one; we
would take a giant step backwards.
This is a classic example, Mr. Chairman, in which greed of the
bottled water companies is garnering profits at the expense of the
public. I have not even talked about the overeffect of pumping, like
the increased cost of finding a replacement source, the loss of
connected streams, lakes and rivers, the land subsidence, the salt
water intrusion near coasts that render the water undrinkable, and the
loss of wildlife habitat.
Another example is emblematic of conflicts between communities and
bottled water companies all over the United States. In two small towns
in New Hampshire, Nottingham and Barrington, a company called USA
Springs is attempting to drill wells that would pump 310,000 gallons a
day in an area populated with homes that get their water from small
private household wells. The community is worried about a loss of water
supply, loss of water quality, and degradation of nearby wetlands.
A very conservative estimate said that USA Springs is looking at
about $303 million per year in revenue from this site alone. With that
kind of revenue potential, it can be expected they will spend big to
make this project happen. This is exactly what they are doing. The
result is that USA Springs

[[Page H2325]]

is now dangerously close to winning a battle that started in 2001.
The basic building blocks of life, like water, must be accessible by
people before corporations, period. When access to the essentials is
threatened by outside excessive private gain, I will stand firmly in
defense of the public every time.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to explore this issue deeply as Chair of the
Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. I ask the chairman, my good friend
from Minnesota, to work with me as Chair of Transportation and
Infrastructure on the broader issue of water privatization and its
effects on quality and access.
I yield to Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman raises a very important issue, one that
has been of deep concern. He raises two aspects of a question, one that
raises deep concern among communities along the Great Lakes who do not
want to see waters of the Great Lakes pumped west to quaff the thirst
of arid western States.
Several years ago, there was a proposal for a coal slurry pipeline to
bring coal in a slurry pipeline from the Powder River Basin to the
western end of Lake Superior to ports of Duluth and Superior; and we
vigorously opposed it, because that pipeline, if it pumps east, can
also pump west and could suck water out of the Great Lakes in vast
amounts.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, subsequently, in a Water Resources
Development Act, I succeeded with legislation to prohibit any
withdrawals from the Great Lakes unless there is unanimous agreement
among the eight Governors and the Province of Quebec and the Province
of Ontario. That language is current law, but it is not strong enough.
It really needs to be reinforced. Now that I am in a position to do
that, we are going to reinforce it.
The second concern of the gentleman is private companies profiting
from the public sector provision of water supplies, and I think we
should find a way in which we can limit the profiteering while not
interfering with private sector developments.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Oberstar, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. For example, the little town of Buhl, population 900 in
my district, has on its water tank the slogan, ``The Finest Water in
America,'' and the city began bottling that water for sale. They are
using their open resources to bottle this water in these little 8-ounce
and 16-ounce bottles. I wouldn't want to prevent Buhl, which has fallen
on hard times, from drawing on its resources. But they are using their
own money to do that.
What the gentleman is concerned about is a public, federally funded
process that might stimulate the private sector. I commend the
gentleman for his concern, and we shall work together to address the
situation.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman for his comments and his
dedication to the public good. I look forward to working with you on
this to protect public water supplies and to protect the public's right
to access.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.

(a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by
this Act or other provision of this Act that results in costs
to the Federal Government shall be effective except to the
extent that this Act provides for offsetting decreases in
spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect
of this Act does not either increase the Federal deficit or
reduce the Federal surplus.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``deficit''
and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 621 et seq.).

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a very simple
amendment, an amendment of responsibility.
As you and the House know, H.R. 700 grants $125 million for
alternative water source projects. It is a program that Congress has
never funded, may be a very appropriate program. For some in this
Chamber, $125 million may not be very much money, but for folks in my
district, and I suspect for folks around this Nation, $125 million is a
lot of money.

{time} 1315

And, again, while what this bill does may be very important, it is
important that we also make a statement for financial responsibility.
This amendment would apply the principle of pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-
go to any new spending that would be authorized in this legislation.
Very simple: If you are going to spend money for this project, you
ought to make it a priority and identify an area where you desire to
take that money from in order to pay for this project. It is a concept
that has been embraced by many in this Chamber. In fact, many Members
on the majority side embraced the pay-as-you-go project in their
campaigns this past year. In fact, the New Direction for America, which
was proposed by the majority party in the 109th Congress, says, ``Our
new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting. No more deficit
spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every
facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and
accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the
right priorities for all Americans.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. It is a wise idea. We ought to
follow that. We ought to follow that in this new Congress.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I would respectfully
suggest that, unless adopted, then the new direction in which we are
heading is one that will take us in a direction of greater red ink and
not that of financial responsibility. So I offer this simple amendment,
this PAYGO amendment to H.R. 700, and I encourage my colleagues to
support the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I appreciate the fashion of the gentleman from Georgia, and I respect
his consistency. He offered the same amendment yesterday. We had quite
a thorough and extensive discussion and a recorded vote, which ended
166-260.
Again, I appeal to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing
with an authorization. Tomorrow we will be dealing with a different
bill that does result in a direct spending reduction as determined by
the Congressional Budget Office and for which the committee created an
offset and reduced the size of the bill.
This bill, H.R. 700, is not a direct spending bill, and has been so
verified by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of
Management and Budget. It is not subject to the so-called PAYGO rules.
An appropriation subsequently could well be subject to PAYGO, but we
have yet before us the congressional budget process. We have to vote on
a budget, and then we consider the appropriations. If this legislation
is enacted in time for the appropriation process, hopefully it could be
considered and included, and then there is a question of whether it is
subjected to the PAYGO rules.
But in its present form, this is an authorization. It is not a direct
spending. It is not subject, as Congressional Budget Office has ruled,
to the PAYGO rules. And we made that point yesterday. We make it again
today. And I rise in opposition to the amendment, but not in opposition
to the approach of the gentleman, who is a true fiscal conservative and
wants to ensure that dollars are wisely spent and that we are not
overspending.
I assure the gentleman, this legislation, modest as it is in its
scope of dollars authorized, will be subjected to the

[[Page H2326]]

rigorous oversight of OMB, Congressional Budget Office, procedure and
the appropriation process in its new course.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), almost to say the same thing we
said yesterday: He has gotten the appropriations mixed up with the
authorization.
This is an authorization committee, and actual funding of these
programs through the appropriations process, which is where this will
be more appropriate. A similar manner it was offered yesterday, as we
said, to H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act, and was defeated
by 166-260.
This amendment would require that any authorization of appropriations
be considered with corresponding offsets regardless of whether the
program ever receives any funding. It is possible that it won't.
In the example of the Alternative Water Source pilot program under
consideration today, a program that again has never been funded through
the appropriations process, this amendment would require the
identification of $125 million in offsets, regardless of whether
appropriations are ever enacted for this program.
During the first few days of the legislative session, the new
Democratic majority renewed the PAYGO rules to require the
identification of offsets to any changes in direct spending by
legislative initiatives.
This bill has no effect on direct spending. According to the
Congressional Budget Office in its analysis of the bill, enacting the
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. Therefore, the
offset requirements of PAYGO are never triggered.
I also remind my colleagues that the PAYGO provision was allowed to
expire under Republican control of the House, with no attempt by the
former Republican leadership to restore its protections to the Federal
budgetary process. To now claim to be the champions of fiscal
responsibility and attempt to hold Congress to stricter budgetary
principles than instituted under their own leadership is a fairly
hollow argument.
The gentleman's amendment would require offsets for any authorization
of appropriations, regardless of its impact on Federal receipts. Were
the gentleman's amendment adopted, my expectation is that every
authorization of appropriations, whether it be for clean water, safer
schools, better health care, or national defense, would require equal
offsets. This is an inappropriate limitation on the ability of Congress
to address the needs of the Nation.
Fiscal responsibility is a noble cause, but not at the cost of
hindering Congress's ability to meet the needs of our constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Arkansas for yielding. I will be very brief.
I rise to point a couple points of clarification. And I appreciate
the gentlewoman from Texas and her comments, but she did say that this
amendment would require finding $120 million of offsets somewhere else,
regardless of whether there was any money that was ever authorized for
this particular grant project. In fact, that is not the case.
On line 4 of the amendment, it says that, ``any other provision that
results in costs to the Federal Government.'' So it would require that
the Congress had determined that, yes, there should be money spent for
these grant projects, and then the equal amount of offset money would
need to be found.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I think what I did say is, it is
not the authorization; it is the appropriations that I spoke about that
would cause this to happen. It would trigger it. It is not the
authorization. We are an authorizing committee.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I understand this is an authorizing piece of
legislation; it is not requiring the money to be spent; and that we
have the Appropriations Committees to do that.
But I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a matter of
principle. It is a matter of principle, and it is a matter of making
the statement now that we believe that, if we are going to spend money
for this project and we believe that it is a priority, that we ought to
find the money elsewhere in order to cover that so that we do not
increase the deficit.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Sessions:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``for fiscal
years ending before October 1, 2008''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 700 follows an authorization that
the Republican Congress provided for in the year 2000, which authorized
$75 million in grants for alternative water source projects.
We learned that the population growth was causing a number of
communities to have to explore alternative supplies through
reclamation, reuse and conservation. And so Congress created section
220 of the Clean Water Act. This amendment to the Clean Water Act
required a 50 percent non-Federal cost share. And it expired in 2004.
Today's legislation doubles this authorization, but the troubling
part to me is it allows this authorization to continue indefinitely. So
if this legislation passes, there will be no sunset, no further
oversight and no review of the effectiveness of these grants. My
amendment would provide for the expiration of this authorization in
fiscal year 2008.
I think it is fiscally responsible and allows Congress to reevaluate
these grants, and not just leave them forever without oversight.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I understand that the gentleman Mr.
Oberstar would wish to engage with me in a colloquy on this amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules
Committee, and I had a discussion about the principle involved in the
gentleman's amendment in the course of our presentation at the Rules
Committee for the rule covering this bill. As a result, the gentleman
has offered an amendment that I think is entirely appropriate. But the
point at which we are in the consideration of the legislation, and
given the time it might take for the other body to act on it, would
create a time frame problem through fiscal 2008. I would suggest that
the language be changed to reflect two fiscal years from date of
enactment, so that we have a precise time but that it is linked to date
of enactment of the act, which then would be a very appropriate way to
do it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time.
It is my understanding then that the chairman and I have engaged in
an agreement; that I would withdraw my amendment, pending such that he
would place within the legislation that agreement. And I would agree
with that, and I would agree to withdraw my amendment. And I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful presentation
and the questioning in the Rules Committee, and we will draft language
in cooperation with the gentleman and include that as we move forward
to conference with the Senate.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page H2327]]

There was no objection.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Conaway:
Page 2, after line 5, insert the following:
(a) Selection of Projects.--Section 220(d)(2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(d)(2)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or whether the project is located in an area
which is served by a public water system serving 10,000
individuals or fewer''.
Page 2, at the beginning of line 6, insert the following:
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, for the past decade, within rural
communities throughout the country, home water bills have increased
faster than the rate of inflation, and it seems likely that this trend
will continue. Currently, rural populations across America are being
forced to comply with extremely costly regulations regarding standards
that have been set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I have rural constituents who are currently paying
upwards of 770 percent more for water service than that of urban
populations due to regulatory items and the inability to spread these
costs over a wide basis.
As deregulations are implemented and aging infrastructures replaced,
the affordability of water service in rural America will continue to be
of great concern. Water systems, consumers, administrators and policy
makers will need to focus on the ability of rural households to pay for
public water service.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a solution to the underlying
problem; it is a recognition of the issue and a step in the right
direction. My amendment would simply add to the considerations for
these grants recognition of water systems serving 10,000 people or
less.
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as water bills continue to rise larger, in the rural
communities throughout the country home water bills have increased
faster than the rate of inflation. Over 50,000 community water systems
serve populations under 10,000. In North Carolina, 95 percent of our
community water systems service populations of less than 10,000.
Currently, rural populations across America are being forced to
comply with costly regulations. At this time, many rural areas have a
greater percentage of the poverty and lower mean household income.

{time} 1330

This is imposing a major burden on the rural families of America. In
the same rural communities, some citizens are now paying 770 percent
more for the water services than that of urban populations.
The Conaway-Shuler amendment does not call for more money or strike
existing language. This is a fiscally responsible approach which points
us in the right direction to take some of the strain off of the rural
communities as they struggle to provide safety.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Both gentlemen offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to our bill that is
well intentioned to respond to the needs of small communities, to
assure that communities under a population of 10,000 are not left
behind, as this program is administered. And I certainly am in
consonance with that concern.
There are only maybe four communities in my congressional district
that have population greater than 10,000. I think of Big Fork,
population 950, and others of similar size who have needs for water
resource as great proportionately as do the major metropolitan areas.
In fact, in a drought in 1988, Minneapolis was trying to encourage
the Corps of Engineers to draw down the head waters of the Mississippi
River to increase the flow to Minneapolis while at the same time not
banning car washes, not banning sprinkling of lawns, not taking other
water conservation measures and also drawing water from the Jordan
Basin Reservoir underneath the Twin Cities, a 50-mile diameter basin
that is water left over from the melting of the glacier 10,000 years
ago, water that can never be replaced because it is an impermeable
area.
And I said, oh, wait a minute. It just happened I was chairman of the
Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight; called the Corps of
Engineers in and made sure they didn't draw any matter down from the
head waters of the Mississippi River to serve the thirst of Minneapolis
while at the same time St. Paul was incorporating water conservation
measures.
Well, I cite that history to show that I am really sensitive to these
needs. But we do not want to create in this legislation a preferential
consideration. And when the gentleman says consider, when the language
of the amendment the gentlemen are offering says consider, I take this
to mean a factor to be considered, along with other relevant factors
and not a set-aside and not a preference.
May I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), and I yield to the
gentleman, to be assured that he concurs in that interpretation.
Mr. CONAWAY. Yes, sir. This goes into the part of the bill that talks
about additional consideration. The administrator has wide leeway in
how they grant these grants, and I would simply like in the Record, in
the law, that this is one of the things that administrator should take
into consideration. This in no way binds or ties their hands to any
particular size of community or use but allows good judgment by the
administrator and in recognition that rural America is outnumbered on
this floor. And having those words in this language will be
particularly important to the constituents I serve who recognize that
and understand that from time to time you guys have got us outnumbered.
So it does not set up a preference, but it simply says, here is one
other criteria to look at when you decide on these questions.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman. Let me ask the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Shuler) whether he shares that viewpoint.
Mr. SHULER. I most certainly would. In rural America, they struggle
so often. Although it is not binding, it doesn't cost any more; I would
certainly like to see this in the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, when I was elected to Congress, took
office in 1975, we formed a Congressional Rural Caucus. There were 250
members. We had a voice on this floor, and a presence on this floor.
Today there are less than 90 of us representing primarily rural areas,
so we do have to be watchful for small towns, rural areas. And in the
spirit of our discussion just concluded, I will accept the amendment of
the gentlemen.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the pending
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) on which further proceedings
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 256, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 128]

AYES--176

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier

[[Page H2328]]

Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--256

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--6

Bono
Camp (MI)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Keller
Larson (CT)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1404

Messrs. KAGEN, GONZALEZ, RODRIGUEZ, DINGELL and TIAHRT changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN and Mr. SOUDER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Tierney, Acting
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 700) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend
the pilot program for alternative water source projects, pursuant to
House Resolution 215, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. In its current form, I am, yes, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 700 to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report back the same forthwith with the
following amendment:

At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

None of the funds authorized by this Act, including the
amendments made by this Act, may be used--
(1) to lobby or retain a lobbyist for the purpose of
influencing a Federal, State, or local governmental entity or
officer; or
(2) to pay for expenses related to the membership of any
individual or entity in an organization or association.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer this motion
to recommit. And I am more pleased to commend my Democratic colleagues
for yesterday's recognition of the motion to recommit. They will
recognize today's because it is exactly the same motion.
I think with that recognition came the realization and appreciation
that motions to recommit are, indeed, substantive moves and they are
substantive proposals of policy by this House of Representatives.
This motion to recommit is one about honesty; it is about honesty in
the provision of the funds in the bill that is about to be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal
law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized under this act
may be used to lobby or retain a lobbyist to attempt to influence
Federal, State or local governmental officials. It would also expand
upon existing law by specifically prohibiting Federal funds from being
used to pay for membership in any association or organization. And, Mr.
Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, many of those dues rise to the sum
of $48,000 to $50,000 or more. The funds should only be used for the
purposes intended by Congress, namely, identifying alternative water
source projects.
And while associations and organizations provide meaningful
opportunities for collaboration and knowledge dissemination, it would
not be appropriate to use hard-earned scarce Federal tax dollars for
such a purpose. Such a diversion of these funds would not only limit
the amount of funds available for the actual use and construction of
alternative water source projects, it could indeed constitute an end
run around the lobbying restrictions since many of these associations
engage in lobbying activities.

[[Page H2329]]

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, growth in population and increasing
environmental awareness is causing many communities to explore
alternative water supplies through reclamation, reuse and conservation.
And while the Clean Water Act construction grants prior to 1991 and
State revolving loan funds since 1989 have been available for such
activities, most expenditures to date have been for more traditional
wastewater projects and not for enhancing water supplies through
wastewater reuse and water recycling. For these compelling reasons, we
need to ensure that all available resources provided through this
reauthorization are used specifically for the purpose of building and
improving alternative water source projects for municipal, industrial
or agricultural uses in areas that are experiencing critical water
supply needs.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize what they
recognized yesterday, and that is that motions to recommit are
substantive policy motions. I urge the adoption of this motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the motion, I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered yesterday by a
different gentleman from the other side. I just want to read from the
legislative language in the act.
Subsection F: Uses of Grants. ``Amounts from grants received under
this section may be used for engineering, design, construction and
final testing of alternative water source projects designed to meet
critical water supply needs. Such amounts may not be used for planning,
feasibility studies, for operation, maintenance, replacement, repair or
rehabilitation.'' Although we do not specifically prohibit use of funds
for lobbying, no such authorization is permitted. Nonetheless, the
gentleman proposes to close a potential opportunity for money to be
diverted, and, therefore, we are prepared, as yesterday, to accept the
gentleman's motion.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage of H.R. 700, if ordered, and adoption of House
Resolution 202.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 427,
nays 0, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 129]

YEAS--427

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Bono
Camp (MI)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Larson (CT)
Scott (GA)

{time} 1436

Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. RANGEL and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House
on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 700, back to the
House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.

[[Page H2330]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 368,
nays 59, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 130]

YEAS--368

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--59

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Marchant
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Price (GA)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Tancredo
Thornberry
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOT VOTING--6

Bono
Camp (MI)
Davis, Jo Ann
Hunter
Larson (CT)
Tanner

{time} 1445

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________