[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 41 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2345-H2351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 720, WATER QUALITY FINANCING ACT OF 
                                  2007

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 229

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 720) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water 
     pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
     by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of 
     further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with 
     such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  0915

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 229 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except 
clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the substitute 
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
modified by the manager's amendment in the Rules Committee report, 
shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended.
  The rule makes in order only those further amendments printed in part 
B of the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. The 
amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against the amendments, except for clauses 9 
and 10 of rule XXI, are waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
  And I am pleased to point out, Madam Speaker, that under this 
structured rule, the six amendments made in order are split equally, 
three Republican and three Democratic.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 720 reauthorizes an important part of the 
landmark Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act protects our 
neighborhoods and water bodies from water pollution. Clean water is 
vital to the health of our citizens and to our country.
  The bill before us today reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving 
Loan Fund by providing $14 billion over the next 5 years to local 
agencies to fight water pollution.
  We have come a long way in this country. We have the technology and 
the engineering experience to prevent water pollution. The 
Environmental Protection Agency estimates a huge shortfall in funds 
available for wastewater improvements across the country. This 
shortfall is significant because, without considerable improvements to 
the wastewater treatment infrastructure, much of the progress made in 
cleaning up the Nation's rivers, creeks and streams and bays since the 
passage of the Clean Water Act is at risk.
  Clean water is a top priority for the families in my district and 
throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership over 
the past few Congresses has failed to support this part of the Clean 
Water Act. Although legislation was introduced in the Congress then, it 
never made it to the House floor.
  President Bush and the White House also proposed slashing this Clean 
Water Revolving Loan Fund in his latest budget proposal. But, 
nevertheless, we are hopeful today that a bipartisan vote in support of 
this measure will send a signal to the White House that clean and 
healthy water is absolutely vital to our communities. In fact, in my 
hometown of Tampa, Florida, the Clean Water Act Loan Funds for 
wastewater improvements have vastly improved the water quality of Tampa 
Bay. The expansion in wastewater treatment significantly improved the 
quality of water running into beautiful Tampa Bay.
  In past years, Tampa received over $54 million for wastewater 
treatment plant expansion and thereby improved water quality. It has 
also played a role in significantly improving the water in our rivers, 
bays, creeks and streams as we are able to control the pollutants that 
run off into these vital water bodies.
  This is the same story across the country for the improved health of 
our communities, on the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and other water 
bodies throughout our country. Check with your local governments and 
your neighbors who live around and who are mindful of the quality of 
the water in our lakes, rivers and bays in your hometown.
  Appearing before our Rules Committee, House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar said it best: ``This is 
not just a good bill. It is a necessary one. The good health of our 
communities depends upon it.''
  And as a former county commissioner, I can tell you that the vast 
majority of costs in cleaning our water falls upon our local 
communities. And if we don't act now, we will be shifting a greater 
cost to future generations.
  So I urge the Congress, Madam Speaker, to enact this rule and this 
important legislation to keep our communities, rivers, lakes and bays 
clean and, most importantly, to improve the health of our children, 
seniors, and all citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2346]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified 
closed rule and to the underlying legislation. I also rise, 
regrettably, to report to the American people that, for the second week 
in a row, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House 
floor that benefits big labor bosses at someone else's expense.
  Last week, American workers were the losers in the Democrat-
controlled House when the majority leadership forced through 
legislation that would provide for unprecedented intimidation of 
employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process 
known as card check.
  This week, the Democrat leadership has set its sights on one of their 
favorite targets, the American taxpayer. But the other losers in this 
bargain are far more shocking. They include local communities across 
the United States, small and minority-owned businesses, and the 
environment.
  H.R. 720 would provide for an unprecedented expansion of the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage provision of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund or SRF. When the SRF was established, it applied Davis-Bacon only 
to the Federal portion of a Clean Water project. But today, in order to 
help big labor bosses pad their dwindling ranks, they would apply these 
same provisions to all non-Federal funds, such as loan repayments, 
State bond revenues, interest and State-matching funds.
  Since the SRF program expired in 1995, no SRF project has been 
subject to Davis-Bacon. But today the Democrat Party wants to change 
that and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks 
have dwindled to 12 percent in 2006 from their high of 35 percent in 
the 1950s.
  I insert into the Record a letter from my colleague from Florida, 
John Mica, to Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member 
Dreier detailing the specifics of this unprecedented expansion.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.
     Hon. Louise M. Slaughter,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Rules, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier: I 
     appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Committee on 
     Rules today concerning H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing 
     Act of 2007. I am writing to clarify the point I made during 
     the hearing this afternoon that this bill includes an 
     unprecedented expansion of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
     provision of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF).
       When the Clean Water SRF was established it applied Davis-
     Bacon to amounts equal to the federal capitalization grant, 
     also commonly referred to as the ``first round''. As such, 
     states were not required to apply Davis-Bacon to all other 
     available funding sources states used for such projects. Non-
     federal money, such as loan repayments, state bond revenues, 
     interest, and the state match, were therefore exempt from 
     1987 to 1995 when the SRF program expired. Since that time, 
     no SRF project has been subject to Davis-Bacon.
       H.R. 720 proposes to expand Davis-Bacon beyond federal 
     capitalization grants to all non-federal money, and 
     represents an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon 
     application to the SRF for water and sewer projects. Chairman 
     Oberstar correctly stated that State Infrastructure Banks 
     program, reauthorized under SAFETEA-LU, contains a similar 
     expanded version of Davis Bacon as that in H.R. 720. As I 
     stated earlier today, the expansion of Davis-Bacon is 
     unprecedented for the SRF program.
       Again, this unnecessary and wasteful provision requiring 
     the application of prevailing wage rates to SRF projects will 
     only slow the construction and limit the number of projects 
     for much needed wastewater treatment plants in communities 
     large and small across America.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                        Ranking Republican Member.
  The practical effect of attempting to apply this Depression Era wage 
subsidy law and determining the prevailing wages for Federal 
construction projects is startling. The National School Boards 
Association found that more than 60 percent of its respondents 
confirmed that Davis-Bacon laws were responsible for increasing the 
cost of construction projects by over 20 percent.
  This claim is backed up by Congress's own Congressional Budget 
Office, which issued a report in 2001 stating that repealing Davis-
Bacon or raising the threshold for projects it covers ``would allow 
appropriators to reduce funds spent on Federal construction.''
  The CBO has also estimated that if Congress were to repeal Davis-
Bacon outright, it would save the Federal Government $9.5 billion over 
the period between 2002 and 2011.
  This Davis-Bacon expansion also tramples all over the rights of 18 
States that have chosen not to have a State prevailing wage law because 
its associated inflated construction costs mean that limited State and 
local budgets cannot meet the priorities of their taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that. Because its associated inflation 
constructions cost mean that limited State and local budgets cannot 
meet the priorities of their taxpayers.
  These States ought not to be saddled with this outdated Federal law 
against the will of their voters, which serves as an unfunded mandate 
by siphoning off scarce resources that would otherwise be spent on 
schools, hospitals, prisons, roads and other vital projects.
  In the Rules Committee yesterday evening, we heard testimony from a 
number of our colleagues, particularly Dr. Charles Boustany and Richard 
Baker of Louisiana, who explained the practical impact of this 
legislation on their State, and might I add, a State that is in need of 
a lot of Federal money as a result of Katrina that occurred several 
years ago.
  Quite simply, both Mr. Baker and Mr. Boustany made it very clear to 
the committee that today's legislation would have devastating effects 
on their State's ability to rebuild its clean water efforts and provide 
for much-needed environmental cleanup after the extremely costly 
devastation caused by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
  Mr. Speaker, after last week, I am really not surprised by the 
lengths to which the Democrat leadership is willing to go to satisfy 
labor bosses. I am disappointed, however, by the targets that they are 
ready and willing to harm in accomplishing this narrow objective.
  I ask every Member of this House to join with me in opposing this 
rule and the underlying legislation. The choice that we are being asked 
to make is very, very simple: If you support fiscal responsibility, 
small business, States' rights, rural communities, women- and minority-
owned businesses, and the environment, you will join with me in 
opposing this rule.
  If, however, instead, you support environmental harm, market 
distortion, wasteful Federal spending, and stacking the deck in favor 
of labor bosses, I wholeheartedly encourage you to vote for this 
legislation.
  I do understand that the minority party may not be able to stop this 
rule from going forward, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to thank the 
Democrat leadership for putting this legislation and the crystal clear 
choice that it represents on the floor today so that voters are able to 
see what every single Member of this body supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague and I note that my colleague, unable to 
criticize the heart of this legislation, which is reauthorization of an 
important part of the Clean Water Act, instead reverts to attacking a 
portion of this legislation that is vital to workers across America, 
the Davis-Bacon provisions.
  The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-State contractors from 
having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded 
construction, which protects local interests and construction workers.
  Unfortunately, it has become all too familiar from the other side of 
the aisle to attack workers across America. They blocked the minimum 
wage until this new Congress was elected. We have a White House that 
has favored outsourcing of jobs over time.
  But now, through this legislation, we are able to reaffirm again that 
it is our policy, in fact, it is Congress's longstanding continuing 
tradition of applying prevailing wage requirements to federally funded 
construction projects. Studies have shown that by attracting more 
experienced, better-trained workers, that wage requirements lead to 
higher productivity and they reduce overall costs, which offset any 
higher wages.

[[Page H2347]]

                              {time}  0930

  The Davis-Bacon Act protects communities by ensuring that wage 
determination also for individual counties is based solely on the local 
workforce costs. Oftentimes, this means that projects come in under 
budget and on time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words, except I would 
like to let her know, I know she was not in the body last year, but 
this body did pass a minimum wage bill last year. It should be noted 
that the bill included exactly what the Democrat leadership wanted, and 
we took their bill exactly as it was for minimum wage. The problem that 
the Democrat leadership had was that it was a balanced approach, and 
that is the reason why it did not move forward in the other body and 
why the President never got it.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans did was to take the Democrat bill 
on minimum wage and add to that a balanced provision which would help 
small businesses who are bearing the burden of most of the brunt of the 
minimum wage and allow them the opportunity to offset those changes so 
that we can continue growing the free market economy. Small business is 
the engine of our economy.
  It is also worth noting, since the gentlewoman brought it up, that 
this body this year did pass a minimum wage without those equalizing 
factors or benefits to small business, and that is why it got stuck in 
the other body and why this body is having to come back to correct it 
to make it a more balanced view, the same kind of balanced view that 
the Republicans took last year in order to pass the minimum wage.
  I know the gentlewoman was not here last year, but those are the 
facts of the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He has been very 
eloquent on this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I rise in opposition to this rule. I 
am deeply disappointed in the Rules Committee and its actions yesterday 
by limiting the number of amendments that we could have taken to the 
floor.
  We all recognize that there is a gap, or a shortfall, in the funding 
that exists to help deal with our water infrastructure, and this is 
most pointedly affecting our small rural and disadvantaged communities; 
but I have to say the actions of the Rules Committee and the majority 
on the Rules Committee really disappoint me, because what we have seen 
now is politics trumping practical policy.
  Sure, we don't agree on Davis-Bacon, and having an up-and-down vote 
is fine, but that is a political vote. We are all frozen in our 
positions. But we could have taken a chance to protect our small and 
disadvantaged communities by creating some exemptions.
  I had hoped to offer two amendments to this bill yesterday, and they 
were not ruled in order for the bill. One would have exempted small, 
disadvantaged communities as defined by law from Davis-Bacon big labor 
provisions in the bill. This would have given our small communities a 
chance to access these funds. What good are the funds if the 
communities can't get to them?
  The gentlelady across the aisle here says, talk to local leaders. I 
can tell you, I have spoken to local leaders, Democrat and Republican 
alike, those who favor labor and those who don't, in my communities 
across my district, which is largely rural; and they have uniformly 
told me that these Davis-Bacon provisions and this State revolving loan 
fund will really put a burden on our small communities. It will inflate 
the costs by 20 to 25 percent.
  So on the one hand we are saying, yes, let's create the revolving 
loan fund; let's fund it. On the other hand, we are telling our small 
communities, no, you can't have the money, because you can't afford it. 
You can't afford the match. You can't afford to access this money.
  Our small and rural communities are the ones that are most often in 
need of adequate waste water infrastructure. I have visited every 
community in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a huge need, and I want to support this 
underlying bill; but we could have acted responsibly. We could have 
created exemptions that help our small and rural and disadvantaged 
communities. But, no, we have chosen to play politics instead of 
dealing with good, practical policy.
  My amendments would have put the power back in the hands of local 
leaders. But, no, the Federal Government, the Federal Government is the 
one that has to dictate and mandate all. Once again, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have chosen to empower Big Labor at the 
expense of small disadvantaged communities and local leaders.
  I have to say I am deeply disappointed. There is plenty of evidence. 
The CBO, as my colleague mentioned earlier, has noted that repealing 
Davis-Bacon, raising the threshold for projects it covers, would allow 
appropriators to reduce Federal funds and therefore we could get more 
bang for the buck. The Department of Labor, after nearly 50 years, has 
not developed an effective program to issue and maintain current and 
accurate wage determinations. It may be impractical to ever do so. 
There are many problems with this. We could have acted responsibly, 
but, no, we have chosen to play politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We could have 
done better by the American public in putting together a bill that 
would create the State revolving loan funds and allow our communities 
to access them. But, no, we have chosen to play politics.
  I urge defeat of this rule and defeat of the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity 
to receive a number of amendments and have feedback from Members who 
were talking about these important water projects, and I found one 
amendment yesterday that was presented very interesting. It was 
rejected by the Democrats, but it says this:
  ``This amendment quadruples the current penalty for dumping sewage 
into the Great Lakes to $100,000 per violation per day. The amendment 
also establishes a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund, and directs the sewage dumping penalties into 
this new fund to be spent on wastewater treatment options.'' Here is 
the interesting part: ``These provisions would become effective January 
1, 2027.''
  Mr. Speaker, a colleague brought forth an amendment as a result of a 
discussion with a major mayor of a city on the Great Lakes. I have 
heard all sorts of conversations about how important clean water is. 
Yet the Great Lakes, which is an area of about 20 million people that 
need this clean water, wake up today to find out that someone was 
willing to come forward with an idea which, even if enacted, doesn't 
take place until January 1, 2027.
  No, we are not going to do that in the Rules Committee.
  So on one side the Democrat majority talks about how great they are 
for all this clean water. But when it really comes down to it, still 20 
million people are being denied this opportunity to start this clean 
water revolving fund and direct that sewage dumped into the Great Lakes 
would be cleaned up and have higher penalties. Utterly incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas 
for his leadership in this area and for yielding me some time to talk 
about this rule and a little more expansive subject.
  I think what we are seeing today really demonstrates the difference 
between our side and our approach, the Republican approach to fiscal 
challenges, financial challenges, financial responsibility that we face 
in this Nation, and our friends on the majority side, on the Democrat 
side.
  We have had some important bills this week that we have dealt with. 
We have also had an opportunity to be financially responsible, fiscally 
responsible and accountable to the American people. Our side has chosen 
to propose those measures of accountability. The

[[Page H2348]]

other side, the majority side, has chosen to ignore that. This is 
another example today.
  I live outside of Atlanta. My district is the Sixth District of 
Georgia. It has remarkable challenges in the area of water and water 
quality. I appreciate the importance of assisting State and local 
governments in the area of clean water.
  This is an important bill. It ought to be a priority of our Nation. 
What the majority party says, however, is that this may be a priority, 
but we are not going to treat it as a priority from a financial 
standpoint. We are going to throw money at it from a governmental 
standpoint and we are going to enact the kind of PAYGO proposal that 
the majority party loves so much, which is raise taxes and go on with 
the program. That is what this bill does.
  This is an important bill. It authorizes $16 billion in discretionary 
spending. It creates two new programs and continues other existing 
programs. There is $375 million for the creation of new Federal grant 
programs at EPA and $1.5 billion for State grant pollution control 
programs. It reauthorizes $20 million annually for some expired pilot 
programs to provide technical assistance in the area of water works 
treatment projects, and it authorizes $14 billion to provide grants to 
States to pay for the construction of clean water projects. These are 
important, important programs.
  How do we pay for it? How do we pay for it? Well, the majority 
Democrat Party proposes that we pay for it by increased taxes, which is 
their ``TAXGO'' policy that they have for their financial programs. 
TAXGO: they raise taxes, and they raise taxes because they somehow 
believe that when you raise taxes on businesses that it never reaches 
the American people.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, as you and I both know, corporations don't pay 
taxes. What they do is they cover that by charging more for their 
product. The American people pay corporate taxes. The American people's 
taxes, the American people's costs are increased when corporate taxes 
are increased. It is just like the other side, the majority side, 
believes that the money that comes to the Federal Government is the 
government's money. It is not the people's money; it is the 
government's money. And that is this clear definition that we have seen 
this week.
  So I offered an amendment to this bill that said this ought to be a 
priority of our Nation. But we ought to state that it is a priority by 
saying that there are other measures in the Federal Government program 
that we ought not cover because this ought to take that priority. A 
true PAYGO, a true pay-as-you-go proposal.
  The Rules Committee decided no, they didn't want to do it that way. 
They wanted to raise taxes on the American people. So their TAXGO 
policy is in full place right here with this rule that doesn't even 
allow, doesn't even allow the Members of the House of Representatives 
to even make a statement on whether they think we ought to cover this 
with current money.
  So the TAXGO policy is in place by our good friends on the majority 
side, on the Democrat side. This rule proves it. What has happened this 
week on the floor of the House proves it, as they have voted down real 
pay-as-you-go amendments to two of the previous bills.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think this really points out the clear and 
distinct difference from a financial standpoint in this House of 
Representatives. I am told, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Rules 
Committee doesn't even allow for a recorded vote anymore on these, so 
you can't even tell who is supportive of the rule and who isn't 
supportive of the rule. But as I understand it by those who were there, 
every single Democrat opposed my amendment, which means that every 
single Democrat, including the new Democrats on the Rules Committee, 
support a tax-and-go policy, a tax-and-spend policy.
  This rule is a demonstration of that. This rule approves that. This 
rule proves that the majority party is not interested in financial 
responsibility and financial accountability, because they were given 
the opportunity to say, yes, we believe that we ought to identify 
priorities and pay for them at the Federal level by making certain that 
we are not increasing taxes and increasing the amount of money that 
hardworking Americans have to send to the Federal Government.

                              {time}  0945

  So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. This is another 
evidence of the undemocratic side of the majority party that says, no, 
we ought not have a full and open debate which was promised to the 
American people. We ought not have a full and open debate on how we are 
going to pay for government programs.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be 
responsible, to be financially responsible, to allow for the 
appropriate discussion, debate and voting on measures so the American 
people know who their friends are from a taxing standpoint. I believe 
it is the Republican side of the aisle. I would hope my Democrat 
friends would join us in that endeavor, and urge my colleagues to 
defeat this rule and bring an appropriate rule, bring a rule that 
allows us to debate the issues in an open and honest way and then have 
the vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman I 
will now yield myself the balance of my time, and then yield back my 
time and allow the gentlewoman to close.
  (Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of 
the administration policy on this bill.
         Executive Office of the President Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 720--Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar (D) MN and 
                               32 others)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 720, which 
     authorizes excessive Federal funding for the Clean Water 
     State Revolving Fund (SRF) and mandates the application of 
     Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements ``to the 
     construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in 
     part'' with SRF funding. For the reasons described below, if 
     H.R. 720 were presented to the President in its current form 
     his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
       The bill would expand Davis-Bacon Act coverage to a program 
     that has not been subject to any Davis-Bacon requirements 
     since 1994--first by reinstating coverage for Federally-
     funded clean water state revolving fund projects, and second 
     by expanding Davis-Bacon Act coverage to non-Federal clean 
     water projects, including for the first time ever, projects 
     financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys 
     repaid to the state revolving fund. This provision will 
     increase project costs and impose new administrative burdens 
     on States. Furthermore, it is contrary to the 
     Administration's long-standing policy of opposing any 
     statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of 
     Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.
       In addition, the bill's total authorization of $14 billion 
     for the SRF during fiscal years 2008-2011 represents on 
     average a more than 250 percent increase over recent 
     appropriation levels and is unrealistic in the current fiscal 
     environment. This excessive authorization will distort market 
     signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from 
     moving toward full-cost pricing, as they have elsewhere. 
     Instead, this bill may encourage municipalities to delay 
     undertaking needed infrastructure projects to wait for 
     Federal subsidies, potentially diminishing reliability and 
     increasing the eventual costs to the public.
       To provide additional opportunities to communities for 
     financing needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should 
     enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal, 
     which would provide an exception to the unified annual State 
     volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for 
     wastewater and drinking water projects. To ensure the long-
     term financial health and solvency of these drinking water 
     and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must 
     have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost 
     pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private 
     Activity Bonds. Consequently, this proposal will attract more 
     private capital to meet the infrastructure needs of these 
     sectors, help water and wastewater systems become self-
     financing, and minimize the need for future subsidies.

  Mr. Speaker, part of what the President has said very clearly to 
Congress today is two things: number one, that this Davis-Bacon 
expansion will cost an incredible amount of money to local water 
districts that seek bonds and funding that go to the marketplace to get 
that money to match the Federal money; and that the President believes 
that by expanding Davis-Bacon arbitrarily, it will mean that the cost 
of all these projects will go up exponentially and make it far more 
difficult for local communities to get the funding they

[[Page H2349]]

need because it is more money than what should be paid reasonably for 
the projects to be done.
  Secondly, the President makes a point which I think is very true, and 
that is by almost doubling the amount of money that is in this fund, 
America is now going to start looking to Washington to take care of 
these projects. Over my years in this body, we have seen over and over 
again the requests from the Democrats to let's go build more schools in 
this country--with Federal money. Oh, yes, with Davis-Bacon; but more 
importantly, it is a message to people back home, let's let Washington 
build our schools.
  Republicans have said, the day we start doing that, there will be no 
more schools built by local people. Everybody will look to Washington.
  The President is saying today, by this bill, people back home are 
going to start looking to Washington to take care of their water system 
needs. That is dangerous, and I think that is a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice that we are being asked to make is very 
clear. If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' 
right, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses and the 
environment, then you would want to oppose this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  However, I admit that the Democrats are going to win today, and we 
are going to lose; but instead, what that is going to mean is it is 
going to be environmental harm, market distortion, wasteful Federal 
spending and stacking the deck in favor of labor bosses. That is who is 
going to win today.
  I include for the Record a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the 
Republican leadership, John Boehner, signed by the National Association 
of Minority Contractors, the National Association of Women in 
Construction, the National Alliance for Working and Employee Rights, 
and the Women Construction Owners and Executives who make very clear 
their opposition for the reasons why we have talked about today: 
Excessive overspending and far-reaching expansion of Davis-Bacon that 
will mean that many of these communities who need the money the most 
will find that on up to 20 percent of their projects, the needs of 
their people cannot be met because of bloated spending that is 
contained within this bill. We want to make it very clear that we 
oppose this legislation.

                                                    March 7, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner: As the 
     U.S. House of Representatives prepares to vote on the ``Water 
     Quality Financing Act of 2007'', H.R. 720, we would like to 
     recognize the important role of the federal government in 
     addressing our nation's water infrastructure needs but 
     strongly disagree with including egregious, precedent-setting 
     expansions of the federal Davis-Bacon Act to non-federal 
     funds contained in the legislation.
       In order to obtain the highest construction value for the 
     taxpayers' dollar on these critical projects, it is 
     imperative that this legislation not include any federal 
     Davis-Bacon Act provisions. During past consideration of this 
     legislation, debate has been crippled by harmful Davis-Bacon 
     Act expansions and we implore you to let a clean bill, absent 
     of Davis-Bacon provisions, pass through the U.S. House of 
     Representatives in order to bring much needed water 
     infrastructure to the American people.
       We perceive any application of the Davis-Bacon Act into 
     this legislation as expansion. Section 602(b)(6) of the Clean 
     Water Act of 1987 clearly states that Davis-Bacon 
     requirements on such loans were to sunset in FY 1995. Since 
     October 1, 1994, the clean water state revolving funds have 
     operated efficiently without Davis-Bacon requirements.
       The Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-
     CIO sued to impose Davis-Bacon on CWSRF after the sunset 
     date. In a letter dated October 29, 1998, the EPA took issue 
     with every argument made by the building trades. In fact, the 
     EPA stated that even without section 513 in section 
     602(b)(6), the EPA ``would reasonably have concluded that the 
     CWA's Davis-Bacon Act provisions did not apply in the SRF 
     program at all''.
       On June 22, 2000, the EPA, under the Clinton 
     Administration, reversed its previous statements and issued a 
     ``settlement agreement'' with organized labor to repeal the 
     statutory sunset date of October 1, 1994, and expand Davis-
     Bacon to CWSRF for programs after July 1, 2001. Clearly, this 
     ``settlement agreement,'' which contradicted the earlier 
     arguments made by the EPA itself, was a statutory violation 
     of the Clean Water Act. If this legislation passes in current 
     form it would undoubtedly be subject to litigation if 
     enforced.
       Given that Davis-Bacon requirements were sunset in 1995 and 
     have not since applied, nor would such requirements apply 
     unless expressly provided for by Congress, any reapplication 
     of Davis-Bacon to CWSRF would clearly be expansion of this 
     flawed Act.
       Lastly, a series of audits by outside agencies as well as 
     the Department of Labor's (DOL) own Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) have revealed substantial inaccuracies in 
     Davis-Bacon Act wage determinations and suggested that they 
     are vulnerable to fraud. In addition, DOL's OIG released 
     three reports highly critical of the wage determination 
     program. In fact, one of the reports found one or more errors 
     in 100 percent of the wage surveys they reviewed.
       We, the undersigned organizations, are vehemently opposed 
     to any re-application of Davis-Bacon requirements to this 
     loan program and ask you to please vote against the ``Water 
     Quality Financing Act of 2007'', H.R. 720, due to the harmful 
     expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act contained within.
           Respectfully submitted,
       Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC); Chuck 
     Muth, President, Citizen Outreach Project; Council for 
     Citizens Against Government Waste; Grover Norquist, Americans 
     for Tax Reform (ATR); Independent Electrical Contractors, 
     Inc. (IEC); Miller & Long Concrete Construction; National 
     Association of Minority Contractors; National Association of 
     Women in Construction; Tim Phillips, President, Americans for 
     Prosperity; Ryan Ellis, Alliance for Worker Freedom; United 
     States Chamber of Commerce; Will Fine, Executive Director, 
     National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights; Women 
     Construction Owners and Executives.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas 
if he wouldn't mind, prior to my closing, that we allow the 
distinguished gentleman from the Rules Committee to speak. He arrived 
as we were completing our dialogue, and I would like to yield him 2 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do recognize that from time to time as we do these 
rules that people do come down. The gentleman who is asking to speak is 
a member of the Rules Committee, and based upon that request, I consent 
and agree, and I welcome the gentleman.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for his courtesy and also thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for her leadership on the Rules Committee and for her 
spectacular handling of this rule today before us. I appreciate all of 
her insights and advocacy on behalf of clean water and environmental 
issues. I want to make clear for the record that this entire House 
should be grateful for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is a fair rule. There 
are three Democratic amendments and three Republican amendments. They 
cover the many issues brought before the Rules Committee last night.
  I want to take a moment to address one issue, and that is the issue 
of Davis-Bacon. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that the 
Democrats are going to win and the Republicans are going to lose on 
this vote. Well, let me say I would recharacterize it. I think the 
American people and the American workers are going to win if we keep 
the Davis-Bacon provisions.
  I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't 
like Davis-Bacon and who don't believe that people should be paid the 
prevailing wage, who don't believe that the workers of this country 
should be paid a livable wage.
  Well, the majority in this Congress today believes the opposite. I 
bet many people on the gentleman's side of the aisle believe as well. 
Workers in this country are working longer hours and harder than ever 
before, and they can't make ends meet. We shouldn't have a rush to the 
bottom when it comes to the wages of the workers in this country. We 
need to stand firm and stand tall for the workers of this country to 
ensure that they get paid a livable wage so they can support their 
families, so they have health care and pension benefits. That is what 
this debate is about.
  So, today, my colleagues who don't like Davis-Bacon will have a 
choice.

[[Page H2350]]

They have an amendment in order that can rip Davis-Bacon out of this 
bill. They can eliminate Davis-Bacon. They can eliminate the prevailing 
wage. They can eliminate a livable wage for workers. Or you can stand 
with the majority in this Congress for workers, for the prevailing 
wage, for Davis-Bacon, for a livable wage; and that is the right thing 
to do.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Would the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 2 
minutes of my time as a result of us yielding back our time because we 
did not anticipate any additional speakers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Rules Committee: Yes, it is political with regard to 
Davis-Bacon, strip it or leave it, but what about exemptions? Why 
couldn't we entertain exemptions for small, disadvantaged communities? 
What is the fear on your side in not allowing that to come to a floor 
debate?
  I simply ask the question, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  It is this gentleman's opinion that what the gentleman is trying to 
do is to chip away at Davis-Bacon, chip away at workers' rights and 
chip away at the prevailing wage and chip away at making sure that 
workers get a livable wage, and this gentleman is very much opposed to 
that.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Reclaiming my time, I would say that if small, 
disadvantaged communities cannot access the funds to repair their 
infrastructure, it is going to hurt the worker, and it is going to hurt 
the disadvantaged small community.
  I would say there is a practical way to move through this with regard 
to policy rather than simply playing politics.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we think we are trying to make a point 
here today that there were some strong reservations that should have 
been taken into account by the Rules Committee. We are not trying to 
chip away at minimum wage. We tried last year to pass a new minimum 
wage.
  What we are trying to do is get work done that is in the best 
interest of not only Americans who need these projects to complete 
things that have been done to their communities as a result of damage 
but also to move forward with more efficiency.
  We support spending money for clean water. We don't support bloated 
projects that are against the market-based abilities that communities 
have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't delay any longer and that 
we take action on this rule and this legislation that reauthorizes an 
important part of the Clean Water Act.
  I understand where some of the debate is going to occur today, and I 
understand that a sizable number of Members on the other side of the 
aisle oppose the Davis-Bacon requirements for fair wages across the 
country. But the Rules Committee has made in order an amendment on 
Davis-Bacon, and Members in this body will have an opportunity to 
debate and vote on that issue. It is important, however, as we enter 
that debate, that we recognize that Davis-Bacon ensures a higher-
quality work product and ensures that the work is done right the first 
time as higher-paid workers are the best trained and most experienced.
  I urge Members to defeat that amendment and continue in the new 
direction that is being charted by this new Democratic Congress where 
we stand up for the hard-working men and women across this great 
country.
  It is too important to delay any longer this reauthorization of the 
Clean Water Act. It is imperative that Congress now pass the Water 
Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, which will provide critically needed 
funds for clean water infrastructure. It will protect the public 
health, the environment and our quality of life. It will restore the 
viability of the Federal, State and local partnership to meet the goals 
of the Clean Water Act. And ultimately, if we take action today, we 
will protect and improve the health of our citizens across America.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 179, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               YEAS--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     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
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--179

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     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.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)

[[Page H2351]]


     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bachus
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cardoza
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Hunter
     Kline (MN)
     Larson (CT)
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Pearce
     Souder
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1037

  Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, DELAHUNT, ADERHOLT, and TIM MURPHY of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 132, I was on a visit to 
Walter Reed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________