[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.''
____________________