[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E568]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 9, 2007

  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 720, the Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007. I am pleased to support this important 
and needed reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  Economic growth can only occur if the infrastructure, the roads, the 
power grids, and the water/wastewater systems can accommodate this 
growth. A community cannot prosper without suitable infrastructure.
  Too often, this vital infrastructure is not keeping up with the 
existing needs or future development. A recent report by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, found that, ``without continued 
improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population 
growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements.'' 
Further EPA studies have found there to be a gap of $181 billion 
between the revenue that is available and the wastewater infrastructure 
that is needed. It is expected that this gap will widen to more than 
$500 billion by 2019.
  These shortfalls unfortunately hit small communities the hardest. 
Water systems that serve these communities face a continued battle to 
keep their infrastructure in working order, all the while construction 
and maintenance costs continue to rise. Moreover, small systems simply 
do not have the ability to pass these costs on to their consumers.
  The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped address this need. 
This program allows communities to seek Federal and State dollars from 
the fund. From FY 2002 through FY 2006 the Missouri SRF provided 
$745,776,200 in loans to water systems. These dollars went to create 
new collection sewers, replace existing or outdated sewers, and build 
treatment and secondary treatment plants. Without these updates, the 
environment around Missouri communities would have suffered. So for 
these reasons I rise in support of this legislation.
  But I have concerns about extending Davis-Bacon Act requirements to 
all dollars within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While it is 
true the prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon were attached to 
Federal dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program from 
1972 through 1995, these requirements have never been attached to the 
State dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  The unprecedented move of placing prevailing wage requirements on all 
State Revolving Fund dollars is bad national policy. Placing Davis-
Bacon on all dollars within the State Revolving Fund is a gross 
overreach of Congressional power. Though Missouri does apply prevailing 
wage requirements, 18 States have said through referendum or resolution 
that they don't want to have a prevailing wage law. This is a decision 
that should remain at the State level, not be subverted by the Federal 
government. Unfortunately, H.R. 720 says to the residents and lawmakers 
of these States, ``you were wrong and we're not going to listen to 
you.'' This is wrong. Congress should not be in the business of 
preempting State law in this area. For this reason, I voted for the 
Baker Amendment which sought to remove the Davis-Bacon provision from 
the bill. I was disappointed that this amendment was not adopted.
  Because of the pressing need to improve our Nation's wastewater 
infrastructure, I will support this legislation but I do so with 
serious reservations about the Davis-Bacon requirements in the 
underlying bill. I am voting to move this important bill on to the 
Senate, but it is imperative that this unjustified and inappropriate 
provision be removed as this measure moves tough the legislative 
process.

                          ____________________