[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 44 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3345-H3350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sutton). Pursuant to House Resolution H. 
Res. 235 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 1262.

                              {time}  1058


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1262), with Mr. Pastor of Arizona in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The bill pending before us has been so well described in the 
discussion of the rule that it seems superfluous to repeat the major 
items of the pending legislation.
  At the Rules Committee yesterday, I said, and our floor manager for 
the Rules Committee restated, that we bring to the House bills that 
passed the House in the 110th Congress individually. The gentleman from 
Colorado read off the votes, which were overwhelming, well over 300-
plus votes in favor of each of those bills; just bipartisanship, 
nonpartisanship, overwhelming support for these measures.
  Unfortunately, they went to the other body, never to be heard of 
again. So we thought it would be a better approach this year to combine 
those all into one bill, and maybe the other body can do one bill 
instead of five, we are hoping.
  The commitment to clean water, though, cannot be taken so slightly, 
cannot be just subject to ``hotline holds'' by the other body, cannot 
be subject to undisclosed holds, cannot be subject to indifference to 
action. The agenda for clean water is ours. It's for the next 
generation. It's to hand on to the next generation water in better 
condition than we received it from the previous generation.
  I have been on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
from the time it was the Committee on Public Works. I started my career 
in this House in January of 1963 as Clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers 
and Harbors, the oldest committee of the House, the first committee of 
the House.
  Our work has evolved over many years to encompass a wide range of 
issues related to investment in the Nation's well-being, but none more 
fundamental, more important, than water. All the water we ever had on 
this Earth, or ever will have, is with us today. We aren't going to 
create new water from any technological source. No comet is likely to 
come into our orbit and deposit new ice to form water. Our 
responsibility is to care for the water we have.
  Every day, 42 trillion gallons of moisture passes over the 
continental United States. Ten percent of that falls as moisture, 4.2 
trillion gallons. Of that, some .4 trillion gallons is absorbed by the 
soil or evaporates. The rest, some 680 billion gallons, goes into 
surface waters of the United States. That is all we have every day, 
680-some billion gallons.
  We have to manage it well, make sure that we use it properly, that we 
return to the streams and lakes and estuaries of the Nation water in 
clean condition. This legislation will move us in that direction.
  The centerpiece of this $18.7 billion package of bills is restoration 
of and reauthorization of the State Revolving Fund from which funds are 
borrowed by municipalities to build wastewater treatment facilities, 
sewer lines, interceptor sewers, separate storm and combine storm and 
sanitary sewers. But for a dozen years, until the 110th Congress, that 
legislation had expired and had not been reauthorized. The funding was 
continued, but at lower levels of appropriation, for each of those 12 
years until the 110th Congress.
  That leveled off, because the authorization legislation could never 
make its way to the House floor, even though our committee was prepared 
to do that. We had bipartisan support within the committee, but could 
never get it to the House floor.
  Well, we brought it to the floor in the 110th and passed it 
overwhelmingly, as I said earlier. It went to the Senate, and that has 
not moved.
  The stimulus legislation provides funding of $4.6 billion, half in 
loans and half in grant funds to the State Revolving Funds to create 
jobs and to deal with the backlog of need in State wastewater treatment 
programs and sewer upgrades. Hardly a week goes by that I don't read of 
a matter main break or a sewer line break somewhere in this country.
  It is commentary on the aging wastewater structure of this country 
and the need to rebuild it, need to upgrade our sewage treatment plant 
facilities built in the 1970s and some in the 1980s that are beyond 
their capacities or that are in need of new technology upgrades. This 
legislation will move us in the direction of dealing with those needs.


[[Page H3346]]




                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you regarding H.R. 1262, 
     ``the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009.''
       Section 1501 of H.R. 1262, as ordered reported, increases 
     vessel tonnage duties. This provision falls within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, 
     H.R. 1262 violates clause 5(a) of Rule XXI, which restricts 
     bills and amendments from carrying taxes and tariffs not 
     reported by the Ways and Means Committee.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and, 
     accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the 
     bill and will not oppose H.R. 1262 being given a waiver of 
     Rule XXI. However, I agree to waive consideration of this 
     bill with the understanding that this does not in any way 
     prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means or its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R. 1262 or similar 
     legislation.
       Further, the Ways and Means Committee reserves the right to 
     seek the appointment of conferees during any House-Senate 
     conference convened on this legislation on provisions of the 
     bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for 
     your commitment to support any request by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 1262 
     or similar legislation. I also ask that a copy of this letter 
     and your response be placed in the Committee report on H.R. 
     1262 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     this bill by the House.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, March 9, 2009.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality Investment Act of 
     2009''. Your support for this legislation and your assistance 
     in ensuring its timely consideration are greatly appreciated.
       I agree that section 1501 of H.R. 1262, as ordered 
     reported, is of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means. I acknowledge that, by foregoing a sequential 
     referral, your Committee is not relinquishing its 
     jurisdiction and I will fully support your request to be 
     represented in a House-Senate conference on those provisions 
     over which the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction 
     in H.R. 1262.
       This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 1262 and inserted in the Congressional Record 
     as part of the consideration of this legislation in the 
     House. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees.
       I look forward to working with you as we move ahead with 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science and 
           Technology,
                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and 
     Technology in H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 
     2009. The bill contains certain provisions which are within 
     the Committee on Science and Technology's jurisdiction.
       The Committee on Science and Technology acknowledges the 
     importance of H.R. 1262 and the need for the legislation to 
     move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to 
     jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Science and Technology and that a copy of this letter and of 
     your response will be included in the legislative report on 
     H.R. 1262 and the Congressional Record when the bill is 
     considered on the House Floor.
       The Committee on Science and Technology also asks that you 
     support our request to be conferees on any provisions over 
     which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference 
     on this legislation.
       Thank you for, your attention to this matter, and I look 
     forward to working with you to pass this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bart Gordon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
     Hon. Bart Gordon,
     Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Gordon: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009''.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further 
     consideration of H.R. 1262, notwithstanding the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and 
     Technology. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any 
     further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this or 
     similar legislation. Further, I will support your request to 
     be represented in a House-Senate conference on those 
     provisions over which the Committee on Science and Technology 
     has jurisdiction in H.R. 1262.
       This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 1262 and inserted in the Congressional Record 
     as part of the consideration of this legislation in the 
     House. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have 
     worked regarding this matter and others between our 
     respective committees.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                James L. Oberstar,
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, anyone who drives on our bridges and 
roads, ships freight through our rivers and locks, or who has the 
responsibility to maintain our water quality knows that our country's 
infrastructure system needs attention. We as a Nation have allowed 
important components of our economic security to fall into disrepair.
  Maintaining municipal water infrastructure has long been a local 
responsibility. It's a difficult task. Around the country, many 
communities have gotten behind.
  To address this problem, we need a collective effort that focuses 
both on reducing cost and on increasing investment in water 
infrastructure at all levels, including Federal, State and local 
governments, local ratepayers and the private sector. No one element 
will be able to carry this responsibility alone.
  The Congress believes in helping those communities that need help to 
get back into control of their wastewater management program and 
developing good management practices to ensure that the Federal 
Government does not become the financing mechanism of choice for these 
systems.
  Our Nation's quality of life and economic well-being rely on clean 
water. However, that challenge to continue providing clean water is 
substantial, as our existing national wastewater structure is aging, 
deteriorating and in need of repair, replacement and upgrading.
  As a Nation, we are not investing enough in our wastewater 
infrastructure to ensure that we will continue to keep our waters 
clean. Unless we act, we could lose the significant gains in water 
quality that have been achieved over the last 30 years.
  In addition to reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
the bill also extends the pilot program under the Clean Water Act for 
alternative water source projects. Many communities are finding that 
their water needs cannot be met by existing water supplies. As a 
result, they are looking at alternative ways to alleviate their water 
shortages and enhance water supplies to meet their future water needs.
  Some of these approaches they are looking at involve reclaiming, 
reusing or conserving water that has already been used. This bill helps 
them do that.
  H.R. 1262 provides an authority to help communities meet some of 
their critical water supply needs through water reclamation, reuse, 
conservation and management. The bill authorizes $250 million over 5 
years for the EPA to make grants to water resource development agencies 
for these sorts of alternative water source projects.
  Another provision of H.R. 1262 reauthorizes grants to help 
communities address the widespread problem in our country of sewer 
overflows. As a result of inadequate or outdated wastewater 
infrastructure, raw sewage can flow into rivers or back up into 
people's basements. To provide communities some assistance to meet 
these needs, the bill authorizes additional resources for EPA to make 
sewer overflow control grants totaling $1.8 billion to States and local 
communities.
  The Water Quality Investment Act also contains a provision to improve 
the public's confidence in the quality

[[Page H3347]]

of our Nation's waters and protect public health and safety. This 
provision requires that communities monitor for potential overflows in 
their sewer systems and notify the public whenever a release would 
threaten public health and safety. The public has a right to know when 
their lives are threatened by sewer releases.
  Also included in this reauthorization is a reauthorization of the 
Great Lakes Legacy Act, authored by Vern Ehlers and enacted in 2002. 
The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized the Environmental Protection 
Agency to carry out qualified sediment remediation projects and conduct 
research and development of innovative approaches, technologies and 
techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great 
Lakes.
  While I agree very much with the clean water goals of H.R. 1262, I am 
disappointed that the majority included language that requires Davis-
Bacon wage rates to be used for all projects receiving any money from 
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Even projects paid for with State 
contributed funds will be subject to the higher wage rates.
  I am not a supporter of Davis-Bacon, because it will make clean water 
projects cost more. It will especially hurt small disadvantaged 
communities who are trying to clean up their local waters, and it will 
force States that do not have their own prevailing wage rate law to 
adopt the expensive Federal Davis-Bacon requirement. The result will be 
fewer projects, fewer jobs and less clean water.
  Despite my concerns with Davis-Bacon, I believe this to be a very, 
very good bill, a very, very good underlying bill, and I very much 
support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee, Ms. Johnson of Texas, and 
yield myself 5 seconds to compliment her on the splendid work she has 
done in chairing this subcommittee in the 110th and in this Congress, 
and the groundwork she has laid to bring this legislation to the floor.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you to the Chair of the 
full committee and to the subcommittee members, as well as the full 
committee.
  I rise in strong support of the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. 
This legislation authorizes almost $19 billion to protect and restore 
the integrity of U.S. waters, which are one of this country's most 
valuable natural resources. Over the past several decades, we have made 
significant progress in improving the quality of our water. 
Unfortunately, much of this progress is now at risk.
  Today, approximately 40 percent of the rivers, lakes and coastal 
waters do not meet State water quality standards, and the problem is 
getting worse. Based on EPA estimates, without significant additional 
investment in our Nation's system of wastewater infrastructure, 
discharges into the U.S. waters could reach levels not seen since 1968, 
4 years before the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act.
  Moreover, much of the United States' water structure is approaching 
or has exceeded its projected useful life and is now in need of repair 
or replacement. Without significant investment now, this could have 
dire consequences for human health, aquatic ecosystems and our overall 
quality of life.
  The Environmental Protection Agency and others estimate that we will 
need to invest between $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 
years to address these water infrastructure needs. Current estimates 
show an annual funding gap of between $3 billion to $11 billion over 
our existing expenditures, from Federal, State and local sources.
  This legislation will help jump-start the investment in these needs 
so that we will continue to have access to clean, safe water and so 
future generations can continue to enjoy the economic and recreational 
benefits of our water resources.
  The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 contains five titles which, 
together, will make great progress to this end. Each of these titles 
contain legislative proposals that passed through the House in the 
110th Congress. Unfortunately, these important bills never became law.
  The first title reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
legislation. It is intended to address the Nation's infrastructure 
needs and to reaffirm the Federal commitment toward meeting the goals 
of the Clean Water Act. This title reauthorizes the Federal grant 
program for capitalizing State Revolving Funds at $13.8 billion over 
next 5 years.
  Further, the reauthorization provides increased flexibility in the 
types of projects that the State Revolving Fund can finance. In 
addition, it seeks to improve the efficiency of our wastewater 
infrastructure by promoting, to the maximum extent practicable, the use 
of more energy and water-efficient practices.

                              {time}  1115

  This creates incentives for alternative energy approaches that will 
lower energy costs and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It also 
encourages the development of ``green infrastructure'' that decreases 
the amount of storm water that enters our waterways, relieving some of 
the strain on our aging wastewater treatment systems.
  It also provides the States with increased flexibility in financing 
packages so they can offer the cities and local communities principal 
forgiveness and negative interest loans. This is intended to assist 
communities in meeting their water quality infrastructure goals, which 
is critical in this time of economic stress.
  Title II of the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 provides funding 
for the pilot program for alternative water source projects, and this 
program provides $250 million in grant funding for a variety of 
projects, such as water reuse and recycling.
  Title III of the legislation reauthorizes the Sewer Overflow Grant 
Program. This section provides $1.8 billion over the next 5 years in 
grant funding for States to control combined sewer overflows. These 
overflows discharge annually an estimated 850 billion gallons of 
untreated or partially treated sewage directly into local waters.
  In addition, combined sewer overflows are often the direct cause of 
beach closures, contamination of drinking water supplies, and other 
environmental and public health problems. This program will help 
address the critical needs of the approximately 700 communities in the 
United States that still depend on combined sewer systems.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Title IV of the Water Quality 
Investment Act of 2009 creates a new Sewer Overflow Right-To-Know 
program. The legislation amends the Clean Water Act to require owners 
and operators of publicly owned treatment works to notify Federal and 
State agencies, public health officials, and the public of sewer 
overflows. This is an important step to increase transparency of this 
public health-related information and to protect the well-being of the 
public.
  Finally, Title V of the legislation completes some unfinished 
business in last year's Great Lakes Legacy Act. This provides funding 
for the cleanup of contaminated sediment around the Great Lakes.
  My colleagues, it has been over 20 years since Congress last 
authorized appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 
These programs cannot wait any longer while the quality of our water 
deteriorates. It is time that Congress completes the task of sending 
these important provisions to the President for signing.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this act.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the 
committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. On behalf of the residents of eastern Long 
Island, I would like to commend Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman 
Johnson for their leadership and unwavering dedication to clean water 
issues. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Boozman and the 
committee staff for their hard work and commitment to advancing this 
legislation.
  The Water Quality Investment Act will renew our commitment to clean

[[Page H3348]]

water in America and provide funding to chip away at the tremendous 
backlog of water infrastructure needs across the Nation. This 
legislation will increase investment, reduce costs, and promote 
efficiency in our water infrastructure.
  I am particularly proud of Title IV of the bill that provides 
monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer overflows. My 
good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, and I have worked to advance 
this issue for several years through independent legislation, the 
Sewage Overflow Community Right-To-Know Act, that is a part of this 
legislation.
  Sewer overflows discharge roughly 850 billion gallons of sewage 
annually into local waters. These discharges end up in local rivers, 
lakes, streams, and the ocean.
  The best way to avoid health and environmental concerns from sewer 
overflows is to ensure that they never occur in the first place, a 
primary goal of this legislation. However, even with significant 
increases in investment, sewer overflows will continue to occur. 
Therefore, it is imperative that we provide the public with 
comprehensive and timely notification of sewer overflows, which is also 
accomplished in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Water Quality Investment Act makes investments 
today to protect our families tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this commonsense legislation to ensure we maintain our 
commitment to clean water.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I will continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan, defender of the Great Lakes water, Mr. Stupak.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding, as I rise in support 
of H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. I wish to 
personally thank Chairman Oberstar for his work and for including a 
provision I requested, which will improve water quality in the Great 
Lakes.
  Water pollution in the Great Lakes comes from both Canadian and U.S. 
sources. In my district, residents of Sugar Island, located within the 
St. Mary's River Area of Concern, have to deal with water contaminated 
with E. coli, coliform, and other bacteria along their shoreline.
  The problem is neither they, nor Federal or State regulators, have a 
clear understanding of how much the pollution is American in origin, 
how much is Canadian, resulting in a great deal of finger-pointing over 
responsibility for cleanup.
  My provision within the manager's amendment would require the EPA to 
conduct a study, in consultation with the Department of State and the 
Canadian government, on all pollution discharges from wastewater 
treatment facilities into the Great Lakes. When the study is complete, 
the EPA is to provide recommendations on how to improve information-
sharing and coordination between the two countries to protect the water 
quality of the Great Lakes. It is my hope that, with the conclusion of 
the study, our two countries can coordinate to meet our mutual goal of 
protecting Great Lakes water quality.
  Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for addressing our concerns. This 
legislation will play an important role in helping communities upgrade 
and repair their aging water infrastructure, which will ensure the 
health of the Great Lakes, a source of drinking water for 45 million 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 24\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Minnesota has 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. As 
previously stated, this legislation is an accumulation of five bills 
that individually overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives in 
the 110th Congress but which were held up or significantly altered in 
the Senate.
  I echo the comments made by Chairman Oberstar at the Transportation 
and Infrastructure markup, that, by bundling these bills together, we 
can make it even easier for the Senate to act quickly. The provisions 
in this bill will go far toward helping restore and protect the Great 
Lakes, the largest fresh water source on the planet.
  I have spent a considerable amount of time on this issue over the 
years. I want to deeply thank Chairman Oberstar for his dedication to 
this and his willingness to combine these bills in a very meaningful 
fashion. I also thank Mr. Boozman for his good work on it, and Ranking 
Member Mica for his help as well.
  Of particular interest to me is the reauthorization of the Great 
Lakes Legacy Act. The Great Lakes are plagued by toxic contaminants 
from years of industrial pollution that have settled in the sediment of 
tributaries to the lakes. These legacy pollutants degrade the health of 
both humans and wildlife and, if they are not cleaned up, they will 
remain toxic for generations to come.
  We have known about these toxic materials for years. We lived in the 
vain hope that they might just stay in the sediments at the river 
bottom and not move into the lakes. But we now know that they are 
moving into the lakes. And that is the reason I authored the Legacy Act 
several years ago.
  I have to say that the highest compliment I have received on that 
bill, and I have received it numerous times, is that this is the most 
effective, best Federal cleanup bill that was ever passed. Maybe we can 
now use this as a successful model to go back and clean up all the rest 
of the toxic dumps using the same approach we used here.
  That is why I introduced the Great Lakes Legacy Act in the 107th 
Congress. With bipartisan support, Congress passed, and the President 
signed, the Legacy Act in 2002. Since then, the Legacy Act has been 
heralded, as I said, as the best and most effective Federal 
environmental cleanup program.
  The interesting aspect of it, which was gratifying in some ways but 
disappointing in others, is that while the President of the United 
States every year requested the full authorization in his budget 
request, the Congress did not appropriate the money that the President 
had suggested. And I hope, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, that we 
can both work on this and make sure the appropriators are willing to 
appropriate the full ammount that the President requests. We would be 
far ahead in cleaning up the toxic sediments.
  Last year, Chairman Oberstar and I introduced the Great Lakes Legacy 
Reauthorization Act, which increased the authorization from $50 million 
per year to $150 million per year for 5 years. According to the Great 
Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy, if fully appropriated, this 
amount can potentially clean up all of the toxic sediments in the Great 
Lakes watershed in 10 years. That would be a major accomplishment at 
relatively low cost, and will stop the problem for all time.
  Although the House last year passed this bill by a resounding 371-20 
vote, the Senate was unable to overcome the objection of a single 
Senator who did not want to increase this authorization. A compromise 
was reached to reauthorize the program at its prior funding level, but 
to only reauthorize the program for 2 years.
  During floor debate last year, Chairman Oberstar vowed to address 
this issue in the 111th Congress, and I am grateful that he has honored 
that promise in one of the first committee water bills to be taken up 
by the House in this Congress.
  I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their 
support, as well as Ranking Member Boozman. Their dedication to the 
Great Lakes issues have been most appreciated throughout the entire 
Midwest. The Great Lakes are the greatest treasure of pure water in the 
United States, and I am convinced that in the future water is going to 
be worth more than oil to the industrial machinery of our Nation. I 
believe you will see a resurgence of manufacturing and population 
around the Great Lakes, simply because of the availability of abundant 
clean water.
  I am hopeful the Senate will be able to pass this bill soon so that 
we can

[[Page H3349]]

speed our efforts to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. I urge all 
Members to support this important legislation. Once again, I thank all 
those who worked so hard on these bills so that they could reach this 
state. We hope to see them signed into law very soon.
  Thank you, again, for the time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 1 minute to express my great 
appreciation to Mr. Mica for the splendid cooperation we have had and 
the bipartisan spirit in which we approached combining these bills into 
one package, one piece of legislation for the House floor; Ms. Johnson, 
for her splendid leadership as chair of the subcommittee; Mr. Boozman 
as the ranking member, who has done splendid service to the Nation in 
his championship of water; and Mr. Ehlers. If it were up to me, I would 
rename this the Vern Ehlers Great Lakes Legacy Act. At some point in 
time, I think we will come to do that.
  We do have a President from the Great Lakes region who has increased 
funding for the Great Lakes in the budget, but the details are yet to 
come. The overall dollar amount is increased, I'd say, Mr. Chairman. 
And I hope to work closely with the gentleman from Michigan as the 
details of the budget come out to designate the appropriate amount of 
funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
  I yield 2 minutes to a refugee from the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, but still an advocate for our programs, 
particularly for clean water, the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 
1262, the Water Quality Investment Act. I want to commend Chairman 
Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Johnson for bringing this critical 
legislation to the floor, and it has had bipartisan support for quite a 
few years. We didn't give up on it, did we?
  H.R. 1262 makes many crucial investments in our country's water 
infrastructure system. Section 3 of the bill contains language we 
originally introduced a few years ago in our Water Quality Investment 
Act. The language authorizes $1.8 billion in appropriations for grants 
to municipalities and States to control combined sewer overflows and 
sanitary sewer overflows. The municipalities just don't have the money 
to do this, yet we mandate them to do it. Figure that out.

                              {time}  1130

  Funding for infrastructure projects will help create jobs and spur 
the economy. For every $1 billion, we create 40,000 jobs.
  My provision is very important, especially for my colleagues in the 
Northeast and the Great Lakes area. Many of our older cities have 
combined sewer systems and suffer from overflows that send sewage and 
untreated waste flowing into streets, basements, rivers, and lakes. All 
in all, a total of 772 municipalities have combined sewer systems, 
serving approximately 40 million people. Problems that arise during wet 
weather events can be devastating and are one of the most pressing 
issues facing urban America. Our communities must be given access to 
the Federal resources necessary to upgrade their systems and to upgrade 
the Clean Water Act.
  In its 2004 Clean Water Needs survey, the EPA estimated the cost to 
communities of addressing these particular problems at almost $55 
billion and the cost of the SSO problems to be $88.5 billion; and here 
we are, $1.8 billion.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. PASCRELL. The vast majority of these costs will be borne by local 
communities, many with fewer than 10,000 people. As a former mayor, I 
know how difficult it is to keep a town going in tough economic times. 
These communities are struggling financially. Many are laying off 
critical personnel, like police officers and firefighters and teachers, 
because they struggle to provide even the most essential services. 
During our current economic crisis, upgrading these infrastructures is 
completely out of reach to most of these towns.
  H.R. 1262 serves many purposes financially and healthwise. I commend 
people on both sides of the aisle for making sure this gets done today, 
and we hope the folks on the other side of the building understand what 
this is all about. I pray for that.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he would like to our 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and 
appreciate his leadership.
  As our ranking Republican leader on the Water Resources Subcommittee, 
I also want to thank Mr. Oberstar, my chairman of the full committee, 
who I am pleased to work with on our side of the aisle in what has been 
I think an example for the Congress, a bipartisan relationship, during 
the last 2 years. I want to compliment him on the water resources bill 
that we did together, when we sat down and we said we had not 
reauthorized water resources legislation for some 7 years, and we made 
a commitment together that we thought was in the best interest of the 
Nation.
  Previously, the authorization levels were $4 billion or $5 billion. 
The bill that we offered, and there had been a backlog of projects and 
need for investment in our water resources infrastructure, was a $24 
billion measure which, unfortunately, got vetoed by the former 
President. But I helped in leading the 107th veto override in the 
history of the Congress, because both Mr. Oberstar and I, Democrats and 
Republicans, agreed. There were some disagreements with the 
administration, but we agreed that we had to invest in this Nation's 
infrastructure; that our sewer systems, our water systems, the basic 
infrastructure of this country needed that investment. We can't have in 
the United States Third-World water and sewer systems or storm drainage 
systems or antiquated municipal systems that serve our people, and 
essential public services that are outdated, aging, crumbling. So we 
made that commitment together.
  Now, I was noticing that this legislation here, we passed five bills 
last time. Four of the bills, and I have the votes here, were all over 
360 votes, a very small number of people in opposition to four of the 
votes. I think I supported all four of the measures. We did combine, 
however, in here an important bill that the chairman led, the 
provisions of House Resolution 720, that reauthorized State resolving 
funds and provides $13 billion over 5 years in Federal assistance to 
further capitalize the funds for these projects, and this is a very 
important fund.
  Now, let me just say that while I am supportive of the overall 
legislation, even the level of funding that we put in here, I do have 
one reservation about the extension of the requirement for prevailing 
wage. And this is not a union-set wage; that is not the issue; it is a 
prevailing wage, and the way it is assessed in some of our areas. We 
have 18 States that will be penalized by having their funds that 
previously weren't subject to this, and they are State funds, and funds 
that come back into their fund are now also made subject to this 
prevailing Federal wage provision. And that is the one objection I do 
have to this legislation. Another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) 
will offer an amendment, which we all agreed should be fully debated 
and heard. But that is my issue.
  Now, if that provision comes out of the bill, I would support the 
entire measure. I am sorry that this small point that I disagree on 
would cause me not to support this bill on final passage if it is 
included. But this is basically a good piece of legislation. It does 
have a question about extension of some of these things, these 
prevailing wage issues and, again, the way they assess this prevailing 
wage; and maybe we should go back and change this.
  First of all, I have no problem with prevailing wage, and we should 
have it in our large urban areas. We should also give States discretion 
to set levels of wage even beyond the Federal requirement, and some of 
those jurisdictions do. We do have a Federal minimum wage, so no one is 
trying to make people work for less than the Federal minimum. But 
sometimes the area in which we assess that prevailing wage does expand 
into some of the smaller communities. So they are going to be paying 
more and getting less, or marginal projects will get left behind 
because they don't have the resources that they can expend. And it 
does, again, diminish the amount of money that they can have available 
by

[[Page H3350]]

this new requirement. So that is the one area of disagreement we have.
  I compliment the staff, the ranking member's, Ms. Johnson--I don't 
see her here today--Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman) for their leadership on this issue, and I hope we can proceed. 
And I hope that even if this does pass today with that provision, that 
we can work with the other body and make the basic provisions of this 
legislation the law of the land and improve our infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a former member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, an adjunct member of 
the committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I prefer, Mr. Chairman, to think of myself as an 
associate member of the committee. It is a source of great pride and 
interest for me to have served under your leadership for 12 years on 
that committee and with Eddie Bernice Johnson on this subcommittee.
  I rise in support of this bill today. I take modest exception to my 
good friend from Florida talking about the problems of prevailing wage. 
We have only to look at Louisiana and New Orleans, and the post-Katrina 
debacle where we suspended Davis-Bacon, What happened? The work was 
done for people literally who were working in many cases for barely 
minimum wage, there was all sorts of money involved went to 
subcontracts and we had a lot of shoddy workmanship.
  In my State, the voters took this on directly, voting 60/40 to have a 
State prevailing wage. This protects working men and women and helps 
provide better quality of workmanship on these critical projects. We 
need the best workmanship, and we need this bill.
  Our Nation's water infrastructure has grown while funding has 
declined. The American Society of Civil Engineers came out with their 
5-year report card, and guess what--water infrastructure: D-minus. And 
some would say they were grading on a curve.
  We have massive needs in the foreseeable future, and the Water 
Quality Investment Act is an important step towards meeting those 
needs. It recognizes the challenges we face and will provide 
communities with new tools to cope with them.
  I particularly appreciate the support for green infrastructure and 
the general movement towards a more sustainable system, both fiscally 
and environmentally. Green infrastructure often involves nonstructural 
approaches that can have added environmental and quality-of-life 
benefits that save communities money.
  I worked for 10 years in Portland as Commissioner of Public Works on 
cleaning up the Willamette River that flows through the heart of our 
city. We had to spend $1 billion on a big pipe, because it rains all 
the time in Portland, and any time it rained more than two-tenths of an 
inch in 2 hours, we were having overflow into that river. But we also 
worked on nonstructural approaches. We found that green infrastructure 
reduced peak flows by 80 to 85 percent. We disconnected almost 50,000 
downspouts at $53 per downspout. It cost less than $3 million but 
reduced over 1.2 billion gallons of runoff. If we had tried to do that 
only with big pipes, it would have cost far, far more, literally 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, because there 
is one area that I hope to work on with him and the committee, and that 
is how we make sure we are focusing on clean water infrastructure that 
makes repairs and enhancement as a priority. In some places we have to 
go to new construction, but most of the threats to our communities, 
from Detroit to Cincinnati to Portland, is the existing infrastructure 
that is in sad need of repair. I hope, as this works its way through 
the legislative process, that we might be able to fine-tune that a 
little bit to give priority to fixing it first where there is the 
greatest impact and the greatest hope.
  I deeply appreciate the leadership of the committee once again, and 
look forward to working with people on both sides of the aisle to get 
this important legislation passed and to realize these benefits in a 
way to make all our communities more livable and our families safer, 
healthier, and more economically secure.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Driehaus) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________