[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5607-5619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1240
                  WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT OF 2007

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 214 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 214

       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. 569) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to authorize appropriations for sewer overflow 
     control grants. 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

[[Page 5608]]

     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. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of 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. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. 
     Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member 
     who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be 
     considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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 California (Ms. Matsui) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 214 provides for consideration of H.R. 
569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, under an open rule with 
a preprinting requirement. The rule provides for 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 for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in 
the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall 
be considered as read. The rule provides that any amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in 
the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Finally, 
the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, House Resolution 214 is an open rule. 
This is the third open rule recommended by the Rules Committee during 
the 110th Congress. The committee's fourth open rule will be considered 
on the floor tomorrow.
  The Democratic majority is backing up its commitment to greater 
openness with real action. The Rules Committee's two prior open rules 
permitted Members to offer 19 amendments on the floor. The House 
adopted the overwhelming majority of them. It goes to show the Members 
often can improve legislation when given the opportunity; and I am sure 
that we will have a good debate today, also.
  The underlying legislation made in order under this rule represents a 
long-overdue, necessary investment in our Nation's clean water 
infrastructure. The Water Quality Investment Act provides sorely needed 
funding for cities and States to upgrade combined sewer systems.
  Mr. Speaker, we all take our sewer systems for granted. Most of our 
country's wastewater infrastructure is out of sight and, for the 
majority of our constituents, it is out of mind as well. But once these 
sewers back up and overflow into our streets and rivers, sewers become 
an urgent issue.
  Combined sewers are an older technology. They were built back when it 
made sense to collect wastewater and storm runoff in the same pipes. 
They do not have the same capacity of more modern infrastructure. 
During heavy storms, they often back up and overflow. When this 
happens, untreated wastewater stagnates in our streets and pollutes our 
rivers. Raw sewage seeps into basements, public parks and other areas 
where young children play. Public health is severely impacted.
  The long-term investment fallout can be even worse. My hometown of 
Sacramento struggles with the problems posed by combined sewers. During 
the heavy winter storms which periodically sweep through California, 
these sewers in our central city can overflow. When this happens, over 
500,000 gallons of wastewater flow into our public waterways and 
neighborhoods.
  My constituents already face dangers of flooding from the two large 
rivers which ring our city. They should not have to worry about 
additional flooding from our underground sewers.
  This problem is not unique to Sacramento. Over 700 cities across the 
country have combined sewer systems. These cities need help from the 
Federal Government to undertake the costly task of upgrading their 
infrastructure. A vote for this bill before us today is an investment 
in the health of these cities and towns all throughout our country.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for the focus he has shown in 
shepherding this bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. This bill became trapped in committee under the previous 
majority. I think we are all happy to see it finally make it to the 
floor under the new majority.
  We all have a stake in keeping our infrastructure up to date and 
protecting our constituents' health. Upgrading combined sewers today 
will do both of these things. I urge all Members to pass this fair and 
open rule and to support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers have invested billions in sewage 
treatment infrastructure, resulting in decades of progress in reducing 
waterborne illness from contaminated drinking water and beach closures 
and shellfish bed closures.
  Unfortunately, whenever there is an accidental breach in sewage 
treatment facilities, we see the repercussions of polluted water to 
human health, to our communities, and also to important industries such 
as tourism. That is why it is sound economic and environmental policy 
to invest in effective sewage treatment that ensures that the United 
States has a healthy and vibrant aquatic ecosystem and clean water.
  But the costs for these sewer systems is very expensive. In 2003, the 
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department in my community evaluated its 
wastewater needs through the year 2020 and determined that in order to 
maintain adequate transmission systems capability, treatment, disposal 
and the prevention of sanitary sewer overflows that department alone 
would have to spend over $2 billion.
  The cause of many sanitary sewer overflow events is that the 
infrastructure is failing due to structural deterioration and 
corrosion. Federal funding, such as is provided in this legislation, 
could give an additional incentive to proactively identify the 
infrastructure requiring replacement prior to failure.
  In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add section 221. 
Section 221 authorized appropriations of $750 billion for each of 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to the Environmental Protection Agency to 
make grants to States and municipalities for controlling combined sewer 
overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. This authorization was 
conditioned upon the receipt of at least $1.3 billion in appropriations 
for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds. No funds were 
appropriated for sewer overflow grants in either fiscal year 2002 or 
2003.
  This legislation that we bring to the floor today reauthorizes 
section 221 of the Clean Water Act which provides authority to help 
municipalities and

[[Page 5609]]

 States control combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 
Grants provided by this bill will help keep our water safe and healthy 
and will also keep our ecosystem clean of wastewater.
  I know the majority party likes to pat themselves on the back for 
bringing another bill under a modified open rule. I wish to point out 
for the record that, once again, the majority does so only on bills 
that are clearly noncontroversial.
  Let's take a close look at the bills that they previously allowed to 
be considered under an open rule. Both were clearly bipartisan bills, 
each of which was originally authorized by the Republican whip, Mr. 
Blunt. One passed the House of Representatives unanimously, the other 
by voice vote.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the majority really wants to live 
up to its campaign promise of more open process, they should provide 
open rules on bills that would be a bit more debatable.
  Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, I strongly support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1250

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, wastewater infrastructure may not be the most glamorous 
of issues. Nonetheless, it is an important one for the health of our 
environment and our constituents.
  No American should have to walk outside after a storm to see sewage 
in the streets. None of our constituents should have to fear that 
swimming or boating in rivers will expose them to industrial waste. 
Unfortunately, the sad truth is that our country's combined sewers are 
not up to the task of cleaning our waters.
  The good news is that the underlying bill made in order under this 
open rule will help our local municipalities fix this problem. It is an 
opportunity to invest in our national infrastructure, protect our 
environment, and secure our public health.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Matsui). Pursuant to House Resolution 
214 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. 569.

                              {time}  1255


                     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. 569) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants, with Mr. 
Schiff in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Today, the House will consider the first of three bills reported from 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that seek to improve 
overall water quality of this Nation.
  The first bill is H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, 
sponsored by a former committee colleague, Mr. Pascrell, as well as Mr. 
Camp and Mr. Capuano.
  This legislation authorizes $1.8 billion in Federal grants over the 
next 5 years to address combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 
overflows nationwide. CSOs and SSOs are overflows of untreated waste 
that can occur during wet weather events as a result of poor 
maintenance, deteriorating infrastructure, or inadequate incapacity. 
These overflows are significant concerns for public health and safety 
because they often result in discharges of raw sewage into neighboring 
rivers, streets, beaches and basements.
  In the first year of authorization, H.R. 569 requires the 
administrator to make grants directly to municipalities on a 
competitive basis. For fiscal years 2009 and thereafter, the bill 
directs the administrator to establish a funding formula, after notice 
and comment, that allocates to each State a proportional share of grant 
funding based on the total needs of the State to address CSOs and SSOs 
within its borders.
  States would be responsible for awarding grants to municipalities 
using these allocated funds. I applaud the tireless efforts of 
Congressmen Pascrell, Camp and Capuano in advocating for increased 
funding to address CSOs and SSOs.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has twice approved 
legislation to reauthorize appropriations for this important effort. It 
is my hope that this year Congress will finally approve legislation and 
forward it to the President for his signature.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which is both vital 
and overdue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 569 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 overflow into rivers or back up into people's basements, and 
this has been a nationwide problem.
  To correct these problems, local communities will have to make 
infrastructure investments totaling as much as $150 billion. To provide 
communities some assistance to meet these needs, H.R. 569 authorizes 
additional resources for EPA to make sewer overflow control grants to 
States and local communities. This was a program that was authorized 
before and is now needing reauthorization. I urge all Members to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
and the gentleman from Louisiana, and I want to commend Congressman 
Camp from Michigan for being a stalwart in this area. It has taken us a 
long time, a few years. We have had bipartisan support in the past, Mr. 
Chairman, but we aim to put closure on this at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA estimates that the Nation's wastewater 
infrastructure will face a funding shortfall of between 300 and $400 
billion over the next 20 years. That should give us pause because of 
all the work and help from both sides of the aisle in protecting our 
waterways.

                              {time}  1300

  I am very proud to rise today in strong support of this bill, the 
Water Quality Investment Act, H.R. 569. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar, 
chairman of the Transportation Committee, and, of course, Ranking 
Member Mica and Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Baker for helping 
to get this bill on the floor.
  Congressman Camp and I have pursued this issue for many years, as I 
have said, in order to authorize the wastewater infrastructure funding 
that our cities and towns so badly need; and, Mr. Chairman, I might 
add, there are 30 mayors in the House. We need a little bit of that 
mayor persuasion and touch to deal with a lot of problems that we face 
on this floor, both domestically and internationally. The mayors know 
every day what they face on 24/7 and in the community, every community, 
be it large or small. Because you cannot see something, people forget 
about how significant it is.
  I also want to thank Congressman Capuano and others in this worthy 
endeavor.

[[Page 5610]]

  H.R. 569 has garnered co-sponsorship from both sides and was 
unanimously voted out of committee and was even reported out of 
committee during the past two Congresses for the simple reason that 
combined sewer overflows and sanitary soil overflows affect millions of 
people in each and every State in the Union. We are talking about 
affecting the lives of over 40 million people here in what we are doing 
to today.
  The United States' antiquated wastewater infrastructure is 
deteriorating. State and local governments are often unable to stop 
sewage and untreated waste from flowing into the streets, into 
basements, into rivers and into lakes. So all the work that we have 
done on making our water clean is being undone if we do not attack 
these two major problems.
  Combined sewer systems found mainly in older cities are one source of 
these overflows. A total of 772 municipalities throughout America would 
serve these 40 million which I just spoke of.
  My home State of New Jersey has 31 combined sewer systems, water, 
sanitation coming together at over 200 discharge points throughout the 
State. Many of those discharges, including several in my own town of 
Paterson, New Jersey, flow into the Passaic River, a heavily polluted 
waterway in the heart of my district.
  Sanitary sewer systems often overflow as well, releasing untreated 
waste into our environment, closing our beaches, we have been famous 
for that, too, New Jersey, and contaminating highways, waterways and 
drinking water supplies. In 2003, New Jersey closed over 30,000 acres 
of classified shellfish growing areas due to a large sanitary sewer 
overflow.
  Upgrading these sewer systems is extremely expensive. The 
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the total cost of 
repairing the combined sewer systems in America will be about $51 
billion. The price tag for fixing the U.S. sanitary sewer systems 
hovers around $89 billion. We are talking about $140 billion.
  As a former mayor, I know that wet weather issues are one of the most 
pressing issues facing urban America. Cities are doing their best to 
increase capacity and upgrade facilities with the resources they have, 
but they need our help.
  Most communities with combined sewer overflow problems have fewer 
than 10,000 people. They cannot afford to impose more fees and taxes 
upon struggling residents who have borne the vast majority of costs 
associated with sewer overflows. If we impose a Federal mandate 
demanding clean water, we must follow up with the Federal ability to 
pay.
  As the spring rains loom on the horizon, we cannot let small 
communities throughout this country shoulder this tremendous burden 
alone.
  This bill authorizes $1.8 billion for Federal grants from the EPA 
over a 5-year period. Although it is only a drop in the bucket compared 
to what we really need, it should provide some relief to our 
municipalities; and it sends a signal that we really mean business this 
year and that we are doing that business on a bipartisan basis and that 
that is the only business we should be about on the important problems 
facing Americans.
  I want to wholeheartedly thank the Speaker and the majority leader 
and the rest of the House leadership for addressing legislation this 
week that will provide immeasurable benefit to communities throughout 
this country to help have clean, safe water for their residents.
  I applaud Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and wish to express my 
constituents' sincere gratitude for his action on this important issue. 
This truly has been bipartisan legislation. This is what we talk about 
and so infrequently implement.
  So I thank the minority side, the majority side, wherever that line 
is, who knows, and I say this is a good piece of legislation.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). He is a 
cosponsor of this legislation and has authored similar legislation in 
previous Congresses.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 569, the Water Quality 
Investment Act. I want to thank Representative Pascrell for introducing 
this bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this bill. I authored similar legislation in the last two Congresses.
  Sewer maintenance is a serious problem for Michigan and the Fourth 
Congressional District. Many of the sewers in this country, including 
several in my State, were built during the 19th century. The problems 
associated with old sewer lines are especially rampant in low-lying 
coastal areas such as Michigan, where water runoff collects.
  Sewer overflows discharge untreated or partially treated human and 
industrial waste, toxic materials, debris and disease-causing organisms 
into the environment and pose a grave threat to the environment and 
public health. In 2005, there were over 1,000 reported sewer overflows 
across the State of Michigan. These events spilled 20 billion, and I 
repeat 20 billion, gallons of sewage and wastewater onto the ground and 
into rivers, lakes and streams.
  The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the total cost for 
repairing every sewer line in the country is $140 billion. Local 
governments clearly cannot fix this mess alone and meet their 
obligations under the Clean Water Act.
  The Water Quality Investment Act goes a long way toward ending the 
public health and environmental crisis associated with sewer overflows 
by authorizing Federal funds to repair and replace outdated systems. I 
urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 569 today.
  I would like to thank those individuals who helped move this 
legislation forward, including Mr. Pascrell, the sponsor, and for his 
long support of this legislation; Mr. Oberstar, the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and Mr. Mica, the ranking 
member of this committee.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor legislation that 
will stop pollution from sewer overflows and preserve our clean water 
everywhere.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment 
Act. This important legislation will authorize grants to municipalities 
and States to reduce combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 
overflows in our Nation's water supplies.
  Everyone should be glad that we are ensuring clean water is a top 
priority, not just for our families but for our Nation and certainly 
for every citizen in Wisconsin.
  I am pleased that this Congress is addressing this serious problem 
and this challenge that our Nation's water and sewerage infrastructure 
poses. This legislation, along with the other water bills offered later 
this week, will finally begin to update and repair the outdated and 
aging systems that have been ignored for far too long.
  By adding this critical funding to the Clean Water Act, we will 
ensure the communities like those in my northeastern Wisconsin 
district, who would otherwise be unable to upgrade their aging sewer 
systems, will have the necessary funding to do so.
  CSO and SSO overflows in the Great Lakes are a particularly serious 
impact on all the health of everyone living in our region.

                              {time}  1310

  Our environmental stability and the economic prosperity of the region 
depend upon clean water. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation that 
will aid communities and municipalities. In eliminating overflow 
pollution, it will create separate sewage and storm water flows.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Johnson for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may

[[Page 5611]]

consume to my friend from Tennessee, a senior member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. Duncan chaired the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee 
in the previous Congress and has been a leader on this issue.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I certainly want to first thank Dr. Boustany for yielding 
me this time and for his hard work on this legislation. As he 
mentioned, I had the privilege of chairing the Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee for 6 years, for the past 6 years, and he 
served as my vice chairman during part of that time. I appreciate his 
work.
  I also want to salute my really good friend, Congresswoman Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas, whom I admire and respect so much, and who 
was my ranking member of that subcommittee and now serves as the full 
chairman.
  I want to also commend Congressman Bill Pascrell, the gentleman from 
New Jersey, who has been interested in this issue for several years, as 
has my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Camp, and who are 
the primary sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that there is nothing that the 
people of this country take for granted as much as they do our clean 
water and waste water systems in this country that are so very 
important, first of all, to our environment, our public health, but 
also to our economy.
  We have environmental extremists in this country who don't want us to 
cut any trees, dig for any coal, drill for any oil or produce any 
natural gas, and they basically want to shut our whole economy down. I 
don't go along with their agenda, but I can tell you that this bill is 
one of the most important bills that we could do for the environment. 
Those who really care about the environment should be over here in 
strong support of this bill.
  The water infrastructure network has done some real yeoman's work in 
regard to the needs of this country, in this regard, for the last few 
years, and they have estimated that we have needs over the next 20 
years or so of over $400 billion in our clean water and waste water 
systems in this country.
  This bill and the other two bills we will take up later this week 
certainly are very important, and they are good starts in alleviating 
some of this problem. It has been said that we have spent more from a 
Federal level on the water system in Iraq over the last 4 years than we 
have spent from the Federal level on the water systems in this country. 
Certainly more money has been spent in this country on our water 
systems, but that has been done by the ratepayers and the local and 
State governments.
  There is an important Federal role in this regard because people in 
California drink the water in Tennessee and vice versa. We have a 
mobile society, and there is an important role for this Congress to 
play and for our Federal Government to play in this regard.
  I think this bill is a good start in the right direction, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this legislation. There are going to 
be, I think, two or three amendments offered from our side to make the 
bill a little more fiscally conservative, and, certainly, I have no 
objection to that.
  But we need to pass this legislation, because, as Mr. Camp said, 
there is a lot of this water infrastructure in our country, both waste 
water and clean water, that dates back to the 19th century. We need a 
lot of work if we are going to have the water systems and the kind of 
country that our people want us to have.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I want to thank my colleague and friend from 
New Jersey for introducing this important legislation, and I wish to 
commend Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Johnson for their leadership 
in moving this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is extremely important to my district, which 
is bordered by water on three sides. Each year, many of my constituents 
and millions of other Americans are sickened by swimming in water 
contaminated by sewer overflows. This inadequately treated sewage is 
filled with bacteria and viruses.
  Also, the cumulative costs from sewer systems result in thousands of 
days of closed beaches at a cost of billions of dollars due to 
swimming-related illnesses. The impact of such contamination to my 
district, with over 300 miles of coastline, can be devastating to the 
fishing and tourist economies that depend upon clean water and healthy 
beaches.
  According to the EPA, an estimated 850 billion gallons of raw sewage 
and industrial waste escape each year much of it into public waters. 
Unfortunately, despite this obvious need, the President's fiscal 2008 
budget cuts infrastructure funding by $400 million or 36.6 percent. It 
is my hope that our budget resolution and our appropriators will 
override this cut.
  Yet many Americans do not become aware of sewage leaks until they 
show up on a closed beach or, worse yet, are made ill because many 
sewer systems do not routinely monitor to detect sewer overflows or 
report those that do occur to environmental or public health agencies.
  This bill authorizes $1.8 billion over the next 5 years for grants to 
prevent dangerous sewer overflows. More needs to be done, but this is a 
good first step. Vote for this bill, protect the health of our Nation's 
beachgoers and protect our environment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) a member of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman for 
yielding some time to me here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong, extremely strong support of this 
particular piece of legislation we are looking at today, the Water 
Quality Investment Act of 2007. I am actually a brand new member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this term, but I have 
wanted to get on this committee ever since I came to Congress, and it 
is particularly because of issues like this that we are talking about 
today.
  My home State of Michigan actually has more shoreline than any other 
State in the Nation, except Alaska. If you think of the mitten of 
Michigan and think of the Great Lakes, of course, surrounding, fresh 
water and clean water and the Great Lakes, I mean, we are the Great 
Lakes State. It is an economic impetus for us. It really is our very 
identity.
  In fact, the Great Lakes system is actually one-fifth of the fresh 
water supply of the entire planet. Sometimes people don't recognize 
that, but they are one-fifth of the fresh water supply of the world. In 
my area, in the Detroit area, actually, there are over 5 million 
Americans just right there in southeast Michigan who are drafting their 
fresh water supply from the Great Lakes, and, of course, the Canadians 
on the other side, our great neighbors to the north as well. But these 
waters are absolutely a national treasure, and I think we need to do 
everything that we possibly can within our power to preserve them and 
to protect them.
  Of course, one of the great problems is that many of the communities 
along the shoreline have very, very old, very antiquated 
infrastructure. It is decaying infrastructure; it is not right sized. 
It has all the problems that are not particularly inherent to a city 
like Detroit or an area like southeast Michigan.
  We see it all around the Nation, particularly in our industrialized 
areas there, and we have not been capable, or we have not had the 
political will, I should say, of spending the dollars to keep up with 
the growth with our underground infrastructure. Of course, people don't 
see the underground infrastructure a lot of times. We are not thinking 
about it as we should.
  Local communities, of course, are struggling with declining tax 
dollars. In Michigan, we are having a huge amount of decline in State 
revenue sharing as well. They have very tight budgets, and even though 
they have had their best efforts, they just have

[[Page 5612]]

not, the local communities in the State, have not been able to keep up 
with the infrastructure needs to keep our water quality clean.
  We in this Congress have invested tax dollars in so many things that 
our constituents have questions. Somebody was just mentioning we maybe 
spent more money on water systems and infrastructure in the country of 
Iraq than we have in our own Nation in recent years. Some would say 
that some of the things we do here are not in the national interest. 
But that is not the case, not the case with this very, very important 
piece of legislation.
  I believe that this legislation will provide vital assistance to 
States and local communities throughout our entire Nation to meet the 
critical need, to keep our water clean and pure. That is a charter that 
we all share.
  Whatever our constituency is, we are the stewards of this fantastic 
country and magnificent treasures like the Great Lakes or so many other 
areas around the country, and we need to make sure that we do keep our 
water clean and pure for our generation as well as the next.
  In fact, and let me just mention, several months ago, actually with a 
Canadian-based research group, we do a lot of work, as you might 
imagine, in Michigan with our Canadian counterparts there. They were 
calculating that the United States and Canadian cities dump a combined 
24 billion gallons of municipal sewage directly into the water systems 
each and every year, which is the equivalent of more than 100 Olympic-
size swimming pools full of raw sewage each and every day.

                              {time}  1320

  In fact, they characterized the study as we were treating our Great 
Lakes like a toilet is what they said; and, unfortunately, there is a 
very choking grain of truth to that.
  So I certainly support the legislation. I want to commend Chairman 
Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for bringing it forward. I urge all of 
my colleagues to support this very bipartisan piece of legislation that 
is so important to our Nation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I now recognize Mr. 
Hill of Indiana for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation as 
well. I applaud the authors and the coauthors for introducing it.
  Southern Indiana has the same problem that all communities across the 
country are having with sewer repairs, and it is good to see that this 
bipartisan piece of legislation is probably going to pass.
  You know, the last time I was home, I was talking to a fellow in one 
town in southern Indiana that actually had to wear boots in order to 
mow his lawn in the summertime because of the sewage that was bubbling 
up.
  The city of New Albany, which is right along the Ohio River, is 
probably going to spend half of its budget revenue on fixing their 
sewers.
  The Environmental Protection Agency approximates that each year 
combined sewer overflows discharge about 850 billion gallons of 
wastewater and storm water containing untreated wastes, toxic debris 
and other pollutants.
  Not only New Albany, but other towns in southern Indiana, like 
Huntingburg, Rockport and Milltown in southern Indiana are having 
trouble paying for their higher sewer rates; and although they depend 
on sewer maintenance and repair for economic growth, not to mention 
basic sanitation issues, rural communities like these sometimes have 
difficulty with funding these types of projects because they are so 
small.
  Mr. Chairman, in 2005, there were nearly 400 documented sewer 
overthrows throughout Indiana's Ninth District. I think we can do a lot 
better than that. That is why I am happy that the House is addressing 
this issue today. It is time to step up and assist communities in need.
  The Water Quality Investment Act would greatly assist communities all 
over America and in my district to improve water quality and control 
sewer overflow by authorizing $1.5 billion in grants to communities 
over the next 5 years. These communities can use these funds to 
construct treatment facilities and update aging sewers to deal with the 
sewer overflows.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and rise in 
bipartisan support. Hopefully, it will pass.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, could you tell us 
how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas has 15 minutes remaining.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to Mr. Blumenauer from the State of Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on the bill and commend her leadership.
  I had the privilege, for 10 years, of serving on this subcommittee. I 
miss the work that is being done. But I am pleased that in the first 
days of this Congress we are moving forward with important bipartisan 
legislation that can make a huge difference for communities around the 
country.
  The city that I call home, Portland, Oregon, is one of over 1,100 
communities around the country with a combined sewer overflow problem. 
The EPA estimates that there is something like 40,000 discharges of raw 
sewage that occur each year from sanitary sewer systems with a volume 
into the billions of gallons each year. In my community, this 
represents an investment well of over $1 billion to try and deal with 
the problems of an antiquated system, much of which was built before 
1960; and, compared to what is happening in other parts of the country, 
that is a modern system.
  This is a situation where we, as a country, have long overlooked 
making the type of systematic investments that are important. I 
appreciated my colleague, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee, who talked about 
the potential for a $400 billion shortfall. Well, it is really not 
clear exactly whether it is $400 billion, $500 billion, you pick a 
number, being able to meet the needs of America's communities that are 
being stressed, not just by aging systems but by growth and 
development. Sprawl across the country is putting more and more strain 
on these inadequate systems at a time when we are finding out more and 
more of what needs to be done to protect the public health and 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, around the world, at any given time half the people are 
sick needlessly from waterborne disease. In this country, we have had a 
better record. But we have had problems here, and we are on the edge in 
many places around the country. I can't say enough about my 
appreciation for moving forward with this in an expeditious manner.
  Unfortunately, other areas of the Federal Government haven't quite 
caught up to the leadership of the subcommittee bringing this forward. 
I am sad to note that the administration continues its trend of 
downplaying this problem with its 2008 budget and its stated opposition 
to this bill. I am confident that there will be such an overwhelming 
show of support for it that we will be able to convince others that it 
is a good investment.
  Solving America's water quality issues requires a partnership. 
Already, State and local jurisdictions are being stressed. We are 
finding the private sector stepping up and making higher and higher 
investments. The average rate payer is facing exponential increases.
  In my community, in the course of 10 years we are going to double the 
sewer rates. I met with a group of professionals this last week that 
said that, at the current rate of expenditure, we could actually have 
the entire country's GDP devoured by local utility cost for sewer and 
water. That is not going to happen because of the leadership that we 
see here now.
  I look forward to a strong bipartisan vote in support of it, and I 
hope that my colleagues will take the time to visit with the hundreds 
of consulting engineers and local government officials who are on the 
Hill today to tell them that we have taken a step forward, and we look 
forward to working with them to finish the job.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 5613]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a member of the 
committee.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and 
Mr. Mica and Mr. Duncan and Chairwoman Johnson and Mr. Pascrell for 
their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor; and I want to 
congratulate my good friend, Eddie Bernice Johnsonn, for bringing her 
first bill to the floor this week as chairwoman of the Water Resources 
Subcommittee.
  I am so pleased that our committee, with the guidance of our 
transportation guru, Mr. Oberstar, will be making access to a safe 
wastewater infrastructure and a clean water supply a top priority.
  There are places in my district and in the State of Florida where the 
sewer and water system are as bad as some systems that I have seen in 
Third World countries. Let me repeat. There are places in my district 
that remind me of being in a Third World country when it comes to water 
and sewer, and this infrastructure is what separates us from those 
countries. This is why cleaning up these systems is so important and 
why this legislation is so necessary.
  This bill provides $1.8 billion over 5 years to municipalities and 
States to improve and prevent sewer overflow by improving the aging and 
obsolete sewer systems that plague many towns and cities. These 
improvements will not just protect the environment but will improve 
overall public health.
  One of the greatest things about serving on the Transportation 
Committee is that our committee actually puts people to work in good-
paying jobs that benefit the public. We all talk a lot on this floor 
about supporting hardworking Americans, but some people don't believe 
that those workers deserve fair wages for their hard work. This is why 
it is so important that we support Davis-Bacon and ensure that everyone 
who works hard can experience the American Dream.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the 
distinguished Chair of the entire committee, Mr. Oberstar, to close 
general debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 9\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. As far back as the 108th Congress, the committee 
considered and favorably reported this bill to address the urgent and 
mounting needs of comprehensive wastewater infrastructure. A visionary 
on the committee and leading the charge on this legislation was our 
former committee member, Mr. Pascrell, the gentleman from New Jersey, 
who spoke earlier. He and Mr. Capuano, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, urged upon the committee a vigorous program of 
reinvestment in the Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs. The 
committee, in fact, in the 108th Congress considered and favorably 
reported this bill with total bipartisan support.
  Regrettably, it didn't reach the House floor in the 108th Congress. 
It wasn't reported from the committee in the 109th Congress. The needs 
have only grown. They have worsened. In those areas of the gulf 
stricken by the Katrina and Rita and Wilma hurricanes, the needs are 
crushing as the gentleman from Louisiana can well attest.
  So we have moved again expeditiously in the committee to bring this 
bill to the House floor. I thank all those who have participated: the 
gentleman from New Jersey; the gentleman from Massachusetts; especially 
the Chair of our Subcommittee on Water Resources, the gentlewoman from 
Texas; and the gentleman from Louisiana who is now managing the bill on 
the Republican side. These are serious, urgent problems, combined sewer 
overflows.
  The administration in their statement of opinion on the bill sort of 
suggests that this is not a national problem. We settled that issue in 
1956, that clean water is a national problem when my predecessor, John 
Blotnik, authored the very first legislation, the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments 1956, signed into law by President 
Dwight Eisenhower. Every President since then has acknowledged the need 
for the Nation to address the problems of clean water in our rivers, 
the tributaries to those rivers, the lakes, the estuaries and the 
saltwater regions of coastlines of the United States and the Great 
Lakes.
  The vast majority of cost in cleaning our Nation's wastewater falls 
on the shoulders of local communities, local ratepayers, with some 
participation from States varying from one State to the other, and now 
through the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund.
  We have felt that, as the committee that originated this legislation, 
that led the charge for the Nation to clean up the Nation's rivers, 
lakes and receiving waters of all types, to leave a heritage for those 
who come after us of clean water. This investment we make today, that 
will, I am very confident, quickly be considered by the other body, and 
I am quite confident will be signed into law by the President, will 
move us along the way toward that goal of meeting the Nation's need for 
clean water.
  As is stated in the opening paragraph of the Clean Water Act of 1972, 
the purpose of the act is to establish and maintain the chemical, 
biological and physical integrity of the Nation's waters. With this 
legislation, we make a down payment on meeting that objective.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns 
about the bill that is before us, H.R. 569. At the beginning of the 
110th Congress, the Democrat majority talked about the need for fiscal 
responsibility and with much fanfare passed the pay-go rules. Yet, for 
almost every bill that has been considered thus far this year they have 
waived the pay-go rules. They do so again today.
  The bill they have brought to the House floor authorizes $1.8 billion 
in increased federal spending over the next five years for state and 
local sewer programs. This $1.8 billion price tag is more than a half-
a-billion more than what the Republican majority put forward in the 
last Congress when it was seeking to reauthorize this program.
  The bill under consideration today is anything but music to 
taxpayers' ears. Essentially, the Democrats are proposing a no-strings-
attached taxpayer handout to states for local water sewer projects 
without responsible cost-sharing arrangements provided in currently 
existing programs.
  Furthermore, Florida communities would receive very little, if any, 
assistance. The state of Florida has already addressed many of the 
problems associated with mixed storm water and sewage systems and would 
thus receive very little benefit. So, this largely creates a new 
program for which Florida taxpayers will pay on others' behalf.
  A more equitable and fiscally responsible approach is to not divert 
funding from the State Revolving Fund program as is proposed in this 
bill. The SRF already helps states and local communities fund various 
water improvement projects. However, it does so in a more equitable and 
fiscally responsible manner by providing low-cost loans and other cost-
sharing arrangements that encourage states and local communities to 
take ownership of high priority projects.
  Today's bill undermines this responsible approach and would 
incentivize states and local communities to become more dependent on 
federal subsidies for short- and long-term financing of their water 
sewer systems, rather than on the existing SRF. This bill simply hands 
money to the states, who then pass it on to local communities, without 
requiring them to have a detailed financing plan in place, and without 
cost sharing.
  For these reasons I am not able to support H.R. 569.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, Congress has long recognized the need to 
protect our nation's water supply. Over three decades ago, we passed 
the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishing a federal program to aid 
wastewater treatment plant construction and upgrades. And, in the years 
since, over $76.5 billion has been provided to assist cities in 
building and upgrading sewage infrastructure.
  Ask any mayor or council member in your district, and I am certain 
that they will agree this money has been well-spent helping communities 
to prevent the discharge of waste into surface waters. Unfortunately, 
while funding needs have increased over the years (21% between 1996 and 
2000), Congress has yet to

[[Page 5614]]

increase its appropriations to meet this growing demand. In the end, 
our cities and towns have been left to cover many of these costs alone.
  In my district, the city of Fall River has been undertaking 
significant wastewater upgrades, costing in excess of $100 million. 
Within the community, there is strong support for complying with the 
Clean Water Act, and the city itself has devoted a significant amount 
of public funds to support this effort. But, the reality is that 
without federal assistance, they would be unable to meet the standards 
mandated by the CWA.
  The towns of Westborough and Shrewsbury share a treatment plant and 
are facing similar challenges with costly upgrades. And in my hometown, 
the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District servicing the 
City of Worcester and surrounding communities has found itself in a 
nearly identical position.
  Similarly, the city of Marlborough operates two wastewater treatment 
plants; one on the easterly side of the City discharges into the Hop 
Brook River and the second on the westerly side of the City discharges 
into the Assabet River. Under the conditions of the City's NPDES 
permits, they are required to make substantial upgrades to both of 
their treatment plants. The City of Marlborough's engineering 
consultant estimates these upgrades to cost between $60 and $80 million 
depending on whether the City is required to recharge into the 
groundwater as opposed as directly into the river.
  Over the years, I have worked to obtain some modest direct federal 
financial relief for these projects, but it has been clear that the 
needs of these two cities have far exceeded the funding available. In 
fact, under the Republican-led Congress, funding for the Clean Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund, which addresses critical water 
infrastructure needs, was slashed by 34 percent. And, though sewer 
overflow grants were authorized for 2002 and 2003, the Republican 
leadership refused to appropriate any funds and let the authorization 
expire.
  In the end, this failure to increase federal funding for these 
programs is what makes the Clean Water Act an unfunded mandate in the 
eyes of the cities and towns we are all elected to represent.
  And that is why this legislation we have before us today, H.R. 569, 
is so important. It authorizes $1.5 billion in grants to local 
communities over the next five years to prevent dangerous sewer 
overflow. Such funding will be invaluable to communities like Fall 
River and Marlborough, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 569.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
569, the Water Quality Investment Act.
  This bipartisan bill authorizes $1.8 billion dollars over the next 
five years for grants to prevent dangerous sewer failures--which can 
create significant public health hazards in communities across Upstate 
New York.
  This bill is critically important in helping districts such as mine--
as our rural communities are invariably faced with aging sewer systems.
  Upstate New York is on the verge of a great economic revival, but in 
order to take that next step, we must address our major water concerns. 
To attract and keep businesses in our towns we need the infrastructure 
to support them.
  This legislation has the potential to help benefit over 10 
communities in my Upstate New York District. From Whitehall to 
Mechanicville, to Hudson--today we are making an important investment 
in our future.
  I am pleased to see this Congress recognizes the need to update our 
water systems and hope to see a continued emphasis on infrastructure 
investments that will benefit rural communities like those I represent 
in New York.
  The Water Quality Investment Act doesn't only make sense from an 
economic standpoint--but it is vitally important from an environmental 
standpoint as well.
  Water systems in my district serve some of the nation's most pristine 
waters including Lake George in the Adirondack Mountains. Towns like 
Ticonderoga need this help to preserve our environmental treasures.
  I thank you again Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak in 
support of this crucial bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of this vital funding that will protect lives, preserve the 
environment, and help cities and states pay for modernizing their sewer 
infrastructure
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
569, the Water Quality Investment Act. This legislation is extremely 
important to our local communities to improve stormwater and sewer 
system infrastructure.
  In my congressional district alone, I have numerous communities, 
including the city of Sparta, the village of Coulterville, New Baden, 
Nameoki, and Ewing Township, that all need storm water and sewer system 
infrastructure improvements. However, the local communities have no 
money to make those improvements. We must provide a better standard of 
environmental health to our communities so that public health and our 
natural resources are not compromised.
  H.R. 569 seeks to help by providing $1.8 billion over a 5-year period 
for sewer overflow control grants provided by the EPA. These grants 
would be used by communities to plan, design and construct treatment 
works to address combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
  Mr. Chairman, we must help our State and local governments meet 
Federal standards and provide them with much needed relief. If it is a 
priority to build sewer and wastewater infrastructure in Iraq, it 
should be a priority here at home.
  Again I strongly support H.R. 569 and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support H.R. 569, the ``Water Quality Investment Act,'' which 
authorizes $1.8 billion in much needed funds for municipalities to 
control combined sewer overflows, CSOs, and sanitary sewer overflows, 
SSOs, at the local level, and to better reduce sewer overflows, which 
will allow them to maximize environmental and health benefits. This 
necessary increase in funding is a good first step toward addressing 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's estimated sewer overflow 
control costs of over $150 billion nationally.
  Mr. Chairman, sewer system overflows are a growing problem in the 
United States today. Most Americans do not know that many of our 
municipalities utilize sewer systems constructed as far back as the 
1860s. This antiquated infrastructure is deteriorating, and as a 
result, State and local governments are often unable to stop sewage and 
untreated waste from flowing into streets, basements, rivers, and 
lakes. It goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that sewer overflows 
represent a major public health hazard.
  Combined sewer systems, those handling both waste water and storm 
water, which are found mainly in older cities, are one source of these 
overflows. Our most recent data indicates that a total of 772 
municipalities have combined sewers, serving approximately 40 million 
people. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these 
combined sewer overflows, CSOs, discharge about 850 billion gallons of 
wastewater and storm water containing untreated waste, toxic debris, 
and other pollutants.
  Sanitary sewer systems often overflow as well, releasing untreated 
waste into our environment in all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia. For example, in 2003, New Jersey closed over 30,000 acres of 
classified shellfish growing areas due to a large sanitary sewer 
overflow, SSO. Another year saw over 1,000 sewer overflows in Michigan, 
totaling over 20 billion gallons in spilled sewage.
  Upgrading these systems is extremely expensive. The EPA estimates 
that the total cost of repairing the country's combined sewer systems 
is nearly $51 billion. The price tag for fixing U.S. sanitary sewer 
systems hovers around $89 billion. Sewer overflow control grants were 
authorized for 2002 and 2003, but the Republican-controlled Congress 
never appropriated any funds and let the authorization expire.
  But the new majority in this House understands that ensuring clean 
water is a top priority for America's working families. A clean and 
healthy environment begins with clean water. H.R. 569 will help to make 
the Nation's water supply cleaner and healthier by authorizing $1.8 
billion in much needed funding for municipalities to control combined 
sewer overflows, CSOs, and sanitary sewer overflows. That is why H.R. 
569 is strongly endorsed by dozens of water management, environmental, 
public resource, building trades, and civil engineering associations, 
including the following:
  American Concrete Pipe Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe 
Association; American Council of Engineering Companies; AFSME; American 
Public Works Association; American Society of Civil Engineers; American 
Sportfishing Association; Associated General Contractors of America; 
Associated Equipment Distributors; Association of Equipment 
Manufacturers; and Association of California Water Agencies.
  American Supply Association; Construction Management Association of 
America; California Rebuild America Coalition; Chesapeake Bay 
Foundation; Clean Water Action; Clean Water Construction Coalition; 
Design-Build Institute of America; Environmental and Energy Study 
Institute; Food & Water Watch; Laborers' International Union of North 
America; and International Union of Bricklayers and Allied 
Craftworkers.

[[Page 5615]]

  International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; National 
Association of Counties; National Association of Flood and Stormwater 
Management Agencies; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; 
National Association of Regional Councils; National Association of 
Sewer Service Companies; National Association of Towns and Townships; 
National Construction Alliance; National League of Cities; National 
Precast Concrete Association; and National Ready Mixed Concrete 
Assocation.
  National Rural Water Association; National Society of Professional 
Engineers; National Urban Agriculture Council; Pipe Rehabilitation 
Council; Portland Cement Association; Rural Community Assistance 
Partnership; SAVE International; Underground Contractors Association of 
Illinois; Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association; United Association of 
Journeymen and Apprentices in the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, 
AFL-CIO; The Vinyl Institute; The Western Coalition of Arid States; and 
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 569 and urge all my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this legislation that addresses one of the 
real and pressing needs of the American people.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical matter and I would like to 
submit this statement for the record in support of H.R. 569, the Water 
Quality Investment Act.
  The overflow of sewage into streets, basements, rivers and lakes is a 
serious environmental and health problem. Communities across New 
England face a higher risk of sewer overflows because of their aged and 
deteriorating infrastructure. For example, in my home State of 
Connecticut, the City of Hartford's sewer system was built 150 years 
ago. It was designed to support roughly 15,000 people, but today the 
expanded system, including the district's central Hartford Treatment 
Plant, serves 400,000 people in 6 towns. As a result, over 1 billion 
gallons of untreated sewage overflows every year in Greater Hartford. 
On average, combined sewer overflows occur more than 50 times a year, 
which impacts 30 miles of the Connecticut River, including area 
basements and streets.
  In Connecticut's First District, which I represent, the Metropolitan 
District Commission (MDC) is responsible for providing water supply, 
water treatment and water pollution control to eight cities and towns, 
including Hartford, West Hartford, East Hartford, Newington, 
Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Windsor and Bloomfield. In order to support 
the rehabilitation and the rebuilding of Hartford's core system, in 
addition to satisfying State and Federal consent orders to eliminate 
sanitary sewer overflows, the MDC must expend more than $1 billion. On 
November 7,2006, the voters in the eight MDC municipalities approved an 
$800 million bond referendum for addressing the sewer overflow problem. 
However, without much needed Federal support, the annual cost to 
homeowners will increase from $119 per year to more than $1,000 per 
year. In Hartford, the city's residents have an average income less 
than the region's average and as a result of these regressive 
wastewater fees, will experience an even greater economic burden.
  It is because of outdated wastewater systems, clean water needs and 
the direct impact it has on communities like those in Connecticut that 
the legislation before the House today is so important. The Water 
Quality Investment Act would reauthorize Sewer Overflow Control Grants 
for $1.8 billion over the next 5 years. These grants were authorized in 
Fiscal Year 2002 and Fiscal Year 2003, however, no funds were ever 
appropriated and the authorization of this program was allowed to 
expire.
  Today and later this week when the House considers the Healthy 
Communities Water Supply Act (H.R. 700) and the Water Quality Financing 
Act (H.R. 720), the Democratic Majority is sending a clear message to 
the American people--this Congress is committed to investing in the 
health and safety of your family and your community. I urge all of my 
colleagues in supporting the underlying bill.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Water 
Quality Investment Act and strongly urge Its passage.
  Many communities in my district, such as the city of Monmouth, have 
severe capacity issues with their wastewater treatment systems. Several 
of these communities are rural but are experiencing new growth and 
cannot afford to expand their wastewater systems or update their 
antiquated and deteriorating facilities. The overflow of sewer systems 
can cause untreated waste to run into streets, basements, rivers and 
lakes, posing obvious health, safety and environmental problems.
  Additionally, 772 municipalities across the country, the majority 
having fewer than 10,000 people, have combined sewer systems. These 
systems partially separate sewage and stormwater runoff and are 
extremely vulnerable to sewer overflows during periods of peak 
rainfall. The EPA estimates that each year, overflows from combined 
sewer systems discharge about 850 billion gallons of wastewater and 
storm water containing untreated waste, toxic debris, and other 
pollutants into the environment.
  It is imperative that we help localities improve their sewer 
infrastructure for the health and safety of their residents and to meet 
their obligations under the Clean Water Act.
  The Water Quality Investment Act would authorize $1.8 billion in 
federal grants over five years to municipalities for sewer overflow 
control and improved infrastructure. This new funding is a good first 
step toward addressing the EPA's estimated sewer overflow control costs 
of over $150 billion.
  This legislation is supported by the National Association of Clean 
Water Agencies, which services the majority of Americans, and the Water 
Infrastructure Network, a broad-based coalition of environmental, 
conservation, municipal, public health, engineering, construction, and 
energy groups.
  I again urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan legislation. 
Sewer system overflows are a public health risk with the biggest threat 
occurring in smaller communities that cannot finance the modernization 
of their systems. We are obligated to help these communities protect 
their citizens, which is why we must pass this bill.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
569, introduced by my colleagues Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Camp. This bill 
would reauthorize a grant program that expired in 2003, which 
authorized grants to States and municipalities to combat the problem of 
combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. I was proud to 
be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.
  In 2001, the EPA estimated there were 772 communities in the country 
that have combined sewer systems, including all of the communities in 
my district: Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, and Somerville. The EPA also 
estimated that to address these problems would cost communities $50.6 
billion for CSOs and an additional $88.5 billion to address SSOs. These 
enormous costs cannot be borne by the communities alone.
  Since the Clean Water Act was first passed in 1972, the condition of 
our Nation's waters has improved greatly. H.R. 569 demonstrates a 
renewed commitment by Congress to clean water by providing targeted 
assistance to address two large outstanding problems still affecting 
water quality, CSOs and SSOs. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 569

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Water Quality Investment Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.

       (a) Administrative Requirements.--Section 221(e) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(e)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Administrative Requirements.--A project that receives 
     assistance under this section shall be carried out subject to 
     the same requirements as a project that receives assistance 
     from a State water pollution control revolving fund under 
     title VI, except to the extent that the Governor of the State 
     in which the project is located determines that a requirement 
     of title VI is inconsistent with the purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of 
     section 221(f) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(f)) is amended by 
     striking ``$750,000,000'' and all that follows before the 
     period and inserting ``$250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, 
     $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, $350,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2010, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2012''.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Section 221(g) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1301(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2008.--Subject to subsection (h), the 
     Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out 
     this section for fiscal year 2008 for making grants to 
     municipalities and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2) 
     in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2009 and thereafter.--Subject to 
     subsection (h), the Administrator shall

[[Page 5616]]

     use the amounts appropriated to carry out this section for 
     fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter for making 
     grants to States under subsection (a)(1) in accordance with a 
     formula to be established by the Administrator, after 
     providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, that 
     allocates to each State a proportional share of such amounts 
     based on the total needs of the State for municipal combined 
     sewer overflow controls and sanitary sewer overflow controls 
     identified in the most recent survey conducted pursuant to 
     section 516.''.
       (d) Reports.--The first sentence of section 221(i) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 1301(i)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2010''.

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


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is filed and 
should be in order at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Page 4, line 6, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$237,500,000''.
       Page 4, line 7, strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$285,000,000''.
       Page 4, line 7, strike ``$350,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$332,500,000''.
       Page 4, line 8, strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$380,000,000''.
       Page 4, line 9, strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$475,000,000''.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment. 
What it does is it recognizes that this authorization was authorized by 
Congress in 2002. It was authorized for $1.5 billion. This 
authorization takes us on up well over that. What I have done with my 
amendment is I do a 5-percent reduction in the authorization by the 
individual line items, and they all are on page four, so it amounts to 
a 5-percent reduction and takes us down to a number just a little bit 
above the inflation-adjusted 2002 number. So the $1.5 billion that was 
2002 after adjusted for inflation comes to $1.69 billion. My amendment 
takes it up to just about $1.7 billion. This overall is not in the 
President's budget and we don't have this in any other budget, in 
Republicans or Democrats here, so this is an extra authorization.
  Federal spending in the 110th Congress is out of control. The first 
five bills of the 110th Congress wasted about $14 billion of taxpayer 
money. If American taxpayers are going to be forced to foot the bill 
for projects that cities and States should be paying for, then they 
should only have to be forced to pay a reasonable amount. And if 
Members cannot vote for a reasonable reduction as done by this 
amendment, it proves that the majority in this Congress carries with it 
a tax-and-spend attitude. The restraint is what is in my amendment.
  The funding authorized under this bill is $1.8 billion. My amendment 
will bring spending in line to about the inflation-adjusted portion, as 
I mentioned earlier. We need to make sure that our adjustments do so 
without wasteful government spending. We should not sit back and allow 
the majority to force their expansive jumbo jets or their poorly 
masked, earmark-ridden continuing resolutions on the American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, we all have to learn to tighten our belts. We have to 
learn how to do more with less. We have to draw the line somewhere. And 
we actually should draw it everywhere where we can to squeeze this 
down. The checks that this Congress have already written in a closed 
and rigid process are simply too large. In last year's elections, the 
new majority party promised the American people that they would rein in 
Federal spending and return fiscal restraint to Washington, DC. So far, 
that has not been what I have seen here in this Congress. I offer this 
opportunity to the minority and the majority to bring us back to a 
level of fiscal restraint.
  We can and must do something about the deficit. We must do it right 
now. We have our opportunity right here. By voting for this amendment, 
you are stating that American taxpayers should not have to pay higher 
taxes in the future because we couldn't control our spending today. I 
think it is clear. This is a carefully drafted and a reasonable 
spending restraint amendment. It is a 5-percent reduction and it takes 
us down to an inflation-adjusted number from the 2002 authorization. I 
haven't heard a lot of discussion here about the expansion in needs. I 
did hear some significant requests that I think are relatively 
legitimate.

                              {time}  1340

  But it is important for us to be responsible in our request. It is 
important that we tighten our belt a little bit. If we can take it up 
one notch here, we can take it up another notch on another 
authorization and another appropriation, Perhaps we can get through 
this process. Having met PAYGO, for example, maybe we can get through 
this process and actually have a budget that is closer to balance than 
some we have seen in the past. Maybe we can get to the point of the 
promises that were made that we are going to have a balanced budget 
this year. I am looking forward to seeing that. I am trying to be 
helpful in offering this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support this fiscal restraint, fiscally responsible, reasonable 
amendment that preserves the authorization of 2002, makes adjustments 
for inflation so real dollars will buy the same amount of projects that 
would have been brought subsequent to the 2002 authorization, which, of 
course, was not appropriated to.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The gentleman from Iowa has made a very thoughtful presentation and 
offers an amendment that is founded on some logic of the previous 
history of the legislation, and suggests that we proceed at what he 
considers a Consumer Price Index rate of increase over the previous 
legislation, 2002 bill. If the gentleman is prepared to accept success, 
we will accept his amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I am very 
much in agreement with you that this is a responsible thing for us to 
do. And I again thank you, and I would be very happy to accept the 
recommendation and your support, and I would be willing to do the same.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

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

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.

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

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this bill, the Water 
Quality Investment Act of 2007, would reauthorize an expired Federal 
program that provides grants to States for the purpose of providing 
money to a municipality or municipalities for planning, designing and 
construction of treatment works for combined sewer overflows and 
sanitary sewer overflows.
  This bill authorizes, at least did prior to the last amendment, $1.8 
billion in

[[Page 5617]]

Federal grants. And while this bill is important, equally important is 
that my amendment will apply the principle of pay-as-you-go, something 
that we have heard a lot talked about here by the new majority.
  Any new spending authorized in this bill would be required to be 
offset by a specific amount to make it so that there would be no 
increase in Federal spending.
  Simply, the amendment provides that no authorization of 
appropriations made by this act that results in costs to the Federal 
Government shall be effective, except to the extent that the act 
provides for equal decreases in spending somewhere else in the Federal 
Government.
  An excerpt from the ``New Direction for America,'' which was proposed 
by the now majority party last year when they were running for the 
majority, said, ``Our new direction is committed to pay-as-you-go 
budgeting. No more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the 
books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget 
discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new 
direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''
  Mr. Chairman, that sounds great, and I agree with that. My concern is 
what we may have here is another example of Orwellian democracy where 
just because you say something means it is so. But, Mr. Chairman, rules 
aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to.
  So this is a matter of principle. It is a matter of accountability. 
My amendment is very simple and would provide that no additional 
spending would be undertaken unless it were offset elsewhere.
  I would urge my colleagues to adopt this sensible PAYGO amendment to 
this Water Quality Investment Act of 2007.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I read with interest and puzzlement the gentleman's 
amendment that requires offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal 
Government, such that the net effect of this act does not either 
increase the Federal deficit nor reduce Federal surplus, of which we do 
not have one at this point.
  We have inquired of the Congressional Budget Office about the 
language of the bill. The legislation before us, H.R. 569, does not 
include direct spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates in 
their statement included in the committee report language: CBO 
estimates that implementing this legislation would cost about $1.45 
billion over the next 5 years, which should be less now with the King 
amendment, and an additional $0.35 billion after 2012, assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill, CBO says, 
would not affect direct spending or receipts.
  So I think the gentleman's amendment, while well intentioned, goes 
beyond the purpose of PAYGO. It would apply if we were taking money out 
of the highway trust fund. This is direct spending, although the 
highway trust fund is a different matter because there is already an 
antideficiency provision, you cannot spend more than the highway trust 
fund has in its account; and it is managed in a different manner.
  So, we do not have direct spending authority in the legislation. And, 
therefore, the gentleman's amendment is not applicable, is not valid, 
and I would oppose the amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman if he would like to respond.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And given 
that I may disagree with that, but I would ask then, as a matter of 
principle, would you then not agree that adopting this amendment simply 
puts on record that we as a Congress believe that any money that would 
result as a result of this bill should be offset?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, adopting the amendment would create 
a false impression that we in fact have created a direct spending 
authority in the legislation. And the gentleman is perfectly within his 
rights to offer such an amendment on direct spending legislation, for 
which I would have no objection, but in this legislation, it creates 
the false impression that we are in fact creating direct spending 
authority when in fact we are not. And, if adopted, it would create an 
unacceptable and invalid precedent.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that perspective. We worked with 
legislative counsel on this, as well as the Parliamentarian, and 
believe this is an appropriately crafted amendment. And I understand 
and appreciate the gentleman's reservation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully oppose the amendment. I 
would appreciate it if the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and 
not have a recorded vote on it, but he is certainly within his rights 
to proceed further on it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The amendment confuses the issue of authorization of appropriations 
and actual funding of these programs through the appropriations 
process. This amendment would require that any authorization of 
appropriations be considered with the corresponding offset, regardless 
of whether the program ever receives any funding.
  In the example of the sewer overflows grant program, we are 
considering today a program that I remind my colleagues has never been 
funded through the appropriations process. This amendment would require 
the identification of $1.45 billion over the next 5 years in offsets 
regardless of whether appropriations are ever enacted in this program.

                              {time}  1350

  During the first few days of the legislative session, the new 
Democratic majority renewed PAYGO rules to require the identification 
of offsets of any changes in mandatory spending by legislative 
initiatives. This important provision expired under the Republican 
control of the House with no attempt to restore these protections to 
the Federal budgetary process.
  As the gentleman is well aware, in the first days of the 110th 
Congress, the Democratic majority reinstituted PAYGO rules that 
requires the offsets in Federal receipts resulting from legislative 
proposals.
  This bill has no effect on direct spending. In its analysis of the 
bill, the Congressional Budget Office specifically stated enacting the 
bill would not affect direct spending or receipts. However, to require 
offsets for any authorization of appropriations, regardless of its 
impact on Federal receipts, is beyond the scope of PAYGO and an 
appropriate limitation of the ability of Congress to address the needs 
of the Nation.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), 
respectfully, to withdraw this amendment. And if I may just take a few 
moments.
  The pay-as-you-go rule, which was adopted by the House of 
Representatives, presents consideration of bills that affect direct or 
mandatory spending as we know it, or revenues, unless the measures also 
contain offsets, as I am sure my friend from Georgia knows.
  Direct spending includes funds for entitlement programs, Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employee Retirement and 
Unemployment Compensation and other programs that you and I, I think, 
would consider mandatory. All other spending in the budget is referred 
to as the discretionary spending, which is provided in and controlled 
by the annual appropriations process and is not subject to PAYGO. That 
is why the Congressional Budget Office has stated that this legislation 
does not trigger the PAYGO rule. CBO says, this is not direct spending, 
so it is not applicable in this legislation.

[[Page 5618]]

  Now, I think your point is that maybe we ought to put everything 
under the same umbrella, but then you are going to have to change every 
authorizing program in the Congress.
  This is a reauthorization. We are authorizing a program that already 
exists. The original authorization was signed into law in fiscal year 
2001 in the omnibus appropriations bill. We are going to offset each 
and every reauthorization we consider in the House? I don't know if 
that is the direction you want to go in.
  This majority, the Democratic majority, and we are talking about a 
bipartisan bill here, voted out unanimously in conference, this 
majority has instituted strong PAYGO rules, pay as you go. We are 
taking fiscal responsibility very seriously.
  Nonetheless, neither this bill nor any other reauthorization bill 
falls under House PAYGO rules; and I wanted to make that clear.
  The fact is that this is too critical a program, and I don't sense 
the sense of urgency here. This is too sensitive an issue, too urgent 
an issue to jeopardize with attempts to score a political point, as the 
gentleman from Georgia is attempting to do, I believe, if he considers 
to move forward. Failing to prevent sewer overflows will result in more 
sewage, more toxins, more debris making the way into our waterways and 
drinking water.
  We have worked on both sides of the aisle for so many years to clean 
this mess up. What legacy do we leave to our children if we don't do 
this?
  It is our duty to prevent beach closures, shellfish bed closures, 
contamination of drinking water and other environmental and public 
health concerns that result from sewer overflows before it is too late.
  I would ask my friend from Georgia if he would consider not asking 
for a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. May I make another attempt with my colleague?
  If I may make another appeal to the gentleman from Georgia. In the 
bill that we will consider on Friday to replenish State revolving loan 
funds, we submitted the legislation to the Office of Management and 
Budget and to the Congressional Budget Office. Both came back and said 
there is a possibility, not the possibility, there is the reality that 
local governments will float municipal bonds to match and to repay the 
cost of the loan from the State revolving loan fund. Those municipal 
bonds will result in a reduction in Federal revenues. Therefore, you 
must create an offset.
  We then, taking that direction from CBO, reevaluated the bill in a 
bipartisan fashion. We reduced its authorization number from $20 
billion to $14 billion, the period of time from 5 to 4 years, created 
the offset for the $14 billion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) has expired.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to withdraw my 
reservation should the same courtesy be extended to me to have an 
opportunity to address the issues that have been raised.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that the 
gentleman may be given two additional minutes so that I might yield to 
the gentleman from Georgia for him to respond.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Having made that presentation, if I may yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia for his response.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Well, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and 
I appreciate the passion that this has resulted in on the other side.
  I want to make it very clear, this is an important bill. There is no 
doubt about it. I have municipalities, cities that are certainly in 
need of assistance. But it is also important that we make certain that 
we prioritize here in Washington how we spend hard-earned taxpayer 
money. And if we are not going to start on that road now, when are we 
going to start?
  We have heard a lot about fiscal responsibility from your side of the 
aisle. We heard a lot last year. We have heard a lot of promises. But 
what, in fact, has happened is that so much of the spending that we do 
here in Washington doesn't come under this umbrella of PAYGO that has 
been adopted by the House.
  In fact, I would venture to say that the press releases that were 
released by my good friends when they adopted PAYGO didn't have any 
fine print in it that said, oh, by the way, it doesn't apply to 
discretionary spending. So PAYGO isn't PAYGO unless it is PAYGO for 
everybody; come one, come all.
  So I would respectfully suggest that my good friends ought to, in the 
spirit of true fiscal responsibility, ought to support this amendment, 
and we can move forward arm in arm and make certain that we are 
spending the hard-earned taxpayers' money of America wisely.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pascrell, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I explained the situation with H.R. 720, the State 
Revolving Loan Fund, Mr. Chairman, so that the gentleman from Georgia 
would have understanding and confidence that the committee has done its 
homework, has acted responsibly on the matter of offsets where there is 
direct spending or where there is a reduction in Federal revenues.

                              {time}  1400

  We submitted H.R. 720 to review by CBO and the Office of Management 
and Budget. Both were of the opinion that there would be a reduction in 
revenues if municipalities issue municipal bonds and that those 
municipal bonds will be tax exempt and therefore a reduction in 
revenues.
  The distinction between that legislation and this is that there is no 
direct spending involved. There is no resulting responsibility on 
governments to take action that would result in a reduction in 
revenues, nor is this an appropriation. It is not a direct spending. 
And, therefore, it is not subject to the PAYGO rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 5, after line 9, add the following:
       (e) Participation in Employment Eligibility Verification 
     Pilot Program.--Section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1300) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(j) Participation in Employment Eligibility Verification 
     Pilot Program.--The Administrator may make a grant to a 
     State, municipality, or municipal entity under subsection (a) 
     only if the State, municipality, or municipal entity provides 
     assurances satisfactory to the Administrator that the State, 
     municipality, or municipal entity will impose conditions 
     requiring all persons, including contractors and 
     subcontractors, carrying out activities using amounts of the 
     grant--
       ``(1) to elect to participate in the basic pilot program 
     described in section 403(a) of

[[Page 5619]]

     the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note); and
       ``(2) to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
     election.''.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
of order on the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would, very simply, 
prohibit government contracts in various water projects in terms of the 
Water Quality Investment Act from being provided to contractors who are 
hiring illegal immigrants. Among the many infrastructure treasures this 
Nation must guard, of course, is our water supply. And we want to 
ensure, if we are going to expend billions of dollars, taxpayer 
dollars, in improvements, that everyone the Federal Government is 
responsible for paying to work on these projects has a right to work 
here.
  My amendment simply says that any recipient of a government grant or 
contract under this bill must use Social Security's basic pilot 
verification system to ensure that all employees are in this country 
legally.
  The basic pilot program was expanded in 2003 and now covers 50 
States. Many private employers who wish to be good corporate citizens 
already use the program.
  This program is offered to every employer at no cost. When it comes 
to something as critical as our Nation's health and our water supply, 
this Congress has no excuse not to ensure that taxpayer dollars and 
government-funded jobs go to those who are in this country legally and 
who are legally entitled to get those jobs. The American people expect 
and deserve to have the Federal Government set an example for private 
industry when dealing with a system so essential to the health and 
well-being of our people.
  Let us note that there is a lot of talk about prevailing wage going 
on in Congress as if we have to ensure that there is a higher wage 
given to people who work on government projects. Well, the very easiest 
way to do that is to ensure that contractors who work on government 
programs are not hiring illegal immigrants.
  What we have here is a situation where a large number of people in 
this body are unwilling to confront the illegal immigration challenge 
at the expense of whom? The American working people whose jobs are 
being bid down in terms of the wages and the American taxpayers, who 
are, in this case, if we don't confront that problem, are going to 
basically have to pay higher taxes in order to pay for the same 
project. So, thus, we have the American working people and the American 
taxpayer both being hurt by not forcing employers to ensure that they 
are hiring legal workers for these various programs.
  Now, I know the American people would agree with me, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment, which is pro-working man and pro-
taxpayer.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
order against this amendment. The amendment imposes conditions for 
receipt of these funds that are unrelated to the underlying bill. 
Specifically, the amendment requires contractors to participate in the 
employment eligibility verification pilot program of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The amendment is 
not germane to H.R. 569 and violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the Rules 
of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment is germane. 
After all, we do add many such regulations on bills that we pass. They 
have to meet certain standards. This standard certainly is no different 
than many of the other standards.
  It is just that this body refuses ever to involve themselves in 
anything that would stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this 
country and quit giving people an incentive to come here to take the 
jobs and the benefits that belong to the American people. And certainly 
this amendment, which is no different than many other types of 
restrictions that we place on government spending, is certainly germane 
to this bill. And, therefore, I would argue my case that it is germane.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The gentlewoman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California is not germane.
  H.R. 569 authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to make 
grants for sewer overflow control projects.
  The amendment would impose a condition on the making of such grants. 
It would require the recipients of the funds to certify that all 
entities carrying out the sewer overflow control projects had elected 
to participate in an employment eligibility verification program under 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  As recorded in Deschler-Brown Precedents, volume 11, chapter 28, 
section 30.23, an amendment conditioning the availability to certain 
recipients of funds in an authorization bill upon their compliance with 
laws not otherwise applicable to those recipients and within the 
jurisdiction of other House committees may be ruled out as not germane.
  As the Chair understands it, participation in the employment 
eligibility verification program is voluntary on the part of employers. 
The amendment would require such participation by recipients of the 
funds authorized by the bill. As such, the amendment requires the 
recipients to comply with a law not otherwise applicable and within the 
jurisdiction of other House committees.
  The amendment is not germane. The point of order is sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pascrell) having assumed the chair, Mr. Schiff, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 569) to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize 
appropriations for sewer overflow control grants, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________