[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5991-6018]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  WATER QUALITY FINANCING ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 229 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. 720.

                              {time}  1037


                     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. 720) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving 
funds, and for other purposes, with Ms. Solis 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 gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes and 
rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 
2007.
  It has been a long time coming to this point. We have labored within 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for at least 11 
years, maybe just a few months longer than that, to bring forth a bill 
to replenish the State revolving loan funds so that municipalities can 
continue the work of aggressively expanding their capacity to handle 
wastewater, treat that wastewater, return it to the receiving waters in 
good quality.
  We have been delayed over the last 6 Congresses, not by unwillingness 
within our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but because 
of external factors within the House. Now that those external factors 
have been removed, we are bringing this bill to the floor with good and 
sustained bipartisan support. I appreciate very much the support of 
Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer scheduling this legislation early 
on in the session; and I particularly appreciate the participation and 
cooperation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources for the long participation that we 
have had and the splendid agreement and working relationship we had 
between our staffs on the Democratic and Republican sides, with one 
notable exception that will be debated at length here and which we 
debated extensively in subcommittee and full committee.
  I especially want to express my great appreciation to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). For years now, she has worked 
as our ranking member on the Water Resources Subcommittee, learned the 
issues, mastered the subject matter, and is now Chair of the Water 
Resources Subcommittee and has played a leading role in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  The bill started out as $20 billion to replenish State revolving loan 
funds; but due to concerns by the Office of Management and Budget and 
the Congressional Budget Office, we scaled the legislation back to a 
$14 billion bill, paying for it through an additional revenue source, 
as within the authority of this committee. The CBO has said that 
municipalities in raising municipal bonds that are tax exempt will 
cause a loss in revenue to the Treasury, and, therefore, the revenue in 
this bill has to be offset by another source. We have done that in a 
bipartisan agreement, and this bill is at $14 billion, fully paid for. 
We will not have the debate that we have had on two other bills that 
were extraneous to the subject matter because we have covered this 
issue.
  Unfortunately, the administration has steadily reduced funding for 
the State revolving loan fund over the past several years, and in the 
budget request for 2008 has a $200 million reduction, down to $687.5 
million. That is totally unacceptable.
  There was a time when we were investing $6 billion a year in Federal 
funds, matched by State and local dollars, to build sewage treatment 
facilities, raise them to tertiary treatment, removing nutrients, 
adding oxygen, returning clean water to the receiving waters. We are 
not doing that any longer. We are not keeping pace with the pressure on 
the Nation's water and wastewater systems nor our sewage treatment 
systems.
  The only debate that we really have is, What shall be the wages paid 
to those who work on building these facilities? And I listened with 
great interest and concern to the debate on the rule. The manager of 
the rule said that cities will start looking to Washington for these 
projects to take care of their water system needs. That is almost the 
same language that Dwight Eisenhower used in 1960 to veto the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act amendments when he said: Pollution is a 
uniquely local blight. Federal involvement will only impede local 
efforts at cleanup.
  That was wrong then, it is wrong now, it was wrong when Richard Nixon 
vetoed the Clean Water Act of 1972.
  We have had a partnership of State and local government. They have 
invested billions of dollars at the local level. We need to continue 
that partnership into the future. This bill will do that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time I would yield such time as he 
may consume to the ranking member of this Committee on Transportation, 
Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the House, normally I

[[Page 5992]]

would be supportive of this legislation. I have tried to work in a 
bipartisan manner with Mr. Oberstar and other members of the committee 
on both sides of the aisle.
  The underlying bill is basically a good bill. It does provide funding 
assistance to State revolving funds. However, the bill as reported out 
of the committee, I voted against it. I will vote against it again if 
it contains a Davis-Bacon provision. We will have an opportunity with 
an amendment offered by Mr. Baker and Mr. King that would repeal the 
provision that is put in the bill as it came from the committee.
  Currently, 18 States have no prevailing wage law. My State, Florida, 
and 17 other States will be dramatically impacted. And, actually, what 
will happen is the opposite of what we will want to have happen: 
Instead of having more money, we will have less money for these 
important projects.
  This is an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon requirements as 
they relate to the Clean Water Act. In fact, this is a mandate, and I 
call it ``The Mother of All Unfunded Mandates,'' which is in fact sort 
of an earmark to Big Labor interests and a payback to Big Labor. It is 
unfortunate that, again, those that will suffer are the States and 
local governments and the intent of this legislation, which is to 
provide wastewater funds.
  And, finally, I hate to say it, but I have a statement from the 
administration. The President will veto the legislation if it contains 
the Davis-Bacon provisions.
  So I urge Members to support an amendment by Mr. Baker and Mr. King 
to strike that language from this legislation, and let's pass 
legislation without this onerous provision.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, thanks to the 
chairman of our committee.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act 
of 2007.
  This essential legislation reauthorizes the Federal grant program for 
capitalizing State revolving funds at $14 billion over the next 4 
years, while providing States with additional flexibility in the types 
of projects they finance.
  The bill also provides States with increased flexibility in the 
financing packages they can offer to cities and local communities, 
including principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, or whatever 
other financing mechanism might be necessary to assist communities in 
meeting their water quality infrastructure goals.
  The flexibility afforded by this bill will go a long way in helping 
many of our communities that are least able to afford necessary 
improvements to their water infrastructure systems.
  This legislation also encourages communities to consider innovative 
and alternative technologies for addressing ongoing water quality 
concerns, including the so-called ``green infrastructure,'' and 
provides financial incentives for implementing these technologies that 
may result in greater long-term environmental benefits.
  In my State, few Federal programs have proven as effective as the 
Texas Clean Water State Revolving Fund program in realizing 
congressional goals for all citizens. The key to its success has been 
the partnership between the Texas and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency working together in blending State and Federal resources to 
provide sustainable funding sources.
  This funding source provides a significant financial incentive for 
communities to construct, rehabilitate, and enhance wastewater systems 
that support the goals of the Clean Water Act.
  Since its inception in 1987, the State revolving fund has 
successfully awarded communities approximately $4.3 billion in low-
interest loans to finance 472 water infrastructure projects across the 
State.
  These projects, which serve approximately one-half of the Texas 
population and treat about 2.1 billion gallons per day of wastewater, 
provide direct environmental and public health benefits by protecting 
our water resources through the reduction of pollutants entering the 
water.
  The projects are made economically viable because Texas customers 
realize a direct cost savings by assessing the State revolving funds at 
rates below market rates.
  Madam Chairman, it has been 20 years since Congress last authorized 
appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and almost 10 
years since the Committee on Transportation Infrastructure Subcommittee 
on Water Resources first investigated the growing need for it.
  Fortunately, we have overcome one hurdle that has prevented this 
legislation from coming to the floor over the past 8 years, and I 
applaud the leadership of the Chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. Oberstar, as well as the 
committee staff for their good works in moving this legislation out of 
Committee and on to the House floor.
  Now, Madam Chairman, it is past time for this Congress to complete 
its task in sending this legislation to the President.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support this legislation; it's time 
we make our domestic infrastructure programs a priority again.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, at this time I claim 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the gentlelady 
and to the Chair for their diligent work in this area. Certainly, it is 
an arena in which there is a clear and established, well identified 
need for which there are too few resources available. It is also a 
problem which will require many, many years of dedicated work to ensure 
the delivery of a safe water infrastructure in the years ahead.
  I, regretfully, have observed that the debate which will occur over 
the establishment of Davis-Bacon in this legislation is the one point 
around which great controversy has emerged.
  In my own State, I can speak with authority as to our circumstance. 
Pursuant to the devastation of Katrina and Rita, we find our 
communities struggling to get back on their feet, and our 
infrastructure has been badly damaged. Water systems, pumping stations, 
sewage systems have been destroyed; and it will take, unfortunately, 
years for many communities to attain the status that they once had 
prior to the storms' impact.
  It is clear to us that, although the American people and this 
Congress have been very generous to our State in making resources 
available, those resources are going to be stretched to their maximum 
extent possible; and yet we still have incredible needs that will yet 
be unmet. For this reason, we feel, at least in the view of our own 
State's interest, that the application of the Davis-Bacon requirement, 
artificially increasing the cost of construction of these important 
infrastructure projects, will only ensure that we are years longer in 
achieving the necessary recovery.
  To state it quite simply, to spend more and accomplish less is not 
something we in Louisiana are comfortable in pursuing. For that reason, 
I join with my ranking Member, Mr. Mica, in expressing grave concerns 
over the inclusion of Davis-Bacon.
  In the normal operative circumstance, when funds are made available 
from the State revolving account to a State for a particular project, 
Davis-Bacon has applied to that first-round funding. This bill will now 
make Davis-Bacon provisions extend to all subsequent utilizations of 
those funds, and that is the expansion to which we strongly object.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, the 
chairman of the committee, who has done such an extraordinary job for 
decades now in taking care of the environment and particularly 
providing for clean water and sewer treatment for our country, so 
critical to our public health and to the health of our country.
  I want to, at the outset, however, make an observation, that I am not 
surprised, very frankly, I tell my

[[Page 5993]]

friends on the other side of the aisle, that they are concerned about 
Davis-Bacon provisions in this bill. After all, of course, most of 
those who have risen voted against raising the minimum wage in this 
country from $5.15 to $7.25 over a 2\1/2\-year period.
  If you don't believe in raising the minimum wage from $5.15, it is 
not surprising to me that you are not for paying a prevailing wage to 
workers on public projects.
  I have observed in the past, of course, how much cheaper projects 
would be if we didn't pay our laborers at all, and we just forced them 
to work. But hopefully we will not pursue, ever, a policy like that.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota, for all of his 
hard work and leadership on this important legislation reauthorizing 
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the first time in 13 years.
  It is interesting that our friends on this side of the aisle have 
been in charge of this Congress and bringing legislation to the floor 
for the last 12 years. So since they took charge, they have not 
reauthorized this program; again, not because of the observations, as 
has been pointed out, they didn't think we needed to have a clean water 
program, but because they didn't want to pay prevailing wages.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership, and I want to 
thank my dear friend, Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for her very 
important leadership as well.
  As you know, we have passed two other bills this week reauthorizing 
sewer overflow control grants, H.R. 569 and H.R. 700, related to 
combined sewer overflow grants to States for aging sewers. We know that 
is a problem throughout this country. That handles storm water and 
sewage water, and H.R. 700, which is a pilot project for getting clean 
water to rural communities. We know that we focus on urban communities, 
but it is very important for us to also make sure that our rural 
communities have clean water.
  I believe that this bill, as has been indicated, has bipartisan 
support, notwithstanding the difference on prevailing wage.
  Madam Chairman, the fact is a clean safe water supply is vital in 
communities, both large and small, rural and urban, all across this 
Nation. We are not talking about a luxury, a perk or a non-necessity. 
Clean water, safe water is absolutely indispensable to the good health 
of all Americans, as well as our way of life and our continued 
prosperity.
  Just consider, my colleagues, that our Nation's farmers and fishermen 
and manufacturing and tourism industries rely on a clean water supply, 
and their activities contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to our 
economy every year.
  Our Nation, as has been pointed out, now faces a clean water crisis. 
As the Environmental Protection Agency warned in a recent report, and I 
am quoting from the administration's Environmental Protection Agency: 
``Without continued improvements in wastewater treatment 
infrastructure, future population growth will erode away many of the 
Clean Water Act achievements.''
  And I want to congratulate Mr. Baker and Mr. Oberstar for their 
leadership in trying to confront that crisis. One key reason for the 
clean water crisis is that much of the water infrastructure in our 
Nation is rapidly approaching or already exceeding its projected life.
  So I am proud today, Madam Chairman, that the new House majority, 
with the support of many Republicans, will take an important step 
toward addressing our Nation's water needs by reauthorizing the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund and authorizing $14 billion over the next 4 
years to ensure safe water for our families and for our people. And I 
congratulate both sides of the aisle for working towards that 
objective.
  The fund is the primary source of Federal funding for clean water, 
helping to provide low-interest loans to local communities for 
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other water 
pollution abatement projects.
  In fact, since 1987, when the fund became the major Federal source of 
clean-water funding, it has provided States with more than $50 billion 
for more than 18,600 low-interest loans to local communities.
  The unfortunate truth is, the recent Congresses allowed the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund to expire in 1994 and failed to reauthorize 
it because, as I have said, and as we have seen on the floor, the 
concern about Davis-Bacon, the concern about paying a prevailing wage, 
wages that I think are fair and appropriate for public projects.
  In recent years, the former majority cut funding for the funds 
involved in this project by 34 percent, and the President has proposed 
cutting it even further.
  Madam Chairman, it is a new day in this, the people's House. It is 
long past time for us to act on this important legislation.
  The new House majority is absolutely committed, under the leadership 
of Jim Oberstar, who has been one of the giants on this issue, for, as 
I said, decades, not days, not weeks, not months, not years, but 
decades he has been in the leadership of this effort.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in a bipartisan way, 
to reauthorize this critically important piece of legislation.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to extend to the 
gentleman from Florida, a valued member of the Committee on 
Transportation, the Honorable Congressman Connie Mack, 2 minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I 
also want to say that I appreciate the way the committee has worked on 
a very important issue.
  I think all of us understand and recognize that the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund is so important to all of our communities. And let's 
face it, we work for the people back home.
  But it is concerning to me that when you have such a positive piece 
of legislation that can have such a tremendous effect on people's lives 
back in our districts, that you would add the Davis-Bacon requirements 
into this.
  A few minutes ago we heard from the majority leader that he finds it 
strange that over here you will have people voting against a minimum 
wage, and then voting against Davis-Bacon.
  Well, it is kind of simple. We believe that, or at least I believe, 
that competition, the free market, should dictate these projects, not 
government; that government shouldn't be coming in saying this is how 
much you are going to pay your employees, or this is how much you are 
going to have to pay for projects.
  And including the Davis-Bacon requirements into this only puts, it 
makes it so that States like mine have a hard time voting for a piece 
of legislation that will add, will bring the cost of the construction 
projects up.
  At a time when our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
talking about being fiscally responsible, what they are really 
committed to, as we heard earlier, their commitment is to raising taxes 
and spending more money.

                              {time}  1100

  I would like to see us, in the future, when we have such a good piece 
of legislation, one that almost everyone can support, that we do not 
get in the habit that it appears to be now of payback of some sort to 
labor and to the unions. It just isn't right. The American people 
deserve better.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  We are talking about a Federal mandate here. It is good policy. We 
need to protect our critical clean water resources. But this is a 
Federal mandate put on our local communities.
  The Republicans, for 12 years, have failed to reauthorize this law 
and have consistently cut funding to our communities in the face of 
this unfunded Federal mandate. The backlog has grown from $300 to $500 
billion over the

[[Page 5994]]

next 20 years to maintain, rehab and, yes, do some new construction for 
population growth.
  We have here a very aptly named ``SAP'' from the White House. The 
White House says $14 billion is excessive. Let's see, that is about 3 
to 5 percent of the demonstrated need in this unfunded mandate on our 
communities, and the White House says, 3 to 5 percent, that's 
excessive. And then they go on with this ideological claptrap: ``It 
will distort market signals by discouraging utilities and their 
consumers from moving toward full cost pricing, and they will delay 
undertaking projects.'' My community is under consent agreements under 
law, under Federal law to do this. They can't delay. What a bunch of 
claptrap. They are trying to take care of Wall Street here and not Main 
Street. Wall Street wants to be able to issue these bonds in the 
private sector. They don't want the government to help these 
communities. They can make a little bit of commission there.
  And they want to drive down the wages of the workers. Why do you hate 
the middle class so much? Why don't you think people should earn a 
living wage? What claptrap. ``The market should set wages altogether. 
We shouldn't have a minimum wage.'' Come on, what planet are you people 
from? Who do you represent? Do you represent the special interests, or 
do you represent average and working families in this country?
  Look at the communities in my district. Coburg, a thousand people; 
$95 debt retirement, plus user fees. Not exactly a wealthy community. 
Sweet Home, 7,500 people, a depressed timber community in the 
mountains, $220 a month if they don't get some help for their fees. 
Gardner, 340 people on the coast; $2.5 million for 340 people. And the 
White House says helping them would be excessive and it would distort 
the market.
  Why do you hate the middle class and our communities so much? And 
guess what, businesses are going to suffer, too, if we don't make this 
investment.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the 
defender of the working man and hometown America, Congressman Tim 
Murphy.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This week the House passed a number of bills which are important to 
my municipality in the 18th Congressional District in Pennsylvania. 
This Water Quality Financing Act, which will authorize $20 billion over 
the next 5 years for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, is an 
important bill. It offers increased flexibility for local communities 
to meet their water quality infrastructure goals.
  We take for granted the quality of our water, but it was not always 
so. The life expectancy of Americans increased from age 47 in the early 
1900's to a life expectancy of 75 by the end of the century. The number 
one reason was the public health benefits of clean water and efficient 
sewer systems.
  Decades ago, Southwestern Pennsylvania's boroughs and townships built 
their sewer lines with combined sanitary and storm water in the same 
system. What made sense at the time is now an antiquated and 
overburdened system. Wherever there is significant rain, it leaves 
untreated sewage flowing into our rivers and streams, recreating a 
health hazard.
  The EPA then mandated the communities must fix these problems, but 
now local communities are strapped with massive costs. In Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, alone repair costs exceed $3 billion. The towns 
then pass on the cost to homeowners. Many citizens are seniors on fixed 
incomes who simply cannot afford to fix the mistakes of the past and 
still pay for their bills today. Without funding, many of my towns just 
can't make it.
  For years we have tried to help by providing annual funding 
assistance in a piecemeal manner. We need a comprehensive plan to 
provide a steady stream of funds to fix these problems, meet the 
standards to clean up our streams, support the public health and not 
pass on the whole burden of the inherited problem to current 
homeowners.
  After working on this problem for years, both sides of the aisle have 
worked on this problem for years, I am pleased that we have some 
opportunities to offer some solutions; the solutions that I recognize 
are going to require some more crafting with the House and Senate.
  I commend my colleagues who are going to work on this to recognize 
that we all need to work together because we are all concerned about 
working men and women. We are all concerned about people, without 
assigning them to any classes, and together we will work to solve these 
health problems of our water infrastructure in America.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California, an original cosponsor of this bill, Mrs. Tauscher.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman and 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Johnson for the opportunity to speak, and for 
their leadership in support of the Water Quality Financing Act. And as 
has been said, this legislation will provide $14 billion to deserving 
communities and water agencies.
  The State Revolving Fund continues to be one of the most efficient 
and practical Federal funding programs for water reconstruction and 
infrastructure projects in local communities.
  I have been a long supporter of reauthorizing the Clean Water SRF and 
infusing much-needed funding into our Nation's clean water 
infrastructure. In the last four Congresses, I have joined with my 
colleague, former Congresswoman Sue Kelly, to offer legislation to 
reauthorize the SRF program. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled 
Congress never acted on this important legislation.
  Today's legislation finally gives us the opportunity to do the right 
thing. It is imperative that Congress continues our partnership with 
communities to fund Federal clean water mandates in the most cost 
efficient manner possible. As a loan fund and not a grant program, the 
Clean Water SRF promotes fiscal responsibility without denying 
communities the opportunity to refurbish, rehabilitate or rebuild new 
water infrastructure. Whether used for funding wastewater treatment or 
non-point source pollution control, the SRF is a useful tool in 
providing cleaner, safer water in our communities.
  The EPA has identified billions of dollars in water infrastructure 
needs. It's time that we act responsibly and reauthorize this important 
program. As stewards of the Clean Water Act, we have the responsibility 
to provide for infrastructure necessary to ensure its proper 
implementation. Today's legislation gets us back on track.
  Madam Chair, there will be much discussion about the inclusion of the 
Davis-Bacon prevailing wage language in this bill. In my view, the 
verdict is in. Protecting Davis-Bacon and the prevailing wage laws it 
supports are a national priority. This is evidenced by over half the 
States, including mine, California, passing their own prevailing wage 
laws. And importantly, Madam Chairman, it is clear a majority of the 
House supports Davis-Bacon.
  I look forward to joining a bipartisan majority of the House today in 
taking a strong stand and rejecting any attempt to limit the 
application of Davis-Bacon protections.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 720.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a 
gentleman who is a defender of the taxpayer's best interest, 
Congressman Pence.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for the compliment.
  Today the House is considering the Water Quality Financing Act 
introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota. And I wish to commend him 
for his ongoing leadership in this area of the law and the 
infrastructure needs of the American people.
  The bill does do many good and important things, and I believe it is 
well intended. But I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill 
because I have great concerns about the cost, but also, most 
especially, about the expansion of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
requirement to construction projects funded under this bill.

[[Page 5995]]

  H.R. 720 authorizes $16 billion in discretionary spending over 5 
years, new programs that contain a significant expansion of the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund. And therein applies the Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage law.
  Since 1995, the Davis-Bacon requirement was not applied to 
construction projects funded through these revolving funds; however, 
this bill would reinstitute this requirement. Many of the primary 
taxpayer watchdog organizations in America are opposing this bill on 
this basis alone, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, just to name a few.
  The Davis-Bacon law was signed into law in 1931 during the Great 
Depression in order to inflate labor rates for workers on government 
projects. But, Madam Chair, the Great Depression is over and the time 
for expanding the prevailing wage for projects like these is gone. An 
honest day's work should be met with an honest day's pay, not an 
artificial government-mandated wage rate. Let's say yes to the sacred 
right of contract. Let's say yes to the best deal for the American 
people on public projects. Let's say no to the expansion of Davis-Bacon 
and to the projects under this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote among 
my colleagues for that reason.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply assure 
the gentleman from Indiana that the bill is fully paid for. And I 
appreciate his fiscal concerns, but the bill is fully paid for with 
offsets that the committee has identified and has reduced the cost of 
the bill from $20 billion to $14 billion and the time frame from 5 
years to 4 years. And I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about my 
service.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And congratulations 
on a well thought of, well put forth piece of legislation, and I 
strongly support this legislation.
  I want to address the Davis-Bacon issue I have heard so much about in 
the last few days. I represent one of the more rural, disadvantaged 
districts, and we should not be taking away Davis-Bacon. To take away 
Davis-Bacon because a district is small or rural or may be considered 
disadvantaged as some people say is just purely hogwash. Davis-Bacon is 
good for rural America. Davis-Bacon is good for urban America. Davis-
Bacon is good for all Americans.
  In my congressional district, which is comprised of mostly seniors 
and veterans and households with income around $38,000, my district 
can't afford not to have Davis-Bacon. My district needs to keep wages 
up, not lower our wages. There should be no retreat, no surrender on 
Davis-Bacon. We should stop this madness. We come here, and it is 
always like a race to the bottom: Who can do it for cheaper? Who can do 
it for lower? Who are we affecting? The men and women who I represent 
and all the men and women who built this country. We should pay them a 
decent wage so they can afford a decent standard of living. Take health 
care. If you are going to try and do health care in this country, you 
better have $48,000 a year minimum income because the insurance 
premiums are $12,000 to $14,000. Davis-Bacon allows you a fair wage so 
you can afford health insurance so you can provide for your family.
  When we take a look at this, Davis-Bacon provides nothing more than 
quality work for decent pay. We have got to stop the race to the 
bottom, do not drive down wages. There should be no retreat, no 
surrender. Support Davis-Bacon. Support this bill, H.R. 720. I 
compliment the chairman; it is a great piece of legislation.
  I have been here now for a while. We are finally going to put money 
back into the water system, to our wastewater treatment systems to 
clean up our environment, to clean up public health so our people can 
have a safe quality of life, but they can't do it without an adequate 
income. Support this legislation. Reject the Baker-King shallow 
argument about rural America needs a special exception in order to 
afford it. Rural America supports this legislation. We cannot afford to 
walk away from Davis-Bacon. We must have Davis-Bacon in this 
legislation.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to Congressman King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding, 
and for his leadership and his hard and diligent work in committee.
  I also compliment the chairman from Minnesota who has a gracious 
approach to this and generally a reasonable approach to this issue. But 
this Davis-Bacon issue is something where I meet a philosophical 
divide. I don't know if there is another Member of this Congress who 
has live lived under Davis-Bacon, earned Davis-Bacon wages and paid 
Davis-Bacon wages, but I can tell you I am one who has done both. And 
it goes back through 28 years of the construction business; 1,400 and 
some consecutive weeks of tracking wages and paying the thing called 
``prevailing wage'' and knowing prevailing wage is not prevailing wage. 
It is always union scale. And the reason for that is because no one 
reports the prevailing wage for fear they will be organized to be 
become a union and they will have to pay a union scale.
  I have difficulty with this because I hire my people year round. We 
make sure that they get a good living wage for the full year. We 
provide health insurance. We provide retirement benefits. And when you 
pay people a union scale, then you can only plug them on a machine for 
the hours of running that machine. You can't afford to have them grease 
it or haul it or fix it.

                              {time}  1115

  So I know employers that will work 16 hours a day in order to keep 
the machines supported so their union scale man can climb in the seat 
of it. This is a distortion of the free enterprise system.
  I will argue also that this bill has an earmark in it, and this 
earmark is the mark called Davis-Bacon wages. Now, earmarks go back to 
when a pig is born you notch his ear so you can track his genetics 
through the marketing system. Well, this is an earmark into the first 
generation of money that goes into the revolving fund. Then once that 
money is in there, it comes back around again and again with a Davis-
Bacon earmark in it, and I know Midwesterners really appreciate this 
argument, but the next generation of pigs, you at least got to earmark 
him when he is born.
  This one automatically earmarks every generation of money that rolls 
through this revolving fund now until the end of perpetuity, and that, 
Madam Chairman, is a bridge too far. We are not just labeling this 
Davis-Bacon wage scale. It is Davis-Bacon wage scale in perpetuity.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, 
the Water Quality Financing Act.
  In my home of St. Louis, we have one of the oldest wastewater 
infrastructure systems in the Nation, some dating back to the Civil 
War. Our crumbling and overused sewer systems are an environmental and 
economic burden and they frequently threaten the health of the 
Mississippi River, one of our national treasures. During heavy rain 
storms, as many as 200 sewers can overflow.
  H.R. 720 reaffirms our commitment to continue the progress of the 
1972 Clean Water Act and ensures that generations to come will enjoy 
clean and safe water supplies.
  By including Davis-Bacon protections in this bill, our communities 
will be further assisted by ensuring that our constituents who build 
these projects will be paid no less than prevailing wage. At a time 
when thousands of jobs are outsourced from our communities, these 
Davis-Bacon protections serve as a strong example of homesourcing. 
Instead of allowing outsiders to undercut the wages of our 
constituents, Davis-Bacon keeps these fair wages in our communities.
  I commend Chair Oberstar and Chairwoman Johnson for their leadership 
and look forward to passing this bill in a bipartisan way.

[[Page 5996]]


  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill because of an 
abundantly flawed provision it contains. As the ranking member on the 
committee with jurisdiction over the Davis-Bacon Act, I am particularly 
concerned about the Davis-Bacon mandate in the bill before us today. I 
have these two basic concerns for two basic reasons: they represent 
both bad policy and bad process.
  First on process: the Education and Labor Committee, again, the 
committee with jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon, never formally considered 
the bill's Davis-Bacon provision, not in a hearing, not in a markup, 
not in any procedure whatsoever. Rather, a simple exchange of letters 
with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee rendered our 
committee colleagues powerless to weigh the impact of these provisions 
on the projects themselves, on local economies, and, indeed, on the 
American taxpayers.
  The fact that Davis-Bacon wages rates have not applied to projects 
funded through the Clean Water Revolving Fund since 1995, a decision 
made by the Clinton administration I might add, demonstrates that the 
change before us is not a small one and it is certainly not one that 
should be made without appropriate consideration by the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  The second reason for my opposition to the provisions is much more 
basic. It is just bad policy. By inflating labor rates, Davis-Bacon 
typically increases the costs of Federal projects by anywhere from 5 to 
38 percent. And who ends up paying for all this? That is right, the 
American taxpayers.
  Furthermore, the costs of Davis-Bacon are particularly burdensome for 
small businesses. Literally, this mandate can saddle private companies 
with millions of dollars of excess administrative work every year, and 
because of economies of scale, small, locally owned businesses rarely 
if ever have the resources to comply with this Federal mandate. As a 
result, large companies are more often awarded government contracts, 
even for small projects.
  Federal law should not have a built-in bias against small businesses, 
and I believe this assertion is reflected by President Bush's veto 
threat.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure because it is bad policy 
and bad process.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Madam Chairman, I support H.R. 720 because it will renew 
our commitment to a positive change in a new direction by investing in 
our Nation's substantial water infrastructure needs. To me, it is all 
about our health. It is about clean water and the success of our 
economy.
  As a physician, I am particularly concerned with the health risks 
directly related to contaminated drinking water and am pleased this 
Congress understands the need to invest in wastewater infrastructure 
needs. The EPA predicts that without significant investment and 
upgrades in our water pollution system, this pollution will continue 
excessively. By investing in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, we 
will ensure the communities receive the financing they require for 
their wastewater treatment projects.
  In northeast Wisconsin, the Clean Water Fund program has helped Brown 
and Outagamie Counties invest and develop and rehabilitate wastewater 
and sewer treatment plants. The projects funded in my district alone 
are indicative of the demand across the Nation for this bill. By 
encouraging long-term planning for our Nation's clean water 
infrastructure, we will reduce overall maintenance costs and create 
more sustainable systems, even as we create higher-wage jobs back home 
in Wisconsin where they belong.
  Finally, I am particularly pleased the Davis-Bacon Act requirements 
provision will prevail and that the wages of Davis-Bacon will be upheld 
and local prevailing wages will take place.
  This bill will be great for our health, our economy, and our 
environment. I encourage all of us on both sides of the aisle to vote 
``yea.''
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me that 
time.
  I just wanted to clear up a couple of statements that have been made 
and misconceptions that have been made.
  First of all, from the other side, we did hear that this in fact is a 
Federal mandate, and I did refer in my opening remarks that this is in 
fact the mother of all unfunded mandates, because it does in an 
unprecedented fashion with the Davis-Bacon provision that is included 
in this bill expand the provisions of Davis-Bacon in, again, a fashion 
that has never been done before in this program. Mr. King spoke a 
little bit about this.
  I think we all ought to clean up our water and have the best 
wastewater treatment possible. We do want to fund this program, but we 
want to do it in a responsible fashion.
  But, again, what is unprecedented here, and the Members of the House 
of Representatives from some 18 States, let me read those States, 
Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 
Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 
South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, the Representatives from those States 
will have to go back over this weekend and next week and tell their 
constituents that they voted for this unfunded mandate, this 
unprecedented mandate on the use of their State revolving funds.
  Now, if we are just talking about imposing this on Federal money, 
that is one thing. But the unprecedented part about this is they are 
imposing this, first of all, on repayments. It has never been done 
before. On interest into the State revolving loan fund, they are going 
to impose this, and also on the State match.
  So what happens here is we put money in with good intention, you put 
more money in, and you get less in return, and we impose this mandate. 
We have tried not to impose mandates on our local governments.
  So that is our objection to this, and that is the administration's 
objection to this.
  We have no objection to providing assistance and a partnership with 
our local governments and State revolving wastewater treatment 
activities. That is a good thing. But what we are doing here is a bad 
thing. It is setting a precedent and imposing an unfunded mandate on 
our local governments, which we shouldn't be doing even with their 
money, their repayments, their interest and their match. It is setting 
a horrible precedent.
  So I would like to be for this bill. I would like to vote for this 
legislation. But I can't support it if we don't adopt the Baker-King 
amendment that takes this provision out.
  To those of you who come from those States, and I am from one of 
them, Florida, I can't go back and say I have done this to you when I 
am trying to do something for you.
  With those comments, I do want to clarify the unprecedented mandate 
that this is imposing. It is a big earmark for big union bosses. Our 
folks at the State and local levels are going to have to pay the price. 
I don't want them to have to pay that price.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished 
Republican leader on the committee, Mr. Mica. Mr. DeFazio was referring 
to a mandate upon cities to improve their sewage treatment facilities, 
not to a mandate in this act.
  Secondly, in our committee report, the CBO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, says H.R. 720 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, 
local, or Tribal governments. So I can only assume the gentleman is 
making a statement of hyperbole, rather than a fact.

[[Page 5997]]

  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
courtesy. I appreciate his leadership and that of the chairwoman, Eddie 
Bernice Johnson. I salute the committee, which has done more on water 
resources in the last 12 weeks than we have seen the previous 
Republican leadership do on water resources in the last 12 years.
  One of the reasons that we have had a roadblock dealing with these 
critical water resources has been the Republicans' pathological 
aversion to Davis-Bacon protections. Sometimes when I hear some of my 
conservative friends on the other side of the aisle fulminating about 
Davis-Bacon, I want them to go back and look at the history.
  Davis-Bacon is named for the Republican sponsors of the legislation 
in the Hoover administration. It is not some sort of Democratic plot. 
In my State, in Oregon, we have adopted a ``little Davis-Bacon Act'' 
that was signed into law under a Republican Governor, former Senator 
Mark Hatfield. When the ideologues put it to the test, tried to repeal 
the protections, it was overwhelmingly supported by Oregonians almost 
two to one, and I would note that it passed in every Oregon county, big 
city or rural areas.
  What we have seen is that Davis-Bacon protections level the playing 
field for bidding, so we are not going to have shoddy public works with 
inadequately trained and equipped workers. We have watched over time 
where the amount of a public contract for construction for labor has 
actually declined as a percentage. So if they were ever concerned, they 
should have been concerned long ago when the Republicans introduced it 
in the Hoover administration.
  I would hope, Madam Chairman, that this President does not continue 
holding water resources hostage by threatening a veto. For heaven's 
sake, vote Davis-Bacon up or down, but don't penalize American 
communities by shortchanging water resources.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BAKER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is important to understand the operative nature of the 
State Revolving Fund and the results of the legislation before us on 
that operation of the fund.
  If a community in Florida, the ranking member's State, which has no 
prevailing Davis-Bacon requirement, borrows money from the revolving 
fund, there is a match associated with that which is State dollars. 
There is also interest that accrues on that loan. When the State repays 
the loan, the State repays the interest, that comes back into the 
revolving loan account.
  Each year, as the Federal funds are made available, assume $500 
million would be made available of Federal resources for the revolving 
fund account, only that $500 million under current rule would be 
subject to Davis-Bacon application. All of the repayment made by the 
State of Florida, including the interest, would be exempt from the 
applicability of a Davis-Bacon requirement.
  ``For the first time,'' and I read from the statement of 
administration policy, the White House statement on the matter, ``For 
the first time ever, projects financed by funds contributed solely by 
States and moneys repaid to the State Revolving Fund will be subject to 
Davis-Bacon requirements.''
  So let there be no mistake about this, this is not merely voting to 
sustain Davis-Bacon as we currently know it. This is to expand the 
requirement for State-generated funds into States that have no Davis-
Bacon requirement at the State level, and it will diminish those 
States' abilities to meet their identified water infrastructure needs. 
That is why this debate is occurring. It is not just about whether big 
business or big labor or the beneficiaries of some legislative 
initiative. This is about the real world in back home America, and are 
we going to provide the resources to help small communities get their 
water systems in decent and safe operating condition? We all agree that 
is a worthwhile goal.
  The question is: How do we want to achieve it?
  Do we want to constrain a free market system with arbitrary 
Washington rules that artificially drive up prices and give taxpayers 
less? Most of us think that is not advisable.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chairman, I thank you for the strong leadership 
that you have provided on this legislation.
  I would like to talk to you briefly about the needs of colonias. As 
you know, many colonias exist around the borders in Texas, New Mexico, 
Arizona and California, only lacking the basic infrastructure that most 
Americans take for granted. Often these communities do not have paved 
roads, hospitals or even utilities. And when you look at the negative 
impact on the health of its residents, one of the greatest challenges 
we have is many colonias don't have access to water and sewer services.
  As you know, many colonias do not have sewer systems, forcing 
residents to rely on often inadequate waste water disposal methods such 
as small and outdated septic tanks. And even if colonias had adequate 
sewer systems, the border area lacks sufficient facilities to treat the 
waste water that we have.
  What I ask, Madam Chairman, I want to work with you and with Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson and other members of the committee to make sure 
that we pay special consideration to the needs of the colonias as you 
go into conference for H.R. 720 and as your committee reviews future 
legislation.
  I thank you for your strong leadership on the colonias issue, Madam 
Chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds to assure the 
gentleman that this bill will go a long way towards helping States 
target additional support to the colonias, as well as other 
disadvantaged communities throughout the country.
  We will soon bring up, within the next 2 weeks I hope, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 under the leadership of the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). In the past, we 
have had language to authorize the corps to help provide water and 
waste water infrastructure for the colonias.
  We will work with the gentleman to provide such language in the 
future.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, 
my colleague, for yielding.
  Let me just say, we all recognize that there is a funding gap here, 
and there are many, many needs throughout our Nation with regard to 
repairing our water infrastructure. But on the other hand, I think it 
is wrong to play politics with this.
  When I heard we were going to bring forward a bill to deal with our 
State Revolving Loan Funds, I was very happy about it. I said, yes, 
this is something that is very much needed in Louisiana and certainly 
needed for small rural, disadvantaged communities throughout our 
Nation.
  Yet, what we have got now is a situation with the Davis-Bacon 
provisions inserted into this bill which is going to create significant 
problems.
  I know we are all frozen politically on this issue, Davis-Bacon or no 
Davis-Bacon, depending upon which philosophical stripe you wear. But 
let me just say, we could have done something better coming out of 
committee with this bill if we would have created exemptions for poor, 
disadvantaged, small communities throughout the rural United States.
  My fear is, with the bill as it stands, it is going to put our 
communities at a point where they can't access these funds.
  Now our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about protecting 
the American worker and making sure that we are taking care of this big 
funding gap we have with regard to our aging water infrastructure. But 
on the one

[[Page 5998]]

hand, if we create the State Revolving Loan Fund, and on the other 
hand, we make it unaffordable for our small and disadvantaged 
communities to access these funds, what good have we done?
  I think we need to put aside politics and let's talk about practical 
policy here. Earlier this week I met with the president of our Police 
Jury Association, which is the equivalent of county commissioners. He 
told me that he was excited that we were looking at these funds for 
water. But when I mentioned the fact that we have Davis-Bacon 
provisions in the bill, he was very despondent. And he said to me, 
basically, that this is going to stifle our ability to repair our water 
infrastructure.
  He estimated that it is going to add a 20-25 percent additional cost 
for sewer treatment facilities in his parish, Evangeline Parish, in 
rural Louisiana.
  The bottom line is, we shouldn't be talking about inside-the-Beltway 
rhetoric. We need to listen to what real leaders in the real world are 
telling us. I would say, if Members on the other side, if you talk to 
those rural community leaders and find out what they need and how we 
can bridge this gap, you will find out that it is not by putting in 
Davis-Bacon provisions that will weight this bill down.
  I believe Congress has a responsibility to address this growing need, 
but at the same time, we need to do it in a responsible way that is 
going to work and not something that is going to be just more political 
tit for tat, back and forth.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because of the underlying 
provisions, the Davis-Bacon provisions, which are going to hurt small, 
disadvantaged communities. And ultimately, it is going to hurt the 
American worker.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairwoman, two points. The revolving fund has meant 
so much to the district I represent. The 12-town drain system before 
was an open sewer, and with the revolving fund help, we were able to 
address and attack the problem.
  My second point is this: It is interesting that those who come here 
complaining about the Davis-Bacon provision have been in a party that 
has sat on its hands on this issue year after year and have come from a 
party whose President has suggested cutting the revolving fund by $396 
million.
  You should have acted long ago to make the revolving fund more 
meaningful, and so don't use the prevailing wage issue as a reason to 
oppose this when you have failed to step up to the plate. We are 
stepping up to the plate here. More money and under circumstances that 
provide people a chance to have a decent way of life. I urge support of 
this bill.
  I rise in strong support of the Water Quality Financing Act. The bill 
before the House calls for a significant and needed increase in the 
annual Federal contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
program. This may not be a well known program, but it has been 
absolutely critical to water quality improvements in my district, and 
in many other communities around the country.
  The Clean Water Revolving Fund is the only major Federal program that 
helps localities build, repair, and improve their sewer infrastructure. 
Over the years, the Revolving Fund has provided more than a billion 
dollars to my home State of Michigan for low-interest loans for water 
infrastructure projects.
  A billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it is literally 
just a drop in the bucket compared to the need. In southeast Michigan 
alone, maintaining and improving our aging sewer systems will cost 
between $14 and $26 billion over the next 30 years.
  Let me tell you what the Clean Water Revolving Fund has meant to my 
district. In the early 1990s, the Clinton River that runs through my 
district in Oakland and Macomb Counties was little more than an open 
sewer. In particular, there was one, large combined sewer system called 
12 Towns that spilled hundreds of millions of gallons of partially 
treated sewage into the Clinton River each year. This contributed to a 
nearly dead river and closed beaches downstream in Lake St. Clair. It 
was a major concern to both Oakland and Macomb counties.
  In the late 1990s, the communities undertook an expensive renovation 
project at 12 Towns that has greatly reduced the sewer overflows. The 
communities bore the full expense for this project, which cost well 
over $100 million, but the low interest rates provided by the Revolving 
Fund saved the communities tens of millions of dollars in interest 
costs. The result is that the Clinton River is making a comeback. Water 
quality is improving.
  Twelve Towns is not an isolated example. The Revolving Fund has also 
helped many other communities in my district with critical water 
quality improvements. We could not have accomplished the progress that 
has been made to clean up the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair without 
the Revolving Fund's help.
  The Federal Government has to do more--not less--to help communities 
shoulder the burden of addressing critical water infrastructure needs. 
We should have increased the funding for the Revolving Fund long before 
this; instead, in recent years the Bush Administration and Congress has 
cut the program again and again. Just last month, the President's 
budget proposed a $396 million cut to the Revolving Fund. This takes 
the effort to clean up the Great Lakes in exactly the wrong direction.
  I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this important 
legislation. We should vote for the bill today and--just as 
importantly--provide the funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund 
when we take up the EPA appropriations bill later this year.
  Mr. BAKER. I have a speaker on his way, and so I would like to I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality 
Financing Act of 2007. I urge swift passage of this matter.
  Chairman Oberstar, thank you, thank you, thank you for addressing the 
issues of western America. Over the past 2 years, I have visited with 
folks from across the Third Congressional District of Colorado. Water 
is one of the issues that greatly affects every constituent in the arid 
southwest. My constituents are concerned about their water quality and 
supply, the aging infrastructure, and are concerned that their health 
is at risk.
  Fast-growing rural areas are experiencing trouble with infrastructure 
demands, especially waste water treatment facilities. With revolving 
loan money on the decline, small rural communities have been struggling 
to address major infrastructure needs. This issue crosses lines of 
environment, health and human safety, growth and economic development.
  Many of us view H.R. 720 as a long overdue measure to ensure that the 
Federal Government invests in waste water infrastructure. This 
legislation will not only ensure that we have undated waste water 
infrastructures; it will also reduce the burden of construction and 
maintenance costs on local towns and communities.
  Now is the time for us to start investing in the infrastructure that 
will safeguard our water quality for future generations.
  Again, Madam Chairman, thank you. And thank you for understanding the 
struggles that rural America has. I don't understand our opposition on 
the other side and their opposition to prevailing wage and to a livable 
wage.
  I would urge my colleagues to support investment in clean water 
infrastructure and passage of this bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member.
  And the gentleman from Minnesota, I compliment you on your efforts 
here. It is important that we meet America's water needs all across the 
country.
  I do have some reservations, however. My family owns a small 
construction company, and that is about the worst business you can be 
in in a State like Michigan where the economy is struggling. And they 
hire some union employees, not because the law tells them they have to 
do that but because they happen to find that their union subcontractors 
are the best ones to complete their job.

[[Page 5999]]

  But what you have done in this bill is not for a prevailing wage and 
empowering people to make more money, you have stopped a whole segment 
of our society from even competing to get these jobs. There are 
hundreds and hundreds of regs and comments on how you compute Davis-
Bacon. If you were going to go back and say, we will rework this thing 
so the average American understands what it is, we might be with you.
  But the problem is, they can't afford consultants and lawyers. They 
can't hire people full time just to figure out the regulations so that 
they might be able to compete to fill out the application to compete 
for the bid. They are small, and there are a lot of small businesses.
  What you are saying to the 80 percent of the entrepreneurs across 
America who are small business owners who are generating 80 percent of 
the growth in our economy, 80 percent: You don't qualify. We're sorry. 
Go get yourself a lawyer and a fancy accountant and spend a lot of 
money you don't have, and maybe you will have an opportunity to get a 
job if you can figure out the hundreds of pages of regulations and 
comments to comply with Davis-Bacon.
  So it is not that you are going to get more on these projects, and I 
think your intentions are absolutely right, and I want to be with you 
because it is the right thing to do. But the problem is, it is not just 
going to cost more, you are going to get less. So the more money you 
put in means it is going to cost more, but we will get less pipe in the 
ground than if we had allowed a free market and the small 
entrepreneurs, who are creating jobs in America, to even have the 
chance to compete. Rules and regulations, taxation and litigation never 
met with prosperity. It has slowed us down, and it has slowed the small 
guy, the little guy, the people that you claim you want to support, 
from even competing.
  I would hope that we could get over our differences on this 
particular issue and set it aside. We know that we want money to go to 
water infrastructure in rural America. Let's let them do that. Let's 
take this out. Let's let the little guy compete. Let's let that small 
entrepreneur who is working 7 days a week and doesn't know if they are 
going to have enough money to pay the light bill, let alone take a 
salary this particular month in places like Michigan, let them compete. 
Let's take this divisive piece out of it. It won't change what you are 
wanting to do. That is the thing.
  If you take this out, small America wins. Let's do that and stand 
together and be for water infrastructure around the United States.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee and my classmate of 1974.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman 
for yielding, and I thank him and all of the members of this committee 
for their work on the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.
  This a very important piece of legislation, as so many of my 
colleagues have already testified to. We desperately need, in 
communities all across the country, the upgrade and the repairing of 
our Nation's wastewater infrastructure. There is not a congressional 
district in the country where we are not behind the curve on this 
effort.
  I also rise because this legislation does continue the prevailing 
wage laws of this Nation, the Davis-Bacon law, which guarantees 
hardworking Americans, those who are working in Federal construction 
projects, will be paid a livable wage.
  Today, we see report after report, economic study after economic 
study that talks about the precarious state of the American middle 
class, about how families are struggling to maintain their status in 
the middle class. It is one of the imperatives of this new Congress, of 
the Democratic majority, to grow and to strengthen the middle class; 
and, clearly, the wages that people pay will play a great part in that.
  We should not have Federal dollars, Federal contracts and Federal 
projects, whether they are in conjunction with locales or not, 
undermining those livable wages. These wages are incredibly important 
to the American middle-class family.
  We see now that the hardworking Americans and middle class, with the 
greatest productivity gains in recent history, are sharing the very 
smallest part of that increase in productivity than at any time in 
recent history.
  It is imperative that we have today Davis-Bacon protections in this 
law. It is imperative that we have the Davis-Bacon protections for 
middle-class families in the country.
  We know middle-class families now are constantly confronting the risk 
of what is happening to their pensions: Will they be funded? Will they 
be terminated? Will they be frozen? What is their ability to put away 
money in a 401(k) plan? What is their ability to purchase health care? 
How much more of the cost of that health care is going to be shifted 
from the employer to the employee? How much more of that are they going 
to be able to afford?
  Maintaining good wages for good quality work is important to these 
families. It is important to these projects, and it is important to 
this Nation.
  I commend the chairman for reporting this bill to the floor with 
these provisions in it, to ensure that we continue to grow and 
strengthen the middle class in this country.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For 
over 75 years Davis-Bacon has guaranteed that hard-working Americans 
working on federal construction projects will be paid a livable wage. I 
am pleased that the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 includes Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage provisions and requires that prevailing wage 
rules be applied to all projects financed in whole or in part through 
State Revolving Fund programs (SRFs). I vehemently oppose any and all 
efforts that are intended to strip the prevailing wage provision and 
undermine the long-standing tradition of Davis-Bacon.
  The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 will be one of approximately 
70 Federal laws that include a Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provision. 
Throughout these laws Davis-Bacon has infused fairness into Federal 
contract work; and it has protected contractors and workers from unjust 
treatment and unfair competition.
  As more and more families struggle to pay the bills, it is critical 
now more than ever that we ensure hard-working Americans earn a livable 
wage.
  On a bipartisan basis Congress has historically stood together in 
support of Davis-Bacon, recognizing the obligation that we have to 
ensure that Americans are paid a livable wage and to ensure the 
government does not operate to undermine those wages. As we consider 
H.R. 720 today we again have a moral obligation to stand up and set the 
example for how workers should be treated and the standard by which 
they should be compensated.


      Government Projects Benefit from a Prevailing Wage Provision

  The Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 addresses the critical need 
that we have to build, upgrade and repair this nation's waste water 
infrastructure. Davis-Bacon ensures that we hire the best people to do 
this important work.
  Requiring that employers pay the local prevailing wage encourages 
them to hire qualified and highly skilled workers. This in turn results 
in a higher quality of work and higher productivity; it leads to less 
waste; it reduces the need for supervision; and fewer mistakes are made 
which require corrective action.
  The fact is that Davis-Bacon helps ensure that projects are completed 
on time and in the long-term require less rehabilitation and repair. 
Thanks to decent work standards, these projects don't suffer staggering 
delays and taxpayers do not have to shoulder additional and unintended 
costs produced by the delays or a substandard work product.


                   Davis-Bacon Helps Local Businesses

  Davis-Bacon furthers the viability of local businesses who want to 
compete for government contracts. The Act protects local employers from 
cutthroat competition that results from fly-by-night firms who try to 
undercut local wages and working conditions and who unfairly compete 
with local contractors.


                            Prevailing Wages

  It's important to remember what a prevailing wage is. A prevailing 
wage is defined as the weighted average of all the wage rates paid to 
laborers or mechanics in the same classification in the same locality. 
It is literally the wage

[[Page 6000]]

that prevails in the local market. The government, when making 
contracts, should respect those prevailing rates. The government should 
not be in the business of using taxpayer funds to drive down wages in a 
locality.


            Defeating President Bush's Repeal of Davis-Bacon

  We've seen efforts to undermine the nation's wage laws time and time 
again and defeated them time and time again. Two years ago Congress 
successfully defeated President Bush's attempts to repeal Davis-Bacon 
during the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. At a 
time when the victims of the hurricane had lost everything--their 
homes, their belongings, even family members--some political forces 
thought it would be a good idea to also cut their wages. In a 
bipartisan effort, Congress stood together and convinced the President 
to abandon his efforts; in doing so we ensured that those rebuilding 
the Gulf would be justly compensated for their hard work. I'm proud of 
the fact that support for Davis-Bacon has always been on a bipartisan 
basis--and I expect such bipartisan support for this fundamental worker 
protection will prevail again today.
  Madam Chairman, it is time for us to once again stand up for the 
rights and the dignity of workers across this country. Let's continue 
the tradition that began over 75 years ago--support the Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage provisions contained within the Water Quality Financing 
Act of 2007.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I only have one remaining speaker. May I 
inquire if the gentleman has multiple speakers remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 4 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. And the gentleman has only one speaker remaining?
  Mr. BAKER. Correct, sir.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
  Mr. HARE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 720, 
the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.
  When I met with local economic development administration officials 
in Moline, Illinois, over the February recess, reauthorizing and 
ensuring adequate funding for the State revolving loan fund was stated 
as the number one need that these administrators had in assisting the 
rural communities in my district. We all know that the ability to 
process and treat wastewater, as well as provide clean water to a 
community, is the biggest challenge to economic development. In an area 
hard hit by offshoring and outsourcing of jobs, this assistance is 
critical to the 17th Congressional District of Illinois.
  The Clean Water Revolving Fund is a top priority of the Democrats, 
and it authorizes $14 billion for the construction of wastewater 
treatment facilities and other water pollution abatement projects.
  In addition, this bill renews the requirement that contractors and 
subcontractors on wastewater treatment projects constructed with 
assistance from the State revolving funds be paid at least the 
prevailing local wage rate, as determined under the Davis-Bacon Act. By 
guaranteeing payment of the prevailing local wage rate, Davis-Bacon 
provides a better standard of living.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Water Quality 
Financing Act to address your constituents' clean water needs and to 
uphold these important labor standards.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Quality 
Financing Act, an act that is essential for our country.
  For the past 4 years, the water quality needs of our Nation's 
communities and my constituents have been neglected. Rural communities 
along the Texas-Mexican border in my district do not have the resources 
or the financial capacity to renovate existing water treatment plans 
and to construct sewage management systems.
  These are basic issues in our country where people are still having 
difficulty getting access to potable water.
  I have already heard from the small cities of Sabinal, Clint, Fort 
Stockton, Presidio, and Fort Hancock, Texas, all of which are in 
desperate need of assistance with their wastewater management. These 
and many other communities stand to benefit significantly from the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  This legislation will authorize a significant increase in funding for 
the fund, allowing these communities, like those in my district and 
throughout this country, to secure loans and begin work on the water 
improvement programs that are needed for our citizens.
  I ask you to support this specific legislation that allows these 
individuals to be able to get access to good, potable water.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me thank the chairman 
for his leadership and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Eddie 
Bernice Johnson, for her leadership.
  Texas, under the President's budget, lost $18 million, and with the 
restoration of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund of $14 
billion, we will see now the possibility of the restoration of 
$49,413,000, a total that we had in the 2007 funding level and going 
up.
  I know what it is like to deal with communities that do not have 
clean water. Bordersville in Houston, Texas, now has the opportunity to 
engage and use these dollars to build this community and develop clean 
water. The EPA recognizes that we have had difficulty across America 
and water crises and bad water.
  This bill makes a good statement. It also makes the positive 
statement on prevailing wages. There simply is no excuse to not give 
people a living wage, and that is what prevailing wages are all about.
  I want to thank my colleagues for recognizing that water is the 
source of life and the importance of making sure that the 34 percent 
cut by this Republican Congress in years past now needs to be amended 
and fixed. Today we fix it.
  I rise in support of H.R. 720, and I ask my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the ``Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007,'' which authorizes $14 billion over four 
years for the clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF) for fiscal years 
2008 through 2011. This bill will go a long way toward restoring the 
$18 million cut in Texas share of the SRF.
  Under the SRF program, the Environmental Protection Agency provides 
grants to States, and the States provide matching funds to establish a 
low-cost loan program to enable communities to upgrade wastewater 
treatment systems.
  Madam Chairman, the Administration has not sought reauthorization for 
the revolving fund, preferring to turn the revolving fund into a self-
sustaining loan program that is replenished by interest payments made 
on loans.
  H.R. 720 reauthorizes the program at an annual funding level of $4 
billion per year, well above the level of $1 billion contained in the 
fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for EPA currently working its way 
through Congress.
  The bill would extend repayment periods for revolving fund loans up 
to 30 years, require a State to use part of its funding to provide 
subsidies for disadvantaged communities, and authorize $75 million 
annually in technical assistance to rural and small wastewater 
treatment projects.
  H.R. 720 also directs the Government Accountability Office to study 
potential revenue sources to set up a Clean Water Trust Fund and 
encourage communities to consider ``green infrastructure'' such as the 
use of rain gardens to collect storm water runoff. The bill also uses 
water quality benefits and a watershed approach as the criteria to 
prioritize which projects receive funding.
  Madam Chairman, it is no exaggeration to state that the Clean Water 
Act is the Nation's most successful environmental law. But the 
continued high quality of the Nation's water supplies is imperiled 
because over the past six years the Congress has not invested enough 
funding to replace or repair the aging and deteriorating wastewater 
infrastructure.
  The State revolving fund's steady source of Federal funding ran out 
when reauthorization expired in 1994. Since then, Congress has been 
unable to get any bills affecting the fund through the House or the 
Senate because of disputes over Davis-Bacon Act requirements

[[Page 6001]]

that local prevailing wages be paid on projects receiving Federal 
funds. Instead, Congress has been appropriated funds for the SRF on an 
annual basis, but at declining levels. The lack of a steady, dependable 
source of funding has had a detrimental effect on the ability of water 
management agencies to repair, build, and upgrade the Nation's water 
quality infrastructure. It puts at risk the Nation's clean water.
  Madam Chairman, according to the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there is a 
``funding gap'' of $300 billion to $500 billion over 20 years between 
what is needed and what is actually spent on our water quality 
infrastructure. Without a Federal recommitment to clean water, the 
costs of maintaining existing and aging infrastructure further stressed 
by ever increasing population and industrial demands, as well as new 
and costly Clean Water Act requirements must be borne at the local 
level.
  Madam Chairman, the needs of municipalities, counties, and towns have 
simply outgrown the funding levels of the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund (SRF). The SRF program has been under siege since 2004, plummeting 
from $1.35 billion in 2004 to less than $700 million proposed for 2007. 
A dedicated source of Federal funding must be identified to assure 
adequate and continued financial assistance to municipalities to meet 
the goals of the Federal water quality program. H.R. 720 takes a major 
step in this direction and provides a significant down payment on the 
investment that must be made to ensure the quality of the Nation's 
water supply.
  Madam Chairman, I support the objectives of establishing a Clean 
Water Trust fund. Such a dedicated trust fund for clean water will 
ensure that infrastructure modernization and maintenance remains a 
priority and will secure the long-term viability of the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), while also adding a significant grant 
component to help communities fully achieve the goals of the Clean 
Water Act.
  I also support expanded eligibility under the SRF for water 
conservation measures. This would enable consumers to make more 
efficient use of treated water, including incentives for the 
modification, retirement, replacement of customer-owned water-using 
equipment, appliances, plumbing fixtures, and landscape materials. 
Saving water through improved efficiency can lessen the need to 
withdraw ground or surface water supplies for municipal or industrial 
demands. Strategic use of water conservation not only helps save the 
Nation's water resources but also can help extend the value and life of 
both water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure, extending 
the beneficial investment of public funds.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, I strongly support the Davis-Bacon 
provisions in H.R. 720 requiring that workers on projects funded 
through the SRF not be paid less than the prevailing wage. By 
guaranteeing payment of the prevailing local wage rate, Davis-Bacon 
provides a better standard of living and economic security for these 
workers.
  Madam Chairman, Davis-Bacon ``prevailing wage'' standards are set by 
scientific surveys of actual wages paid in local communities. 
Accordingly, Davis-Bacon wages in lower-cost areas such as rural 
communities and small towns are closely tied to existing local wages 
and therefore ensure a reasonable wage comparable to those earned by 
other workers in that community. Obviously, the prevailing wage rates 
in higher-cost areas such as major urban centers are higher because the 
average wage and cost-of-living are higher. Moreover, in 1981, the 
implementing regulations for Davis-Bacon were specifically amended to 
prohibit the Department of Labor from using wage data collected in 
urban areas to make a prevailing wage determination in a nearby rural 
county.
  Madam Chairman, I will strongly oppose any amendments by the minority 
to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Davis-Bacon provisions within this 
legislation. These are the latest in a long history of Republican 
attacks on the Davis-Bacon Act and the protections it provides to 
workers. Not only have three Republican presidents temporarily 
suspended the Act, but many of Republican colleagues have sought to 
repeal it altogether.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 720 and urge all my 
colleagues to join me in voting for its adoption by the House. I also 
call upon my colleagues to oppose any amendments to weaken this 
critical legislation that will address the real needs of the American 
people.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  I wish to express sincere and deep appreciation to the gentlewoman 
who is the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee and, of course, to 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. In 
thinking back over my tenure on the committee, it really is hard to 
remember a time when there has been significant partisan difference. It 
truly is one of the committees of the House that works in a unified way 
and produces a consistent, unified voice.
  We share the vision that America's infrastructure is the key to our 
Nation's economic future and that where infrastructure is damaged or 
inadequate, economies lag behind, employment is high, and circumstances 
are not good. So we really are joined here together in an effort to do 
what we believe is right and best for communities we represent.
  In this one instance, we find ourselves on the opposite side of a 
policy which has, over time, divided this Congress, the requirement by 
government to tell those engaged in a business endeavor what you should 
pay your employees in meeting essential public need.
  It is clear to me that in my home State, the economic dislocations 
because of the tragic storms is immense and widespread and felt deeply 
and unfortunately will be likely felt for many years to come. We all 
know that there aren't sufficient resources to solve every problem in 
every community and certainly not even in our own State. Despite the 
generosity of the American people and this Congress, there will be 
billions of dollars of unmet need.
  The question, as we go to Dr. Boustany's district in southwest 
Louisiana to a small, small rural parish in Cameron, where there isn't 
even a municipality, where after the storm's terrible surge went across 
the land, you could stand on the northern edge of the parish and look 
all the way to the gulf coast and not see a structure standing. We 
don't have enough money to build it all back. We can't even tell people 
even when we are likely to build it back, but we are going to send some 
money, now in the form of a State revolving fund intended for the 
restructuring and rebuilding of critical water infrastructure.
  What are we going to do with that $10? Are we going to artificially 
increase the cost of that project just to make it more difficult for 
rural Cameron parish to recover? I don't think we really want or intend 
to do that, but that is the consequence of this provision in this bill. 
It makes recovery more difficult. It will take recovery longer. It will 
cost more to build less.
  We all pride ourselves in America on our strong free enterprise 
beliefs. Let's turn free enterprise loose. Let's let Louisiana rebuild. 
Let's do it in the most efficient and expeditious way possible. Let's 
strike Davis-Bacon provisions from this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time, 
which should be about a minute.
  Again, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica), the ranking member on the full committee, and the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who I have the greatest respect for, and I 
recall his distinguished and authoritative presentation during the 
committee tour post-Katrina at Baton Rouge where the gentleman had a 
mastery of the facts of the issues at hand, and we stood in solidarity 
and we do stand in solidarity on this legislation.
  We have one difference of opinion. That is why we have a legislative 
body and a process through which to work these issues out, and as the 
late Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, said very thoughtfully many 
years ago, something like 60 years ago, We can agree to disagree 
without being disagreeable, and that is the manner in which I hope we 
will continue to conduct issues before our committee.
  I just think back to the time when I worked, when I was in college 
working in construction jobs, and I was working as a truck driver and 
cement puddler for 50 cents below what was a union wage, below what was 
a standard wage, because this wasn't a unionized job, and I don't want 
to see that happen to anybody.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I submit the following exchange of 
letters between Mr. Rangel, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and me.

[[Page 6002]]

                                                    March 6, 2007.
     Hon. James Oberstar,
     Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: I am writing regarding H.R. 720, the Water 
     Quality Financing Act of 2007, which is scheduled for floor 
     action later this week.
       As you know, H.R 720 raises revenue by increasing vessel 
     tonnage duties, an authority which falls within the 
     jurisdiction ofthe Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, 
     H.R. 720 violates clause 5(a) of Rule XXI, which restricts 
     bills and amendments from carrying taxes and tariffs not 
     reported by the Ways and Means Committee.
       In order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill, 
     and will not oppose H.R. 720 being given a waiver of Rule 
     XXI. This is being done with the understanding that it does 
     not in any way prejudice the Committee or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation in the future.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confining 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 720, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the record.
           Sincerely,
                                           Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                    March 8, 2007.
     Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rangel: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the consideration of H.R. 720, ``the Water Quality 
     Financing Act of 2007''. Your support for this legislation 
     and your assistance in ensuring its timely consideration are 
     greatly appreciated.
       I agree that section 601 of H.R. 720, as reported, is of 
     jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means. I 
     acknowledge that, by foregoing a sequential referral, your 
     Committee is not relinquishing its jurisdiction and I will 
     fully support your request to be represented in a House-
     Senate conference on those provisions over which the 
     Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction in H.R. 720.
       I value your cooperation and look forward to working with 
     you as we move ahead with this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                          James L. Oberstar, M.C.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Chairman, I sadly rise today to oppose this 
Important legislation. Unfortunately, in a kickback to Unions, the 
Majority has decided to include in this legislation provisions that 
will drive up the cost of state water projects and are particularly 
harmful to small rural communities.
  As a New Mexican, I know the critical role water plays in economic 
expansion and the daily need of our citizens. We in New Mexico struggle 
to find good clean water for our communities. The reauthorization of 
the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program is an important step 
to meeting the needs of my communities.
  Communities in my district like Columbus, New Mexico, a small 
community of 1700 people which has no clean running water in its 
community, is desperate for assistance from a program like the one we 
will authorize today. Sadly, the majority has decided that this poor 
community should have foisted upon it Federal Davis-Bacon requirements 
which were never intended to be applied to non-Federal funds. Instead 
of helping communities get clean water projects the majority has 
decided to inflate the cost of these projects with unnecessary 
provisions that will result in fewer clean water projects, fewer jobs 
and less clean water.
  I don't understand how the inclusion of these provisions that inflate 
costs will benefit the small rural communities who can barely afford 
clean water projects in the first place. Sadly, those provisions 
prevent me from supporting this otherwise good legislation.
  Mr. KELLER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Baker 
amendment and to oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 720.
  I had hoped to support this legislation, which would allow States and 
municipalities to build water treatment plants and other necessary 
infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, our friends in the Democratic majority have taken away 
the rights of States and municipalities by forcing them to comply with 
Federal Davis-Bacon requirements, which waste taxpayer dollars by 
inflating construction costs.
  My state of Florida does not have a state prevailing wage law. This 
legislation would force small, rural communities in my district and 
throughout Florida to pay vastly inflated Federal prevailing wages to 
build these critical infrastructure projects. Studies have shown that 
Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of construction by up to 38 percent in 
rural areas.
  I cannot support imposing the antiquated Davis-Bacon requirements on 
my local communities--wasting their hard-earned tax dollars on inflated 
construction costs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
legislation, and yes to the Baker Amendment.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, 
the ``Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.'' As we all know, H.R. 720 
will reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and provide $14 
billion in funding for the program over the next four years. The bill 
provides technical assistance to rural and small municipalities for the 
purpose of assisting them in the planning, developing, and acquisition 
of financing for wastewater infrastructure assistance. The bill also 
provides technical assistance and training for rural and small publicly 
owned treatment works and decentralized wastewater treatment systems to 
enable such treatment works and systems to protect water quality and 
achieve and maintain compliance with the bill's requirements. Equally 
important, the bill will disseminate information to rural and small 
municipalities and municipalities that meet the affordability criteria 
established under section 603(i)(2) by the State in which the 
municipality is located with respect to planning, design, construction, 
and operation of publicly owned treatment works and decentralized 
wastewater treatment systems.
  With 20 percent of the country's population living in rural 
communities, it's critical that we address their infrastructure needs 
including access to clean water, working sewers, electricity, and other 
necessities. For more than a decade, the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund has been integral to State's and localities in their effort to 
deal with critical clean water infrastructure needs.
  As a community, our progress must be judged not by the status of our 
most fortunate members of society, but by that of our most challenged 
members. That is why I am committed to fighting for the resources 
needed to ensure a better standard of living for all Colonia residents, 
why I voted in favor of H.R. 720, and why I co-founded and currently am 
Chairman of the Congressional Rural Housing Caucus. I founded the 
Congressional Rural Housing Caucus to advocate for legislation and 
policy changes that: expand the availability of safe and affordable 
housing--both for purchase and for rental--in Rural America; eliminate 
substandard housing in Rural America; and especially to address the 
infrastructure needs of Rural America, including providing access to 
clean water, working sewers, electricity, and other necessities. This 
bill is an important step toward meeting the goals of the Congressional 
Rural Housing Caucus.
  There are more than 350,000 people who struggle in the unacceptable 
living conditions of the Colonias every day. Many Colonias do not have 
sewer systems. Instead, residents must rely on alternative, often 
inadequate wastewater disposal methods. Surveys of Colonias in El Paso 
and the Rio Grande Valley show that 50.7 percent of the households use 
septic tanks, 36.4 percent use cesspools, 7.4 percent use outhouses, 
and 5.5 percent use other means to dispose of wastewater. Septic tank 
systems, which in some circumstances may provide adequate wastewater 
disposal, often pose problems because they are too small or improperly 
installed and can overflow.
  Even if the colonias had adequate sewer systems, the border area 
lacks sufficient facilities to treat wastewater. According to a summary 
report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wastewater 
treatment capacity along the U.S.-Mexico border has been inadequate for 
the past decade. In many places, there are no treatment facilities at 
all. Consequently, border communities often discharge untreated or 
inadequately treated wastewater into rivers, canals and arroyos (a 
creek or stream), which then flow into the Gulf of Mexico. In the Nuevo 
Laredo/Laredo area alone, 27 million gallons of untreated waste-water 
are discharged directly into the Rio Grande each day, contributing to 
ecological and aesthetic degradation, economic loss and threats to 
public health. Securing potable water also presents a challenge to 
Colonia residents. Many must buy water by the bucket or drum to meet 
their daily needs or use wells that may be contaminated.
  According to The Colonias Factbook, a Texas Department of Human 
Services survey of living conditions in rural areas of South and West 
Texas border counties, 23.7 percent of the households did not have 
treated water in the house. Because of this, the survey found, 
untreated water was used by 12.8 percent of households to wash dishes, 
13.1 percent to wash clothes, 12.3 percent to bathe and 4.9 percent to 
cook.
  A 1995 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) study estimates that 428 
colonias with about 81,000 people are in need of potable water 
facilities, and 1,195 colonias with

[[Page 6003]]

about 232,000 people need wastewater treatment facilities. The TWDB 
estimates it would cost more than $424 million to build the water and 
wastewater facilities needed in the 23 counties surveyed.
  In my district, these issues are increased by the low-incomes and 
housing quality problems suffered by my constituents. According to the 
2000 Census, the median income for persons living in the 15th district 
was $26,840. There are more than 7,500 households that lack complete 
plumbing facilities. Crowding is a problem as more than 15 percent of 
all occupied housing units are crowded (i.e., more than one person per 
room).
  The battle to improve every Colonia in South Texas will require 
enormous resources and support from program partners, community 
residents, and especially the Federal Government. This is a battle we 
must win, and I know we will win. The problems in the Colonias are not 
just the Colonias' problems, but they are the State's problems they are 
the Nation's problems--and they are our problems.
  Passage of today's legislation will go a long way toward improving 
the quality of life of residents of the Colonias and towards attaining 
the goals of the Congressional Rural Housing Caucus.
  Rest assured that I will continue to fight for legislation, 
regulations and programs that understand the needs of Colonia and all 
rural residents. I will fight to fund programs that educate Colonia 
residents and empower them with the tools needed to live not for today, 
but for every day.
  Where there is a will, there is a way. And as we say in my district 
and around the world--Si Se Puede!
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. This 
bill is the third water bill brought to the floor this week. These 
three bills are filled with excessive spending, propose no way to pay 
for the increased spending, create duplicative bureaucracies, and 
impose requirements leading to inefficiencies that will lead taxpayers 
to getting less work for each Federal dollar spent. H.R. 720 is 
fiscally irresponsible.
  The fact is, Madam Chairman, we already have a program in operation 
designed to help State and local communities with water and sewer 
projects--The State Revolving Fund (SRF). The SRF is a fiscally 
responsible program that provides Federal assistance through loans and 
other cost-sharing arrangements to help States assist municipalities 
with high priority projects. I support the SRF and believe it strikes 
an appropriate balance between Federal and State responsibility with 
respect to improving water systems in communities across the country. 
While today's bill authorizes SRF funding, the Congressional Budget 
Office has determined that in total the bill will actually suck about 
$49 million over 5 years away from the SRF to be used in two new and 
less effective grant programs created in H.R. 720. Unlike SRF funds, 
these no-strings-attached grants do not have to be repaid and, in my 
estimation, will encourage States and municipalities to rely too 
heavily on Federal funding for improving their communities.
  Unfortunately, creating more government bureaucracy and undermining 
an existing loan program is not even the worst of this bill. H.R. 720 
also amounts to a kickback to special interest labor unions. This bill 
imposes on States costly Davis-Bacon labor rules. Democrats are telling 
the American taxpayers that inserting special provisions for their 
political base is more important than fiscal responsibility. Under 
Davis-Bacon, any project funded through this bill will cost American 
taxpayers a 15 percent surcharge. This mandate effectively reduces the 
number of projects that can be completed under H.R. 720 by 15 percent. 
Adding a 15 percent surcharge will only serve to delay projects 
addressing water supply shortages and sewage treatment problems. The 
Davis-Bacon provision also discriminates against smaller--often 
minority owned--businesses that don't have the means to comply with its 
owner requirements.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 720 raises taxes--$256 million over 5 
years.
  In short, today's bill is an excellent case study for the new 
Democratic Majority's priorities: More expensive bureaucracy, a 
kickback to labor at taxpayers' expense, creation of duplicative 
government programs, and a hidden tax increase on ordinary Americans.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 720.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of the 
Water Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, and I commend Chairman Oberstar 
for working so hard to bring it to the floor today.
  This bill reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a 
necessary program providing low-interest loans to communities for 
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and other water 
projects.
  H.R. 720 authorizes $14 billion over the next 4 years for the fund, 
which will go a long way toward helping America's cities and towns fix 
their wastewater infrastructure.
  This is a critical program. Since it was created in 1987, the fund 
has partnered with local and State governments to drastically improve 
America's water quality.
  As a result of dramatic improvements in wastewater infrastructure due 
in part to this fund, discharges of waste into the environment have 
decreased by one-half since the early 1970's.
  In my home State of New Jersey, the fund has been enormously helpful. 
New Jersey was granted almost $2 billion during fiscal years 1987 
through 2005, almost all of which was used for wastewater treatment 
projects. This much-needed funding has been instrumental in helping my 
State keep its water clean and its citizens safe and healthy.
  The fact is: This bill is long overdue.
  We know all too well that progress cannot be achieved on the cheap. 
If we want clean water for ourselves and future generations, we must 
invest in it.
  The longer we wait, the more degraded our systems get.
  I urge my colleagues to vote. ``yes'' on this bill today.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to 
express my support for H.R. 720 and my strong opposition to the 
amendment that seeks to remove Davis-Bacon wage protections from the 
bill. Addressing the Nation's urgent wastewater infrastructure needs by 
strengthening and recapitalizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
is critically important. Retaining the requirement that workers be paid 
the local prevailing wage will help ensure that these projects yield 
the greatest benefit to the communities they are meant to help.
  Davis-Bacon not only guarantees that workers receive a fair wage; it 
helps ensure the quality of the work because it removes the incentive 
for hiring less qualified workers for a job. Paying prevailing wages 
also means that businesses and workers in the community where the work 
is taking place have a fair shot at getting the job and are less likely 
to be undercut by contractors who bid lower but then cut corners. A 
well-built project at a fair price should be our goal--not the cheapest 
possible job where workers' qualifications and quality of work may be 
compromised.
  I want to congratulate Chairman Oberstar on moving this critical bill 
through the committee and to the floor in such a timely fashion. I am 
very proud to be a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and to be able to tell my constituents that help in upgrading 
our wastewater systems is on the way.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I am here today because one of our most 
precious natural resources is under siege. As the world's largest 
freshwater system, the Great Lakes provide food, recreation, and 
drinking water for nearly 40 million people. Yet with each day, our 
water grows more contaminated with sewage discharged from 
municipalities along the lakes.
  Nearly 24 billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Great Lakes 
each year. While cities like Milwaukee have begun to reduce the amounts 
of sewage they discharge, not enough is being done to terminate this 
harmful practice. Detroit, for example, dumps 13.2 billion gallons of 
sewage per year into the lakes. This has a devastating effect on the 
region's tourism sector. Studies estimate an economic loss of roughly 
$8,000 per day as a result of closing a Lake Michigan beach due to 
pollution. In 2005, sewage discharges contributed to the nearly 3,000 
Great Lakes' beach closures, an increase of 5 percent over the previous 
year. In my own district, there were 150 beach closures in just 92 days 
of summer in 2004. This is unacceptable.
  For years, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped to fund 
billions of dollars worth of water quality projects, but Federal 
funding for this program is declining. The Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Government Accountability Office estimated a $500 
billion shortfall in clean water infrastructure investment over the 
next two decades. The important legislation in front of us would 
increase the authorization for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, 
which is imperative if we want to escape this massive shortfall. I had 
proposed an amendment establishing an added financing mechanism while 
also adding significant incentive for States and cities to eliminate 
their pollution into the Great Lakes.
  The Kirk amendment would have set a date certain, 2027, to end sewage 
dumping directly into the Great Lakes by increasing fines for dumping 
to $100,000 per violation, per day. The next 20 years would allow 
municipalities

[[Page 6004]]

to upgrade their sewage system and ensure a level playing field for all 
communities along the Great Lakes. This would not affect any current 
dumping restrictions or regulation. The amendment further would have 
established a Great Lakes clean-up fund within the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund, to which all sewage dumping penalties would be 
directed. Funds would be used to spur projects to improve wastewater 
discharges and protect the water quality of our lakes with a special 
focus on greener options such as habitat protection and wetland 
restoration.
  This amendment would have also required both cities and the EPA to 
publicly report dumping levels of sewage a year after enactment. 
Currently there is no uniform standard for public disclosure of 
wastewater violations. It is imperative that we understand the extent 
of the problem we are facing, and that education begins with public 
disclosure of all dumping into the Great Lakes.
  With the growing populations living along the American and Canadian 
shores of the Great Lakes, it is appropriate to set a date that gives 
cities the time to make needed changes to their infrastructure to 
prohibit sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. We must preserve Great 
Lakes beaches, maintain the region's economic growth and protect the 
nation's largest supply of drinking water.
  Madam Chairman, I support this bill in its current form. It would 
have been a better bill had the congressional leadership allowed the 
Kirk amendment to be considered. I do not understand why the House 
Democratic Leadership opposes setting a deadline to ban sewage dumping 
in Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes. By blocking my amendment, the 
congressional leadership missed a key opportunity to protect our 
environment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007 because it restores much-needed funding 
for our Nation's wastewater infrastructure, and establishes a mechanism 
to finally bring Arizona its fair share of Federal funds.
  For nearly three decades, the Federal Government has short-changed 
Arizona on wastewater infrastructure. Instead of allocating funds based 
on needs it has inequitably and inexplicably continued to use 1970 
Census data as a part of its allocation formula.
  Since 1970, our State has more than tripled in population. As a 
result, we have become the victims of an alarming disparity.
  Arizona currently ranks 10th in need, and 20th in population, but 
only 38th in receipt of Federal funding for Clean Water State Revolving 
Funds.
  On a per capita basis, Arizona ranks 53rd. We are dead-last. Even the 
territories do better then we do. This is unfair, and needs to change.
  Fortunately, H.R. 720 will begin that process. It lays the groundwork 
for a transition away from the current, inequitable, allocation 
formula, and toward a new formula based on need.
  Of course, the House is not the last word on this. The Senate will 
have its say as well. Fortunately, our state has a great champion in 
our distinguished Senator Jon Kyl. He has been a leader on this issue, 
and many other water issues, and I know he will fight to ensure that 
Arizona gets what it deserves as this bill works its way through the 
Senate. And when, I hope, this bill goes to conference, I look forward 
to working with Senator Kyl, for the good of our State.
  Before I conclude, I want to express my gratitude to our chairman, 
James Oberstar. His mastery of transportation issues is exceeded only 
by his fairness, his willingness to listen, and his incredible ability 
to bring people together. It has been an honor to work with him on this 
bill, and I look forward to working with him as it continues its way 
through Congress.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 720, and yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007. After 12 long years of little to no 
legislation supporting the environment, I am happy to stand up today to 
support a week of great environmental bills.
  In celebration of Clean Environment Week in this House, the 
Democratic majority has brought forward three bills that will be good 
for the environment, good for the economy, and good for the people of 
New York and the rest of the Nation.
  This bill, H.R. 720, will reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving 
Loan Fund. The goal of this bill is to provide money to local 
governments in order for cities and towns across the country to improve 
and renovate their clean water infrastructure. The communities that 
will be using this money are extremely supportive of this bill.
  The Clean Water Fund is essential to help States and municipalities 
make critical upgrades to their water infrastructure systems. In turn, 
these investments ensure clean water and foster economic development.
  One of the most successful environmental programs in our Nation's 
history was the Clean Water Act of 1972. In the 35 years that it has 
been in existence, the Clean Water Act has helped to ensure that the 
water we drink as well as the bodies of water that we enjoy in nature 
will be clean and safe for use.
  H.R. 720 will allow us to continue receiving the benefits of the 
Clean Water Act. It authorizes up to $20 billion over the next 5 years 
to keep our water and our environment clean.
  Another bill we supported this week is H.R. 569, legislation to boost 
sewer overflow controls. This bill will authorize $1.8 billion over 5 
years to prevent combined sewer overflow. Sewer overflow affects over 
750 municipalities across the country.
  During a heavy rainstorm, inadequate sewer facilities and 
infrastructure can easily overflow, causing major health concerns as 
well as an environmental mess. Madam Chairman, nobody here wants to see 
what happens when a sewer overflows into bodies of water around our 
neighborhoods. Yet Congress has done nothing to combat this problem 
over the past decade, despite a desperate need for action.
  The total cost for fixing combined sewer systems across the country 
has been estimated to be about $50 billion. We cannot expect small 
towns and local governments to be able to pay for this renovation by 
themselves. And this problem is not lessening. Every year, we see 
antiquated sewer systems backing up and outdated infrastructure 
crumbling. The problem is getting worse, and the longer we wait, the 
more we will have to pay to fix it.
  Combined sewer backups are likely to occur in 37 States and the 
District of Columbia. My home State of New York is one of the 37 States 
affected. The 17th District of New York straddles the Hudson River, 
which can flood under heavy rain conditions. Madam Chairman, I for one 
do not want to wait until we have sewers backing up in our own backyard 
before we take action. We have waited long enough, and passing H.R. 569 
was a good first step in fixing these aging sewer systems.
  For all these reasons, I support H.R. 720, and I would encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, today I rise to voice my pleasure and 
support of the passage of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act. I 
would also like to pay tribute to Chairman Oberstar for his efforts in 
reauthorizing this program for the first time in 13 years. Chairman 
Oberstar is a dear friend of mine and he has been one of my greatest 
partners in our efforts to clean the Nation's waters.
  Under President Bush's proposed fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget, the 
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund is facing a $16 million cut. H.R. 
720, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would authorize $14 billion for 
the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund over the next 4 years, 
providing communities with the financial means to construct municipal 
wastewater treatment plants. In recent years, Michigan has seen over 
1,000 separate sewer overflows, totaling over 20 billion gallons of 
spilled sewage. Funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Load 
Fund is crucial to preventing further such disasters in Michigan.
  Since Congress passed the Clean Water Act, the Federal government has 
provided more than $82 billion for wastewater assistance which led to 
tremendous improvements in our wastewater infrastructure. However, this 
infrastructure is starting to deteriorate, leading to sewage and 
untreated waste flowing into our rivers and lakes and leaking onto our 
roads and even into our basements. It has been estimated by the EPA 
that each year, overflows from sewer systems discharge about 850 
billion gallons of wastewater and storm water containing untreated 
waste, toxic debris, and other pollutants into the environment.
  The Republican leadership allowed the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund to expire in 1994 and has failed to reauthorize it because of 
their objection to the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law. Furthermore, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have cut funding by 34 
percent. Unfortunately the Republican-controlled Congress has not been 
our only barrier; the Bush Administration has also repeatedly tried to 
obstruct clean water programs. In fact this week the White House issued 
a Statement of Administration policy conveying the President's 
opposition to H.R. 569 and H.R. 700, describing the bills as 
``excessive'' and ``unrealistic in the current fiscal environment'' 
respectively. We have watched these setbacks to our clean water 
programs for far too long. I urge the Senate to pass these bills and 
show this Administration that the Congress will not let our waters be 
neglected any longer.

[[Page 6005]]

  Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 720, the Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007. I am pleased to support this important 
and needed reauthorization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  Economic growth can only occur if the infrastructure, the roads, the 
power grids, and the water/wastewater systems can accommodate this 
growth. A community cannot prosper without suitable infrastructure.
  Too often, this vital infrastructure is not keeping up with the 
existing needs or future development. A recent report by the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, found that, ``without continued 
improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population 
growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements.'' 
Further EPA studies have found there to be a gap of $181 billion 
between the revenue that is available and the wastewater infrastructure 
that is needed. It is expected that this gap will widen to more than 
$500 billion by 2019.
  These shortfalls unfortunately hit small communities the hardest. 
Water systems that serve these communities face a continued battle to 
keep their infrastructure in working order, all the while construction 
and maintenance costs continue to rise. Moreover, small systems simply 
do not have the ability to pass these costs on to their consumers.
  The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has helped address this need. 
This program allows communities to seek Federal and State dollars from 
the fund. From FY 2002 through FY 2006 the Missouri SRF provided 
$745,776,200 in loans to water systems. These dollars went to create 
new collection sewers, replace existing or outdated sewers, and build 
treatment and secondary treatment plants. Without these updates, the 
environment around Missouri communities would have suffered. So for 
these reasons I rise in support of this legislation.
  But I have concerns about extending Davis-Bacon Act requirements to 
all dollars within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While it is 
true the prevailing wage requirements of Davis-Bacon were attached to 
Federal dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program from 
1972 through 1995, these requirements have never been attached to the 
State dollars in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  The unprecedented move of placing prevailing wage requirements on all 
State Revolving Fund dollars is bad national policy. Placing Davis-
Bacon on all dollars within the State Revolving Fund is a gross 
overreach of Congressional power. Though Missouri does apply prevailing 
wage requirements, 18 States have said through referendum or resolution 
that they don't want to have a prevailing wage law. This is a decision 
that should remain at the State level, not be subverted by the Federal 
government. Unfortunately, H.R. 720 says to the residents and lawmakers 
of these States, ``you were wrong and we're not going to listen to 
you.'' This is wrong. Congress should not be in the business of 
preempting State law in this area. For this reason, I voted for the 
Baker Amendment which sought to remove the Davis-Bacon provision from 
the bill. I was disappointed that this amendment was not adopted.
  Because of the pressing need to improve our Nation's wastewater 
infrastructure, I will support this legislation but I do so with 
serious reservations about the Davis-Bacon requirements in the 
underlying bill. I am voting to move this important bill on to the 
Senate, but it is imperative that this unjustified and inappropriate 
provision be removed as this measure moves tough the legislative 
process.
  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, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 110-36, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 720

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) In General.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Quality Financing Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

              TITLE I--TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

Sec. 101. Technical assistance.
Sec. 102. State management assistance.
Sec. 103. Watershed pilot projects.

               TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS

Sec. 201. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 202. Treatment works defined.
Sec. 203. Policy on cost effectiveness.

        TITLE III--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 301. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 302. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 303. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 304. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 305. Intended use plan.
Sec. 306. Annual reports.
Sec. 307. Technical assistance.
Sec. 308. Authorization of appropriations.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Definition of treatment works.
Sec. 402. Funding for Indian programs.

                            TITLE V--STUDIES

Sec. 501. Study of long-term, sustainable, clean water funding.
Sec. 502. Feasibility study of supplemental and alternative clean water 
              funding mechanisms.

                        TITLE VI--TONNAGE DUTIES

Sec. 601. Tonnage duties.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

              TITLE I--TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 101. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment 
     Works.--Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations--
       ``(A) to provide technical assistance to rural and small 
     municipalities for the purpose of assisting, in consultation 
     with the State in which the assistance is provided, such 
     municipalities in the planning, developing, and acquisition 
     of financing for eligible projects described in section 
     603(c);
       ``(B) to provide technical assistance and training for 
     rural and small publicly owned treatment works and 
     decentralized wastewater treatment systems to enable such 
     treatment works and systems to protect water quality and 
     achieve and maintain compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act; and
       ``(C) to disseminate information to rural and small 
     municipalities and municipalities that meet the affordability 
     criteria established under section 603(i)(2) by the State in 
     which the municipality is located with respect to planning, 
     design, construction, and operation of publicly owned 
     treatment works and decentralized wastewater treatment 
     systems.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``(6)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; and (7) not to exceed $75,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for carrying out subsections 
     (b)(3) and (b)(8), except that not less than 20 percent of 
     the amounts appropriated pursuant to this paragraph in a 
     fiscal year shall be used for carrying out subsection 
     (b)(8)''.
       (c) Small Flows Clearinghouse.--Section 104(q)(4) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(q)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$3,000,000''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``1986'' and 
     inserting ``2009''.
       (d) Competitive Procedures for Awarding Grants.--Section 
     104 (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(w) Competitive Procedures for Awarding Grants.--The 
     Administrator shall establish procedures that, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, promote competition and openness in the 
     award of grants to nonprofit private agencies, institutions, 
     and organizations under this section.''.

     SEC. 102. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (2) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 1991 through 2007, and $300,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012;''.

     SEC. 103. WATERSHED PILOT PROJECTS.

       (a) Pilot Projects.--Section 122 (33 U.S.C. 1274) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``WET WEATHER''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``wet 
     weather discharge'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) by striking ``in reducing such 
     pollutants'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end and inserting ``to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse 
     municipal stormwater, including low-impact development 
     technologies''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Watershed partnerships.--Efforts of municipalities 
     and property owners to demonstrate cooperative ways to 
     address nonpoint

[[Page 6006]]

     sources of pollution to reduce adverse impacts on water 
     quality.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 122(c)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``for fiscal year 2004'' and inserting 
     ``for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2012''.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Section 122(d) is amended by 
     striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

               TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT WORKS

     SEC. 201. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       Section 211 (33 U.S.C. 1291) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section designation and all that 
     follows through ``(a) No'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 211. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) In General.--No'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Population Density.--
     '' after ``(b)''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Replacement and major rehabilitation.--
     Notwithstanding the requirement of subsection (a)(1) 
     concerning the existence of a collection system as a 
     condition of eligibility, a project for replacement or major 
     rehabilitation of a collection system existing on January 1, 
     2007, shall be eligible for a grant under this title if the 
     project otherwise meets the requirements of subsection (a)(1) 
     and meets the requirement of paragraph (3).
       ``(2) New systems.--Notwithstanding the requirement of 
     subsection (a)(2) concerning the existence of a community as 
     a condition of eligibility, a project for a new collection 
     system to serve a community existing on January 1, 2007, 
     shall be eligible for a grant under this title if the project 
     otherwise meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2) and 
     meets the requirement of paragraph (3).
       ``(3) Requirement.--A project meets the requirement of this 
     paragraph if the purpose of the project is to accomplish the 
     objectives, goals, and policies of this Act by addressing an 
     adverse environmental condition existing on the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 202. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

       Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any works, including site'';
       (2) by striking ``is used for ultimate'' and inserting 
     ``will be used for ultimate''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and acquisition of other lands, and interests in 
     lands, which are necessary for construction''.

     SEC. 203. POLICY ON COST EFFECTIVENESS.

       Section 218(a) (33 U.S.C. 1298(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``combination of devices and systems'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting ``treatment works 
     that meets the requirements of this Act. The system may 
     include water efficiency measures and devices.''.

        TITLE III--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

     SEC. 301. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

       Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``for providing assistance'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``to 
     accomplish the objectives, goals, and policies of this Act by 
     providing assistance for projects and activities identified 
     in section 603(c).''.

     SEC. 302. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Infrastructure Assets.--Section 602(b)(9) (33 
     U.S.C. 1382(b)(9)) is amended by striking ``standards'' and 
     inserting ``standards, including standards relating to the 
     reporting of infrastructure assets''.
       (b) Additional Requirements.--Section 602(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1382(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) the State will establish, maintain, invest, and 
     credit the fund with repayments, such that the fund balance 
     will be available in perpetuity for providing financial 
     assistance in accordance with this title;
       ``(12) any fees charged by the State to recipients of 
     assistance will be used for the purpose of financing the cost 
     of administering the fund or financing projects or activities 
     eligible for assistance from the fund;
       ``(13) beginning in fiscal year 2009, the State will 
     include as a condition of providing assistance to a 
     municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency 
     that the recipient of such assistance certify, in a manner 
     determined by the Governor of the State, that the recipient--
       ``(A) has studied and evaluated the cost and effectiveness 
     of innovative and alternative processes, materials, 
     techniques, and technologies for carrying out the proposed 
     project or activity for which assistance is sought under this 
     title, and has selected, to the extent practicable, a project 
     or activity that may result in greater environmental benefits 
     or equivalent environmental benefits when compared to 
     standard processes, materials, techniques, and technologies 
     and more efficiently uses energy and natural and financial 
     resources; and
       ``(B) has considered, to the maximum extent practical and 
     as determined appropriate by the recipient, the costs and 
     effectiveness of other design, management, and financing 
     approaches for carrying out a project or activity for which 
     assistance is sought under this title, taking into account 
     the cost of operating and maintaining the project or activity 
     over its life, as well as the cost of constructing the 
     project or activity;
       ``(14) the State will use at least 15 percent of the amount 
     of each capitalization grant received by the State under this 
     title after September 30, 2007, to provide assistance to 
     municipalities of fewer than 10,000 individuals that meet the 
     affordability criteria established by the State under section 
     603(i)(2) for activities included on the State's priority 
     list established under section 603(g), to the extent that 
     there are sufficient applications for such assistance;
       ``(15) treatment works eligible under section 603(c)(1) 
     which will be constructed in whole or in part with funds made 
     available under section 205(m) or by a State water pollution 
     control revolving fund under this title, or both, will meet 
     the requirements of, or otherwise be treated (as determined 
     by the Governor of the State) under sections 204(b)(1), 211, 
     218, and 511(c)(1) in the same manner as treatment works 
     constructed with assistance under title II of this Act;
       ``(16) a contract to be carried out using funds directly 
     made available by a capitalization grant under this title for 
     program management, construction management, feasibility 
     studies, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, 
     surveying, mapping, or architectural related services shall 
     be negotiated in the same manner as a contract for 
     architectural and engineering services is negotiated under 
     chapter 11 of title 40, United States Code, or an equivalent 
     State qualifications-based requirement (as determined by the 
     Governor of the State); and
       ``(17) the requirements of section 513 will apply to the 
     construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in 
     part with assistance made available by a State water 
     pollution control revolving fund as authorized under this 
     title, or with assistance made available under section 
     205(m), or both, in the same manner as treatment works for 
     which grants are made under this Act.''.

     SEC. 303. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

       (a) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
     Section 603(c) (33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Projects and Activities Eligible for Assistance.--The 
     amounts of funds available to each State water pollution 
     control revolving fund shall be used only for providing 
     financial assistance--
       ``(1) to any municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or 
     State agency for construction of publicly owned treatment 
     works;
       ``(2) for the implementation of a management program 
     established under section 319;
       ``(3) for development and implementation of a conservation 
     and management plan under section 320;
       ``(4) for the implementation of lake protection programs 
     and projects under section 314;
       ``(5) for repair or replacement of decentralized wastewater 
     treatment systems that treat domestic sewage;
       ``(6) for measures to manage, reduce, treat, or reuse 
     municipal stormwater;
       ``(7) to any municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or 
     State agency for measures to reduce the demand for publicly 
     owned treatment works capacity through water conservation, 
     efficiency, or reuse;
       ``(8) for measures to increase the security of publicly 
     owned treatment works; and
       ``(9) for the development and implementation of watershed 
     projects meeting the criteria set forth in section 122.''.
       (b) Extended Repayment Period.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 
     U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``20 years'' and 
     inserting ``the lesser of 30 years or the design life of the 
     project to be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20 
     years after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the 
     expiration of the term of the loan''.
       (c) Fiscal Sustainability Plan.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 
     U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) for any portion of a treatment works proposed for 
     repair, replacement, or expansion, and eligible for 
     assistance under section 603(c)(1), the recipient of a loan 
     will develop and implement a fiscal sustainability plan that 
     includes--
       ``(i) an inventory of critical assets that are a part of 
     that portion of the treatment works;
       ``(ii) an evaluation of the condition and performance of 
     inventoried assets or asset groupings; and
       ``(iii) a plan for maintaining, repairing, and, as 
     necessary, replacing that portion of the treatment works and 
     a plan for funding such activities;''.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, $400,000 per year, or \1/5\ percent 
     per year of the current valuation of the fund, whichever 
     amount is greatest, plus the amount of any fees collected by 
     the State for such purpose regardless of the source''.
       (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
     Section 603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to provide owners and operators of treatment works 
     that serve a population of 10,000 or

[[Page 6007]]

     fewer with technical and planning assistance and assistance 
     in financial management, user fee analysis, budgeting, 
     capital improvement planning, facility operation and 
     maintenance, equipment replacement, repair schedules, and 
     other activities to improve wastewater treatment plant 
     management and operations; except that such amounts shall not 
     exceed 2 percent of grant awards to such fund under this 
     title.''.
       (f) Additional Subsidization.--Section 603 (33 U.S.C. 1383) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Additional Subsidization.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any case in which a State provides 
     assistance to a municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, 
     or State agency under subsection (d), the State may provide 
     additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal 
     and negative interest loans--
       ``(A) to benefit a municipality that--
       ``(i) meets the State's affordability criteria established 
     under paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) does not meet the State's affordability criteria if 
     the recipient--

       ``(I) seeks additional subsidization to benefit individual 
     ratepayers in the residential user rate class;
       ``(II) demonstrates to the State that such ratepayers will 
     experience a significant hardship from the increase in rates 
     necessary to finance the project or activity for which 
     assistance is sought; and
       ``(III) ensures, as part of an assistance agreement between 
     the State and the recipient, that the additional 
     subsidization provided under this paragraph is directed 
     through a user charge rate system (or other appropriate 
     method) to such ratepayers; or

       ``(B) to implement an innovative or alternative process, 
     material, technique, or technology (including low-impact 
     technologies nonstructural protection of surface waters, a 
     new or improved method of waste treatment, and nutrient 
     pollutant trading) that may result in greater environmental 
     benefits, or equivalent environmental benefits at reduced 
     cost, when compared to a standard process, material, 
     technique, or technology.
       ``(2) Affordability criteria.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--On or before September 30, 2008, and 
     after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, 
     a State shall establish affordability criteria to assist in 
     identifying municipalities that would experience a 
     significant hardship raising the revenue necessary to finance 
     a project or activity eligible for assistance under section 
     603(c)(1) if additional subsidization is not provided. Such 
     criteria shall be based on income data, population trends, 
     and other data determined relevant by the State.
       ``(B) Existing criteria.--If a State has previously 
     established, after providing notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment, affordability criteria that meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A), the State may use the 
     criteria for the purposes of this subsection. For purposes of 
     this Act, any such criteria shall be treated as affordability 
     criteria established under this paragraph.
       ``(C) Information to assist states.--The Administrator may 
     publish information to assist States in establishing 
     affordability criteria under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Priority.--A State may give priority to a recipient 
     for a project or activity eligible for funding under section 
     603(c)(1) if the recipient meets the State's affordability 
     criteria.
       ``(4) Set-aside.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any fiscal year in which the 
     Administrator has available for obligation more than 
     $1,000,000,000 for the purposes of this title, a State shall 
     provide additional subsidization under this subsection in the 
     amount specified in subparagraph (B) to eligible entities 
     described in paragraph (1) for projects and activities 
     identified in the State's intended use plan prepared under 
     section 606(c) to the extent that there are sufficient 
     applications for such assistance.
       ``(B) Amount.--In a fiscal year described in subparagraph 
     (A), a State shall set aside for purposes of subparagraph (A) 
     an amount not less than 25 percent of the difference 
     between--
       ``(i) the total amount that would have been allotted to the 
     State under section 604 for such fiscal year if the amount 
     available to the Administrator for obligation under this 
     title for such fiscal year had been equal to $1,000,000,000; 
     and
       ``(ii) the total amount allotted to the State under section 
     604 for such fiscal year.
       ``(5) Limitation.--The total amount of additional 
     subsidization provided under this subsection by a State may 
     not exceed 30 percent of the total amount of capitalization 
     grants received by the State under this title in fiscal years 
     beginning after September 30, 2007.''.

     SEC. 304. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allotments.--
       ``(1) Fiscal years 2008 and 2009.--Sums appropriated to 
     carry out this title for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
     shall be allotted by the Administrator in accordance with the 
     formula used to allot sums appropriated to carry out this 
     title for fiscal year 2007.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2010 and thereafter.--Sums appropriated 
     to carry out this title for fiscal year 2010 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter shall be allotted by the Administrator as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Amounts that do not exceed $1,350,000,000 shall be 
     allotted in accordance with the formula described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Amounts that exceed $1,350,000,000 shall be allotted 
     in accordance with the formula developed by the Administrator 
     under subsection (d).''.
       (b) Planning Assistance.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1384(b)) is amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting 
     ``2 percent''.
       (c) Formula.--Section 604 (33 U.S.C. 1384) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Formula Based on Water Quality Needs.--Not later than 
     September 30, 2009, and after providing notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
     publish an allotment formula based on water quality needs in 
     accordance with the most recent survey of needs developed by 
     the Administrator under section 516(b).''.

     SEC. 305. INTENDED USE PLAN.

       (a) Integrated Priority List.--Section 603(g) (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Priority List.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2009 and each fiscal 
     year thereafter, a State shall establish or update a list of 
     projects and activities for which assistance is sought from 
     the State's water pollution control revolving fund. Such 
     projects and activities shall be listed in priority order 
     based on the methodology established under paragraph (2). The 
     State may provide financial assistance from the State's water 
     pollution control revolving fund only with respect to a 
     project or activity included on such list. In the case of 
     projects and activities eligible for assistance under section 
     603(c)(2), the State may include a category or subcategory of 
     nonpoint sources of pollution on such list in lieu of a 
     specific project or activity.
       ``(2) Methodology.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and after providing notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, each State (acting through 
     the State's water quality management agency and other 
     appropriate agencies of the State) shall establish a 
     methodology for developing a priority list under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(B) Priority for projects and activities that achieve 
     greatest water quality improvement.--In developing the 
     methodology, the State shall seek to achieve the greatest 
     degree of water quality improvement, taking into 
     consideration the requirements of section 602(b)(5) and 
     section 603(i)(3) and whether such water quality improvements 
     would be realized without assistance under this title.
       ``(C) Considerations in selecting projects and 
     activities.--In determining which projects and activities 
     will achieve the greatest degree of water quality 
     improvement, the State shall consider--
       ``(i) information developed by the State under sections 
     303(d) and 305(b);
       ``(ii) the State's continuing planning process developed 
     under section 303(e);
       ``(iii) the State's management program developed under 
     section 319; and
       ``(iv) conservation and management plans developed under 
     section 320.
       ``(D) Nonpoint sources.--For categories or subcategories of 
     nonpoint sources of pollution that a State may include on its 
     priority list under paragraph (1), the State may consider the 
     cumulative water quality improvements associated with 
     projects or activities in such categories or subcategories.
       ``(E) Existing methodologies.--If a State has previously 
     developed, after providing notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment, a methodology that meets the requirements of 
     this paragraph, the State may use the methodology for the 
     purposes of this subsection.''.
       (b) Intended Use Plan.--Section 606(c) (33 U.S.C. 1386(c)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``each State shall annually prepare'' and inserting ``each 
     State (acting through the State's water quality management 
     agency and other appropriate agencies of the State) shall 
     annually prepare and publish'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) the State's priority list developed under section 
     603(g);'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``(6), (15), and 
     (17)''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (4) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) if the State does not fund projects and activities in 
     the order of the priority established under section 603(g), 
     an explanation of why such a change in order is 
     appropriate.''.
       (c) Transitional Provision.--Before completion of a 
     priority list based on a methodology established under 
     section 603(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as 
     amended by this section), a State shall continue to comply 
     with the requirements of sections 603(g) and 606(c) of such 
     Act, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 306. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       Section 606(d) (33 U.S.C. 1386(d)) is amended by inserting 
     ``the eligible purpose under section 603(c) for which the 
     assistance is provided,'' after ``loan amounts,''.

     SEC. 307. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 607 as section 608; and
       (2) by inserting after section 606 the following:

     ``SEC. 607. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Simplified Procedures.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator 
     shall assist the States in establishing simplified procedures 
     for treatment works to obtain assistance under this title.

[[Page 6008]]

       ``(b) Publication of Manual.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, and after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish a manual to assist treatment 
     works in obtaining assistance under this title and publish in 
     the Federal Register notice of the availability of the 
     manual.
       ``(c) Compliance Criteria.--At the request of any State, 
     the Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity 
     for public comment, shall assist in the development of 
     criteria for a State to determine compliance with the 
     conditions of funding assistance established under sections 
     602(b)(13) and 603(d)(1)(E).''.

     SEC. 308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 608 (as redesignated by section 307 of this Act) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(3) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(4) $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. DEFINITION OF TREATMENT WORKS.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(25) Treatment works.--The term `treatment works' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 212.''.

     SEC. 402. FUNDING FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS.

       Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C. 1377) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Fiscal years 1987-2006.--The Administrator'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
       (A) by inserting ``and ending before October 1, 2006,'' 
     after ``1986,''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2007 and thereafter.--For fiscal year 
     2007 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Administrator shall 
     reserve, before allotments to the States under section 
     604(a), not less than 0.5 percent and not more than 1.5 
     percent of the funds made available to carry out title VI.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--Funds reserved under this subsection 
     shall be available only for grants for projects and 
     activities eligible for assistance under section 603(c) to 
     serve--
       ``(A) Indian tribes;
       ``(B) former Indian reservations in Oklahoma (as determined 
     by the Secretary of the Interior); and
       ``(C) Native villages (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).''.

                            TITLE V--STUDIES

     SEC. 501. STUDY OF LONG-TERM, SUSTAINABLE, CLEAN WATER 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall commence 
     a study of the funding mechanisms and funding sources 
     available to establish a Clean Water Trust Fund.
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of 
     potential revenue sources that can be efficiently collected, 
     are broad based, are related to water quality, and that 
     support the annual funding levels authorized by the 
     amendments made by this Act.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General, at a minimum, shall consult with Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, representatives of business and industry, 
     representatives of entities operating publicly owned 
     treatment works, and other interested groups.
       (d) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the results of the study.

     SEC. 502. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF SUPPLEMENTAL AND ALTERNATIVE 
                   CLEAN WATER FUNDING MECHANISMS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall commence 
     a study of funding mechanisms and funding sources potentially 
     available for wastewater infrastructure and other water 
     pollution control activities under the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
       (b) Contents.--The study shall include an analysis of 
     funding and investment mechanisms and revenue sources from 
     other potential supplemental or alternative public or private 
     sources that could be used to fund wastewater infrastructure 
     and other water pollution control activities under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General, at a minimum, shall consult with Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, representatives of business, industry, and 
     financial investment entities, representatives of entities 
     operating treatment works, and other interested groups.
       (d) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2008, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the results of the study.

                        TITLE VI--TONNAGE DUTIES

     SEC. 601. TONNAGE DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 60301 of title 46, United State 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``taxes'' and 
     inserting ``duties'';
       (2) by amending subsections (a) and (b) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Lower Rate.--
       ``(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the rate 
     described in paragraph (2) at each entry in a port of the 
     United States of--
       ``(A) a vessel entering from a foreign port or place in 
     North America, Central America, the West Indies Islands, the 
     Bahama Islands, the Bermuda Islands, or the coast of South 
     America bordering the Caribbean Sea; or
       ``(B) a vessel returning to the same port or place in the 
     United States from which it departed, and not entering the 
     United States from another port or place, except--
       ``(i) a vessel of the United States;
       ``(ii) a recreational vessel (as defined in section 2101 of 
     this title); or
       ``(iii) a barge.
       ``(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     be--
       ``(A) 4.5 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 22.5 
     cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2006 through 2007;
       ``(B) 9.0 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 45 
     cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2008 through 2017; 
     and
       ``(C) 2 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 10 
     cents per ton per year) for each fiscal year thereafter.
       ``(b) Higher Rate.--
       ``(1) Imposition of duty.--A duty is imposed at the rate 
     described in paragraph (2) on a vessel at each entry in a 
     port of the United States from a foreign port or place not 
     named in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) Rate.--The rate referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     be--
       ``(A) 13.5 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 67.5 
     cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2006 through 2007;
       ``(B) 27 cents per ton (but not more than a total of $1.35 
     per ton per year) for fiscal years 2008 through 2017, and
       ``(C) 6 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 30 
     cents per ton per year) for each fiscal year thereafter.''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``taxes'' and inserting 
     ``duties''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such title is further amended--
       (1) by striking the heading for subtitle VI and inserting 
     the following:

             ``Subtitle VI--Clearance and Tonnage Duties'';

       (2) in the headings of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``TAXES'' each place it appears and inserting ``DUTIES'';
       (3) in the heading for subsection (a) of section 60303, by 
     striking ``Tax'' and inserting ``Duty'';
       (4) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``taxes'' each place it appears and inserting ``duties''; and
       (5) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``tax'' each place it appears and inserting ``duty''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--Such title is further amended--
       (1) in the title analysis by striking the item relating to 
     subtitle VI and inserting the following:

``VI. CLEARANCE AND TONNAGE DUTIES.........................60101'';....

     and
       (2) in the analysis for chapter 603--
       (A) by striking the items relating to sections 60301 and 
     60302 and inserting the following:

``60301. Regular tonnage duties.
``60302. Special tonnage duties.'';

     and
       (B) by striking the item relating to section 60304 and 
     inserting the following:

``60304. Presidential suspension of tonnage duties and light money.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in part B of the report. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Stupak

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-36.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam 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. Stupak:
       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 503. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State and the Government of Canada, shall conduct a study of 
     the condition of wastewater treatment facilities located in 
     the United States and Canada that discharge into the Great 
     Lakes.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Administrator 
     shall--
       (1) determine the effect that such treatment facilities 
     have on Great Lakes water quality; and

[[Page 6009]]

       (2) develop recommendations--
       (A) to improve water quality monitoring by the operators of 
     such treatment facilities;
       (B) to establish a protocol for improved notification and 
     information sharing between the United States and Canada; and
       (C) to promote cooperation between the United States and 
     Canada to prevent the discharge of untreated and undertreated 
     waste into the Great Lakes.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the 
     Administrator shall consult with the International Joint 
     Commission and Federal, State, and local governments.
       (d) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study, together with 
     the recommendations developed under subsection (b)(2).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  I thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order. I rise 
today to continue to protect the Great Lakes, as it is the source of 
drinking water for 45 million people and the recreational and economic 
livelihood of the region which depends heavily on a healthy Great 
Lakes.
  There are a large number of wastewater facilities in both the United 
States and Canada that discharge treated and untreated sewer water into 
the Great Lakes. While these facilities do everything they can to 
prevent polluting the Great Lakes, there are times when untreated or 
undertreated wastewater is released.
  Once this pollution occurs, it can be difficult to determine that a 
wastewater treatment facility is the source, the effects of these 
discharges on the Great Lakes, and the steps needed to stop the 
pollution and clean up any damage.

                              {time}  1200

  For example, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, 
Ontario, Canada, have faced tremendous problems with E. coli, coliform, 
and other bacteria in the water near a wastewater treatment facility in 
Ontario, Canada. These two cities are separated by the St. Mary's 
River, which connects Lake Superior to Lake Huron.
  Under the direction of the EPA, the Chippewa County, Michigan, Health 
Department has undertaken significant monitoring of the St. Mary's 
River. The Ontario Ministry of Environment has also begun testing.
  However, because there is disagreement about the source of the 
pollution, there is little to be done to correct the issue. Even though 
both sides are now beginning to monitor the river, a lack of 
communication and cooperation still presents a significant roadblock in 
accomplishing a solution.
  My amendment would require the EPA, in consultation with the State 
Department and the Canadian government, to study wastewater treatment 
facilities that discharge into the Great Lakes. The study would include 
recommendations on ways to improve monitoring, information sharing and 
cooperation between the United States and Canada. The U.S. and Canada 
must work together to limit harmful wastewater discharges into the 
Great Lakes.
  My amendment will allow the EPA to offer solutions to the notice, 
protocol and information sharing problems the U.S. and Canada face. By 
improving monitoring and communication, the U.S. and Canada can work 
together to solve problems created by wastewater treatment facilities 
discharging into the Great Lakes. The Congressional Budget Office has 
indicated there will not be any direct spending as a result of my 
amendment.
  I wish to thank the staff of Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee as well as the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my 
personal staff for their assistance in crafting this amendment. I look 
forward to continuing with them as this legislation moves forward.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I would yield time to the chairman of the 
full committee if he so chooses to claim time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman very much for his courtesy and if 
he would yield 3 minutes?
  Mr. BAKER. Certainly.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman.
  Twenty years ago, March 3, 1987, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Clinger, the Republican ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, which I had the privilege of chairing, 
and I held a hearing on this very subject, on the U.S.-Canada Great 
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We observed the agreement was signed in 
1972 and renewed in 1978.
  It continues in perpetuity, but we observed, while progress has been 
made, while the Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire, the bad news 
is that a great deal of that improvement is due to economic decline in 
the steel industry. Industries that formerly dumped waste are no longer 
operating.
  Fish are able to survive, but now they are surviving with cancers. 
Some areas of the lakes where birds are deformed because of Toxiphene 
and Dieldrin. Mr. Clinger and I both observed the real test of our 
commitment is yet to come. Will we break out of the planning and 
research cycle, which we have failed to do in the case of acid rain, 
and begin to implement protective measures which would strengthen the 
laws and effective remedial programs.
  Some of that has been accomplished in the ensuing years. The 
gentleman's proposal would move us further along during this Great 
Lakes week that we are celebrating on Capitol Hill with our colleagues 
throughout the Great Lakes States. The amendment would require the 
Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of State and 
the governor of Canada, to identify problems with the wastewater 
infrastructure on both sides of the Great Lakes, develop 
recommendations for increased notification of overflows and increased 
cooperation. Those are all good and valid and important initiatives 
which we have pursued in a bipartisan effort within our committee for, 
as I said, over 20 years.
  The gentleman's district is the bridge between the upper Lake 
Superior and the lower lakes. The St. Mary's River moves 130,000 cubic 
feet per second, and he is astutely vigilant over water quality.
  I think accepting this amendment will move the purpose of 
intergovernmental cooperation further along, and I assure the gentlemen 
on both sides, I will work with the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 
fashion this bill, this language further as we go to conference with 
the other body.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I share the comments of our Chairman. I know 
of no opposition on our side, and I accordingly yield back the balance 
of our time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Let me thank Mr. Baker and Mr. Oberstar for their help in 
support of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, we do realize we have to make some minor 
modifications in this amendment, and I look forward to their continued 
help and support in that direction. I am always amazed at the knowledge 
of the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, as he went back 20 years to recite 
language.
  He was absolutely right about the flow of the St. Mary's river, 
130,000 cubic feet per second. I am always amazed at his knowledge of 
the Great Lakes and his support for the Great Lakes.
  All this amendment is saying is that the U.S. and Canada must work 
together to prevent harmful discharges into the Great Lakes. My 
amendment will allow the EPA to offer solutions to notice, protocol and 
information sharing between our two countries in the face of 
monitoring, communicating and eventually working together to resolve 
the problems created by waste charge facilities which discharge treated 
and untreated water into our Great Lakes.

[[Page 6010]]

Again, no direct spending will result as a result of my amendment or in 
the CBO, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 720, the Water 
Quality Financing Act of 2007, I would like to thank my distinguished 
colleague, Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
James Oberstar, and my friend from Michigan, Bart Stupak, for their 
work on the Great Lakes Water Quality amendment.
  This amendment calls for a study to examine the effect that waste 
water treatment facilities feeding into the Great Lakes are having on 
the water quality of the largest fresh water system in the world. I 
want to commend my good friend from Michigan for raising this important 
issue. I believe, however, that a study of this kind can only be 
conducted in collaboration with the Department of State, the 
International Joint Commission, which is a joint U.S.-Canada border 
commission, and the Government of Canada itself. We must all recognize 
that this study cannot be completed without cooperation from our 
friends north of the border. I hope that as this legislation moves 
through the legislative process we will be able to examine the role 
that the International Joint Commission can play in I conducting this 
study and ensuring a bi-national environment open to the research needs 
of this examination.
  I thank Representative Stupak for bringing this important amendment 
to the bill. I also wish to thank Chairman Oberstar for agreeing to 
work with the Committee on Foreign Affairs as this legislation moves 
forward on these issues to ensure the most informative outcome for this 
important study.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Baker

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-36.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam 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. Baker:
       Page 12, line 9, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 12, line 20, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     before the first period on page 13, line 3.
       Page 25, line 3, strike ``(6), (15), and (17)'' and insert 
     ``(6) and (15)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, at this time I would yield 3 minutes to 
the cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for working so 
well together on this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, really all this amendment does is it just stops the 
expansion of the Davis-Bacon, and it says we are not going to move this 
Davis-Bacon into a revolving fund. That is what the language that is in 
the underlying bill does, and this amendment simply strikes out the 
insertion that applies Davis-Bacon.
  So what does that really mean is a question that Members need to 
evaluate when they are thinking about what kinds of services and what 
kind of work can we get done out there across America. I understand the 
intensity of the Louisianans here today. They have a lot at stake. That 
is why we brought this legislation.
  In the $14 billion cumulative total that is part of this overall 
bill, I know, from hands-on experience being a contractor who has bid 
projects both ways, Davis-Bacon and merit shop, and my average number 
is a 20 percent increase; there are numbers out there higher and lower, 
but 20 percent, this bill wastes at least $2.8 billion. That could be 
projects. That could be projects that are going to help the people in 
this country.
  That money is at least wasted, but then it goes into the revolving 
fund, and it pollutes the rest of those dollars that are in there. So 
if I do the calculation on this, we come up with a number, it will be 
about $280 billion over time; 20 percent of that is $56 billion. So we 
are not putting just $2.8 billion here into the waste bin; we are 
putting $56 billion perhaps into the waste bin, Madam Chair, and it 
keeps us from being able to get these taxpayers' resources into 
projects that can really help people, especially the people that so 
desperately need them.
  I will tell you from my experience as a contractor who has worked and 
bid Davis-Bacon projects, I have gone into communities to bid these 
types of projects and had to do the bid according to the costs that are 
inflated into them, and had the community look at the overall bid, low 
bid. And I have been low bid, have had them reject my bid because it 
was too high; they couldn't afford it. They would pull the bid back, 
repackage the package without Davis-Bacon, and I could come in there 
cheaper, as did my competition, the community went without Federal 
dollars, as this inflated too much.
  These communities went without Federal dollars because it was too 
expensive to use the Federal funding. That ought to tell us something. 
As they went back and they funded it out, they bonded it out 
themselves. They pulled it out of taxes. Sometimes they go back and 
raise private dollars because of the overall inflation that is imposed 
by this kind of policy. This is the one that goes in perpetuity.
  You mark this revolving fund with this bill. And it isn't just these 
dollars, it is every single dollar that touches it from this day 
forward on into the future of the United States until some time comes 
that this Congress gets a grip, gets a hold of itself and decides we 
can't afford to be putting this on.
  I would add also that as you have an employer and an employee, they 
agree what to work on. I listen to the gentleman, Mr. George Miller, 
say it will keep them from making enough money to pay their health 
care. No, it is the other way around. It keeps us from hiring employees 
in year-round jobs where we provide, as the employer, the health care 
and retirement benefits because we can only afford to use them under 
these scales just for the job they have. It is inflationary. It is 
inefficient.
  I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Baker-King amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  This is an issue on which there is a genuine disagreement on both 
sides of the aisle and within the committee, and a deeply felt view on 
each side.
  I think it is instructive, however, to look at the history of Davis-
Bacon, which originated, actually, in 1927, on Long Island, a district 
represented by Congressman Robert L. Bacon, Republican of New York, who 
said wages are fair, and there has been no difficulty in the buildings 
grades between employer and employee for quite some time. But he was 
upset when a contractor came to him who had bid on construction of a 
federally funded hospital on Long Island and noted that the contract 
was awarded to an Alabama firm that came into Long Island with low-wage 
workers, whom he housed in tents on the property and underbid local 
contractors.
  He said, that's not right, you have to help us stop these 
underbidding contractors from coming in and taking away local jobs. He, 
Bacon, introduced legislation that did not inflate wages, as he said, 
artificially, but assured that government respects the existing local 
standard.
  A few years, a year later, the Secretary of Labor, James Davis, 
supported that bill. By March 3, 1931, Davis had left labor, got 
elected to the Senate, and the two of them authored this legislation. 
It was signed into law March 3, 1931, by President Herbert Hoover.
  Mr. BAKER. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. Two minutes are remaining.
  Mr. BAKER. I claim the remaining time.
  I certainly respect the chairman's knowledge and views of these 
matters and appreciate that on 95 percent of

[[Page 6011]]

the issues before the committee, we are generally in unanimity.
  On this particular point, I would like to bring the issue to that of 
the individual who is trying to rebuild their home in the difficult 
area of south Louisiana. Materials are short, workmen are hard to find. 
Do we really want to tell an individual trying to rebuild their 
personal home, you are going to have to meet a government wage rate in 
order to build this house or else you cannot build it? This is about 
government injecting itself into a free market process, all for no 
apparent reason that is clear to me.
  It will make the compliance of the rules for the rural and lower 
income communities much more difficult to achieve. Compliance with the 
Davis-Bacon provisions is a difficult and cumbersome task.

                              {time}  1215

  And where we have low-income communities, where resources are greatly 
limited, we are now going to require additional regulatory burden and a 
higher wage rate that is artificial to further inhibit the ability of 
that community rebuild. We wouldn't contemplate having that set of 
requirements on the individual trying to rebuild their own home, but 
yet we are going to force that set of standards on communities across 
this Nation, even where States have no Davis-Bacon provisions at the 
State level at all. And that I think is the most troublesome aspect of 
the implementation of the proposal as constructed. Eighteen States have 
chosen not to require a Davis-Bacon implementation, and yet we here in 
the Congress by virtue of the State revolving infrastructure fund are 
going to require those States now to comply with these new standards. I 
hope Members will carefully consider the consequences of this amendment 
and vote for the Baker-King amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose 
the Baker-King amendment. I am from a working family, and I stand with 
the American workers. The amendment would strip the prevailing wages 
protection from the bill.
  Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act has provided a living wage for 
American workers, and as the authors of the Davis-Bacon Act knew then 
and as we continue to know today, the greatest way to improve the 
quality of life for our Nation's workers is for the Nation as a whole 
to provide workers with an honest living for an honest day's work.
  We save nothing when we give people little pay or we pay it through 
other sources, by more taxes, more welfare rolls. I would much rather 
have people working.
  It has been well documented by this committee that every $1 billion 
invested in transportation and water infrastructure creates 40,000 
jobs. As of today, 31 States have enacted their own prevailing wage 
laws of publicly funded construction projects. And you check this with 
me: Those States that are against it have more poor people than the 
ones that have it. In some of these States, prevailing wage laws result 
in even higher wages to workers than if the Federal Davis-Bacon were 
alone, in effect. Studies have shown that the prevailing wage 
protections offered by Davis-Bacon in fact attracts better workers with 
more experience and training who are more productive than the less 
experienced, less trained workers. So it really saves money in the long 
run.
  We need not to interfere with the Davis-Bacon provision. I support 
this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In 1930, as the Davis-Bacon language was being shaped and debated in 
the Senate and in the House, Senator Davis of Pennsylvania, a 
Republican, and Congressman Bacon of New York, a Republican, said: The 
essence is this. Is the government willing, for the sake of the lowest 
bidder, to break down all labor standards and have its work done by the 
cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped from State to State?
  When the bill was taken up at the Senate, Robert LeFollette, chairman 
of the Committee on Manufacturers, the Republican chairman of the 
committee, noted that practices were not only disturbing to labor but 
disturbing to the business community as well and urged that this 
measure be speedily enacted. It does not require the government to 
establish new wage scales; it merely gives the government power to 
require its contractors to pay the prevailing wage scales in the 
vicinity of the building projects.
  Now, the prevailing wage scale in the vicinity of building projects 
in Louisiana, for example, an average common laborer gets $7.86 an 
hour. That is the prevailing wage. I don't know how you save any more 
money by going lower than $7.86 an hour. The average well driller in 
Louisiana is paid $11.40 an hour. I don't know how you get much lower 
than that in order to save money.
  This Davis-Bacon provision is prevailing, not union wage. If I could, 
I would support in law the union wage, but we are not doing that. It is 
the prevailing local wage. I urge defeat of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam 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 Louisiana will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hall of New York

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-36.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hall of New York:
       Page 23, line 9, strike ``and whether such'' and insert ``, 
     whether such''.
       Page 23, line 11, insert before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and whether the proposed projects and 
     activities would address water quality impairments associated 
     with existing treatment works''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today with my esteemed colleague from Oregon to offer an 
amendment that will help communities across the country pay for 
wastewater projects, protect their environment and preserve their open 
spaces by combating sprawl.
  Today's action on the underlying bill comes not a moment too soon. 
Nationwide, there is over a $300 billion shortfall in funding for 
wastewater projects. In my district, we have $500 million in projects 
that can't get funding just because the dollars aren't there.
  Communities in the Hudson Valley and elsewhere are also trapped in a 
battle to balance the booming population with the preservation of water 
resources and open spaces.
  By requiring States to prioritize spending of revolving loan funds of 
moneys on existing projects, this amendment will help address both of 
these challenges by helping to bolster existing communities, instead of 
haphazardly subsidizing the building of new developments.
  There is an old adage that says, ``Work smarter, not harder.'' For 
many of our rural and suburban and rural communities, the only way to 
accommodate growth without sacrificing precious open space is to build 
smarter, not wider. Targeting moneys to projects that will help 
existing communities provide expanded and improved water treatment will 
meet that test. Without a smart growth strategy, the loss of open 
spaces, runoff created by the change from soil to pavement and

[[Page 6012]]

other impacts will wreak havoc on our environment.
  If we don't take aggressive action to make smart growth the guiding 
principle of development, we will end up squandering our resources, 
jeopardizing our health, and damaging our economy.
  The amendment will also do one thing that I think, quite frankly, the 
Federal Government should be doing more of, giving property taxpayers 
and municipalities much needed relief.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of New York. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I must say 
I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with him on this amendment.
  Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to see the people; I feel a little 
angst not being on the Transportation Committee, I must say, and I keep 
gravitating down to the floor because of the important work that is 
being done.
  I deeply appreciate Congressman Hall's work in the water resource 
area. I know he comes from an area that is challenged in terms of water 
resources and environmental threats and has long been a leader before 
he came to Congress. I deeply appreciate his leadership in this regard, 
and I was pleased to partner with him on this amendment because it will 
strengthen the bill to target effectiveness and support where the needs 
are greatest. As Mr. Hall mentioned, there is a deep concern that we 
target the resources where they will make the most difference.
  There is another adage that I would offer up, and that is, ``Fix it 
first.'' We are dealing with an aging water infrastructure problem that 
is hundreds of billions of dollars, national in scope. The work that 
the Transportation Infrastructure Committee has done already in the 
last 12 weeks is moving us forward on an aggressive agenda. But by 
being able to target this money in areas where the need is the 
greatest, not to add to the inventory that is already overloaded, I 
think is an important area of priority.
  I look forward to the approval of this amendment, working with the 
gentleman, working with the committee, working with our other 
colleagues. We have massive problems around the country where we need 
to be focusing; and I note my friend and colleague from Louisiana 
there, we have got unfinished business there as well. And the extent to 
which we are able to work in the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and in this Congress to be able to put the dollars where they 
will do the most good is important.
  Being able to have thoughtful infrastructure investment in ways that 
reinforce smart growth, where it needs to be, where it will have the 
most impact, is an important principle. I am pleased that, with the 
adoption of this amendment, we will be able to enshrine it in this 
legislation, and I hope that it finds its way in the work that will 
come forward with this committee throughout the course of this 
Congress.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, this language reinforces or adds an 
additional provision to section 305(b) of the act before us today. 
Section 602(b) reaffirms the deadlines, goals and requirements of the 
Clean Water Act, fishable-swimmable water goals. Section 603 deals with 
the affordability. And we have already prioritized in the basic 
legislation targeting funds to lower income communities to ensure that 
they get their fair share. This language will just take that 
affordability language one step further and impose on States the 
requirement to give full, fair consideration to projects that deal with 
immediate needs rather than adding capacity before you consider adding 
capacity.
  Mr. BAKER. Having no objection to the amendment, I yield back all 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Platts

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-36.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Platts:
       Page 12, line 7, insert ``204(a)(6),'' before 
     ``204(b)(1),''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chair, the adoption of this amendment would help to 
ensure sufficient competition among the designers and manufacturers of 
water and wastewater treatment equipment across the country. It is 
premised on the idea that small firms ought to have the same chance at 
bidding on a project as large firms. In addition, with there being a 
critical need to upgrade our water and sewer infrastructure, requiring 
States to ensure a full and open competition would likely reduce the 
cost of the program and help finance additional and much needed 
projects.
  This amendment would simply provide that, ``No specification for bids 
shall be written in such a manner as to contain proprietary, 
exclusionary or discriminatory requirements other than those based upon 
performance, unless such requirements are necessary to test or 
demonstrate a specific thing or to provide for necessary 
interchangeability of parts and equipment.''
  The amendment further provides that, ``When in the judgment of the 
grantee, it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate 
description of the technical requirements, a 'brand name or equal' 
description may be used as a means to define the performance or other 
salient requirements of a procurement, and in doing so the grantee may 
not establish existence of any source other than the brand or source so 
named.''

                              {time}  1230

  The language found in this amendment is the same competition 
requirement that was applied to grants provided under title II of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. While not identical, it is also 
very similar to a competition requirement adopted by my home State of 
Pennsylvania for its revolving fund.
  I appreciate the Rules Committee having made the amendment in order, 
and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I rise to ask unanimous consent to claim 
time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment would include an 
additional requirement on State revolving loans on authorities not 
previously part of the State Revolving Loan Fund Program. The provision 
of section 204(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act is a longstanding title II 
construction grants requirement. We don't have construction grants any 
more, since 1987, that does require ``full and open bid competition for 
the construction of publicly owned treatment works.''
  The gentleman's amendment would prohibit financial assistance 
recipients from including bid specs that contain proprietary, 
exclusionary, discriminatory requirements, other than those based on 
performance.

[[Page 6013]]

  I have asked the staff to review and I, myself, have reviewed the 
Federal acquisition regulations which are generic to the Federal 
Government. These requirements for full and open bid competition are in 
place. They do generically apply to provisions of the Clean Water Act.
  However, I think it is appropriate and is not confusing, nor is it in 
opposition to the Federal acquisition regulations, to include the 
gentleman's amendment. Therefore, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the chairman's acceptance of 
the amendment and the work of his staff, as well as the ranking member 
of the full committee and the chairman and ranking member of the 
subcommittee. And, again, I appreciate their consideration and 
acceptance of the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Hirono

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-36.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Hirono:
       Page 6, line 21, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     final period.

       Page 6, after line 21, insert the following:

       ``(4) Integrated water resource plan.--The development of 
     an integrated water resource plan for the coordinated 
     management and protection of surface water, ground water, and 
     stormwater resources on a watershed or subwatershed basis to 
     meet the objectives, goals, and policies of this Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, my amendment will add another allowable use 
of funds under section 103, Watershed Pilot Projects, to assist 
communities in developing integrated water resource plans for the 
coordinated management and protection of surface water, ground water 
and storm water resources on a watershed or subwatershed basis. The 
amendment does not add to the cost of the bill; it simply provides 
another option for communities in use of the grants funds.
  It is important that communities look at the inner relationship 
between each of these water systems when devising management and 
protection plans. Management of storm water can certainly have an 
impact on the quality of surface waters, and the quality of surface 
water has an effect on the quality and safety of ground water.
  This approach is very much in line with Hawaiian traditions of land 
management. The traditional Hawaiian land management unit, the 
ahupua'a, goes from the top of the mountain to the sea. Ancient 
Hawaiians understood that what happened on the mountain would affect 
resources at lower elevations, in coastal areas, and even in the ocean. 
The watershed model of natural resource management is a modern 
equivalent of the Hawaiian ahupua'a system.
  It is important that we move to a more holistic way of looking at how 
our water systems interact. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment to provide communities with an opportunity to develop such 
integrated plans.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not in opposition and therefore ask for unanimous consent 
for that purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Can I ask the gentleman if he could yield me 1 minute.
  Mr. BAKER. I would be happy to yield the chairman 1 minute.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to 
thank the gentlelady for her amendment which reinforces a longstanding 
practice of this committee to deal with water resource needs on a 
watershed basis.
  This watershed pilot project eligibility will greatly advance the 
cause of clean water and water availability.
  The U.S. Geological Survey observed most recently there are clear 
connections between surface water, ground water, and the precipitation 
events that reach these areas. In our area, precipitation is snow. In 
Hawaii and Louisiana, it is rain. And impact on these water resources, 
whether through unchecked sources of pollution, wastewater, can have 
significant effects on the sources of water.
  So the gentlelady's amendment will give an additional tool for 
communities to perfect and strengthen their planning for the best use 
and management of existing water resources, and we are happy to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers. And having no 
objection, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I yield back the rest of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Whitfield

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-36.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Whitfield:
       At the end of title I, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 104. POOL ELEVATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Pilot Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal law, beginning in the first July after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Army Corps of Engineers, together 
     with any other Federal agency that has the authority to 
     change the pool elevation of Lake Barkley, Kentucky, shall 
     establish and conduct a pilot program that, under normal 
     weather conditions, extends the summer pool elevation of 359 
     feet on such lake from the current draw down date of July 1 
     until after the first Monday in September.
       (b) Pilot Program Duration.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), the pilot program shall terminate on the 
     first Monday in September two years after the pilot program 
     begins.
       (c) Evaluation and Recommendations.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the first Monday in September two years after the pilot 
     program begins, the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of 
     Engineers shall evaluate the effectiveness of extending the 
     pool elevation on Lake Barkley, Kentucky, under subsection 
     (a) and report to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     their findings, including any recommendations, regarding the 
     extension of time for such lake elevation.
       (d) Continuation.--If the Army Corps of Engineers 
     determines that the pilot program under this section is 
     effective, the Corps shall continue the summer elevation of 
     359 feet on Lake Barkley, Kentucky, through the first Monday 
     in September each year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 229, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am 
offering this amendment today to simply create a 2-year pilot program 
to extend the summer pool at Lake Barkley, which is located in my 
district in western Kentucky.
  Now, I would reiterate that this amendment does not do anything in a 
permanent nature, but simply asks for a 2-year pilot project.

[[Page 6014]]

  Lake Barkley is one of those very shallow dams throughout the 
country. At the summer pool, the level is 359 feet.
  Now, when Lake Barkley was created, in order to create it, a number 
of small communities in western Kentucky were flooded in the 1960s. And 
even today, despite the extensive use of this lake, old foundations, 
streets, highways and railroads are still visible in shallow areas in 
the lake. And when the Corps begins drawing down the summer pool, 
moving to the winter pool, they begin on July 1, right in the middle of 
summer season. As a result of that, it has created an unusually 
dangerous situation for recreational users of the lake, particularly 
boaters. And we have had significant and many serious accidents on this 
lake because of boats hitting tree stumps, old road beds and other 
obstructions. Just last August, a boating accident occurred, resulting 
in two fatalities, severely injuring three other people, which is just 
one example of how dangerous this early lowering of the lake can be.
  In addition, recreation at the lake in the summer generates millions 
of dollars for a lot of small businessmen and women. And as I said, the 
fact that the Corps begins going to the winter pool in July, it does 
create significant issues for that area.
  And so as I said, this amendment simply asks the Corps to extend that 
summer pool level of 359 feet from July until around Labor Day.
  Now, it is my understanding that the chairman and other members of 
the committee, through information I received from staff, would prefer 
that I not offer this amendment today. And I am going to withdraw the 
amendment. But I would ask the chairman and the other members of the 
committee to please work with me. I would ask them to work with me to 
explore opportunities to address this problem in western Kentucky 
affecting Lake Barkley through either, one, considering my freestanding 
bill that establishes this 2-year project at the committee, or working 
with me maybe on the WRDA bill. Or I would not even object if the 
chairman wanted to consider this at the conference with the Senate.
  But I am simply asking, and I will withdraw the amendment, and would 
ask the chairman and the members of the committee to work with me to 
try to address this unique problem affecting Lake Barkley.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield if he has time remaining?
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman, in years past, has been very 
participatory in the work of our committee. Notably, on railroad issues 
several years ago the gentleman took the lead on a very contentious 
issue, and we have greatly appreciated his contribution then and want 
to work with the gentleman.
  The amendment would implement the change to the elevation pool before 
completion of the environmental assessment.
  We have the Water Resources Development Act ready, I think, to move 
within 2 weeks or so. I would like to join with the gentleman in 
ascertaining from the Corps the status of that environmental assessment 
and then determining, depending on where they stand with it, we could 
either dispense with the EIS and include the gentleman's provision in 
our WRDA bill, or if it is ready to go, if the EIS is completed, we 
will not have to take that action.
  But I assure you, one way or another, we will find a way for the 
gentleman's, the language to be included in WRDA before we bring it to 
the House floor.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate that. As I said, 
we simply want to do this for a couple of years to gauge all aspects 
and the impacts of this action. I look forward to working with the 
chairman and other members of the committee to try to address the 
issue.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  And, again, I want to reaffirm my colloquy with the gentleman, that 
we will work with him and with the gentleman from Louisiana and the 
gentleman from Florida on shaping appropriate language to include this 
study provision pilot project for the Lake Barkley initiative as we 
move forward with WRDA.
  Madam Chair, as we come to the conclusion of this legislation, I want 
to express again my heartfelt appreciation to Ranking Member Mica, who 
has worked with us on all the measures, including how we would shape 
the debate on Davis-Bacon, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who 
has been most forthcoming and accommodating. We have, again, reached 
agreement on major provisions on this legislation. The gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who has devoted years of her service 
on the committee to this issue, is now the Chair.
  But those who really bear the burden of the work are our staff: Ryan 
Seiger, Beth Goldstein, Rod Hall, Mike Brain on our side; John 
Anderson, Jonathan Pawlow, Geoff Bowman, Tim Lundquist on the 
Republican side, and our full committee staff, our brilliant leader, 
David Heymsfeld, our chief counsel, Ward McCarragher, Sharon Barkeloo, 
Jen Walsh, Erik Hansen, and on the minority side, Jim Coon, Charlie 
Ziegler, Fraser Verrusio and Jason Rosa.

                              {time}  1245

  We also greatly appreciate the work from Legislative Counsel's 
Office, Dave Mendelsohn and Curt Haensel. Dave Mendelsohn has been here 
almost as long as I have, and he is really good.
  We have a superb staff. They have worked together diligently on this 
legislation. We owe them a deep and longstanding debt of gratitude for 
their superb work, especially Ryan Seiger, who stayed up many late 
hours at night fashioning all the responses to the many questions I 
have had on this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, after a very thoughtful, productive, and constructive 
debate on the bill and the amendments thereto, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Baker.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 280, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--140

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg

[[Page 6015]]


     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--280

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus
     Bono
     Boren
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Larson (CT)
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1313

  Messrs. CHANDLER, ROTHMAN, AL GREEN of Texas, HINCHEY, OBEY and Ms. 
HOOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EHLERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 133, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Lynch) having assumed the chair, Ms. Solis, 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. 720) to amend 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for 
State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 229, she reported the bill, as amended by 
that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cantor

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CANTOR. In its present form, yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cantor moves to recommit the bill H.R. 720 to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report back the same forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

            TITLE VII--SECURE MARITIME AND VESSEL WORKFORCE

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                   CARDS TO CONVICTED FELONS.

       No individual who has been issued a transportation worker 
     identification card may board a maritime vessel if the 
     individual has been convicted, or found not guilty by reason 
     of insanity, in a civilian or military jurisdiction of any of 
     the following felonies:
       (1) Espionage or conspiracy to commit espionage.
       (2) Sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition.
       (3) Treason or conspiracy to commit treason.
       (4) A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, United 
     States Code, a comparable State law, or conspiracy to commit 
     such crime.
       (5) A crime involving a transportation security incident. 
     In this paragraph, a transportation security incident--
       (A) is a security incident resulting in a significant loss 
     of life, environmental damage, transportation system 
     disruption, or economic disruption in a particular area (as 
     defined in section 70101 of title 46, United States Code); 
     and
       (B) does not include a work stoppage or other nonviolent 
     employee-related action, resulting from an employer-employee 
     dispute.
       (6) Improper transportation of a hazardous material under 
     section 5124 of title 49, United States Code, or a comparable 
     State law.
       (7) Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, 
     manufacture, purchase, receipt, transfer, shipping, 
     transporting, import, export, storage of, or dealing in an 
     explosive or incendiary device (as defined in section 232(5) 
     of title 18, United States Code, explosive materials (as 
     defined in section 841(c) of such title 18), or a destructive 
     device (as defined in 921(a)(4) of such title 18).
       (8) Murder.
       (9) Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the crimes 
     described in paragraphs (5) through (8).
       (10) A violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
     Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.), or a comparable 
     State law, if 1 of the predicate acts found by a jury or 
     admitted by the defendant consists of 1 of the offenses 
     listed in paragraphs (4) and (8).

  Mr. CANTOR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?

[[Page 6016]]


  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object to dispensing with the reading. 
We have only just now received this language and I insist on the 
reading of the language.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is designed to be a 
substantive enhancement to the underlying Secure Maritime and Vessel 
Workforce bill.
  I think the other side has demonstrated on two occasions this week 
that they are inclined to work across the aisle and accept substantive 
improvements to the bill.
  What this motion to recommit does, it is intended to protect our 
maritime workforce, our national security, and ultimately the ports 
that serve and provide commerce to our great Nation. The language of 
the motion to recommit ensures that individuals that have been 
convicted of felonies are not able to board maritime vessels using 
transportation security cards. Now these felonies includes espionage, 
treason, sedition, murder, racketeering, crimes dealing with explosives 
or incendiary devices. These are individuals convicted of these 
felonies that frankly have an underlying purpose to harm Americans.
  Clearly, individuals convicted of these type of felony crimes pose a 
security risk to America and its citizens.
  We need to keep our ports safe and secure, and to do that, we must 
keep our maritime vessels safe and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the motion, although I don't know whether I am in opposition at this 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to observe and 
I appreciate the gentleman's comment about our side accepting 
amendments from the minority, and we have done that mostly where there 
has been prior consultation and discussion. In this case, this language 
was not available to our majority members on the committee until just 
prior to when it was offered on the floor.
  I inquire of the offeror his explanation on page 2, subsection (4), 
``A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18,'' what is that language? 
Can the gentleman read me the language of the U.S. Code?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would ask the gentleman to repeat that again.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. It is his amendment. On page 2 of the gentleman's 
amendment, ``(4) A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, U.S. 
Code,'' what does that refer to?
  I have been able in just these few minutes to get chapter 113 but not 
B.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would respond to the gentleman that the section cited 
on page 2, subsection (4), line 1 of the bill, is a section of the U.S. 
Code dealing with terrorism.
  And again, the underlying----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, I want to know what the language 
is. The gentleman is offering an amendment. If he is serious about it, 
then he ought to have the language.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would say to the gentleman again, this is a section of 
the U.S. Code that deals with acts of terrorism against the United 
States and its citizens.
  The underlying purpose, again, of the motion to recommit is to ensure 
the safety of our----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, 
the gentleman has not been able to answer my question.
  I was the author in our committee of the Port Security Act, along 
with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We had carefully crafted 
language that set standards for security clearance for maritime 
workers. We did not have any reference to chapter 113B. The 
transportation security workers card has not yet been issued. The 
readers for that card have not yet been put in place by the 
Transportation Security Administration.
  The standards, apart from this provision that the gentleman lists 
here, generally are covered in the background checks required in our 
Port Security Act for maritime workers.
  But this is very vague language in number (4). It is specific to a 
provision of U.S. Code, but the gentleman cannot explain to me what it 
is.
  And then ``(5), A crime involving a transportation security 
incident,'' dropping down to subsection ``(A) is a security incident 
resulting in a significant loss of life,'' we don't know where that 
language comes from.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not amend the Port Security Act on 30 seconds 
notice. There may be very good and valid provisions of this motion to 
recommit that we might very well be in support of, but only in due 
course, only in a proper forum. To come up here 30 seconds before the 
motion is offered and lay on the body this language without having the 
backup for it I think is inappropriate, and I object to the process. I 
object to the procedure that has been followed, not perhaps to the 
substance of it.
  Our committee is fully prepared to deal with this issue in due course 
and give it full and thorough consideration, but not here, not in this 
context.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I find it very 
difficult to understand how the gentleman can refer to an abuse of 
process on this side of the aisle. I hardly----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. You should be very well accustomed to it; you did it 
for 12 years.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has yielded.
  So what we are talking about here is the substantive----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman going to explain 113B?
  Mr. CANTOR. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Read it. Read the language.
  Mr. CANTOR. I would tell the gentleman, dealt with----
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Read it.
  I do not yield further. I do not yield further.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ISSA. Point of order. My understanding of the rules is that we 
cannot have Members speaking to each other. Mr. Speaker, my 
understanding is this colloquy was not allowed. Mr. Speaker, can we 
please admonish people to address the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a timely point 
of order, but it is correct that remarks should be addressed to the 
Chair and not in the second person.
  All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 359, 
noes 56, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--359

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert

[[Page 6017]]


     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--56

     Abercrombie
     Arcuri
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus
     Berman
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Eshoo
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Larson (CT)
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes

                              {time}  1408

  Messrs. BISHOP of Georgia, MEEKS of New York, GEORGE MILLER of 
California, SERRANO, TOWNS and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. CUELLAR, MCNULTY and PRICE of north 
carolina, Ms. HOOLEY, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SHEA-
PORTER, Messrs. WALZ of MINNESOTA, HARE and LANGEVIN, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN 
of California, Messrs. FATTAH, BOSWELL, LEVIN, BERRY, LYNCH and 
SARBANES, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. DEGETTE, Messrs. POMEROY, BRALEY of Iowa, 
CARDOZA, NEAL of Massachusetts and WU, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. 
LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Messrs. BRADY of 
Pennsylvania, MITCHELL, ELLISON, COHEN, WELCH of Vermont, HOLDEN, 
SKELTON, VAN HOLLEN AND DOYLE, Ms. HARMAN, Messrs. LIPINSKI, COSTELLO, 
TIERNEY, KIND, LARSEN of Washington, ALLEN, PATRICK J. MURPHY of 
Pennsylvania, SESTAK, DELAHUNT, ROSS, CAPUANO, KILDEE, CARNAHAN, 
ISRAEL, MEEK of Florida, PASTOR, UDALL of New Mexico, SCOTT of Georgia, 
MARKEY, BACA, SCHIFF and RAHALL, Ms. CASTOR, Messrs. MCNERNEY, STUPAK, 
SIRES, GUTIERREZ, ORTIZ, CUMMINGS, MURPHY of Connecticut, HINOJOSA, 
OBEY, THOMPSON of California, GRIJALVA, KENNEDY, DICKS, RODRIGUEZ, 
REYES and ANDREWS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. ACKERMAN, RYAN of Ohio, 
HASTINGS of Florida, PALLONE, HOLT and MCGOVERN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of 
Texas, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. MCCOLLUM of 
Minnesota, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. WYNN, Ms. 
MATSUI, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. SOLIS, Messrs. MOLLOHAN, 
FARR, HIGGINS and MICHAUD, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. CARSON, 
Messrs. AL GREEN of Texas, CLEAVER, BLUMENAUER, GONZALEZ, CLAY, 
RUPPERSBERGER, VISCLOSKY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. COOPER and Mr. 
SHERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House 
on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 720, back to the 
House with an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and conform the 
     table of contents accordingly):

            TITLE VII--SECURE MARITIME AND VESSEL WORKFORCE

     SEC. 701. PROHIBITION OF ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                   CARDS TO CONVICTED FELONS.

       No individual who has been issued a transportation worker 
     identification card may board a maritime vessel if the 
     individual has been convicted, or found not guilty by reason 
     of insanity, in a civilian or military jurisdiction of any of 
     the following felonies:
       (1) Espionage or conspiracy to commit espionage.
       (2) Sedition or conspiracy to commit sedition.
       (3) Treason or conspiracy to commit treason.
       (4) A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, United 
     States Code, a comparable State law, or conspiracy to commit 
     such crime.
       (5) A crime involving a transportation security incident. 
     In this paragraph, a transportation security incident--
       (A) is a security incident resulting in a significant loss 
     of life, environmental damage, transportation system 
     disruption, or economic disruption in a particular area (as 
     defined in section 70101 of title 46, United States Code); 
     and
       (B) does not include a work stoppage or other nonviolent 
     employee-related action, resulting from an employer-employee 
     dispute.
       (6) Improper transportation of a hazardous material under 
     section 5124 of title 49, United States Code, or a comparable 
     State law.
       (7) Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, 
     manufacture, purchase, receipt, transfer, shipping, 
     transporting, import, export,

[[Page 6018]]

     storage of, or dealing in an explosive or incendiary device 
     (as defined in section 232(5) of title 18, United States 
     Code, explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of 
     such title 18), or a destructive device (as defined in 
     921(a)(4) of such title 18).
       (8) Murder.
       (9) Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the crimes 
     described in paragraphs (5) through (8).
       (10) A violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
     Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.), or a comparable 
     State law, if 1 of the predicate acts found by a jury or 
     admitted by the defendant consists of 1 of the offenses 
     listed in paragraphs (4) and (8).

  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 303, 
nays 108, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--303

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--108

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bachus
     Berman
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Larson (CT)
     Marchant
     Millender-McDonald
     Moore (WI)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1418

  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________