[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7216-7220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1262, WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT 
                                OF 2009

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 235

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1262) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water 
     pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolutions 218, 219, and 229 are laid on 
     the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 235 provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. 
The rules makes in order 10 amendments, including all five of the 
Republicans' amendments considered for consideration.
  Among the many challenges confronting us, none could be more 
elemental than protecting our water. Today, the nationwide system of 
wastewater infrastructure includes 16,000 publicly owned wastewater 
treatment plants, 100,000 major pumping stations, 600,000 miles of 
sanitary sewers, and 200,000 miles of storm sewers. It is estimated 
that we have already invested over $250 billion on the construction and 
maintenance of this system. However, we are now in danger of losing 
that investment, if we do not act to maintain and improve the system.
  The vast majority of the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 is made 
up of five bills that the House considered and passed during the 110th 
Congress, four of which were not addressed by the Senate. With any 
luck, our colleagues in the other body will be able to address these 
important issues this Congress.
  The need for serious investment in our infrastructure is clear. In 
2002, the EPA estimated that there will be a $534 billion gap between 
spending and needs for water and wastewater infrastructure in 2019. The 
EPA's Clean Watersheds Needs Survey of 2004 Report to Congress 
documented America's wastewater infrastructure needs at more than $202 
billion, and these are numbers from several years ago.
  The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 authorizes $13.8 billion in 
Federal grants over 5 years to capitalize clean water State revolving 
loan funds that provide grants and low-interest loans to communities 
for water and wastewater infrastructure. These funds are critical to so 
many communities in the district that I represent. During December and 
January, it seemed like every local official that I met with had a 
water or wastewater infrastructure project that was shovel-ready and in 
dire need of stimulus funds. The funding authorized by this bill will 
help to address that backlog of need.
  H.R. 1262 also authorizes $1.8 billion over the next 5 years for 
Sewer Overflow Control Grants programs. Addressing and eliminating 
combined sewer overflows is one of the biggest financial challenges 
facing communities in my district and all over the country.
  Communities in the Northeastern United States tend to have old and 
deteriorating sewer systems. Old clay pipes with leaking joints and 
other weaknesses in the system allow outside water to infiltrate into 
the system. During heavy storms or spring snowmelt, this infiltration 
causes the system to overflow and discharge water and sewage into local 
rivers.
  A number of county and municipal water systems in my district are 
facing multi-million dollar projects to prevent their systems from 
overflowing into the Mohawk River that runs from west to east across 
upstate New York and feeds into the Hudson River. Many of these 
communities have small populations, incapable of simply passing the 
cost of these projects on to ratepayers.
  H.R. 1262 authorizes extended repayment periods of up to 30 years for 
the SRF loans to help lessen the burden on local ratepayers.
  To further assist rural or small communities like these, the 
legislation also authorizes technical assistance to help them meet the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act and to assist them to gaining 
access to financing wastewater infrastructure. In the upstate New York 
district that I represent, I often hear from rural communities about 
the difficulties they have in finding and applying for grant and loan 
opportunities.
  The most reliable way to prevent human illness from waterborne 
diseases and pathogens is to eliminate human exposure in discharged 
sewage. While system repairs and upgrades take time to implement, 
timely public notice can limit the human exposure when these discharges 
occur. The Water Quality Investment Act also requires owners and 
operators of publicly owned treatment works to monitor for and provide 
timely notification of sewer overflows to Federal and State agencies, 
public health departments and the public at large.
  The legislation properly extends Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
protections to contractors on treatment works projects that are 
constructed with my assistance from the State revolving loan funds. 
This prevents ``cut-rate'' crews from performing shoddy work and 
ensures that local contractors can competitively bid on local water 
infrastructure projects.
  The bill also reinstatements the applicability of the Buy American 
Act to

[[Page 7217]]

construction projects funded by Clean Water Act. In this way, the bill 
ensures that the investment we make in our infrastructure has the 
greatest possible benefit on the American economy. The Buy American 
provisions included in the Water Quality Investment Act are consistent 
with the Buy American provisions included in the final conference 
agreement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  The bill also increases the authorization to remediate contamination 
in the Great Lakes. In 2002, the EPA reported that pollution was 
impairing the use of 91 percent of the Great Lakes shorelines and 99 
percent of the Great Lakes open water.

                              {time}  1030

  Impairment means that the shoreline of the open waters did not meet 
all of the designated uses, including fishing, swimming, and 
suitability for aquatic life. The leading causes of this impairment 
were pathogens, metals--mainly mercury--and toxic organic compounds. 
EPA noted that the dominant cause of shoreline impairment was historic 
pollution in the form of contaminated sediment.
  H.R. 1262 increases to $150 million per year the authorization for 
projects that address sediment contamination in the Great Lakes areas. 
Areas of concern are defined under the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement between the United States and Canada as ecologically degraded 
geographic areas that require remediation. An area qualifies if at 
least one of 14 beneficial uses--fishing, swimming, drinking water, et 
cetera--is impaired as a result of contamination.
  By increasing the authorization for the cleanup of contaminated 
sediment in the most polluted areas of the Great Lakes, the bill will 
improve opportunities for fishing, swimming, boating, and agriculture. 
This will help approximately 40 million people who live in the Great 
Lakes Basin. The level of authorization is consistent with the 
provision of the House-passed Great Lakes Legacy Act Reauthorization 
passed by the House in the fall of 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Water Quality Investment Act. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will continue to 
support it as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the 
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  American taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in our sewage 
treatment infrastructure resulting in decades of progress in reducing 
water-borne illness from contaminated drinking water. By the way, Mr. 
Speaker, if you look at the history of the 20th century, the single 
factor that contributed most to public health in the United States, and 
in the developed world generally, was the development, the spreading, 
if you will, throughout society of the ability of people to have access 
to clean water, clean drinking water. And so what we're dealing with 
today is perhaps more important than at first glance, it seems.
  Now, unfortunately, whenever there has been, for example, an 
accidental breach in sewage treatment facilities, we see the 
repercussions of polluted water to public health, to our communities, 
and also to important industries such as tourism. That is why it is 
sound economic and environmental policy to invest in effective sewage 
treatment that ensures that the United States continues to have a 
healthy and vibrant aquatic ecosystem and clean water.
  But the cost for these systems is expensive. In south Florida, the 
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department evaluated its wastewater needs 
through the year 2020 and determined that in order to maintain adequate 
transmission systems capability, treatment, disposal and the prevention 
of sanitary sewer overflows, that department alone in south Florida 
would have to spend over $2 billion. The cause of many sanitary sewer 
overflow events is that the infrastructure is failing due to structural 
deterioration and corrosion. So Federal funding, such as is provided in 
the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, will give additional 
assistance to proactively identify the infrastructure requiring 
replacement prior to failure.
  Included in the underlying bill is $13.8 billion in Federal grants 
over 5 years to capitalize the Clean Water State Revolving Funds for 
the construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment works and other 
wastewater infrastructure. And it provides low-interest loans to 
communities for wastewater infrastructure. These grants will encourage 
communities to consider alternative and innovative processes, 
materials, and technologies that maximize the potential for efficient 
water use, reuse, and conservation.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for 
their hard work on this important bill that will help to keep our water 
safe and healthy and will also keep our ecosystem clean of wastewater.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the underlying legislation consolidates 
five bills that passed the House in the 110th Congress. In the 110th 
Congress, the House considered two of these bills under modified rules. 
The majority set a precedent, thus, that these bills should be 
considered under at least modified open rules. Modified open rules 
allow Members in the House to debate and consider all amendments that 
are preprinted in the Congressional Record. So why not do the same 
today? Those two bills, even with a modified open rule, easily passed 
the House. So is the majority so afraid of debate that, even on a 
noncontroversial bill like this, they feel they must restrict debate? 
It's a shame.
  It is unfortunate that the majority continues to backpedal on the 
open debate precedent--even that they themselves set. Yet, considering 
the way the majority has run this House in the last Congress and in 
this Congress, it's not a surprise; it is just the way the majority 
conducts business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee 
mentioned that this bill is costly. There is no question there is a 
cost associated with clean water. But I would submit, how do you put a 
price tag on clean water? How do you put a price tag on keeping the 
water that your family drinks and the water that is so important to 
life on this planet clean? There is no real price tag that you can put 
on it.
  In my own county, Oneida County in New York, we are under a consent 
order from the State of New York to eliminate sewer overflow that 
discharges into our river during storms. It would cost $150 million for 
our small community to fix our water system, but it's necessary for us 
to do that. And I would submit that, without projects such as this, 
local communities cannot keep their water clean and cannot do the kind 
of things that are necessary and so important for our country.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. I would yield.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you. I hope my friend did 
understand that I praised the underlying legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. I understand.
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio, a former colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on 
this issue and for the time that he has yielded to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. This 
bill provides a total investment of $18.7 billion over 5 years for 
much-needed water and environmental infrastructure. Not only will this 
bill help provide communities with improved water quality, but it must 
be remembered that it will create over 480 thousand jobs.
  H.R. 1262 provides $13.8 billion in Federal grants to the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund over the next 5 years. This fund provides low-
interest loans

[[Page 7218]]

to our communities so that they can repair wastewater infrastructure, 
and that is desperately needed. Like much of the Nation's 
infrastructure, the wastewater systems in my district are aging, and 
they are in dire need of repair, or, in some cases, replacement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this legislation includes a ``buy 
American'' provision. This provision will require that steel, iron, and 
other manufactured goods used for the construction of these water 
projects are produced here in the United States.
  The economic downturn has taken a toll on U.S. manufacturing, 
including the steel plants in my district in Ohio. And with this 
legislation, and with this ``buy American'' provision, we will be 
putting Americans back to work doing work that America needs to have 
done.
  The bill also contains Davis-Bacon protections requiring that the 
workers who will do this work will be paid a local prevailing wage, a 
wage that will ensure that they are able to provide for their families, 
which is all that they really are looking to do.
  Now, last year, Congress passed the Great Lakes Legacy Act to clean 
up contaminated toxic sediments that are endangering families and 
communities throughout the Great Lakes Basin, which is an area that is 
home to approximately 40 million people in eight States, including 
Ohio. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the House-passed version of that 
bill provided $150 million each year through fiscal year 2013 for 
cleaning up the Great Lakes. However, our colleagues on the other side 
of the Capitol in the Senate operate under different floor rules, and 
one Senator was able to block action on the bill until funding levels 
for this program were cut by two-thirds.
  This bill also restores the funding level for the Great Lakes Legacy 
Act projects to the level initially--and overwhelmingly--passed by the 
House last September. The residents of the Great Lakes Basin have been 
waiting far too long for these toxic sites to be cleaned up. The 
funding in this bill will allow for the cleanup of all contaminated 
sediment in the Great Lakes region by 2020. For these reasons, I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said that if the last century was all about 
the world's obsession with oil, that this century is going to be about 
water; fresh, clean water. Now, you cannot drink oil, but you cannot 
live without fresh, clean water.
  In Michigan, we are truly blessed to be surrounded by the Great 
Lakes. These bodies of water are a world treasure--not just a national 
treasure, but a world treasure--because they comprise fully 20 percent, 
or one-fifth, of the fresh water drinking supply of our entire planet. 
Unfortunately, after years of industrial pollution and sewage overflows 
from aging, inadequate underground infrastructure and sewage systems, 
all of this has taken a toll on our magnificent Great Lakes.
  This bill, the Water Quality Investment Act, continues a very proud 
tradition of continuing our efforts to improve water quality, both in 
the Great Lakes and around our Nation as well. I want to commend 
Chairman Oberstar, as well a Ranking Member Mica, for their work on 
these very important bills. As has been mentioned, we are consolidating 
five very important bills that passed the House last year into this one 
piece of legislation which is, again, so critically important to our 
fresh water supply in our Nation.
  Specifically, this bill is authorizing $13.8 billion for 
capitalization grants for Clean Water Revolving Funds, and $1.8 billion 
for grants to deal specifically with sewer overflows. It is estimated, 
Mr. Speaker, that 24 billion gallons of municipal sewage find their way 
directly into local water systems every year, and that is the 
equivalent of over 100 olympic-size swimming pools full of sewage each 
and every day getting into our water supply. This legislation 
recognizes this problem and acts to correct it.
  This bill also reauthorizes the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which, 
unfortunately, will expire next year if we don't take action now. As a 
result of this act, nearly 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated 
sediments have been removed from areas of concern in the Great Lakes 
Basin. But we still have a very long way to go. We need to continue 
this good work because 31 areas of concern which have been designated 
remain in the United States alone, and then there are five others that 
are split between the United States and the nation of Canada. This bill 
increases the authorization for this program up to $150 million 
annually, again, which will help us meet our goal of cleaning up the 
Great Lakes.
  I also want to take a moment and mention my support for the 
application of Davis-Bacon requirements to projects funded from Clean 
Water Revolving Funds in this act. As a Member, Mr. Speaker, coming 
from the great State of Michigan, which is, unfortunately, suffering 
with over 11 percent unemployment today, I want to be absolutely 
certain that water infrastructure projects in my State are built by 
workers who live in my State, a State where we need every single job 
that we can get.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional minute.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Davis-Bacon ensures that local workers 
benefit from projects being done in their area.
  The Water Quality Investment Act will help us make great strides, I 
think, in efforts to maintain and to improve our Nation's water 
infrastructure and to clean up the Great Lakes. As I say, for all these 
water projects throughout our entire Nation, as my colleague from 
Florida has mentioned, this is such a critically important piece of 
legislation. On our side, I think you can expect an awful lot of 
support for this bill.
  Clean water is not a partisan issue. Water doesn't know if it's in a 
Republican district or a Democratic district or what kind of district 
it is, but it is for those of us in Congress to speak up and to 
support, again, this rule and this bill, and I would certainly urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis) will control the remainder of the time.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It's wonderful to see such strong words of support from both sides of 
the aisle for this important piece of legislation.
  I rise today in support of this rule and ask my colleagues to join me 
and pass the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. I would like to 
thank Chairman Oberstar and the members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee for bringing forward this legislation, which 
will protect clean water for Americans.
  Clean water is essential to America's urban and rural communities. 
With this legislation, our cities will be able to take a comprehensive 
approach to water and wastewater management. It combines green and 
traditional methods to create a sustainable infrastructure that 
provides clean drinking water and leverages our precious natural 
resources to meet the demands of growth.
  For agricultural uses, the advancements in water storage and 
treatment will provide reliable, clean water supplies that are good for 
the economic stability of our rural economies and improve the quality 
of our food supply, keeping Americans healthy. In these difficult 
economic times, the infrastructure improvements made possible through 
this legislation will create jobs and reduce costs for municipal 
governments. I ask my colleagues to invest in clean, reliable water 
resources for all Americans by supporting this rule and voting for the 
Water Quality Investment Act.

[[Page 7219]]

  This will also address the growing needs for improvements in our 
water treatment systems. Several sectors of our economy will benefit 
from the improvements in this bill. The Nation's farmers, fishermen, 
manufacturing, and tourism industries rely on clean water that carry 
out our economic activities that contribute more than $300 billion to 
our economy each year. Our wastewater infrastructure is badly in need 
of the investment that this bill provides, Mr. Speaker, especially the 
$13.8 billion in Federal grants that capitalize the Clean Water State 
Revolving Funds. States can use that money to repair and build 
wastewater treatment plants and pipes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a rule on 
the Water Quality Investment Act, a rule sent to the floor by a 
committee the Speaker of the House controls, a Speaker who speaks often 
about the need for climate change legislation.
  To that end, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, went before the 
American people in February of 2007 and repeatedly disputed a report 
that her office requested a larger, fossil fuel burning military plane 
than has ever been used by a Speaker before. The type of plane which 
she denied requesting is exactly the type of plane that most certainly 
has a negative impact on our environment and the quality of water, the 
bill that is before us today under this structured rule. In fact, the 
Speaker went so far as to say in her rebuttal, ``We didn't ask for a 
larger plane, period.''
  However, earlier this week, prior to the consideration of this rule 
we have before us now, new e-mail evidence was revealed that 
contradicts the Speaker's public statements from 2 years ago. These e-
mails between the Speaker's staff and the Department of Defense show 
that it was the Speaker's office that requested the larger plane, not 
once but repeatedly.
  While we are considering legislation today to provide quality water 
to the American people, I think we should also note for the American 
people that spending their taxpayer dollars on a luxurious plane for 
Speaker Pelosi could negatively impact the environment and our quality 
of water. But even if you disagree with me on that, you should be 
troubled by these new facts. These newly reported facts contradict the 
Speaker's prior statement, possibly jeopardizing the faith of the 
American people, who we are here today representing and trying to help 
with this water quality bill.
  Most alarmingly, a member of the Speaker's staff threatened a wartime 
budget of the Defense Department, implying that unless the Speaker's 
demands for personal luxuries were met, the defense budget itself would 
be placed in jeopardy. This is a department that has spent many 
resources developing and promoting clean water technology, like this 
bill before us today purports to do.
  What did the Speaker know and when did she know it? The American 
people deserve the truth, something that this uncovered e-mail evidence 
shows the Speaker has not been telling them.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, without continued 
improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population 
growth will erode away many of the important achievements of the Clean 
Water Act. Without the sort of improvements that this bill, this 
bipartisan bill, includes, EPA projects that by 2016 waster water 
treatment plants nationwide may discharge pollutants into U.S. waters 
at levels similar to those in the mid 1970s.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill allows us to move forward rather than backward 
with regard to making sure that America's water supply is clean and 
safe. By requiring that workers on projects funded by the Clean Water 
State Revolving Funds be paid local prevailing wages, this bill 
promotes the payment of fair wages, as my colleague from Michigan 
pointed out on the other side of the aisle. This is important, both for 
its stimulative effect as well as being a future investment in our 
country.
  The EPA reported in 2002 that pollution is impairing the use of 91 
percent of the shoreline of the Great Lakes and 99 percent of Great 
Lakes open water. By authorizing $750 million for cleanup of the Great 
Lakes, this bill will improve opportunities for fishing, swimming, 
boating, agriculture, industry, and shipping for the 40 million people 
in one of the hardest-hit areas of our country in the recession who 
live in the Great Lakes Basin.
  The vast majority of the provisions of this bill were contained in 
five bills that were passed in the House in the 110th Congress, most of 
them with broad bipartisan support, and it passed the committee by a 
voice vote. The provisions in this bill are similar. By reinstating the 
applicability of the Buy American Act for the construction of projects 
funded, we can ensure that our money will be spent here and that the 
infrastructure expenditures will have the greatest possible benefit for 
the American people and the American economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of our 
colleagues who have taken to the floor to speak about this underlying 
legislation, which is important. Again, I want to thank Chairman 
Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their hard work in bringing 
forward this legislation and allowing the House to consider it today. I 
see that it's Thursday and the House has been waiting all week to get 
to this legislation, so I commend the majority for finally bringing the 
legislation to the floor on Thursday.
  Having seen the reiteration of bipartisan support for the underlying 
legislation, I do so again, and once again I thank all our colleagues 
that have come to speak on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  With regard to this rule, we are, in fact, advancing to the floor all 
of the amendments that were recommended in advance by the minority 
party. This will allow a full discussion, debate, and vote on all the 
important issues that still divide us on this bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the Water Quality Investment Act of 
2009 is made up of five bills that passed the House with strong 
bipartisan support during the 110th Congress. Four of those bills were 
never addressed by the Senate. Those measures are:
  First, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, which was passed by 
the House on March 7, 2007, by a vote of 303-108. Provisions of that 
bill comprise title I of the legislation we will consider today.
  Secondly, the Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, passed by the 
House of Representatives on March 8, 2007, by a vote of 368-59. That 
legislation is included in H.R. 1262 as title II.
  Third, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, passed by the House 
on March 7, 2007, by a vote of 367-58. Provisions of that bill comprise 
title III of the legislation that we will consider today.
  Fourth, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act, which was 
passed by the House on June 24, 2008, by voice vote under suspension of 
the rules. This legislation is included in H.R. 1262 as title IV.
  The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 also includes an increased 
authorization for eligible projects that address contamination within 
the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The authorization for these programs 
is consistent with the authorization contained in a previous version of 
the Great Lakes Reauthorization Act of 2008, which the House passed on 
September 18, 2008, by a vote of 371-20.
  I would also like to emphasize that the rule for debate today makes 
in order every single amendment filed by the minority party. This rule 
will

[[Page 7220]]

allow for a full debate of the issues involved. At the end of that 
debate, I hope that this legislation will enjoy the same bipartisan 
support that its components enjoyed in the last Congress.
  This bill will accomplish two things that have already become a key 
characteristic of all of our efforts here in the 111th Congress: It 
will create jobs and it will save energy. The Water Quality Investment 
Act will support quality paying jobs by ensuring that workers receive 
no less than local prevailing wages. By authorizing funding for cleanup 
of the Great Lakes, the bill will improve opportunities in the fishing, 
swimming, boating, agriculture, and shipping industries, which support 
approximately 40 million people in the Great Lakes Basin whose 
livelihoods are directly dependent upon clean water resources.
  This bill has a thoughtful eye on the future by taking into account 
energy efficiency and water conservation. As a westerner, I understand 
the vast challenges we face with regard to our water supply. 
Establishing our water infrastructure that encourages and promotes 
conservation is of incredible importance for regions that will only see 
their water sources become fewer and farther between. In Colorado, we 
rely on clean water not only for municipal and agricultural use, but 
entire communities are supported by visiting kayakers, fly fishermen, 
and outdoorsmen from across the country who flock to our pristine 
rivers and streams. Our environment, communities, industries, and 
businesses all stand to gain under the provisions of this law. Without 
the infrastructure investments in this bill, the EPA has projected that 
our water quality could be set back decades to pre-Clean Water Act 
levels.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes'' 
on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________