[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7226-7253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  WATER QUALITY INVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bill here today, and I 
would just like to highlight the issue that, as we commit taxpayers' 
funds to addressing the environmental issues that face this country, 
that we recognize that outcome is what really matters when we talk 
about spending money to clean up the environment.
  Chairman Oberstar has worked with me for years on a problem that we 
have got to address, and I am not saying we as my district, I am saying 
nationally; that we have sent funds all over the country and looked at 
process, rather than how a city or a community may impact the 
environment.

                              {time}  1145

  A good example is the fact that you may have a city of Chicago that 
was outrageous in saying they were worried about polluting Lake 
Michigan, because they were polluting their own water. But they built a 
canal so they can dump the water into the Illinois River and pollute 
all the waters of the Mississippi.
  I think one of the things that we have got to recognize is being 
smart with our money and addressing the fact that these funds should go 
to where is the best environmental benefit. And a good example would be 
the fact that there are certain areas where the treatment of the sewage 
at its existing level has no net negative impact, but there are other 
areas which have highly sensitive environments that are being polluted, 
even though the Federal law technically is being protected, things like 
the secondary mandate, where we should be putting our resources into 
tertiary and reclamation, where you end up having areas like deep-water 
discharge places, where right now scientists will tell you there is no 
net degradation.
  So I would just ask the majority to take a look at when we focus 
these funds, that we focus it where the most benefit to the environment 
can be given, much like we have done in California. We have gone beyond 
the process issue and gone to the outcome- based environmental review, 
the Clean Oceans Project, so that we spend every cent in a manner that 
protects the environment and not just fulfill a regulatory problem. And 
so I think it is absolutely essential that we avoid situations like we 
have run into in southern California, where the environmental impact 
report says that----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield the gentleman another 2 minutes. I think he 
makes some excellent points.
  Mr. BILBRAY. The example is, Mr. Chairman, where you have got an 
environmental impact report that says that if you execute the letter of 
the law, you would be hurting the environment. And no one ever meant 
that to happen. I want to make sure that as we move forward that the 
letter of the law reflects protection for the environment first, not 
just following a regulation blindly. The law should always be reminded 
that it is here to protect the environment first, not just blindly move 
forward in spending taxpayers' funds.
  And that is where I would ask that the committee take a look at these 
situations. I think Hawaii is in a situation where we may be sending 
funds to Hawaii to build facilities that do not have a net positive 
impact on the environment. I don't think any of us ever meant for clean 
water funds to be diverted into an area that is not helping the 
environment when you have areas that desperately need these funds.
  And that is one of those things I think we have to recognize, the 
environmental community, the days of just caring being enough, are 
over. It is essential that those of us who want to protect the 
environment need to be smart and make sure that every cent spent, both 
local and Federal, go toward helping the environment, not just 
fulfilling a regulatory guideline and not just providing a threshold 
that somehow looks good on paper but doesn't protect the environment.
  And I look forward to working with the chairman and making sure that 
every dollar spent in this program helps the environment, cleans up the 
environment, and does it in a manner that we maximize the benefit, 
because there are not enough funds to go around to waste it. And that 
is why I look forward to working with the chairman in making sure that 
every dollar does the best it can for the American people and the 
environment we live in.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 5 seconds to thank the gentleman from 
California for his enthusiasm and assure him that we will work for full 
funding.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Teague), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TEAGUE. I rise today in support of Chairman Oberstar's manager's 
amendment to H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act. The manager's 
package includes my amendment to the bill, the Teague-Green wastewater 
amendment.
  My amendment is simple. It allows wastewater utilities to use 
resources from the Clean Water State Revolving Funds to implement 
renewable energy production and energy-efficient projects in their 
plants.
  Wastewater treatment plants are large consumers of power. Along with 
drinking water facilities, they consume approximately 35 percent of the 
energy used by municipalities. Together, they constitute 3 percent of 
national energy consumption, sending approximately 45 million tons of 
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year.
  We need to give our wastewater infrastructure an energy makeover. 
With my amendment to the eligible activities associated with the Clean 
Water SRF, the revolving funds can become prime motivation for energy 
conservation and energy generation at wastewater plants across the 
country. Employing resources from the SRF, plants can generate power 
from in-circuit hydro turbines, biogas produced through anaerobic 
digesters, and solar panels and wind turbines, all offsetting 
electricity purchased from the grid.
  The Teague-Green Wastewater Amendment will reduce the amount of 
energy consumed by wastewater plants, create green jobs, reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions and save money for taxpayers. It is what I 
like to call common sense.
  I want to thank the chairman for including my amendment in the 
manager's package and for crafting this excellent piece of legislation.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Does the gentleman have any more speakers?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have no more speakers. I will close on our side if 
the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to associate myself with the 
remarks of our ranking member, Mr. Mica, in regard to Davis-Bacon. I 
have some real concerns with the extension there. But I do rise in 
support of the bill. I believe the underlying bill is a very, very good 
bill.
  I was visiting with former Member John Paul Hammersmith, one of my 
predecessors who was here for many, many years with Mr. Oberstar. I had 
lunch with him. And he asked me what was on the agenda. And we talked 
about the water issues and things. And he, like Mr. Oberstar, gave me 
the history and again related how hard you all had worked together, Mr. 
Oberstar, to get these things done. And we do thank you for your very 
hard work for many, many years really laying the groundwork. So we have 
a tremendous amount to do, but we need to get it done. So we do 
appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
  The other thing is I would like to thank Mr. Ehlers for his hard work 
in the Great Lakes. Again, he has dealt with this for many, many years. 
And as you said, this truly is a model for this type of bill. The other 
thing I would like to do is thank Ms. Johnson for her leadership as my 
chairman on Water Resources, for her shepherding this through committee 
and now shepherding it through the House. And then, as always, Mr. Mica 
in his position as ranking member, again, for

[[Page 7227]]

doing the same thing. I also want to thank the staffs for their hard 
work on both sides. They do a tremendous job. And we appreciate their 
efforts.
  I do support the bill and urge its passage.
  And I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of time on our side.
  I appreciate the reflection of the gentleman from Arkansas about Mr. 
Hammersmith. He was one of the giants of this House, a truly 
distinguished person. He approached every issue thoughtfully, 
reflecting on the substance of the matters, never a tone of 
partisanship in his presentation in committee or on the floor. And a 
particularly touching experience for me was some years ago, Mr. Shuster 
was chair of the full committee, and we moved the first authorization 
of EDA in years. And as the bill was moving toward final passage on the 
floor, I got a message from the Republican cloakroom that Mr. 
Hammersmith was on the phone. So with trepidation in my heart, I 
marched into the Republican cloakroom and picked up the phone. And John 
Paul Hammersmith was on the other end of the line laughing. And he 
said, ``I have always wanted to get you over here in our cloakroom. 
Congratulations on passage of the bill.'' It was so typical of John 
Paul Hammersmith. He cared about the substance, and still does, of our 
work here, as does his successor, Mr. Boozman.
  Mr. Chairman, this package of legislation is not a jobs bill, 
although it follows on the Economic Recovery Act, which provides 
funding for these projects for water, for sewer and sewage treatment 
facilities, and water infrastructure financing. This isn't a list of 
projects from the State of Minnesota. I have one here for wastewater 
infrastructure needs for the State of New York. There are thousands, 
thousands--6,900 such projects--by the various water infrastructure 
agencies across the Nation that are ready to go, ready to be built. 
Minnesota has prioritized these in the Minnesota Public Facilities 
Authority from 1 through 261 on wastewater projects.
  And the need is enormous. We have 12.5 million people out of work in 
the United States. Of that number, 2 million in the construction trades 
are out of work. And the unemployment rate of 8.1 percent nationwide 
for February is the highest in 25 years. By passing this legislation 
and putting to work the funding that the administration has indicated 
in its budget for the fiscal year that starts in October, we can make a 
serious dent in the unemployment numbers that I just cited, along with 
what will be accomplished with the roughly $5.6 billion in stimulus, 
half of which is in grant money and half of which is in loan funds. But 
we will create jobs in both packages, both this legislation and the 
stimulus need.
  As to Davis-Bacon, I will save my remarks for the amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). Suffice it to say 
that at a time of high unemployment, of desperate need across this 
country, an economy that needs people with income and ability to spend, 
to buy and to stimulate this economy, why would you tell folks, work 
for less? Why would you tell people, work for just at or below the 
minimum wage? Prevailing wage is not the union wage. Robert Reich, 
former Secretary of Labor, said in a radio statement just the night 
before last, ``right now we need people working at union wages. We need 
people with money in their pocket to buy, to stimulate this economy.'' 
And with the stimulus package, we will be putting people to work, 
paying them for work, not paying them unemployment checks for not 
working. We will discuss that at more length.
  I now urge the passage of H.R. 1262.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today with great 
enthusiasm for H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009'', 
which renews the Federal commitment to addressing our nation's 
substantial needs for wastewater infrastructure by investing $18.7 
billion over five years in wastewater infrastructure and other efforts 
to improve water quality. H.R. 1262 increases investment in wastewater 
infrastructure, reduces the cost of constructing and maintaining that 
infrastructure, and promotes energy- and water-efficiency improvements 
to publicly owned treatment works to reduce the potential long-term 
operation and maintenance costs of the facility.
  Mr. Chair, from my perch as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure Protection I have promoted shoring up 
our water infrastructure. Indeed, in the last Congress I introduced 
Chemical Facility Security Improvement Act of 2007, which prohibits 
federal funds from being used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
approve a site security plan for a chemical facility unless the 
facility meets or exceeds security standards and requirements to 
protect it against terrorist acts established by the state or local 
government for the area where it is located.
  Although much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals 
that Congress established more than 35 years ago to restore and 
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the 
nation's waters, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have 
emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution 
runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or 
``nonpoint'' sources, to ``point'' source discharges of metals and 
organic and inorganic toxic substances from factories and sewage 
treatment plants. And many of these problems need funding--and frankly 
cannot wait. The quality of our water supply is at stake.
  My bill also amended the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act, 2007 to: (1) repeal a provision prohibiting the 
Secretary from disapproving a site security plan based on the presence 
or absence of a particular security measure; (2) require vulnerability 
assessments and site security plans to be treated as sensitive security 
information; and (3) repeal a provision limiting to the Secretary any 
right of action against a chemical facility owner or operator to 
enforce security measures. The connection is that water facilities use 
chemicals to ensure safety and eliminate harmful elements.
  The main law that deals with polluting activity in the nation's 
streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters is the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, or CWA. 
It consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose 
progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to 
abate pollution and meet the statutory goal of zero discharge of 
pollutants; and provisions that authorize federal financial assistance 
for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction.
  Both parts are supported by research activities, plus permit and 
enforcement provisions. Programs at the federal level are administered 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); state and local 
governments have major responsibilities to implement CWA programs 
through standard-setting, permitting, and enforcement.
  The water quality restoration objective declared in the 1972 act was 
accompanied by statutory goals to eliminate the discharge of pollutants 
into navigable waters by 1985 and to attain, wherever possible, waters 
deemed ``fishable and swimmable'' by 1983.
  Although those goals have not been fully achieved, considerable 
progress has been made, especially in controlling conventional 
pollutants (suspended solids, bacteria, and oxygen- consuming 
materials) discharged by industries and sewage treatment plants.
  I have noted that progress has been mixed in controlling discharges 
of toxic pollutants (heavy metals, inorganic and organic chemicals), 
which are more numerous and can harm human health and the environment 
even when present in very small amounts--at the parts-per-billion 
level. Moreover, efforts to control pollution from diffuse sources, 
termed nonpoint source pollution (rainfall runoff from urban, suburban, 
and agricultural areas, for example), are more recent, given the 
earlier emphasis on ``point source'' pollution (discharges from 
industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants). Overall, data 
reported by EPA and states indicate that 45% of river and stream miles 
assessed by states and 47% of assessed lake acres do not meet 
applicable water quality standards and are impaired for one or more 
desired uses. In 2006 EPA issued an assessment of streams and small 
rivers and reported that 67% of U.S. stream miles are in poor or fair 
condition and that nutrients and streambed sediments have the largest 
adverse impact on the biological condition of these waters. 
Approximately 95,000 lakes and 544,000 river miles in the United States 
are under fish-consumption advisories (including 100% of the Great 
Lakes and their connecting waters), due to chemical contaminants in 
lakes, rivers, and coastal waters, and one-third of shellfishing beds 
are closed or restricted, due to toxic pollutant contamination. Mercury 
is a contaminant of growing concern--as of 2003, 45 states had issued 
partial or statewide fish or shellfish consumption advisories because 
of elevated mercury levels.

[[Page 7228]]

  The last major amendments to the law were the Water Quality Act of 
1987. These amendments culminated six arduous years of congressional 
efforts to extend and revise the act and were the most comprehensive 
amendments since 1972. Authorizations of appropriations for some 
programs provided in P.L. 100-4, such as general grant assistance to 
states, research, and general EPA support authorized in that law, 
expired in FY1990 and FY1991.
  Authorizations for wastewater treatment funding expired in FY1994. 
None of these programs has lapsed, however, as Congress has continued 
to appropriate funds to implement them. EPA, states, industry, and 
other citizens continue to implement the 1987 legislation, including 
meeting the numerous requirements and deadlines in it.
  The Clean Water Act has been viewed as one of the most successful 
environmental laws in terms of achieving its statutory goals, which 
have been widely supported by the public, but lately some have 
questioned whether additional actions to achieve further benefits are 
worth the costs.
  Criticism has come from industry, which has been the longstanding 
focus of the act's regulatory programs and often opposes imposition of 
new stringent and costly requirements. Criticism also has come from 
developers and property rights groups who contend that federal 
regulations (particularly the act's wetlands permit program) are a 
costly intrusion on private land-use decisions. States and cities have 
traditionally supported water quality programs and federal funding to 
assist them in carrying out the law, but many have opposed CWA measures 
that they fear might impose new unfunded mandates.
  Many environmental groups believe that further fine-tuning is needed 
to maintain progress achieved to date and to address remaining water 
quality problems.
  I am committed to ensuring that I continue to do my part as the 
Chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure Protection.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1262, 
the Water Quality Investment Act. We must provide means for local 
communities to address wastewater treatment needs. H.R. 1262 seeks to 
provide $13.8 billion over five years for the clean Water State 
Revolving Fund and provides low interest loans to communities for 
wastewater infrastructure. The bill also provides $250 million in 
grants over five years for alternative water source projects and 
authorizes $1.8 billion over five years in grants to municipalities and 
states to control sewer overflows.
  This legislation is critically needed to help meet America's clean 
water needs.
  H.R. 1262 also renews Davis-Bacon on projects, which requires that 
contractors and subcontractors that receive federal funds on wastewater 
treatment projects be paid at least the prevailing local wage rate.
  I firmly believe it is necessary that the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage 
requirement applies to all construction projects with federal funds.
  I commend Chairman Oberstar and Chairwoman Johnson for reestablishing 
what Congress clearly intended.
  Davis-Bacon is as important now as it was in the 1930s. It prevents 
competition from ``fly-by-night'' firms that undercut local wages and 
working conditions and compete, unfairly, with local contractors for 
federal work.
  It helps stabilize the industry to workers and to employers. In 
addition, Davis-Bacon may help ensure better craftsmanship and it may 
reduce both the initial cost of federal construction through greater 
efficiency and decrease the need for repair and/or rehabilitation.
  I oppose any such motion to strike the Davis-Bacon provisions and 
strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
  With that, Mr. Chair, H.R. 1262 is very important to our communities 
because it is another avenue for them to use for improving water 
quality across the country. Again, I strongly support H.R. 1262 and 
urge my colleagues to as well.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the 
Water Quality Investment Act of 2009.
  This is an important bill that will help close the approximately $3.2 
to $11.1 billion gap between our nation's wastewater infrastructure 
needs and our current levels of federal assistance.
  This bill is especially important for Arizona, because it will 
finally begin to address a grossly inequitable funding formula that 
long plagued our state.
  Inexplicably, and unfairly, the formula used to distribute federal 
assistance to State Clean Water Revolving Funds (SRFs) remains linked 
to Census data from 1970.
  While, obviously, this is not a problem for states that have lost 
population, or whose population has remained stable, it's a huge 
problem for states like Arizona, whose population has grown 
dramatically.
  Since 1970, Arizona's population has more than tripled.
  As a result, we've been getting massively short-changed.
  Arizona ranks 9th in the nation in terms of need, but we rank 37th in 
receipt of federal funding for SRFs. On a per capita basis, Arizona 
ranks 53rd. Even the territories do better than we do.
  This is a disparity that belies any pretence of fairness, and it 
needs to change.
  If enacted, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009 will begin that 
process.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on this issue, 
and for his continued commitment to fairness.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1262, and I look forward to its 
final passage.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the 
Water Quality Investment Act of 2009.
  The legislation makes important investments in our nation's water 
systems and strengthens the environmental protections of our waterways.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation Committee 
staff for working with me to include my amendment in the manager's 
amendment to the bill.
  I also want to thank Representatives Baldwin, Schwartz, and Inslee 
for joining with me as cosponsors on the amendment and for their 
continued efforts to work with me to make our waters safe.
  Our waterways provide a source of recreation and impact the food 
supply for all Americans.
  And, perhaps most importantly, our waterways are the source of our 
drinking water.
  In 2008, the Associated Press found pharmaceuticals in the drinking 
water supplies of approximately 46 million Americans.
  In my state of New York, health officials found heart medicine, 
infection fighters, estrogen, mood stabilizer and a tranquilizer in the 
upstate water supply.
  Six pharmaceuticals were found in the drinking water right here in 
Washington, D.C.
  We don't know how the pharmaceuticals enter the water supply.
  It is likely that some enter the water supply through human waste, 
runoff from agricultural operations, and the improper disposal of 
unused pharmaceuticals.
  In addition to antibiotics and steroids, EPA has identified over 100 
individual pharmaceuticals and personal care products in environmental 
samples and drinking water.
  As a nurse, I am concerned that the presence of the pharmaceuticals 
in our nation's waters may have negative effects on human health and 
wildlife.
  This amendment requires EPA to conduct a study on the sources of 
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in our waters and the effect 
that they have on the environment and human health.
  Upon completion of this study, EPA is required to issue a report 
detailing their findings.
  The study also requires that EPA identify methods that can be used to 
treat the water and remove the pharmaceuticals if we need to, and to 
prevent them from entering the water in the first place.
  Pharmaceuticals and personal care products include prescription and 
over-the-counter therapeutic drugs, fragrances, lotions, and cosmetics, 
as well as products used to enhance growth or health of livestock.
  The results of this study will prompt responses from the scientific 
community which can help form the basis for future research.
  The report from the study will be used as part of the government's 
efforts to better understand the effects that pharmaceuticals in our 
waters have on human health and wildlife and to craft appropriate 
legislation that addresses the issue in a responsible manner.
  I want to stress that this effort is not intended to make any 
presumptions or accusations.
  We are just looking for more information so that we can make better 
informed choices and eventually move forward on sensible policies.
  Hopefully, the study will give us more information about the 
presence, source, and effects of pharmaceuticals in our waters so that 
we can begin efforts to ensure that the water is safe.
  We must begin to better understand the impact pharmaceuticals have on 
our environment and on our health. It is especially important that we 
make sure that our constituents can feel confident that they are 
drinking clean, safe water.
  We need to find out how these contaminants got in the water, what the 
risks are and what steps we need to take to solve the problem.
  It is vital that Congress take up and champion the cause of keeping 
our waterways and drinking water safe.

[[Page 7229]]

  This is a public health issue, an environmental issue, and an 
economic issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chair, I would like to begin my remarks today by 
thanking Chairman Oberstar for his work on this critical issue.
  He has been a champion for our country's infrastructure.
  Whether it is wastewater, roads, bridges, dams, or levees, Chairman 
Oberstar has been the one to fight for the funding we need to keep our 
country running smoothly.
  When it is working properly, our wastewater system is not something 
that we think about very often.
  But the minute something goes wrong, wastewater instantly becomes the 
most important issue of all.
  In my hometown of Sacramento, the city has invested hundreds of 
millions of dollars to upgrade the combined sewer system in our central 
city.
  Using funding provided from the Federal Government, Sacramento has 
renovated older pumps, built treatment plants, and increased storage.
  The price of clean water and healthy ecosystems is high, Mr. Chair. 
But the benefits they provide to our society are even greater.
  And that is why I am so supportive of the legislation before us 
today.
  It authorizes $13.8 billion worth of wastewater infrastructure 
projects that will help keep my district's streets and waterways free 
of sewage and sludge.
  This funding will help make Sacramento even more livable than it 
already is.
  It will also create quality jobs in my district which are sorely 
needed.
  For too long, we have lived off the infrastructure built in decades 
past.
  Now it is our turn to invest in the future of our infrastructure, in 
the health of our communities, and in the quality of our water.
  I urge support for the rule and for the underlying bill.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to 
support the manager's amendment to the Water Quality Investment Act of 
2009.
  The manager's amendment I support builds upon the strong nature of 
this bill, and addresses several additional needs.
  I thank the distinguished Chairman for including 2 of my amendments 
in the manager's amendment. These important amendments will go a long 
way towards helping communities along the southern border.
  My first amendment, included in this manager's amendment, authorizes 
the EPA to Study wastewater treatment facilities that discharge into 
the Rio Grande River, develop recommendations for improving monitoring, 
information sharing, and cooperation between the Unites States and 
Mexico.
  Last EPA study of pollutants in the Rio Grande River took samples 
from November 1992 to December 1995.
  Since 1992 Laredo alone has doubled in population.
  I applaud inclusion of this requirement because knowing the dangers 
that exist in pollution in the River is the first step in protecting a 
national treasure.
  I also wish to offer my support for the Manager's amendment's 
recognition of the ongoing crisis that exists on the United States' 
southern border with impoverished families living in Colonias.
  Colonias can be found in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, 
but Texas has both the largest number of colonias and the largest 
colonia population.
  According to the State of Texas, about 400,000 Texans live in border 
colonias.
  The development of Texas colonias dates back to at least the 1950s, 
when developers created unincorporated subdivisions using 
agriculturally worthless land or land that lay in floodplains or in 
other rural properties.
  They divided the land into small lots, put in little or no 
infrastructure, and then sold them to low-income individuals seeking 
affordable housing.
  The manager's amendment includes my plan to direct the Government 
Accountability Office to present to Congress a blueprint to properly 
address the problems that exist in these low income communities.
  Mr. Chair, I applaud you on this important Manager's amendment, and I 
urge all my colleague to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1262, the 
Water Quality Investment Act. I commend my House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar for introducing this 
vital legislation that makes much-needed investments to improve water 
quality and better ensure safe, clean water for communities throughout 
the country.
  The central focus of the bill is reauthorization of the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans and grants to 
local communities for construction of wastewater treatment facilities 
and other water pollution abatement projects. The Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund was last reauthorized in 1987, although the program has 
been funded every year, albeit at inadequate levels. For years, the 
amount of available funding has been far below the demand for funds 
from local governments.
  Much of the clean water infrastructure in our nation is rapidly 
approaching or has already exceeded its projected life. This aging 
infrastructure must be repaired or replaced soon. The gap between 
wastewater infrastructure needs and current levels of spending has been 
estimated at between $3.2 billion to $11.1 billion a year.
  If the authorized levels of funding provided in this bill are 
appropriated, Hawaii will see a four-fold increase in the annual level 
of funding received under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--from 
$5.3 million in FY2009 to an estimated $21 million each year from 
FY2010 to FY2014. In addition to improving our infrastructure, this 
amount of funding could create or sustain some 700 jobs a year in 
Hawaii.
  This funding is critically needed in our state. Just this week, I met 
with members of the four county councils in my district. All have 
concerns about the condition of wastewater infrastructure in their 
districts and the inability of local governments to fund the level of 
investment that is urgently needed. Lack of this funding is having 
serious environmental consequences and, in some areas, is actually 
preventing development of much-needed housing.
  I urge my colleague to support this bill, which will stimulate 
employment and all of our local economies while protecting the 
environment.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1262, The Water Quality Investment Act, 
renews the Federal commitment to addressing our nation's substantial 
needs for wastewater infrastructure. Several provisions in the bill 
provide federal assistance for improving this capability--through 
grants, subsidies, loans, and other assistance. Part of the impetus 
behind this assistance is the current severe economic situation that 
communities of all sizes across the nation are facing.
  Jackson County, Missouri, in my district, is one example of a 
community caught between a rock and a hard place. The County is trying 
to provide services for its constituents at two lakes--Longview and 
Blue Springs--while balancing its dwindling budget. The Army Corps of 
Engineers built both lakes in the 1980s to help control flooding issues 
in the Little Blue River region, watershed run-off, wetlands 
restoration, and to provide a recreational benefit to the public. The 
Corps entered into a lease contract with Jackson County, Missouri with 
a 50 year repayment contract (1986-2035). The County, during these 
tough economic times, is having a significant problem paying back the 
interest plus the regular principal each year.
  These lakes, though owned by the Corps, are operated and maintained 
by Jackson County. Both Lakes are in need of significant repairs, 
maintenance, and upgrades to bring them up to standards of today's use. 
The properties critically need repairs to infrastructure like roads, 
electrical upgrades, facility repairs, and needed silt control along 
the watersheds feeding into the Lakes. The County is struggling during 
this economic downturn, to make the payments as well as make the 
necessary repairs and upgrades that the Lake property needs for 
continued use by the public.
  The following are examples of the capital improvement needs 
identified by Jackson County in their 5 year Capital Improvements Plan 
(CIP): Marina Renovation, upgrades and maintenance--$858,980; Roof 
repairs--$125,000; Road repairs--$589,962; Shelter house repairs, 
upgrades and maintenance--$215,240; Campground upgrades, replace pads 
and electrical capacity upgrades--$1,023,093; Sediment, spillway and 
watershed control and improvements--$433,304; Trail replacement, 
repairs and upgrades--$1,132,000; Maintenance facility upgrades and 
repairs--$2,264,000; Playground upgrades and replacement--$414,400; 
Beaches improvements and upgrades--$226,400.
  This is why I was proud to submit this week an amendment for 
consideration to H.R. 1262 that would have allowed the County to 
alleviate the strains on its budget, while maintaining its commitment 
to the Army Corps as well as its commitment to citizens using the 
Lakes, plus providing jobs for making the improvements. My amendment 
would have modified the leases for Longview Lake & Blue Springs Lake to 
allow the County to reinvest 50 percent of its outstanding payments 
over the rest of the lease for capital improvements on the

[[Page 7230]]

property. This is not a default or forgiveness, but rather a 
reinvestment in lieu of payment so that they can continue to function 
in both their flood control and recreational capacities.
  Even with the redirection, the plan would provide the Army Corps with 
over $6.5 million ($6,504,447.80) in surplus over the course of the 
lease. From this reinvestment, Longview Lake would receive $5.3 million 
($5,294,483.88) of redirected payments and Blue Springs Lake would 
receive $4.3 million ($4,302,127.74) as part of the plan. The Corps of 
Engineers would be fully reimbursed for its initial outlay of funds 
with interest, and the County would be able to re-invest some of the 
funds it is contractually obligated to pay into these two greats 
Jackson County assets.
  Mr. Chair, though my amendment was deemed to have a budgetary impact, 
I wanted to raise this issue. This is a national issue, hitting many 
communities and counties during these difficult economic times and they 
deserve Congress's help. The idea makes a great deal of sense and I 
look forward to working with my fellow Members and my local County 
Executive as we continue to think outside the box to make this idea 
work.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chair, the Water Quality Investment Act is a renewed 
commitment to address our nation's substantial needs for water and 
wastewater infrastructure. The ability of cities, rural water systems 
and tribal communities to ensure water quality for our nation's 
families is critical to the health of our country and will help create 
jobs. Today, our business in this House is to transform the way we 
think about water.
  All living systems need water. People need it. The climate needs it. 
Plants and wildlife need it. We are all part of the same living system, 
and we all need water.
  I know the importance of water to rural economies across America. 
Without a reliable water supply, we cannot improve human health, 
preserve natural ecosystems, or grow economies. It is a critical 
prerequisite for life, and we must ensure proper drinking water and 
wastewater systems will be available to every community in America. The 
absence of adequate water infrastructure in a community creates 
enormous health disparities, but also entrenches the severe poverty 
that is already widespread in these communities.
  Tribes across the nation have many difficulties ensuring water 
quality for their communities. Often water and wastewater systems are 
hard to construct or maintain due to a lack of availability of funding 
for tribal governments. Language I proposed, which was included in 
Chairman Oberstar's manager's amendment, will authorize new grants for 
technical assistance on water and wastewater infrastructure to the 
tribal communities and people who so desperately need it.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the Water 
Quality Investment Act.
  I would like to first thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 
for bringing to the floor this important legislation. I am also proud 
to have worked with Mr. Pascrell on Title Three of this bill--which we 
have introduced previously.
  Sewer maintenance is a serious problem in low-lying coastal areas 
such as Michigan. It is a sad fact that many of the sewer systems in 
Michigan and throughout the country date back to the Nineteenth 
Century.
  These outdated systems often overflow with untreated human and 
industrial waste--releasing toxins and disease-causing organisms.
  Inadequate maintenance, deteriorated pipes, rainfall and snow melts 
are too often cited as the cause of these overflows.
  It is indisputable that sewer overflows pose a significant threat to 
public health and safety because they put raw sewage into rivers, 
streets, basements, and other areas of human exposure. They are also 
responsible for many beach closures, shellfish restrictions, and 
violations of water quality standards.
  In Michigan alone there have been over 1,000 reported sewer overflows 
annually. These events have contributed over 20 billion gallons of 
sewage and wastewater onto the ground and into Michigan rivers, lakes 
and streams.
  Even more staggering, the EPA has estimated that nearly 900 billion--
let me repeat, 900 billion--gallons of untreated wastewater and storm 
water are released through combined sewer overflows and separate sewer 
overflows annually in the United States.
  The Water Quality Investment Act goes a long way toward ending the 
public health and environmental crisis associated with sewer overflows 
by providing federal funds to repair and replace outdated systems. 
Local governments cannot simply fix this mess and meet their 
obligations under the Clean Water Act alone.
  Also of critical importance in this bill are provisions to 
reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act to tackle the problem of 
contamination in the Great Lakes Basin. It would provide the necessary 
funding to help clean up contaminated sediment in over 30 concerning 
areas.
  My gratitude must also be extended to my esteemed colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his steadfast commitment to the Great Lakes 
and the passage of the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act.
  I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1262 today.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009. I thank Chairman Oberstar 
and the House leadership for their hard work on this timely 
legislation, which will modernize our nation's wastewater 
infrastructure to ensure our water supply is clean and safe for 
America's children and families.
  A growing economy and population over the past decades have stretched 
the availability and compromised the quality of America's water supply. 
Our country has outgrown the capacity of our wastewater systems. Sewage 
overflows and toxic spillage are contaminating our water supply and 
posing grave threats to human health and the health of our water 
ecosystems.
  By authorizing $13.8 billion in federal grants for the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund and $1.8 billion for sewer overflow control grants 
over the next five years, the Water Quality Investment Act will put 
480,000 Americans to work and help bridge the gap between the number of 
wastewater infrastructure projects that need assistance and the amount 
of funding available. Over the next five years, Minnesota will receive 
over $250 million to modernize its water systems, thereby helping to 
protect and restore the more than 10,000 lakes that help define our 
state.
  This legislation also takes bold steps to clean up the Great Lakes, 
one of the nation's greatest natural resources. The Great Lakes make up 
the largest system of fresh, surface water on Earth, providing 90 
percent of America's fresh surface water and 18 percent of the world's 
fresh water supply. In 2006 alone, over 23 billion gallons of sewage 
entered the Great Lakes due to failing wastewater systems. This 
threatens human health and compromises the environmental integrity of 
these precious water bodies. This legislation authorizes $750 million 
over five years for the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which supports projects 
to restore and protect the water quality of the Great Lakes.
  Water is a scarce, precious resource and we must use it with great 
care. By passing the Water Quality Investment Act, Congress is working 
to ensure that our water can remain clean and safe for generations to 
come. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the 
``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009.''
  The integrity of our water infrastructure and fresh water drinking 
sources is critical to our environment, our health and our economy. 
Many older systems around the Great Lakes have combined sewer systems, 
which utilize the same pipes to collect rain water, sewage, and 
domestic and industrial waste. In periods of heavy rain or snow, these 
systems can overflow and allow raw sewage to be released into our 
rivers, streets, and homes. As many as 850 billion gallons of this 
waste is discharged into rivers and streams each year because of 
combined sewer system overflows.
  While the problems of combined sewer systems are clear, the upfront 
cost of replacing entire sewer systems is beyond the reach of many 
municipalities. Communities that have the largest problems are often 
also the oldest communities. They may be struggling with declining 
populations, falling tax revenues, poverty, and crime. Yet if their 
infrastructure fails, the pollution moves downstream to the next 
community.
  Because our water infrastructure exists out of sight and beneath our 
feet, the need for investment is not as obvious as with a crumbling 
bridge or pothole ridden road. As long as the water comes on when the 
knob is turned, it is easy to believe that our water infrastructure 
system is working fine. However, this is often far from the truth.
  I am fortunate enough to represent a district that has been able to 
make the investments necessary to address our largest water quality 
problems. Because my district is the headwaters of the five major 
watersheds in Southeast Michigan, the communities surrounding my 
district have also benefited. It is important to remember that water 
does not stop at political boundaries; problems left untreated flow 
downstream and impact our neighbors.
  The public works professionals in southeast Michigan have done a 
tremendous job to curb water pollution in the area and continue to make 
major strides in cleaning our waterways. Lead by the efforts of John 
McCulloch, Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner,

[[Page 7231]]

Oakland County has eliminated all of their untreated CSO and continues 
to aggressively attack our SSO and storm water control challenges.
  Great progress has been made in Oakland County, but it was not made 
in a vacuum. The federal Government has been a full partner in this 
process, contributing over $300 million in grant funds in Southeast 
Michigan to water quality control projects over the past 15 years. That 
federal investment has lead to over $1 billion dollars in the Rouge 
Watershed alone, and the water quality of the Rouge River, the Clinton 
River and the Huron River has improved dramatically because the federal 
government has been at the table.
  Despite all the progress that has been made in my district, there is 
still more work to be done. That is why it is crucial that we continue 
to make a strong federal investment in our water infrastructure. H.R. 
1262 includes investments in water quality restoration, CSO control, 
SSO control, and infrastructure repair and I urge my colleagues to 
support its passage here today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 1262

       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 Investment Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

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

                    TITLE I--WATER QUALITY FINANCING

            Subtitle A--Technical and Management Assistance

 1101. Technical assistance.
 1102. State management assistance.
 1103. Watershed pilot projects.

              Subtitle B--Construction of Treatment Works

 1201. Sewage collection systems.
 1202. Treatment works defined.

       Subtitle C--State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds

 1301. General authority for capitalization grants.
 1302. Capitalization grant agreements.
 1303. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
 1304. Allotment of funds.
 1305. Intended use plan.
 1306. Annual reports.
 1307. Technical assistance; requirements for use of American 
              materials.
 1308. Authorization of appropriations.

                     Subtitle D--General Provisions

 1401. Definition of treatment works.
 1402. Funding for Indian programs.

                       Subtitle E--Tonnage Duties

 1501. Tonnage duties.

              TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS

 2001. Pilot program for alternative water source projects.

                TITLE III--SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS

 3001. Sewer overflow control grants.

   TITLE IV--MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER 
                               OVERFLOWS

 4001. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer 
              overflows.

              TITLE V--GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION

 5001. Remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern.
 5002. Public information program.
 5003. Contaminated sediment remediation approaches, technologies, and 
              techniques.

     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--WATER QUALITY FINANCING

            Subtitle A--Technical and Management Assistance

     SEC. 1101. 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 $100,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for carrying out subsections 
     (b)(3), (b)(8), and (g), 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 ``2011''.

     SEC. 1102. 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 2009, and $300,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2010 through 2014;''.

     SEC. 1103. 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 sources of pollution to reduce adverse 
     impacts on water quality.
       ``(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.''.
       (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 2014''.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Section 122(d) is amended by 
     striking ``5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section,'' and inserting ``October 1, 2011,''.

              Subtitle B--Construction of Treatment Works

     SEC. 1201. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       Section 211 (33 U.S.C. 1291) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading 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. 1202. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

       Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1292(2)(A)) is amended--

[[Page 7232]]

       (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''.

       Subtitle C--State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds

     SEC. 1301. 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. 1302. 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) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995'';
       (B) by striking ``funds directly made available by 
     capitalization grants under this title and section 205(m) of 
     this Act'' and inserting ``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,''; and
       (C) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
     ``513'' and inserting ``211 and 511(c)(1)'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (4) 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 that are considered program income 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 2011, 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 the 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 maximizes 
     the potential for efficient water use, reuse, and 
     conservation, and energy conservation, taking into account 
     the cost of constructing the project or activity, the cost of 
     operating and maintaining the project or activity over its 
     life, and the cost of replacing the project or activity; and
       ``(B) has considered, to the maximum extent practicable 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 constructing the project or activity, the cost of 
     operating and maintaining the project or activity over its 
     life, and the cost of replacing the project or activity;
       ``(14) the State will use at least 10 percent of the amount 
     of each capitalization grant received by the State under this 
     title after September 30, 2010, 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) 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
       ``(16) 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. 1303. 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, agricultural stormwater, and return 
     flows from irrigated agriculture;
       ``(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; and
       ``(8) 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 a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) to provide grants to owners and operators of 
     treatment works that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer 
     for obtaining 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 the total amount 
     provided by the State in grants under this paragraph for a 
     fiscal year may not exceed one percent of the total amount of 
     assistance provided by the State from the fund in the 
     preceding fiscal year, or 2 percent of the total amount 
     received by the State in capitalization grants under this 
     title in the preceding fiscal year, whichever amount is 
     greatest; and
       ``(9) to provide grants to owners and operators of 
     treatment works for conducting an assessment of the energy 
     and water consumption of the treatment works, and evaluating 
     potential opportunities for energy and water conservation 
     through facility operation and maintenance, equipment 
     replacement, and projects or activities that promote the 
     efficient use of energy and water by the treatment works, 
     except that the total amount provided by the State in grants 
     under this paragraph for a fiscal year may not exceed one 
     percent of the total amount of assistance provided by the 
     State from the fund in the preceding fiscal year, or 2 
     percent of the total amount received by the State in 
     capitalization grants under this title in the preceding 
     fiscal year, whichever amount is greatest.''.
       (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

[[Page 7233]]

     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 a process, material, technique, or 
     technology to address water-efficiency goals, address energy-
     efficiency goals, mitigate stormwater runoff, or encourage 
     environmentally sensitive project planning, design, and 
     construction.
       ``(2) Affordability criteria.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--On or before September 30, 2010, 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, 2009.''.

     SEC. 1304. 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 2010 and 2011.--Sums appropriated to 
     carry out this title for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 
     shall be allotted by the Administrator in accordance with the 
     formula used to allot sums appropriated to carry out this 
     title for fiscal year 2009.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--Sums appropriated 
     to carry out this title for fiscal year 2012 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, 2011, 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. 1305. 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 2011 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), whether such water quality improvements 
     would be realized without assistance under this title, and 
     whether the proposed projects and activities would address 
     water quality impairments associated with existing treatment 
     works.
       ``(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 shall 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. 1306. 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. 1307. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF 
                   AMERICAN MATERIALS.

       Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 607 as section 609; 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.
       ``(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. 608. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF AMERICAN MATERIALS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, none of the funds made available by a State water 
     pollution control revolving fund as authorized under this 
     title may be used for the construction of treatment works 
     unless the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used in such 
     treatment works are produced in the United States.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any 
     case in which the Administrator (in consultation with the 
     Governor of the State) finds that--

[[Page 7234]]

       ``(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with 
     the public interest;
       ``(2) steel, iron, and manufactured goods are not produced 
     in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available 
     quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
       ``(3) inclusion of steel, iron, and manufactured goods 
     produced in the United States will increase the cost of the 
     overall project by more than 25 percent.
       ``(c) Public Notification and Written Justification for 
     Waiver.--If the Administrator determines that it is necessary 
     to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding 
     under subsection (b), the Administrator shall--
       ``(1) not less than 15 days prior to waiving application of 
     subsection (a), provide public notice and the opportunity to 
     comment on the Administrator's intent to issue such waiver; 
     and
       ``(2) upon issuing such waiver, publish in the Federal 
     Register a detailed written justification as to why the 
     provision is being waived.
       ``(d) Consistency With International Agreements.--This 
     section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United 
     States obligations under international agreements.''.

     SEC. 1308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 609 (as redesignated by section 1307 of this Act) 
     is amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (5) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(2) $2,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(3) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
       ``(4) $2,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(5) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.''.

                     Subtitle D--General Provisions

     SEC. 1401. DEFINITION OF TREATMENT WORKS.

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

     SEC. 1402. 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 1987-2008.--The Administrator'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
       (A) by inserting ``and ending before October 1, 2008,'' 
     after ``1986,''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2009 and thereafter.--For fiscal year 
     2009 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 (as defined in section 518(h));
       ``(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)).''.

                       Subtitle E--Tonnage Duties

     SEC. 1501. TONNAGE DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 60301 of title 46, United State 
     Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(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 2009;
       ``(B) 9.0 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 45 
     cents per ton per year) for fiscal years 2010 through 2019; 
     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 2009;
       ``(B) 27 cents per ton (but not more than a total of $1.35 
     per ton per year) for fiscal years 2010 through 2019, and
       ``(C) 6 cents per ton (but not more than a total of 30 
     cents per ton per year) for each fiscal year thereafter.''.
       (b) Liability in Rem.--Chapter 603 of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 60313. Liability in rem for costs

       ``A vessel is liable in rem for any amount due under this 
     chapter for that vessel and may be proceeded against for that 
     liability in the United States district court for any 
     district in which the vessel may be found.''.
       (c) 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 heading for chapter 603, by striking ``TAXES'' 
     and inserting ``DUTIES'';
       (3) in the headings of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``taxes'' each place it appears and inserting ``duties'';
       (4) in the heading for subsection (a) of section 60303, by 
     striking ``Tax'' and inserting ``Duty'';
       (5) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``taxes'' each place it appears and inserting ``duties''; and
       (6) in the text of sections in chapter 603, by striking 
     ``tax'' each place it appears and inserting ``duty''.
       (d) 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'';....

       (2) in the analysis for subtitle VI by striking the item 
     relating to chapter 603 and inserting the following:

``603. Tonnage Duties and Light Money......................60301'';....

     and
       (3) 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.'';

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

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

     and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:

``60313. Liability in rem for costs.''.

              TITLE II--ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS

     SEC. 2001. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Selection of Projects.--Section 220(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1300(d)(2)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or whether the project is located in an 
     area which is served by a public water system serving 10,000 
     individuals or fewer''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 220(j) (33 
     U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended by striking ``$75,000,000 for 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014''.

                TITLE III--SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS

     SEC. 3001. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.

       (a) Administrative Requirements.--Section 221(e) (33 U.S.C. 
     1301(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Administrative Requirements.--A project that receives 
     assistance under this section shall be carried out subject to 
     the same requirements as a project that receives assistance 
     from a State water pollution control revolving fund under 
     title VI, except to the extent that the Governor of the State 
     in which the project is located determines that a requirement 
     of title VI is inconsistent with the purposes of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of 
     section 221(f) (33 U.S.C. 1301(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``this section $750,000,000'' and all that follows through 
     the period at the end and inserting ``this section 
     $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, $300,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2011, $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, $400,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2013, and $500,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2014.''.
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Section 221(g) of such Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1301(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2010.--Subject to subsection (h), the 
     Administrator shall use the amounts appropriated to carry out 
     this section for fiscal year 2010 for making grants to 
     municipalities and municipal entities under subsection (a)(2) 
     in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2011 and thereafter.--Subject to 
     subsection (h), the Administrator shall use the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal year 2011 
     and each fiscal year thereafter for making grants to States 
     under subsection (a)(1) in accordance with a formula to be 
     established by the Administrator, after providing notice and 
     an opportunity for public comment, that allocates to each 
     State a proportional share of such amounts based on the total 
     needs of the State for municipal combined sewer overflow 
     controls and sanitary sewer overflow controls identified in 
     the most recent survey conducted pursuant to section 516.''.
       (d) Reports.--The first sentence of section 221(i) (33 
     U.S.C. 1301(i)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2012''.

   TITLE IV--MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF SEWER 
                               OVERFLOWS

     SEC. 4001. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF 
                   SEWER OVERFLOWS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

[[Page 7235]]

       ``(s) Sewer Overflow Monitoring, Reporting, and 
     Notifications.--
       ``(1) General requirements.--After the last day of the 180-
     day period beginning on the date on which regulations are 
     issued under paragraph (4), a permit issued, renewed, or 
     modified under this section by the Administrator or the 
     State, as the case may be, for a publicly owned treatment 
     works shall require, at a minimum, beginning on the date of 
     the issuance, modification, or renewal, that the owner or 
     operator of the treatment works--
       ``(A) institute and utilize a feasible methodology, 
     technology, or management program for monitoring sewer 
     overflows to alert the owner or operator to the occurrence of 
     a sewer overflow in a timely manner;
       ``(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has the 
     potential to affect human health, notify the public of the 
     overflow as soon as practicable but not later than 24 hours 
     after the time the owner or operator knows of the overflow;
       ``(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may imminently 
     and substantially endanger human health, notify public health 
     authorities and other affected entities, such as public water 
     systems, of the overflow immediately after the owner or 
     operator knows of the overflow;
       ``(D) report each sewer overflow on its discharge 
     monitoring report to the Administrator or the State, as the 
     case may be, by describing--
       ``(i) the magnitude, duration, and suspected cause of the 
     overflow;
       ``(ii) the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, or 
     prevent recurrence of the overflow; and
       ``(iii) the steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact 
     of the overflow; and
       ``(E) annually report to the Administrator or the State, as 
     the case may be, the total number of sewer overflows in a 
     calendar year, including--
       ``(i) the details of how much wastewater was released per 
     incident;
       ``(ii) the duration of each sewer overflow;
       ``(iii) the location of the overflow and any potentially 
     affected receiving waters;
       ``(iv) the responses taken to clean up the overflow; and
       ``(v) the actions taken to mitigate impacts and avoid 
     further sewer overflows at the site.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Notification requirements.--The notification 
     requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not apply 
     to a sewer overflow that is a wastewater backup into a 
     single-family residence.
       ``(B) Reporting requirements.--The reporting requirements 
     of paragraphs (1)(D) and (1)(E) shall not apply to a sewer 
     overflow that is a release of wastewater that occurs in the 
     course of maintenance of the treatment works, is managed 
     consistently with the treatment works' best management 
     practices, and is intended to prevent sewer overflows.
       ``(3) Report to epa.--Each State shall provide to the 
     Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows that 
     occurred in the State.
       ``(4) Rulemaking by epa.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, 
     after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, 
     shall issue regulations to implement this subsection, 
     including regulations to--
       ``(A) establish a set of criteria to guide the owner or 
     operator of a publicly owned treatment works in--
       ``(i) assessing whether a sewer overflow has the potential 
     to affect human health or may imminently and substantially 
     endanger human health; and
       ``(ii) developing communication measures that are 
     sufficient to give notice under paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C); 
     and
       ``(B) define the terms `feasible' and `timely' as such 
     terms apply to paragraph (1)(A), including site specific 
     conditions.
       ``(5) Approval of state notification programs.--
       ``(A) Requests for approval.--
       ``(i) In general.--After the date of issuance of 
     regulations under paragraph (4), a State may submit to the 
     Administrator evidence that the State has in place a legally 
     enforceable notification program that is substantially 
     equivalent to or exceeds the requirements of paragraphs 
     (1)(B) and (1)(C).
       ``(ii) Program review and authorization.--If the evidence 
     submitted by a State under clause (i) shows the notification 
     program of the State to be substantially equivalent to or 
     exceeds the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C), the 
     Administrator shall authorize the State to carry out such 
     program instead of the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and 
     (1)(C).
       ``(iii) Factors for determining substantial equivalency.--
     In carrying out a review of a State notification program 
     under clause (ii), the Administrator shall take into account 
     the scope of sewer overflows for which notification is 
     required, the length of time during which notification must 
     be made, the scope of persons who must be notified of sewer 
     overflows, the scope of enforcement activities ensuring that 
     notifications of sewer overflows are made, and such other 
     factors as the Administrator considers appropriate.
       ``(B) Review period.--If a State submits evidence with 
     respect to a notification program under subparagraph (A)(i) 
     on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on 
     the date of issuance of regulations under paragraph (4), the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not begin 
     to apply to a publicly owned treatment works located in the 
     State until the date on which the Administrator completes a 
     review of the notification program under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii).
       ``(C) Withdrawal of authorization.--If the Administrator, 
     after conducting a public hearing, determines that a State is 
     not administering and enforcing a State notification program 
     authorized under subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, the Administrator shall so 
     notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is not 
     taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, the 
     Administrator shall withdraw authorization of such program 
     and enforce the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) 
     with respect to the State.
       ``(6) Special rules concerning application of notification 
     requirements.--After the last day of the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date of issuance of regulations under 
     paragraph (4), the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and 
     (1)(C) shall--
       ``(A) apply to the owner or operator of a publicly owned 
     treatment works and be subject to enforcement under section 
     309, and
       ``(B) supersede any notification requirements contained in 
     a permit issued under this section for the treatment works to 
     the extent that the notification requirements are less 
     stringent than the notification requirements of paragraphs 
     (1)(B) and (1)(C),

     until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or modified 
     under this section for the treatment works in accordance with 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Sanitary sewer overflow.--The term `sanitary sewer 
     overflow' means an overflow, spill, release, or diversion of 
     wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. Such term does not 
     include municipal combined sewer overflows or other 
     discharges from the combined portion of a municipal combined 
     storm and sanitary sewer system and does not include 
     wastewater backups into buildings caused by a blockage or 
     other malfunction of a building lateral that is privately 
     owned. Such term includes overflows or releases of wastewater 
     that reach waters of the United States, overflows or releases 
     of wastewater in the United States that do not reach waters 
     of the United States, and wastewater backups into buildings 
     that are caused by blockages or flow conditions in a sanitary 
     sewer other than a building lateral.
       ``(B) Sewer overflow.--The term `sewer overflow' means a 
     sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal combined sewer 
     overflow.
       ``(C) Single-family residence.--The term `single-family 
     residence' means an individual dwelling unit, including an 
     apartment, condominium, house, or dormitory. Such term does 
     not include the common areas of a multi-dwelling 
     structure.''.

              TITLE V--GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 5001. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF 
                   CONCERN.

       Section 118(c)(12)(H) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended by striking 
     clause (i) and inserting the following:
       ``(i) In general.--In addition to other amounts authorized 
     under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this paragraph--

       ``(I) $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2009; and
       ``(II) $150,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 
     through 2014.''.

     SEC. 5002. PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM.

       Section 118(c)(13)(B) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended 
     by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2014''.

     SEC. 5003. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT REMEDIATION APPROACHES, 
                   TECHNOLOGIES, AND TECHNIQUES.

       Section 106(b) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33 
     U.S.C. 1271a(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under 
     other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
     out this section--
       ``(A) $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2009; and
       ``(B) $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 
     2014.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except 
those printed in House report 111-36. Each 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 of the amendment, 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. Oberstar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       In section 1101(a)(3) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted as section

[[Page 7236]]

     104(b)(8) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) insert ``and tribal governments'' after ``small 
     municipalities''; and
       (B) insert ``and tribal governments'' after ``such 
     municipalities''; and
       (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C) strike ``rural and small'' 
     and insert ``rural, small, and tribal''.
       In section 1103(a)(2) of the bill, amend subparagraph (A) 
     to read as follows:
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``for treatment works'' and inserting ``to 
     a municipality or municipal entity''; and
       (ii) by striking ``wet weather discharge'';
       In section 1103(a)(2)(B) of the bill, in the matter 
     proposed to be inserted in section 122(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, strike ``technologies'' and 
     insert ``technologies and other techniques that utilize 
     infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse of storm water on 
     site''.
       In section 1103 of the bill, amend subsection (b) to read 
     as follows:
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of 
     section 122(c)(1) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``, such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 
     and $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2014.''.
       In section 1303(a) of the bill, in the matter proposed to 
     be inserted in section 603(c) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act--
       (1) in paragraph (7) strike ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (8) strike ``section 122.'', the closing 
     quotation marks, and the final period and insert ``section 
     122; and''; and
       (3) add after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) to any municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or 
     State agency for measures to reduce the energy consumption 
     needs for publicly owned treatment works, including the 
     implementation of energy-efficient or renewable-energy 
     generation technologies.''.
       In section 1303(f) of the bill, in the matter proposed to 
     be inserted as section 603(i)(2)(A) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, strike the last sentence and insert 
     the following: ``Such criteria shall be based on income data, 
     population trends, and other data determined relevant by the 
     State, including whether the project or activity is to be 
     carried out in an economically distressed area, as described 
     in section 301 of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3161).''.
       Amend section 1306 of the bill to read as follows:

     SEC. 1306. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       Section 606(d) (33 U.S.C. 1386(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) Annual Report.--Beginning'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) Annual Reports.--
       ``(1) State report.--Beginning'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated) by striking ``loan 
     amounts,'' and inserting ``loan amounts, the eligible 
     purposes under section 603(c) for which the assistance has 
     been provided,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Federal report.--The Administrator shall annually 
     prepare, and make publicly available, a report on the 
     performance of the projects and activities carried out in 
     whole or in part with assistance made available by a State 
     water pollution control revolving fund as authorized under 
     this title during the previous fiscal year, including--
       ``(A) the annual and cumulative financial assistance 
     provided to States under this title;
       ``(B) the categories and types of such projects and 
     activities;
       ``(C) an estimate of the number of jobs created through 
     carrying out such projects and activities;
       ``(D) an assessment of the progress made toward meeting the 
     goals and purposes of this Act through such projects and 
     activities; and
       ``(E) any additional information that the Administrator 
     considers appropriate.''.
       At the end of title I of the bill, add the following (with 
     the correct sequential provision designations [replacing the 
     numbers currently shown for such designations]) and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 1309. UNITED STATES-MEXICAN BORDER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   STUDIES.

       (a) Study of Infrastructure Along the Rio Grande River.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall conduct a study of wastewater 
     treatment facilities that discharge into the Rio Grande River 
     and develop recommendations for improving monitoring, 
     information sharing, and cooperation between the United 
     States and Mexico.
       (2) Consultation.--The Administrator shall conduct the 
     study in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     appropriate representatives of the Mexican government, and 
     the International Boundary Waters Commission.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 12 months 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 paragraph (1).
       (b) Study of Water Infrastructure Along the United States-
     Mexico Border.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on water infrastructure along the border between the United 
     States and Mexico to augment current studies relating to 
     colonias development.
       (2) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall examine the comprehensive planning needs 
     relating to water and wastewater infrastructure for colonias 
     along the border between the United States and Mexico.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study.
       In section 1501 of the bill, strike subsection (b) and 
     redesignate subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and 
     (c), respectively.
       In section 1501(c)(3) of the bill (as so redesignated)--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) insert ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B) strike ``; and'' and insert a 
     period; and
       (3) strike subparagraph (C).
       Strike section 3001(b) of the bill and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 221(f) (33 
     U.S.C. 1301(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, 
     $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, $350,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2012, $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2013, and 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(2) Minimum allocations.--To the extent there are 
     sufficient eligible project applications, the Administrator 
     shall ensure that a State uses not less than 20 percent of 
     the amount of the grants made to the State under subsection 
     (a) in a fiscal year to carry out projects to control 
     municipal combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 
     overflows through the use of green infrastructure, water and 
     energy efficiency improvements, and other environmentally 
     innovative activities.''.
       At the end of title V of the bill, add the following (with 
     the correct sequential provision designations [replacing the 
     numbers currently shown for such designations]) and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 5004. 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 the water quality of the Great Lakes; and
       (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 
     wastewater into the Great Lakes.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study, the 
     Administrator shall consult with the International Joint 
     Commission.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 12 months 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).
       At the end of the bill, add the following (with the correct 
     sequential provision designations [replacing the numbers 
     currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly:

          TITLE VI--PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS

     SEC. 6001. PRESENCE OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND PERSONAL CARE 
                   PRODUCTS IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1254) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(w) Presence of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care 
     Products in Waters of the United States.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal agencies (including the National 
     Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), shall conduct a 
     study on the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care 
     products (in this subsection referred to as `PPCPs') in the 
     waters of the United States.
       ``(2) Contents.--In conducting the study under paragraph 
     (1), the Administrator shall--
       ``(A) identify PPCPs that have been detected in the waters 
     of the United States and the levels at which such PPCPs have 
     been detected;
       ``(B) identify the sources of PPCPs in the waters of the 
     United States, including point sources and nonpoint sources 
     of PPCP contamination; and
       ``(C) identify methods to control, limit, treat, or prevent 
     PPCPs in the waters of the United States.

[[Page 7237]]

       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted 
     under this subsection, including the potential effects of 
     PPCPs in the waters of the United States on human health and 
     aquatic wildlife.
       ``(4) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products defined.--
     In this subsection, the terms `pharmaceuticals and personal 
     care products' and `PPCPs' mean products used by individuals 
     for personal health or cosmetic reasons or used to enhance 
     growth or health of livestock.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The manager's amendment incorporates several important 
policy changes to the Clean Water Act, principally to promote 
transparency and accountability following on the committee's portion of 
the Economic Recovery Act, in which we require across the spectrum of 
our portion of the stimulus package openness, accountability reports 
every 30 days, the first of which will be received on April 3 by this 
committee from the whole range of Federal agencies and State agencies 
that are receiving recovery funds. We take that principle and 
incorporate those concepts of openness and accountability for the 
future of this program.

                              {time}  1200

  A review of the types and categories of projects, the activities 
carried out under the State Revolving Fund, the jobs estimated to be 
created from the funds that States will use and cities will borrow 
from, we want to know the jobs created, the type of project, the 
category of projects, activities carried out, receive that information 
and make it public.
  We also provide additional criteria for States to determine 
affordability for wastewater infrastructure projects and activities, 
and tribal governments to be eligible for technical and management 
assistance for small, publicly owned sewerage agencies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time, 
although I am not in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, we very much support this amendment and thank the 
chairman for bringing it forward, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The balance of 
the manager's amendment includes proposals that we folded in from 
Representatives Cardoza, Cleaver, Cuellar, Edwards of Maryland, Lujan, 
McCarthy of New York, Stupak and Mr. Teague, and I will not go into all 
the details, but I will include in the Record under general leave my 
complete statement covering those provisions. I ask support for the 
manager's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim a 
minute of my time.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment. I 
think the amendment is actually appropriate. My concern about it is, 
and I will say this to the chairman of the committee, I totally, coming 
from local government, totally support the openness here. I think at a 
time when we still have storm water diversion going over and polluting 
our rivers, it is crazy that we don't do more.
  But I would ask the chairman to be aware of the fact that although we 
will be able to tell the public, and the public will be able to know, 
where their money is going and how it is being spent, there is still 
that issue the American people are very upset about, what the Senate 
did to the stimulus package, and that is the issue that the public will 
not know: Are the people who are getting the jobs legally in the 
country? Do their Social Security names and numbers match? And will the 
public be able to know how many legal residents and Americans got this 
job as opposed to somebody who is in violation of our immigration 
status? The E-Verify was a great bipartisan effort here in the House. 
For us to abandon that as a minimum standard to allow the public to 
know, I disagree with that.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1262, the 
Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, which my good friend Chairman 
Oberstar introduced. In particular, I am very proud to support the 
Oberstar Amendment, containing provisions to ensure that no less than 
20 percent of all sewer overflow control grants allocated through this 
legislation will be spent on projects that incorporate green 
infrastructure practices.
  H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act authorizes significant 
federal investment aimed at reducing sewer overflows in the, United 
States--a problem that threatens human health and the environment 
across the country.
  Currently, most cities that have created EPA-mandated plans to reduce 
their sewer overflows have relied on the increase of treatment and 
storage capacity, and the separation of sanitary and stormwater 
sewers--so-called ``grey solutions.'' However, research and 
demonstration projects have shown promising results for the use of 
``green infrastructure'' to help solve the sewer overflow problem. 
Green infrastructure takes nature as its guide, using plants and 
natural systems to infiltrate stormwater into the soil before it enters 
the sewers, taking pressure off of cities' collection and treatment 
systems.
  I was proud to contribute a provision in the Oberstar Amendment that 
will ensure that no less than 20 percent of grant funds made under this 
bill for sewer overflow control will be spent on projects that 
incorporate green infrastructure approaches and practices. This strikes 
a reasonable balance between green infrastructure and traditional 
control systems, as both have a role in creating a sustainable and 
workable solution to sewer overflows.
  Green infrastructure has significant advantages over grey solutions. 
These strategies reduce stormwater runoff, relieving combined sewer 
systems of large quantities of stormwater that contribute to sewer 
overflows. At the same time, these natural systems can filter 
stormwater, removing pollutants that otherwise can be conveyed to 
streams and lakes. By holding stormwater runoff in the watershed where 
it falls, green infrastructure helps recharge groundwater sources that 
many cities rely on for drinking water. Green infrastructure also 
provides more greenspace to our concrete-covered cities. These open 
areas allow for recreational uses as well as reducing the urban heat 
island effect, which reduces energy needs. This reduced energy use 
combined with greater sequestration of carbon in trees and plants helps 
mitigate the effects of climate change. Building and maintaining these 
natural systems create green jobs as well. Finally, by reducing runoff, 
green infrastructure can alleviate flooding issues.
  Perhaps most importantly, given the size of the federal contribution 
that this water quality financing bill represents, green infrastructure 
can be more cost effective than traditional grey solutions, even 
without considering the ancillary benefits listed above. Numerous 
demonstration projects have shown that green infrastructure can achieve 
the same level of runoff control for less money. For example, studies 
of new residential developments have found that green infrastructure 
can control stormwater for $3,500 to $4,500 less per lot than 
traditional stormwater controls. At the same time, the developments 
with green infrastructure have higher property values. Moreover, 
retrofitting existing urban spaces for green infrastructure is 
competitive in cost with conventional stormwater controls, especially 
when viewed as a component of a coherent watershed approach. When the 
additional benefits of green infrastructure are included, it becomes a 
very attractive alternative.
  No one argues that green infrastructure alone can solve the enormous 
sewer overflow problem. But my amendment recognizes the growing 
consensus that green infrastructure deserves a place among the suite of 
tools used by watershed managers in an increasingly environmentally 
conscious society. Americans are demanding that we as lawmakers account 
for and take steps to reduce the footprint that we make on our fragile 
planet. This bill is a step toward meeting those expectations.
  Indeed, America's cities are already moving in the direction of 
making green infrastructure an integral part of sewer overflow control 
strategies. Green roofs cover more than 1 million

[[Page 7238]]

square feet in Chicago, thanks in part to grants of $5,000 the city 
offers to building owners that install a green roof. Chicago is also 
aggressively pursuing permeable pavement along its 2,000 miles of 
alleyways. In the face of rising costs and economic challenges, the 
Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati in 2007 took the bold 
step of re-examining its EPA-mandated combined sewer overflow (CSO) 
control plan, proposing that an aggressive stormwater management 
strategy using green infrastructure be implemented to reduce the 
burdensome cost of conventional grey solutions in their original plan. 
Washington, DC has investigated the stormwater benefits of green roofs 
and trees, and estimated that aggressive implementation of green roofs 
and tree planting could reduce CSOs by 1 billion gallons annually.
  Kansas City, Missouri, which I proudly represent, has decided as a 
community that green infrastructure must be a main component of its 
sewer overflow control strategy. To that end, Kansas City's plan 
allocates tens of millions of dollars toward implementing green 
infrastructure solutions. The plan continues and expands the City's 
award-winning ``10,000 Rain Gardens'' campaign, which educates citizens 
about the benefits of installing rain gardens and provides resources to 
residents who want to plant a rain garden. The program will be expanded 
to help residents disconnect their downspouts. Recognizing the economic 
benefits of green infrastructure to the long term local economy, Kansas 
City is also allocating significant resources to developing the green 
collar workers that are needed to build green infrastructure. In tough 
times, these jobs will provide an economic stimulus to distressed 
areas. Finally, Kansas City has kicked off the largest demonstration of 
green solutions for CSO control in the nation, in the Marlborough 
neighborhood. Covering 100 acres, the project will be designed to store 
500,000 gallons of stormwater. This project will replace the original 
plan for management of this area--two underground storage tanks that 
would have contributed no additional benefits to the neighborhood or 
the environment.
  This bill will help cities adopt these and other innovative 
strategies, and it is in keeping with the New Direction this Congress 
has charted: one in which economic prosperity, environmental 
protection, and social well-being are not mutually exclusive. That is 
why I am proud to support H.R. 1262, particularly the amendment by my 
good friend Chairman Oberstar. I urge all my colleagues to support this 
vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, the recent discovery of pharmaceuticals in our 
nation's waters has increased concern over how these drugs may affect 
the surrounding environment. That is why I am proud to have worked with 
Congresswoman McCarthy, Congresswoman Baldwin and Congresswoman 
Schwartz to secure an amendment in the Water Quality Investment Act of 
2009 that would require the EPA to study the presence of 
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in our waters. This 
amendment is extremely important in advancing our understanding on how 
to cleanup these potentially hazardous materials. I would also like to 
thank Chairman Oberstar for inclusion of this amendment in the 
manager's amendment. It is my hope that Congress will continue to 
examine the issues surrounding the presence of pharmaceuticals in 
dangerous settings and work to pass the Safe Drug Disposal Act of 2009 
in the near future.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mack

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Mack:
       In section 1302(b)(4) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted as section 602(b)(14) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       In section 1302(b)(4) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted as section 602(b)(15) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       In section 1302(b)(4) of the bill, strike the matter 
     proposed to be inserted as section 602(b)(16) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would first like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 
for all of their efforts to promote clean water and infrastructure 
investment. Despite these good efforts, I find it hard to believe that 
the majority would include a job-killing provision known as Davis-Bacon 
in this legislation.
  With Davis-Bacon and the majority's introduction of the Card Check 
legislation earlier this week, the Democrat leadership is telling big 
labor that they are open for business and it is time to cash in on the 
backs of hardworking American taxpayers.
  As Members of Congress, one of our jobs is to make certain that our 
country has safe, accessible and modern infrastructure. It is our 
responsibility as legislators to foster a competitive environment that 
enables businesses to hire the workers they need and to meet these 
goals.
  Sadly, this is a bill we should all be able to support. But with the 
poison pill of the Davis-Bacon provision, this becomes unacceptable 
legislation, and I in good faith cannot support it.
  The Davis-Bacon Act passed in 1931 is a throw-back to failed 
Depression-era economic policies and is fiscally irresponsible. Davis-
Bacon is basically a federally mandated super-minimum wage provision 
that applies to federally funded infrastructure projects. Davis-Bacon 
provisions force construction projects to deal with unnecessary red 
tape and lead to higher construction costs. It ensures that wages are 
artificially set by bureaucrats, not by the free-market forces.
  Currently 18 States, including my home State of Florida, have no 
prevailing wage laws. With the inclusion of Davis-Bacon, my 
constituents, along with 17 other States, will see increased costs of 
public construction, thereby reducing the volume of projects and jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand up for Florida and other States today. Do not 
burden them with this reckless policy. This bill today represents an 
unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon. The Clean Water Investment Act 
mandates that any project funded even in part by the State Revolving 
Fund is subject to the prevailing wage requirements.
  To be blunt and simple, Davis-Bacon is fiscally irresponsible policy 
and should not be included in this legislation. Repealing Davis-Bacon 
would save taxpayers billions in construction and administrative costs. 
These numbers may seem trivial to some of my colleagues, especially in 
this time when the majority has spent more than a trillion dollars in 
the last few months, but to my constituents, this is completely 
unacceptable.
  If we repeal Davis-Bacon, we could use these savings to create more 
jobs and improve our water supply, rather than just lining the pockets 
of big labor. I cannot believe that Members can sit back and allow this 
provision to be part of the underlying legislation. Our taxpayers 
deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is always astonishing to me, over the going on 35 years that I 
have served in the House, on those few occasions when prevailing wage 
has become an issue of discussion on the House floor, it is 
characterized as ``job killing'' and ``union boss wages'' and other 
such, not that the gentleman from Florida used such language, but it 
has been used on other occasions.
  This is far from job killing. Good Lord, this was a provision signed 
into law by Herbert Hoover on March 3, 1931, in response to an appeal 
from contractors who said that job-stealing contractors from other 
parts of the country were coming into New York on Long Island, where a 
federally funded hospital was being built, and undercutting their 
wages--and that was pretty

[[Page 7239]]

hard to do in those days, because the wage was only about 25 cents an 
hour--and setting up tents on the property where the construction 
project was underway to undercut the local contractor who then appealed 
to the administration for help. Didn't get any, but the local 
Republican member of the House, Mr. Bacon, vigorously protested that 
practice.
  The Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Davis, left the 
administration, went back to Pennsylvania, was elected to the United 
States Senate, and in 1931 joined with Mr. Bacon, moved this 
legislation through the House and Senate, and Herbert Hoover signed it 
into law. It has not killed jobs in over 70-some years.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Inclusion of the Davis-Bacon mandate in H.R. 1262 represents both bad 
policy and bad process, and I support this effort to correct it.
  First on process. The Education and Labor Committee, the committee 
with jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon, never considered the bill's Davis-
Bacon provision, not in a hearing, not in a markup, not in any 
procedure whatsoever. If we had, we would have weighed the impact of 
this provision on the projects themselves, on local economies, and 
indeed, on the American taxpayers. That brings me to my second 
objection, the policy.
  By inflating labor rates, Davis-Bacon typically increases the cost of 
Federal projects by anywhere from 5 to 38 percent. Furthermore, the 
costs of Davis-Bacon are particularly burdensome for small businesses. 
This mandate can saddle private companies with literally millions of 
dollars in excess administrative work every year. Small, locally owned 
businesses can't afford this type of bureaucracy. They rarely have the 
resources to comply. As a result, large companies are more often 
rewarded government contracts, even for small projects. At a time when 
the economy is hurting as it is and small businesses are the ones 
creating jobs, give them the opportunity to do it. Federal law should 
not have a built-in bias against small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the costly 
and burdensome Davis-Bacon requirement.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. I rise particularly noting that Congressman Bacon at one 
point represented the district that I have the honor of representing.
  I want to be clear on what our friends on the other side of the aisle 
are fighting for. The prevailing wage for a bricklayer in Lee County, 
Florida, is $8.34 an hour. That is an annual rate of $17,000 a year. 
The Federal poverty level for a family of four is approximately $21,000 
a year. Does this Congress really want to go on record as imposing a 
wage rate that consigns the hardworking people of our communities to 
living under the Federal poverty level? I would hope not.
  The prevailing wage for a backhoe operator in Madison County, 
Arkansas, is $12.17 an hour. Is that a wage that we can find 
indefensible? Is that a wage that is going to bankrupt the companies 
that hire these people? Absolutely not. An annual rate of $25,000 a 
year, how do we help our families get their piece of the American dream 
when we consign them to wages as low as $17,000 a year or $25,000 a 
year.
  So I would urge my colleagues to both reject this amendment and to 
make a statement that we want to support the working families of our 
communities. We want to see to it that they are paid a livable wage. 
And we want to ensure, frankly, that we don't give opportunity to 
unscrupulous contractors who will not be bound by Federal prevailing-
wage requirements, and they will then access a workforce that is 
willing to accept the subsistence wages and no benefits that would go 
along with such a job.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding.
  This is an issue that will bring me to this floor every opportunity I 
get. I believe I would be the one Member of this Congress who has lived 
under the oppressive burden of the Davis-Bacon Act the longest and been 
impacted by it the most.

                              {time}  1215

  There is a second-generation King Construction that is impacted by 
this now, not of my interest.
  The gentleman from Minnesota knows how much respect I have for him. I 
appreciate him bringing up Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover did sign this 
Davis-Bacon Act bill. It was about the same time that he was initiating 
the beginnings of the old New Deal. And I don't agree with either one 
of those decisions of Herbert Hoover, but I will defend his legacy when 
he's right.
  This time, Herbert Hoover was wrong, and here is the reason: that we 
should, as consenting adults, have a protected right to enter into an 
agreement of our choice. If two consenting adults sit down and decide--
if I want to work for my neighbor for $10 an hour, what business is it 
of this Congress to tell me and my neighbor that I can't do that job 
for $10 an hour?
  Under the 10th amendment, the Federalism concept, the powers that 
belong to the States stay with the States. This reaches across into the 
Constitution and it says to the States, this revolving fund, even if 
it's your own money, you can't make those decisions any longer at the 
State level, you have to let the people in Congress make that 
decision--which I know they're going to go back and say, well, this is 
a prevailing wage. Well, no, it's a union scale. If it were a 
prevailing wage, you wouldn't need to have the Department of Labor 
looking in to keep all of these records. I have had them come and ask 
me what are we paying our people. Sometimes it's more than union scale, 
sometimes it's less than union scale; it depends on where the job is. 
But if you report the prevailing wage as a merit shop contractor--which 
I have spent nearly 30 years doing--you can bet that the union 
organizers will show up at your door. And so for that reason, smart 
merit shop contractors don't submit themselves to that kind of 
organization. They just don't report the prevailing wage, so it becomes 
de facto union scale. That is the reality of this.
  And my numbers are this--this is out of King Construction's books: 
The additional cost, when we go into a Davis-Bacon job, is between 8 
and 35 percent. It depends on the region, and it depends on the amount 
of materials. This reaches down into this and tells the States, you're 
going to have to pay this for the remaining States that do not have 
many Davis-Bacon laws, like Florida, like Iowa. It imposes a Federal 
Davis-Bacon wage scale on all of us.
  I have not heard a rational argument that upholds the side of Davis-
Bacon from proponents of it. I stand in support of this amendment. We 
cannot take away the 10th amendment rights of our States to do business 
as they see fit with their money. That is a violation of the 
Constitution, in my view. There has to be a rational argument.
  But I will add one more argument to this, and that is: Herbert Hoover 
may have signed the bill, but this is the last Jim Crow law that I know 
that's on the books, and that can't be defended.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan, a member of the committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment because, 
quite simply, Davis-Bacon works.
  Some might say that Davis-Bacon is nothing more than a giveaway to 
unions, but nothing in Davis-Bacon actually requires government 
contractors to hire union labor. All Davis-Bacon actually does is to 
require that a local prevailing wage be paid to employees who do work 
on government infrastructure projects. And it just so happens that in 
many cases, when Davis-Bacon

[[Page 7240]]

is applied, that union labor is hired because they have outstanding 
training that warrants the wage that is being paid is paid to them. And 
in the end, most importantly, good work is done on public projects.
  Let us also remember for a moment what actually happened after 
Hurricane Katrina when then-President Bush suspended Davis-Bacon during 
the emergency rebuilding. During that time, Mr. Speaker, we saw local 
workers turned away in favor of immigrant labor from other areas, many 
of them workers who were in this country illegally. It got so bad after 
Katrina that I joined a number of my Republican colleagues in going to 
President Bush to implore him to restore Davis-Bacon protections. 
President Bush then rescinded his earlier order and the people of the 
gulf coast got the jobs they needed and the rebuilding went much 
smoother. And I will say this: When government work is being done in 
Michigan, I want highly skilled Michigan building trades workers to get 
those jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, again, very simply, Davis-Bacon works. And I would urge 
my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, in listening to the arguments, earlier a gentleman 
spoke about Lee County, Florida. Well, let me tell you what he didn't 
say. He didn't talk about the thousands of people that are out of work 
and that would like to have a job, that lost their job maybe in the 
construction industry and that would like to go back to work. With the 
Davis-Bacon provision in this bill, we won't be able to hire as many 
people as we would like. That means fewer jobs and fewer opportunities 
for the families that live in southwest Florida and all over this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are debating solutions to jump-start 
our economy and the importance of job creation, the Democrat majority 
has incorporated a provision in this bill that would do just the 
opposite. Repealing Davis-Bacon would create jobs, save money, and 
allow for more critical projects to be completed.
  Including this provision in the bill means fewer jobs for fewer 
workers at a time when we want more people to have more opportunity. 
But Mr. Chairman, it comes as little surprise that in the same week the 
majority would ram through these Davis-Bacon provisions, they would 
introduce the Card Check bill. These reckless policies promote 
inefficiency and end up hammering all of our constituents. I hope this 
Congress will once and for all eliminate the outdated barrier to job 
creation.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to leave Davis-Bacon and these failed 
Depression-era policies where they belong--in the history books.
  I urge all Members to vote for my amendment to strip the Davis-Bacon 
provisions and to stand up for the American people, not Big Labor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the comments from my colleague from 
Florida, who talked about the Employee Free Choice Act in the same 
breath as the Davis-Bacon, because it is part and parcel of the same 
issue.
  There has been a concerted war against organized labor for years. 
Workers have been discriminated against when they have tried to 
organize, they have been cheated, they have been fired for exercising 
their rights with little penalties.
  And look at what happened during Katrina when the Davis-Bacon 
provisions were suspended. That didn't trickle down to provide more 
family wage jobs. It provided more minimum wage jobs, but profit all up 
the food chain. I invite people to look at the disaster that resulted 
from suspending these worker provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Oregon had a spirited, robust State-wide 
referendum on this issue. By a 60-40 vote, our citizens, supported by a 
conservative Republican Governor, decided they wanted these worker 
provisions. This protection for working people is important, and I hope 
we keep it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I yield myself 
the balance of the time.
  This is the kind of debate we should have, based on facts, based on 
reality in the workplace, the deeply felt views on issues, and it's why 
I insisted in committee and at the Rules Committee that the gentleman 
from Florida be allowed to offer this amendment in place and early on 
in consideration of this bill. It is appropriate to have this 
discussion.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who spoke 
earlier; we have worked together on a great many issues. He, too, 
speaks from the heart and from his experience on a range of business 
matters. And far be it from me to defend Herbert Hoover. But there are 
a few things in Hoover's repertoire that are worthy to note. He 
launched aviation security as Secretary of Commerce in 1926. He signed 
Davis-Bacon. He established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Not 
all of Hoover was bad, as he is associated with the Great Depression.
  The gentleman from Iowa has left the floor, but I couldn't help 
noting that the prevailing wage in Sioux City for iron workers, 
$20.95--that's not the union wage, that's prevailing wage. And for a 
truck driver, it is $18.25 in Sioux City, compared to a truck driver 
prevailing wage in Minnesota, in my district, in Lake County, $10.86.
  The prevailing wage varies all over the country, depending on what 
the local labor survey shows. This is not a national wage, this is not 
a negotiated wage; this is the best they do in that particular area in 
this particular skill.
  For the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack), a backhoe operator 
prevailing wage is $11.04. A backhoe operator in northeastern Minnesota 
gets $14.64. A backhoe operator in Mr. Mica's district gets $10.35. 
Union wage is about double that.
  These are not confiscatory wages--they are just barely staying ahead 
of the minimum wage. I know what it's like to work as a laborer. I 
worked on laborer jobs when I was going through college, carrying a hod 
of mud for a bricklayer, puddling concrete on a street-laying job, 
laying pipe for the sewage treatment plant in my hometown at $1.25 an 
hour. That was below the minimum wage because we didn't have a union 
contractor on the job.
  We ought to pay people a decent wage, a living wage. All we're asking 
for is the prevailing wage. And when the gentleman from Florida, the 
ranking member, said earlier, this is an expansion. Technically, yes, 
because the law expired. The Republican majority allowed this 
legislation, State Revolving Loan Fund, to expire. It was last 
authorized in 1994, and they allowed it to expire and it hasn't been 
authorized since then. So technically you can say, yeah, it is new, 
it's new legislation. We are just restoring what was.
  This amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 30 seconds to thank 
the chairman.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I failed to mention earlier that, in the 
committee, when I brought this amendment forward, Chairman Oberstar was 
gracious and kind to allow this debate to happen on the floor, and I 
think that shows great character. I want to thank him for his efforts 
to have the debate on the floor so we can let the people in the United 
States hear what the Congress is up to on this amendment. Thank you so 
much.
  I would first like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 
for all of their efforts to promote clean water and infrastructure 
investment. Despite these good efforts, I find it hard to believe that 
the majority would include a job-killing provision known as Davis-Bacon 
in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, with Davis-Bacon and the majority's introduction of the 
card check legislation earlier this week, the Democratic leadership is 
telling Big Labor that we're open for business and it's time to cash in 
on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers!
  As Members of Congress, one of our jobs is to make certain that our 
county has safe, accessible, and modern infrastructure. It is our 
responsibility as legislators to foster a competitive environment that 
enables businesses

[[Page 7241]]

to hire the workers they need to meet these goals.
  Sadly, this is a bill we should all be able to support, but with the 
poison pill of the Davis-Bacon provision, this becomes unacceptable 
legislation and I in good faith cannot support it.
  The Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931, is a throwback to failed 
Depression-era economic policy and is fiscally irresponsible. The act 
was originally passed with the intent of preventing nonunionized and 
immigrant laborers from competing with unionized workers for very 
scarce jobs. This provision forced communities to hire workers at 
higher prices and completely eliminated the pool of competition and 
competitive wages.
  Davis-Bacon is essentially a federally-mandated, super-minimum wage 
provision that applies to federally-funded infrastructure projects. 
Many studies have concluded that Davis-Bacon provisions force 
construction projects to deal with unnecessary red tape and lead to 
higher construction costs.
  Davis-Bacon requirements ensure that wages are artificially set by 
bureaucrats not by free market forces.
  Currently 18 states, inducting my home state of Florida have no 
prevailing wage laws. With the inclusion of Davis-Bacon, my 
constituents, along with the 17 other states will see increased costs 
of public construction, thereby reducing the volume of projects and 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand up for Florida and other states today--do not 
burden them with this reckless policy.
  In 1987, the Clean Water Act stated that Davis-Bacon rates would only 
apply to contracts where direct federal dollars were used.
  This bill today represents an unprecedented expansion of Davis-Bacon. 
The Clean Water Investment Act mandates that any project funded even in 
part by the State Revolving Loan Fund, is subject to the prevailing 
wage requirements.
  To be blunt and simple, Davis-Bacon is a fiscally irresponsible 
policy and should not be included in this legislation.
  Repealing this Act would save federal taxpayers billions on 
construction and administrative costs. These numbers may seem trivial 
to some of my colleagues--especially in this era where the majority has 
spent more than a trillion dollars in the last month--but to my 
constituents this is completely unacceptable! If we repealed Davis-
Bacon, we could use this savings to create more jobs and improve our 
water supply rather than just lining the pockets of Big Labor.
  According to the Associated Builders and Contractors, Davis-Bacon has 
been shown to increase public construction costs by as much as 38 
percent. A recent estimate from the Beacon Hill Institute suggests 
Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers $8.6 billion per year. I cannot believe 
that Members can sit back and allow this provision to be part of this 
underlying legislation.
  Our taxpayers deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are debating the solutions to 
jumpstart our economy and the importance of job creation, the 
Democratic majority has incorporated a provision in this bill that 
would do just the opposite.
  Repealing Davis-Bacon would create jobs, save money, and allow for 
more critical projects to be completed. Including this provision in 
this bill means fewer jobs for fewer workers at a time when we want 
more people to have more opportunity.
  It comes as little surprise that in the same week the majority would 
ram through these Davis-Bacon provisions, they introduce the card check 
bill. These reckless policies promote inefficiency, and end up harming 
all of our constituents.
  I hope this Congress will once and for all eliminate this antiquated 
barrier to job creation in the private sector.
  We need to leave Davis-Bacon and these failed Depression-era policies 
where it belongs: in the history books!
  I urge all members to vote for my amendment to strip the Davis-Bacon 
provisions and stand up for the American people, not Big Labor.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  This amendment would strike the language renewing Davis-Bacon 
prevailing wage protections for construction projects funded under the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
  Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act has provided a living wage for 
America's workers.
  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 and for the nation as a whole is to provide workers 
with an honest wage for an honest day's work.
  One of the unfortunate effects of today's economy and cost-of-living 
is that many families find themselves struggling to make ends meet.
  In fact, today, many families either have both parents working or one 
wage-earner working multiple jobs just to afford a decent living for 
themselves and their families.
  I believe that is important for the Federal government to help 
working Americans. It has been well documented by this Committee that 
every $1 billion invested in transportation and water infrastructure 
creates over 35,000 jobs.
  In addition, the Davis-Bacon provisions have increased the numbers of 
minority and women construction workers nationwide, providing valuable 
wage protections and training opportunities for groups that might 
otherwise be left behind.
  As of today, twenty-nine states have enacted their own prevailing 
wage laws for publicly funded construction projects. In some of these 
states, the prevailing wage laws result in even higher wages for 
workers than if the Federal Davis-Bacon provisions, alone, were in 
effect.
  However, for those States without prevailing wage protections, the 
Davis-Bacon Act is essential to protecting America's workers.
  I have heard statements from opponents of the Davis-Bacon Act who 
claim that the government would save money if the Davis-Bacon 
provisions were not included.
  In fact, such a move would be penny-wise and pound-foolish, because 
such a move would not reduce the cost of construction projects.
  Studies have shown that the prevailing wage protections offered by 
the Davis-Bacon Act, in fact, attract better workers with more 
experience and training who are more productive than less experienced, 
and less trained workers.
  This increase in productivity often results in the completion of 
construction projects ahead of schedule, reducing the overall cost of 
the project, and offsetting any increased costs due to higher hourly 
wage rates.
  Removing the Davis-Bacon protections would, however, have a 
significant downward impact on the Federal budget, since lower wages 
for construction workers would result in an estimate decline of $1 
billion in Federal tax revenues.
  I strongly oppose this amendment, and urge my colleagues also to 
oppose the amendment.
  Ms. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Markey of Colorado

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Markey of Colorado:
       In section 1302(b)(4) of the bill, in the matter proposed 
     to be inserted as section 602(b)(14) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, strike ``10 percent'' and insert ``15 
     percent''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment to require States to use at least 15 
percent of each capital grant under the State Water Pollution Control 
Revolving Funds for municipalities of less than 10,000 people.
  The State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds have been a 
successful source of capital for wastewater treatment projects. The 
State Revolving Funds receive Federal money in the form of grants. Each 
State uses the fund to issue long-term, low-interest loans for publicly 
owned wastewater treatment construction. Loans are repaid to the fund, 
thereby ensuring a

[[Page 7242]]

perpetual source of financing for capital projects.
  According to the EPA, communities of less than 10,000 people often 
have a harder time building and maintaining wastewater treatment 
facilities due to financial limitations. This leaves small communities 
at a disadvantage for keeping up to date with water quality standards.
  In my district, the town of Brush, Colorado, population 5,500, has a 
wastewater treatment facility that is 44 years old. While this facility 
is currently meeting water quality standards, it is in need of an 
overhaul to replace fatigued equipment and stay ahead of ever-changing 
water quality standards.
  Replacement of the wastewater treatment plant is likely to cost Brush 
between $16 to $18 million. With a median household income of $31,000, 
the town of Brush simply cannot afford to finance the project with the 
rate increases alone. Brush is seeking funding through the State Water 
Revolving Fund program.
  The needs of Brush are not unique to small communities around the 
country. The town of Wray, in Yuma County, Colorado, needs to expand 
their current wastewater treatment facility. This project is projected 
to cost up to $5 million. Wray has a population of 2,300 people, with a 
median household income of $29,000.

                              {time}  1230

  My provision would help small communities like Brush and Wray have 
reliable access to capital loans to sustain their long-term water 
quality goals. The 15 percent requirement would be in place only to the 
extent that there are sufficient projects in need of funding. In dry 
States like Colorado, where every drop of water is accounted for, it is 
important that rural wastewater treatment facilities are given the 
funding they need to ensure water supplies are safe.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment to H.R. 1262.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Yes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Kratovil).
  H.R. 1262 requires States to use at least 10 percent of their Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants for small and rural 
communities (communities that have populations of fewer than 10,000) to 
the extent that there are sufficient applications for assistance. The 
Markey-Kratovil amendment increases this percentage from 10 percent to 
15 percent.
  This amendment addresses the reality that many States have small and 
rural communities that have demonstrated clean water needs. For 
instance, 19 percent of Colorado's total wastewater needs are made up 
of systems that serve small communities. Similarly, in Maryland, 12 
percent of the total needs are for small communities. In my own state 
of Minnesota, the figure is a staggering 39 percent.
  Given the economic straits that currently grip the nation, it is 
increasingly difficult for small and rural communities to generate 
resources on their own to address their wastewater needs. This 
amendment provides the tools for small communities throughout the 
country to repair the wastewater infrastructure that we as a nation 
depend on for clean water.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chair, I also ask the gentlewoman to yield.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. We also do not oppose the amendment.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Thank you.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
  Mr. KRATOVIL. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Markey-Kratovil amendment because 
this Congress needs to do more to ensure that rural communities receive 
an equal share of the funds needed to protect our environment, reduce 
pollution, and provide clean water.
  Of the top 15 Clean Water Fund priorities in Maryland, eight of them 
are located in my district, the First District. Of those eight, six 
serve municipalities with populations under 10,000. Despite their 
relatively small populations, these small towns play one of the largest 
roles in protecting the Chesapeake Bay, our Nation's largest estuary 
with a watershed spanning six States and 64,000 square miles. By 
increasing the percentage of funds set aside for rural communities from 
10 to 15 percent, we are taking a giant step forward in the repair of 
aging infrastructure, improvement of failing septic systems, and 
prevention of nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay. These funds not 
only benefit the local communities by lessening their financial burden 
and helping to improve their infrastructure, but they benefit every 
family within the expansive watershed that relies on the bay for 
everything from commerce to recreation.
  Oftentimes larger population centers are given funding priorities 
with the assumption that the benefits will find their way towards 
smaller suburban and rural communities. In the case of the Chesapeake 
Bay, the funding needs to focus on smaller, more rural areas that are 
on the front lines of protecting our environment.
  The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is especially important to the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed, where nitrogen pollution degrades habitat for 
key plants and animals in the bay's ecosystem, including underwater 
grasses, crabs, and oysters. As a result of nitrogen pollution, the 
Chesapeake Bay now functions at barely one-quarter of its estimated 
potential.
  The funding also plays an integral role in upgrading sewage treatment 
plants that receive the majority of SRF funds. Wastewater discharged 
from sewage plants is the second largest source of nitrogen pollution 
to the Chesapeake Bay. When approximately 12 million of the 16 million 
residents of the watershed flush their toilets, the wastewater goes to 
sewage treatment plants and is discharged into the Chesapeake Bay and 
its tributaries. To date, more than two-thirds of those plants do not 
use any technologies to remove nitrogen pollution, and only 10 plants 
are currently reducing nitrogen pollution to the state-of-the-art 
levels, according to the most recent data available.
  The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the primary Federal funding 
mechanism to reduce water pollution and some of the more rural areas, 
especially those in my State and district, are the primary defenders of 
the environment. When allocating these funds, it's important to look 
past population and toward priorities so that the funding is more 
targeted for our long-term environmental health.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (with the correct 
     sequential provision designations [replacing the numbers 
     currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly:

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 6001. TASK FORCE ON PROPER DISPOSAL OF UNUSED 
                   PHARMACEUTICALS.

       (a) In General.--In furtherance of the national goals and 
     policies set forth in section 101 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (in this Act referred to 
     as the ``Administrator'') shall convene a task force (in this 
     Act referred to as the ``task force'') to develop--
       (1) recommendations on the proper disposal of unused 
     pharmaceuticals by consumers, health care providers, and 
     others, which recommendations shall--
       (A) be calculated to prevent or reduce the detrimental 
     effects on the environment and

[[Page 7243]]

     human health caused by introducing unused pharmaceuticals, 
     directly or indirectly, into water systems; and
       (B) provide for limiting the disposal of unused 
     pharmaceuticals through treatment works in accordance with 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.); and
       (2) a strategy for the Federal Government to educate the 
     public on such recommendations.
       (b) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of--
       (1) the Administrator (or the Administrator's designee), 
     who shall serve as the Chair of the task force;
       (2) the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (or the 
     Commissioner's designee); and
       (3) such other members as the Administrator may appoint.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit a report 
     to the Congress containing the recommendations and strategy 
     required by subsection (a).
       (d) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the task 
     force, the head of any department or agency of the United 
     States may detail any of the personnel of that department or 
     agency to the task force to assist in carrying out its duties 
     under this section.
       (e) Termination.--The task force shall terminate 180 days 
     after submitting the report required by subsection (c).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, last year a constituent of the 
mine, Gail St. Laurent, told me of a story surrounding the passing of 
her mother, who had a long battle with cancer. Fortunately, her mother 
had very good insurance, so she was able to get many, many drugs 
administered to help her manage pain during the final days of her life.
  Gail was there when her mother passed away, and before her mother was 
taken out of the room, Gail watched as an official took all of the 
remaining drugs that her mother had, including OxyContin, Marinal, and 
liquid morphine, and then this person flushed them down the toilet. 
Then Gail had to sign a form that she had witnessed them being flushed 
down the toilet. Now, not only were those drugs sent down the toilet 
and into our water system, but they were perfectly good, including two 
vials of liquid morphine delivered just that day, and could have been 
used to help other patients.
  This is not an isolated incident. Only about 1 year ago, the 
Associated Press reported the results of a 5-month investigation into 
America's water, and their results were shocking. A vast array of 
pharmaceutical products were found in the water supplies and the water 
systems that serve millions of Americans their drinking water supply. 
These drugs were found in water systems all across our country, from 
Detroit to southern California, from San Francisco to New Jersey. These 
drugs, which included treatments for high cholesterol, sex hormones, 
and anti-depressants, have also been found to be causing havoc on our 
ecosystems, resulting in mutated plant and animal life.
  Now, there are a number of ways pharmaceuticals can end up in our 
lakes or our rivers and our water supplies. But the most direct route 
right now is when health care facilities and individuals flush unused 
drugs down the toilet. As this issue began to get more attention, I 
learned that Federal agencies have issued varying guidelines on how to 
dispose of drugs that are no longer needed. The AP actually noted that 
the government has an inconsistency in this area, and this is a follow-
up story from September of 2008, and I quote:
  ``Federal agencies don't have a consistent message. For example, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service says do not flush unused medications, while 
the White House, backed by the FDA and the EPA, says flush prescription 
drugs down the toilet if they are on the list in the special 
guidelines. Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration says there 
is no safe, secure, and reliable disposal system for some narcotics.''
  Mr. Chairman, if we are to begin the process of cleaning up our water 
and safely disposing of these drugs, the Federal Government's message 
needs to be consistent in telling consumers what to do.
  My amendment very simply directs the EPA to convene a task force of 
the relevant Federal agencies to develop uniform recommendations on the 
proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals. These recommendations would 
be designed with the goal in mind of reducing the detrimental effects 
caused by unused pharmaceuticals entering our Nation's water supply. 
The task force would also develop a strategy to educate the public on 
these recommendations. And I would hope that the task force could also 
find a safe way to allow for unused drugs to be given to other patients 
who would benefit from their use.
  A year from enactment, the task force would then be required to 
submit a report to the Congress on their findings, and 6 months later, 
the task force would be disbanded.
  So while I do not expect that this problem will be solved overnight, 
I feel strongly that we must begin paying proper attention to this 
issue because of its impact on our environment and its potential impact 
on public health. This amendment can get us started on working toward a 
solution. And if we can get everybody on the same page in terms of how 
to dispose of these products properly, then perhaps we could take a 
very significant step forward towards protecting our Nation's drinking 
water supply.
  I certainly want to thank my friend Gail St. Laurent not only for the 
loving care that she gave to her mother but also for bringing this 
serious issue to my attention. Gail has really endeavored to make 
something good happen from that instance in her life.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman has brought to the committee and to the 
House a very, very important amendment. To establish a Federal task 
force, Federal agency task force, to develop recommendations for proper 
disposal of pharmaceuticals, to educate the public on the effect of 
those pharmaceuticals on the environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service 
has reported over a period of years the effect of estrogen on aquatic 
life, disrupting the condition of frogs and fish not only in inland 
waters but also in the Great Lakes waters.
  This is a critically important issue, and I thank the gentlewoman for 
bringing it forward and urge its adoption. We support the amendment on 
our side.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  This amendment will move us forward in addressing a growing issue of 
concern in our nation's waterways--the presence of pharmaceuticals.
  Congresswoman Miller's amendment convenes a Federal agency task force 
to develop recommendations to properly dispose of unused 
pharmaceuticals, as well as to develop a strategy to educate the public 
on those recommendations.
  Every day, individuals and healthcare facilities improperly dispose 
of unused pharmaceuticals by pouring them into drains or flushing them 
down toilets. Presently, our wastewater treatment systems are either 
unable to properly treat many of these substances, or must expend large 
resources to capture some of them. As a result, pharmaceuticals are 
being detected throughout our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. In a 
series of recent studies, the United States Geological Survey has 
identified substances such as acetaminophen, caffeine, hormones such as 
estrogen, and steroids throughout water bodies. While present in very 
small quantities, the short- and long-term impacts of these substances 
on human and aquatic health are largely unknown. However, it only makes 
sense that changing the manner in which we dispose of these substances 
may well result in fewer pharmaceuticals in lower concentrations ending 
up in our nation's waters.
  The Federal task force that will be convened pursuant to 
Congresswoman Miller's amendment will provide recommendations that will 
help to limit the improper disposal of pharmaceuticals.
  I urge that my colleagues join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Michigan

[[Page 7244]]


  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the chairman for his comments. And I 
would certainly yield to our ranking member from the subcommittee as 
well.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much for yielding.
  We appreciate the gentlewoman's bringing this forward, and we 
certainly don't oppose it.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt 
the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated 
as No. 5 in the resolutions providing for consideration under H.R. 
1262.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Flake:
       In section 1308 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be 
     added as section 609 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, before paragraph (1), insert the following:
       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--''.
       In section 1308 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be 
     added as section 609 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, add after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may be used for a 
     congressional earmarks as defined in clause 9d, of Rule XXI 
     of the rules of the House of Representatives.''

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial in 
nature. It would simply ensure that the Federal capitalization grants 
for State water pollution control revolving funds remain formula-based. 
These Federal grants to the States haven't historically been earmarked, 
and this will simply ensure that that remains the case for the next 5 
years.
  I would submit that just because an account or a program hasn't 
previously been earmarked doesn't mean it won't be in the future.
  We all remember that when the Department of Homeland Security was 
created in 2002, we were told this will not be earmarked. This is going 
to go out formula-based. It will be grants, merit based, just to 
protect the Nation. And that held true for about 5 years. However, in 
the past couple of years, it's been earmarked heavily, particularly the 
funding for FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program. This was a program 
intended to save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds 
``for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of 
structures out of the floodplain.''
  But rather than continuing the practice which had been to allow these 
grants to be given out on a merit-based basis, Congress decided to 
earmark this, and in 2007, nearly half of these funds were earmarked. 
In fiscal year 2008, about 128 earmarks worth $400 million were 
included in the Homeland Security funding.
  So this is not an idle concern, I think, that some of us have. Here's 
a program that I think by all accounts is working and working quite 
well, and we simply can't afford to have money in this program being 
drained off through earmarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, there are no earmarks in this bill. There 
are no earmarks in the stimulus provisions that were part of the 
Recovery Act covering the State Revolving Loan Fund, because we 
specifically opposed using any individual designation for projects 
within the stimulus.
  The money appropriated for the State Revolving Loan Fund from 1987 
on, and actually it started in 1981, there were no earmarks at that 
time. But we made it very clear in 1987 in our committee that these 
funds would go out by a statutory formula in section 205(c) of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  The State of Arizona, for example, receives its statutorily defined 
share of .6831 percent. It's not an earmark. It's a statutorily 
determined amount that goes to the gentleman's State of Arizona, where 
the decisions are made by the counterpart agency, the Water 
Infrastructure Finance Authority, counterpart to our Minnesota Water 
Infrastructure Financing Authority.

                              {time}  1245

  And every State has a similar such authority. I would further say, 
Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman, that at no time in the history of the 
22-year length of this program has there been any earmarking for any 
project.
  But if the gentleman wishes to offer this amendment, we are happy to 
accept it to make a further statement that we have confidence over the 
years of operation of this program that States rank their projects, 
that State agencies rank their projects, as in the State of Minnesota, 
1 through 261, on a merit basis. They have a point system. Other States 
have something similar.
  There is no reason for Members of Congress to sigh that the executive 
branch isn't doing its job properly in allocating the funds authorized 
for their respective States. It's only where States aren't attending to 
the needs of Members that they come to the Appropriations Committee or 
to our committee and say, ``Oh, well, look, we are not being well 
served. Could you designate something?''
  We don't do that in aviation, we don't do that in the clean water 
program, we don't do that in other programs. So I think the gentleman's 
amendment is quite appropriate here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the discussion. I 
appreciate the fact that it has not been earmarked. As I mentioned, I 
noted that, and I just hope that this is the case in the future.
  The problem is with other accounts--in the Homeland Security, for 
example--we were told these will not be earmarked, and they, in fact, 
have been. And so I hope the chairman is successful in beating off 
attempts to earmark.
  And I hope, further, that he is successful in other legislation as 
well, such as the highway bill that we will be doing before long. 
Because I think that States like Arizona, particularly a lot of the 
donor States, would be a lot better off.
  Many of us would be better off if people in a local capacity are made 
to make that decision rather than somebody here. I think we find the 
case that those who are in a position of authority here sometimes take 
the lion's share of the funding, and it sometimes isn't fair to many of 
us, and we know that----
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I will yield.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. We appreciate you bringing forth your amendment. We 
understand your concern, and we will certainly not oppose your 
amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.
  I yield back.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Just very briefly, and I appreciate the gentleman from 
Arizona taking a very principled stand on this issue of earmarks, but 
it's just, as a matter of historical note, there was a time when the 
Congress, the House and the Senate together worried about and raised 
questions about inappropriate spending by the Executive Branch.
  It was a Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Proxmire, who every Sunday night 
would issue his Golden Fleece Award to a government Executive Branch 
agency

[[Page 7245]]

that was inappropriately using taxpayer dollars. And over time someone 
shifted it to take aim at the House or the Senate and shoot ourselves 
in the foot.
  This is not the point for a broader discussion of the matter of 
constituent-inspired initiatives in Federal legislation, but there will 
be another time when I will welcome the opportunity to discuss with the 
gentleman from Arizona the upcoming surface transportation bill and how 
these matters are managed in that context. I ask support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  While I will not oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona, I think it is fair to point out that the gentleman's 
amendment, however well intentioned, does not fit well within the 
context of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (``Clean Water 
SRF'').
  Since its inception in 1987, funds from the Clean Water SRF are 
distributed directly to the States through a statutory formula--found 
in section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  These funds--of which the State of Arizona receives a statutorily 
defined share of 0.6831 percent--are distributed directly to the 
gentleman's home state, where funding decisions on individual projects 
are determined by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of 
Arizona.
  To the best of my knowledge, at no time during the 22-year history of 
this program, have funds been statutorily ``earmarked'' for a certain 
project, in any state. Nothing in H.R. 1262 would change that history. 
There is not a single earmark in this bill, and the Committee does not 
contemplate changing the process for distributing funding to the States 
via statutory formula.
  I understand that the gentleman is doggedly-focused on his concern 
about Congressional earmarks, but this is an amendment in search of a 
problem.
  Given the history of the Clean Water SRF, and the certainty that this 
amendment will have no impact on the traditional operation of the 
program, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
  I am hopeful that, unlike last year, our acceptance of the 
gentleman's amendment will make him more likely to support final 
passage of this vital investment in our nation's clean water 
infrastructure.
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       In section 1103(a)(2)(C) of the bill, in the matter 
     proposed to be inserted in section 122(a)(4) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, strike the closing quotation 
     marks and the final period and insert the following:
       ``(5) Municipality-wide storm water management planning.--
     The development of a municipality-wide plan that identifies 
     the most effective placement of storm water technologies and 
     management approaches, including green infrastructure, to 
     reduce water quality impairments from storm water on a 
     municipality-wide basis.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment authorizes the use of Clean Water Act 
section 122 grant funds for municipality-wide stormwater management 
planning, a very, very important initiative. We have discussed it many 
times in years past. If the gentleman had raised it in the course of 
our consideration of this legislation, we would have included it in the 
base of our bill, but our bill moved along much faster than most 
Members anticipated.
  He has presented it to the Rules Committee, it was made in order. We 
support the amendment on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  This amendment authorizes the use of Clean Water Act section 122 
grant funding for municipality-wide stormwater management planning.
  Congressman Polis' amendment will provide municipalities across the 
nation the means to evaluate, and then plan for, effective and 
comprehensive stormwater response strategies. Central to this amendment 
is the incorporation of ``green infrastructure'' technologies and 
approaches into a municipality's stormwater system
  Developing an effective response to stormwater should occur from a 
system-wide perspective. In too many instances today, municipalities 
try to address their stormwater needs on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis. 
This approach doesn't make sense from either a cost or effectiveness 
perspective. Providing funding for communities to do system-wide 
analysis and planning will result in the placement of the best 
technology and approaches in the most effective locations. Cities will 
be able to target their resources at the most valuable sites.
  Currently, municipalities have a number of options of stormwter 
technologies and approaches. They can construct traditional, or grey, 
stormwater infrastructure, such as pipes and deep tunnels; or they can 
develop ``green infrastructure'' technologies and approaches, such as 
swales, green roofs, and rain gardens. These green infrastructure 
approaches actually result in less stormwater entering the traditional 
stormwater system, through the use of infiltration and evapo-
transpiration technologies. Congresman Polis' amendment will provide 
municipalities with the means to choose the best mix of technologies 
and approaches for their distinctive localities. This comprehensive 
approach will result in better water quality at lower cost.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no problems with the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Developing effective response to storm water is the 
purpose of this amendment. It incorporates green infrastructure 
technologies and approaches into developing municipal stormwater 
systems.
  I urge support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Roskam

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Roskam:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (with the correct 
     sequential provision designations [replacing the numbers 
     currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly:

                          TITLE VI--OMB STUDY

     SEC. 6001. EVALUATION USING PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL.

       (a) Study.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall conduct a study to evaluate the programs 
     authorized by this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act, under the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) or a 
     successor performance assessment tool that is developed by 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (b) Report.--The Director shall transmit to Congress a 
     report on the results of the study.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. You know, in a nutshell, this is an effort--and I don't 
know of any controversy about it, I

[[Page 7246]]

think it enjoys quite a bit of support--but it's an effort to create a 
tool to evaluate the success of the program.
  Let me just read the amendment. It's very, very brief. It says, ``The 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall conduct a study 
to evaluate the programs authorized by this Act, including the 
amendments made by this Act, including the Program Assessment Rating 
Tool (PART) or a successor performance assessment tool that is 
developed by the Office of Management and Budget.''
  You know, the genesis of this was really coming out of President 
Obama's inaugural speech, where he said let's look at programs that are 
working and get behind them. If they are not working, then let's make 
some decisions and abolish those programs, quite frankly, that are not 
working.
  So this would simply require all the programs authorized under the 
legislation to be reviewed by OMB and their Program Assessment Rating 
Tool, and that is just an effort to rate the effectiveness of Federal 
agencies and programs by assessing purpose, planning, management and 
accountability.
  And in the interest of transparency, it will ensure that the 
authorizations of H.R. 1262 are analyzed for effectiveness. Really, in 
this area where Americans, I think, are trying to look with confidence 
about what their government is doing and how things are being spent 
this, I think, serves everybody's interest.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSKAM. Yes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We accept the gentleman's amendment. It's a thoughtful, 
useful, important tool. The committee has always insisted on 
transparency and accountability, and we welcome this recommendation of 
a study and a review and recommendations from OMB.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The gentleman's amendment directs the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to conduct a study of the programs 
authorized by this Act using the Program Assessment Rating Tool 
(``PART''), or a successor performance assessment tool that may be 
developed by OMB in the future.
  I welcome the independent review of Federal programs to make sure 
that they are meeting the goals and purposes for which they were 
created. This independent review of agency actions and programs 
provides policymakers with valuable insight into agency performance, as 
well as the opportunity to make changes to improve the overall 
operation of Federal programs.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a long history 
of ensuring proper oversight of Federal programs and activities. For 
example, in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the Committee 
established an independent review process for the development of 
project studies performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
Independent review of projects should ensure the development projects 
that are justified both on the basis of costs and benefits, but also on 
the best scientific and engineering analyses currently available. We 
should all welcome the opportunity for such scrutiny.
  Mr. Chairman, I am heartened by President Obama's commitment to 
transparency, accountability, and oversight, and I am hopeful that this 
review will demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the Clean Water 
authorities contained in this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Roskam.
  We appreciate you bringing this amendment forward. I think it will be 
a useful tool that we can evaluate in the future. We appreciate your 
hard work and certainly do not oppose it and will support it.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and the members of the 
committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
House Report 111-36.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper:
       In section 1303(c) of the bill, in the matter proposed to 
     be inserted as section 603(d)(1)(E) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) redesignate clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
       (3) insert after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) a certification that the recipient has evaluated 
     and will be implementing water and energy conservation 
     efforts as part of the plan; and

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and the committee on bringing this 
important legislation to the floor. I also want to thank Chairwoman 
Slaughter for allowing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1262 helps ensure that 
conservation of both water and energy are elements in water and sewer 
system planning as these elements of our infrastructure are upgraded 
both now and in the future. Under the legislation, water treatment 
works operators are required to develop and implement a fiscal 
sustainability plan to be eligible for assistance.
  Specifically, my amendment requires an assurance that both energy and 
water conservation are considered in an operator's fiscal 
sustainability plan. As water and energy costs continue to pose 
challenges for much of the country, we can help ensure that consumers 
are getting the most economical service by assuring that those 
responsible for providing water to our communities incorporate 
conservation explicitly into plant repair, replacement or expansion 
plans.
  More efficiency in our water structure is desperately needed, as we 
learned in a recent Science and Technology hearing. Chairman Gordon 
cited how cities like Chicago lose upwards of 60 percent of their water 
in transit from treatment facilities to faucets, and that water rates 
have increased 27 percent over the past 5 years throughout the United 
States.
  I believe conservation of water and energy are natural components of 
a fiscal sustainability plan, given their impact on an operating 
authority's structure, and that conservation of both also serves 
broader national conservation policies. This amendment will promote 
greater taxpayer savings and increase efficiency in our Nation's water 
quality system, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I would yield to the chairman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  We accept the amendment on this side.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the amendment to H.R. 1262 
offered by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
  This amendment requires a certification be completed that Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund loan recipients conduct energy- and water-
efficiency reviews and implement conservation measures that are 
forthcoming.
  It is only fitting that the Member who represents Titusville, 
Pennsylvania, would offer this amendment. It was in Titusville, in 
1859, that oil was first successfully drilled in the United States. It 
is fair to say, then, that energy has been a central part of the life, 
history, and culture of the residents of Pennsylvania's Third District.
  In offering this amendment, Mrs. Dahlkemper has demonstrated the 
importance of energy to all facets of modern life, including the 
operation of wastewater treatment facilities. These operations are 
typically among municipalities' largest users of energy. Requiring that 
wastewater treatment facilities undertake a robust assessment of their 
energy

[[Page 7247]]

usage and operations can ultimately result in less energy being 
expended, decreased energy bills for local governments, and fewer 
greenhouse gas emissions. The amendment will apply 21st century energy 
solutions to 20th century technologies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Will the gentlewoman yield again?
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. We also accept the amendment.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment and 
express my gratitude to the House for approving my amendment to improve 
the cleanliness of our waterways and strengthen our towns and city 
stormwater management.
  Everyone knows when it rains, the excess rainwater that runs down our 
streets and sidewalks and into the drainage pipes that line our city 
streets eventually ends up in our streams and rivers.
  The pollutants include toxins from our cars, such as unburned 
hydrocarbons, soot particles, copper from brake pads, zinc, cadmium, 
rubber from tires and other petroleum products. It also includes 
pesticides and herbicides from our yards.
  My amendment addresses this problem by encouraging the use of 
bioswales and other sustainable stormwater management systems. A 
bioswale relies on vegetated natural systems alongside roads and 
parking lots to slow and filter the water before it ends in our 
drainage systems. Vegetation enhances both interception and evaporation 
of rainfall through its leaves.
  Studies show that natural landscaping in a residential development or 
along streetways can reduce annual stormwater runoff volume by as much 
as 65 percent. It's no wonder that cities are starting to realize the 
benefits of bioswales and green infrastructure, including my City of 
Boulder, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington, among the 
leaders in this area.
  The increased interest is a response to mounting infrastructure costs 
of new development or redevelopment projects, but also more vigorous 
environmental regulations.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. POLIS. This amendment recognizes the relationship between the 
natural environment and the built environment and manages them as 
integrated components of a watershed.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Wittman

  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Capps). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 111-36.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Wittman:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (with the correct 
     sequential provision designations [replacing the numbers 
     currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly:

          TITLE VI--CHESAPEAKE BAY ACCOUNTABILITY AND RECOVERY

     SEC. 6001. CHESAPEAKE BAY CROSSCUT BUDGET.

       (a) Crosscut Budget.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Chesapeake Executive Council, the chief executive of each 
     Chesapeake Bay State, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission, 
     shall submit to Congress a financial report containing--
       (1) an interagency crosscut budget that displays--
       (A) the proposed funding for any Federal restoration 
     activity to be carried out in the succeeding fiscal year, 
     including any planned interagency or intra-agency transfer, 
     for each of the Federal agencies that carry out restoration 
     activities;
       (B) to the extent that information is available, the 
     estimated funding for any State restoration activity to be 
     carried out in the succeeding fiscal year;
       (C) all expenditures for Federal restoration activities 
     from the preceding 3 fiscal years, the current fiscal year, 
     and the succeeding fiscal year; and
       (D) all expenditures, to the extent that information is 
     available, for State restoration activities during the 
     equivalent time period described in subparagraph (C);
       (2) a detailed accounting of all funds received and 
     obligated by all Federal agencies for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years, including the 
     identification of funds which were transferred to a 
     Chesapeake Bay State for restoration activities;
       (3) to the extent that information is available, a detailed 
     accounting from each State of all funds received and 
     obligated from a Federal agency for restoration activities 
     during the current and preceding fiscal years; and
       (4) a description of each of the proposed Federal and State 
     restoration activities to be carried out in the succeeding 
     fiscal year (corresponding to those activities listed in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)), including the--
       (A) project description;
       (B) current status of the project;
       (C) Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority, 
     programs, or responsible agencies;
       (D) authorization level for appropriations;
       (E) project timeline, including benchmarks;
       (F) references to project documents;
       (G) descriptions of risks and uncertainties of project 
     implementation;
       (H) adaptive management actions or framework;
       (I) coordinating entities;
       (J) funding history;
       (K) cost-sharing; and
       (L) alignment with existing Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 
     Chesapeake Executive Council goals and priorities.
       (b) Minimum Funding Levels.--The Director shall only 
     describe restoration activities in the report required under 
     subsection (a) that--
       (1) for Federal restoration activities, have funding 
     amounts greater than or equal to $100,000; and
       (2) for State restoration activities, have funding amounts 
     greater than or equal to $50,000.
       (c) Deadline.--The Director shall submit to Congress the 
     report required by subsection (a) not later than 30 days 
     after the submission by the President of the President's 
     annual budget to Congress.
       (d) Report.--Copies of the financial report required by 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, 
     Environment and Public Works, and Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply beginning 
     with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act for which the President submits a budget to 
     Congress.

     SEC. 6002. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with other Federal and State agencies, shall develop an 
     adaptive management plan for restoration activities that 
     includes--
       (1) definition of specific and measurable objectives to 
     improve water quality;
       (2) a process for stakeholder participation;
       (3) monitoring, modeling, experimentation, and other 
     research and evaluation practices;
       (4) a process for modification of restoration activities 
     that have not attained or will not attain the specific and 
     measurable objectives set forth under paragraph (1); and
       (5) a process for prioritizing restoration activities and 
     programs to which adaptive management shall be applied.
       (b) Implementation.--The Administrator shall implement the 
     adaptive management plan developed under subsection (a).
       (c) Updates.--The Administrator shall update the adaptive 
     management plan developed under subsection (a) every 3 years.
       (d) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the end of a 
     fiscal year, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress an 
     annual report on the implementation of the adaptive 
     management plan required under this section for such fiscal 
     year.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall contain information about the application of adaptive 
     management to restoration activities and programs, including 
     programmatic and project level changes implemented through 
     the process of adaptive management.
       (3) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to the first 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 6003. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:

[[Page 7248]]

       (1) Adaptive management.--The term ``adaptive management'' 
     means a management technique in which project and program 
     decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-based 
     process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, 
     and evaluating applied strategies and incorporating new 
     knowledge into programs and restoration activities that are 
     based on scientific findings and the needs of society. 
     Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, 
     practices, programs, and restoration activities.
       (2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Chesapeake bay state.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     State'' or ``State'' means the States of Maryland, West 
     Virginia, Delaware, and New York, the Commonwealths of 
     Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
       (4) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed'' means the Chesapeake Bay and the geographic area, 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, consisting of 
     36 tributary basins, within the Chesapeake Bay States, 
     through which precipitation drains into the Chesapeake Bay.
       (5) Chief executive.--The term ``chief executive'' means, 
     in the case of a State or Commonwealth, the Governor of each 
     such State or Commonwealth and, in the case of the District 
     of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       (6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (7) Restoration activities.--The term ``restoration 
     activities'' means any Federal or State programs or projects 
     that directly or indirectly protect, conserve, or restore 
     water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including 
     programs or projects that promote responsible land use, 
     stewardship, and community engagement in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed. Restoration activities may be categorized as 
     follows:
       (A) Physical restoration.
       (B) Planning.
       (C) Feasibility studies.
       (D) Scientific research.
       (E) Monitoring.
       (F) Education.
       (G) Infrastructure Development.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am honored to represent Virginia's First Congressional District. 
Improving the health of our Chesapeake Bay is a priority to me and to 
my constituents.
  The First District has more miles of shoreline than any congressional 
district in the United States, and the Chesapeake Bay is 
extraordinarily important to those of us in that district, as well as 
to other people up and down the basin.
  This bill's underlying commitment to improving water quality in our 
Nation's waterways is commendable. My district and the Chesapeake Bay 
has significantly benefited from investment in wastewater treatment 
infrastructure in the past and will so into the future.
  I believe there's a deep sense of frustration in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed about the progress we've made to restore the Bay. Yes, there 
have been successes. I don't want to belittle what has been done. 
However, with all the Federal, State, local and private partner 
investment, we would like to see more accomplishments.
  Our Chesapeake Bay is extraordinarily important. We have heard 
conversations here about jobs, and certainly jobs related to building 
sewage treatment plants and water quality improvements are 
extraordinarily important. But improving the water quality in the Bay 
also has job ramifications.
  By increasing water quality, improving water quality, we create a 
greater realm of natural resources in the Bay. And we hear about issues 
of sustainability in the Bay; we hear about oyster populations being at 
1 percent of historical levels; we hear about reduction in crab 
harvests by 70 percent; we hear about problems with our fin fish 
populations.
  Folks, the men and women that make their living off of the water 
continues to decline. And it is those natural resources that create 
sustainable jobs. I would suggest that by improving water quality, we 
also grow jobs, both in the seafood industry and by those that make 
their living off of the water, whether it's through commercial 
interests or through leisure and sport interests. These are all 
extraordinarily important, and those resources are directly tied to 
water quality.
  My amendment to this bill is similar to H.R. 1053, the Chesapeake Bay 
Accountability and Recovery Act. I have authored this legislation to 
help clean up the Bay because I believe that it is very much a matter 
of national importance that this national treasure be restored.
  My amendment would implement and strengthen management techniques 
like crosscut budgeting and adaptive management to ensure that we get 
more bang for our buck and continue to make progress in Bay restoration 
efforts.
  Both of these techniques, I believe, will ensure that we are 
coordinating how restoration dollars are spent, and that we make sure 
everyone understands how individual projects fit into the bigger 
picture. That bigger picture is making sure that we restore the 
Chesapeake Bay. That way we know that we are not duplicating efforts, 
spending money that we don't need to, or worse, working at cross 
purposes between agencies, both at the Federal, State and local levels.
  My amendment would require OMB, in coordination with State and 
Federal agencies involved in the Bay, to report to Congress on the 
status of Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. My amendment would 
also require EPA to develop and implement an adaptive management plan 
for the Chesapeake Bay and all of the related restoration activities.
  Adaptive management relies on rigorous scientific monitoring, 
testing, and evaluation, and also provides for the flexibility to 
modify management policies and strategies based on changing conditions. 
Folks, the Chesapeake Bay continues to change, and we should also 
change along with it how we manage the restoration activities therein.
  Crosscut budgeting and adaptive management should be key components 
for the complex restoration activities that are occurring presently 
within the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
  Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this 
amendment in order, and thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica 
for their consideration. I also ask my colleagues to support my 
amendment to help restore the Bay.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, though I do not oppose the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.
  I support the amendment of the gentleman, and I also want to note 
that all amendments requested by Republican members of the Rules 
Committee have been made in order, though not all Democratic requests 
were made in order.
  I just want to make that little observation to ensure that our 
committee is being fair and open and, more importantly, inclusive.
  The gentleman's amendment is extremely important, as was the offering 
by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Kratovil, along with Ms. Markey. 
The Chesapeake Bay is not just a Virginia- Maryland resource, it is a 
national and international treasure. It is an estuary.
  The estuaries of the world are the places where the meeting of fresh 
water and salt water creates new forms of life. They are resources for 
the future. They are a window on the past. And the Chesapeake Bay, 
perhaps the greatest of all estuaries in the world, has been 
deteriorating at an alarming pace.
  There was a time when the oysters of the Chesapeake Bay turned over 
that water once every 24 hours. There were millions of oysters. They 
are down to 1 percent of their number. Shad are down; rockfish are 
coming back; crabs are down. Why? It's not the watermen who are taking 
too much, although they are taking more than they probably should be, 
under these deteriorating, declining conditions of fish and shellfish 
in the Bay.

[[Page 7249]]

  But it's the waters from as far as New York, Pennsylvania, and West 
Virginia, as well as Maryland and Virginia, that come in the 
Rappahannock and the Shenandoah and others that discharge into the Bay, 
along with the Potomac and the Anacostia, that are bringing pollutant 
loads and toxic materials into the Bay that are killing the fish and 
the shellfish and the life of this Bay.
  I was very pleased when President Obama designated Lisa Jackson to be 
administrator of EPA. I had a conversation with her before her 
confirmation. And after her confirmation she said, ``I will make the 
Chesapeake Bay a priority consideration during my service.'' And she 
has already designated a special advisor to deal with the needs of the 
Chesapeake Bay and the Anacostia River.
  I want to assure the gentleman and all of our colleagues that the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will consider 
reauthorization of legislation governing the quality of waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay, but we are going to do this in due course after 
extensive review and consideration of nonpoint source pollution. And 
the recommendations from the OMB from the gentleman's amendment will be 
important in making sure that we take the right policy choices to bring 
back this Bay, to restore this quintessential estuary and protect 
future forms of life that can be created in this great meeting place.
  I thank the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge its support.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  This amendment requires the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget to submit to Congress a financial report containing an 
interagency crosscut budget for restoration activities that protect, 
conserve, or restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It 
also directs the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency to make management decisions on an adaptive and ongoing basis.
  I commend Congressman Wittman for making a good and initial step on 
addressing the ongoing, water quality problems in the Chesapeake Bay. I 
appreciate his raising this issue at this time.
  This magnificent estuary has occupied a central place in our nation's 
history. The English explorer, John Smith, established the first 
permanent English settlement in North America, Jamestown, on the shores 
of the Chesapeake. And while the Chesapeake Bay watershed transcends 
only six states, it is the collective context of its history, its vast 
recreational outlets, and its important fisheries that sum to add to 
our economy and culture as a whole. Therefore, the degradation of the 
Chesapeake Bay must be perceived as a national problem--and not simply 
a regional one. For example, many of the Bay's fish and shellfish 
populations are below historic levels. Just this past year, both 
Maryland and Virginia announced stringent catch limitations on blue 
crabs due to significant declines in populations. Oysters are at less 
than one percent of historic levels, and the abundance of shad is only 
at 22 percent of the targeted recovery goal.
  It is only through a renewed Federal and congressional commitment to 
the Bay that we will be able to make the necessary changes to address 
its varied problems. To this end, the Obama administration has already 
begun moving in the right direction. The EPA Administrator has already 
selected a special advisor who will focus on rehabilitation of the 
Chesapeake Bay and the Anacostia River and the Administrator's 
appointment signals the agency's commitment to this special region.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will consider 
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program in this Congress and the 
OMB analysis of a crosscut budget will help ensure that we make the 
right policy choices to rehabilitate the Chesapeake Bay.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I would like to associate myself with the chairman's 
remarks. I can't say it as eloquently as he did, but I think that we 
are all very much in agreement that this is a very, very important body 
of water that needs to be protected, and we appreciate the gentleman 
from Virginia stepping forward with this amendment. And we certainly 
will support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I would like to thank, again, the chairman for his 
remarks. He is indeed correct. The Chesapeake Bay is a national 
treasure and an international treasure. It has tremendous economic 
value, but it also has tremendous cultural value. It is a symbol of not 
only the eastern part of the United States, but the United States in 
general.
  I don't think any of us have misgivings about wanting it to be back 
where it was when Captain John Smith landed here. We certainly would 
like for it to be there, but I'm a realist and know that it may not get 
to that point.
  I think it's realistic to expect that we can get it back to where it 
was in the middle part of this century, in the 1950s, when it was, by 
far, the most productive body of water in the world. It is critical not 
only economically, but culturally to this country.
  I do thank the chairman, again, and the members of the Rules 
Committee for consideration of this.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Driehaus

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 111-36.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Driehaus:
       Section 3001(b) of the bill is amended to read as follows:
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The first sentence of 
     section 221(f) (33 U.S.C. 1301(f)) is amended by striking 
     ``this section $750,000,000'' and all that follows through 
     the period at the end and inserting ``this section 
     $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.''

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 235, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the 
committee for his tremendous work on this bill. I bring before the 
House a simple amendment, and that amendment simply increases the 
authorization for combined sewers and sewer overflow grants from $1.8 
billion to $2.5 billion over the 5-year period. I think this is 
critically important, and I think we need to put this in perspective, 
Madam Chair.
  The EPA estimates that the total need for combined sewer overflow 
systems in the United States is $54.8 billion. The need for improvement 
in sanitary sewers, as estimated by the EPA, is $88.5 billion. That is 
a total, Madam Chair, of $143 billion in needed investment for sewer 
infrastructure in these United States.
  I hail from Cincinnati, Ohio. In Cincinnati, it's estimated that the 
cost to fix the sewer problem is almost $3 billion. My colleagues 
around the Midwest and the east coast share our pain. So this is a 
simple amendment that would simply increase the amount to $2.5 billion.
  Just as a point of information that I think is important: Since 2003, 
the United States has allocated $2.7 billion for water and wastewater 
infrastructure improvement in Iraq. I would think that we could do at 
least this much in the United States.
  I would yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. 
McMahon).
  Mr. McMAHON. I rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by 
my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus) to increase the 
amount for sewage control grants in this bill to $2.5 billion. I also 
commend the great chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Congressman Oberstar, for his great work, and commend 
him for the great spirit of bipartisanship which he's engendered in 
this room today.

[[Page 7250]]

  H.R. 1262 provides critical assistance to communities across the 
Nation for sewage water runoff, watershed restoration, and other water 
infrastructure projects. As a former New York City councilman and head 
of the sanitation committee for New York, I know that municipalities 
rely on these funds.
  As the gentleman from Ohio said, there's a backlog of $140 billion 
worth of projects. Imagine this. In Staten Island, houses were built 
without sanitary sewers. This needs to be resolved. The Federal 
Government has to help us.
  So that is why this amendment is so important. It will increase 
support that is so badly needed across this country and in my district.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I would yield 
1 minute to my colleague from Ohio, from northern Ohio, who also shares 
this problem with his constituency, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boccieri).
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I rise in support of this bill and this amendment, and 
I applaud the chairman of our distinguished committee for his efforts 
to make this a bipartisan bill. This bill makes key investments to 
improve water quality, and could create approximately 480,000 jobs over 
the next 5 years. This will also bridge the gap of our local 
communities--who experience significant financial trouble--$3.2 to $11 
million annually in trying to fill the gap to modernize their water 
needs.

                              {time}  1315

  The Driehaus amendment would further improve our ability to manage 
wastewater infrastructure by increasing funding for sewer overflow and 
control programs.
  Sewage overflow is dangerous to all of our constituents, but these 
days our communities are facing tight budgets that prevent them from 
addressing these serious and most basic infrastructure needs. We know 
our country's wastewater infrastructure is old and crumbling, and we 
must do our part here in this legislation to improve that. Adequate 
funding will not only preserve the environment and our local political 
subdivisions to help them modernize their aging sewer infrastructure. 
It will protect lives. If we did it in Iraq, we should do it here in 
America.
  I rise and support this amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We support the gentleman's amendment. It is vitally 
important to deal with combined storm and sanitary sewer overflows. 
Seven hundred million dollars is peanuts compared to a whole lot of 
other expenditures that have been made in the TARP and the rest. So 
this is a real investment whose benefits we and future generations will 
see.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I also support the 
amendment.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to this amendment and reserve my ability to object.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I know there are many sewer projects all around 
this country that need funding. There are two that have been already 
authorized through the Water Act of 2007 that are in my district that 
we are trying to find funds for. But what I have an objection to is, we 
are continuing to build greater and greater debt for our children 
across the country, and not only our children, but our grandchildren. I 
think their standard of living is going to be much lower than ours 
today if we don't stop this borrowing of funds from our grandchildren.
  We see budget after budget that continues to increase the Federal 
debt, and we have just got to stop the spending. We are spending too 
much, we are taxing too much, we are borrowing too much, and at some 
point we have got to stop that, because our grandchildren are going to 
pay a very heavy price for us doing so. So I call upon my colleagues on 
the Democratic side for us to work together to try to find some ways to 
bring forth these worthwhile projects, but to stop borrowing from our 
grandchildren and our children. It is absolutely critical for the 
future of this Nation that we do so.
  The Democratic budget that has been presented by the administration 
does nothing but increase the debt, and we have got to stop it. It is 
absolutely critical for the future economic well-being of this Nation. 
Republicans have presented many, many ideas that have not been 
considered by the leadership of this House nor by the Senate nor by the 
administration. I call upon my Democratic colleagues to work with us, 
to consider the things that we bring forth as potential solutions to 
the economic woes we have as a Nation.
  American people are hurting. They are hurting tremendously. We are 
hurting small business, which is the economic engine of America. We are 
taxing and we are overregulating them, and we have got to stop it. We 
have got to build a strong economy in America, and just stop this idea 
that we can spend more and more money. Consequently, I have objections 
to continuing to build greater debt for our Nation.
  So I call upon my colleagues on the Democratic side, let's work 
together, consider alternatives, consider ways of solving this economic 
crisis we have as a Nation, and not continue down this road that I 
believe is going to lead to not only lengthening the recession and 
deepening the recession, but, as Warren Buffett just said yesterday and 
the day before, off the cliff. And I think we may very well be headed 
to a deep depression, deeper than we saw even in the thirties, if we 
don't stop the spending that we are doing here in this Nation.
  So I call upon my colleagues on the Democratic side, please, let's 
work together. Let's find some commonsense solutions to these economic 
woes that we have as a Nation, and do some things for the American 
people, not for government. Government is not the solution. The private 
sector is the solution. Small business is the solution. We have got to 
find those solutions that make sense economically for this Nation. 
Socialism never has worked, never will work, and it won't work today.
  With that, I withdraw my objection, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chairman, we certainly are hurting. And this 
country is hurting because of a failure, a failure to invest in basic 
infrastructure over decades and decades. That is why this country is 
hurting.
  I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this 
is an authorization. This is an authorization to say we in the United 
States, the people that inhabit our cities, deserve as much attention 
as the folks in Iraq. This actually doesn't even get up to the level of 
spending on sewers and water projects that we have spent in Iraq over 
the last 5 years.
  So I would remind my colleagues that this is an authorization, not an 
appropriation, and that the appropriate committees can determine the 
prioritization; because this is about priorities. We are saying through 
this amendment that infrastructure and sewer spending is a priority of 
this Congress, and I would hope that the Appropriations Committee would 
take the time to validate that and move forward. This is not about 
spending more; it is about identifying priorities.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I understand this is an authorization. There is no question in my 
mind what this stands for. And, frankly, in my opinion, we have spent 
too much money not only since we have had a Democratic majority in the 
House and the Senate, but also the previous administration.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, before proceeding with the vote, I ask 
unanimous consent to proceed for 2

[[Page 7251]]

minutes, equally divided, between the Democratic side and the 
Republican side, for the purpose of offering a technical amendment to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have discovered during the consideration of the 
gentleman's amendment that there is a technical phrasing of language in 
the gentleman's amendment that could affect the underlying bill, and we 
have consulted with the Parliamentarian about the proper phrasing of 
the language which is now being drafted.
  While that language is being written, I would assure the 
distinguished gentleman, Mr. Broun, that we will work together in the 
appropriations process. We worked together in our committee on both 
sides of the aisle to incorporate views of both parties in shaping the 
bill we bring to the House today, and this will be one of many 
considerations reviewed by the Budget Committee and later, when the 
real decisions are made by the Appropriations Committee.
  I share the gentleman's concern. We are spending an enormous amount 
of money, Madam Chair, on this asset recovery plan that started last 
August and September of 2008. We have seen money go out the door, and 
we have no idea where some of that money has gone that is supposed to 
stabilize the domestic and international financial structure. And maybe 
it has done that. But the increasing demands to support this bank and 
that bank and this insurance agency and that, and now to an 
international global financial meltdown. The gentleman is right, we 
have to take stock and balance our equities. But we also have to get 
this economy moving. We have to put people to work. When people have a 
job and have incomes and we are paying people to work and not paying 
them for not working with unemployment compensation, then maybe we can 
get this economy back on track and get people consuming, and we can 
start the flow of capital.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio. The Driehaus amendment inadvertently struck a 
subsection of the manager's amendment adopted earlier today. The 
amendment to accomplish my request is pending at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The request for modification will need to be made 
by the gentleman from Ohio, the author of the amendment.


        Modification to Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Driehaus

  Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment. The amendment, as stated, inadvertently struck out 
subsections of the manager's amendment adopted earlier today, and I 
would ask for conformity.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Driehaus:
       Section 3001(b) of the bill follows:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted as section 221(f)(1) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act strike 
     ``$250,000,000'' and all that follows through ``expended.'' 
     and insert ``$500,000,000 for each of fiscal year's 2010 
     through 2014.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. BOOZMAN. No, Madam Chair. We understand that the amendment 
created a technical problem, and we agree with this solution.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on the amendment printed in House Report 111-36 on 
which further proceedings were postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mack

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mack) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 284, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               AYES--140

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Royce
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--284

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne

[[Page 7252]]


     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bright
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Hensarling
     Miller, Gary
     Olson
     Radanovich
     Roybal-Allard
     Sestak
     Speier
     Tanner

                              {time}  1401

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. BAIRD, DELAHUNT, NADLER of New York, 
RUPPERSBERGER, DAVIS of Tennessee, ABERCROMBIE, RUSH, WEINER, MINNICK, 
Ms. DeGETTE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, and Ms. WATSON changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, TERRY and POLIS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I would like the Record to reflect that on 
rollcall 122, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' when I intended to vote 
``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Capps, Acting Chair 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. 1262) 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 235, she reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment 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 amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, 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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passing H.R. 1262 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on 
suspending the rules and adopting House Resolution 224.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 317, 
noes 101, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--101

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bright
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Etheridge
     Hensarling
     Miller, Gary

[[Page 7253]]


     Olson
     Radanovich
     Roybal-Allard
     Sestak
     Speier
     Tanner
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that 
there is 1 minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1419

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________