Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 720) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize appropriations for State water pollution control revolving funds, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes and rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.

It has been a long time coming to this point. We have labored within the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for at least 11 years, maybe just a few months longer than that, to bring forth a bill to replenish the State revolving loan funds so that municipalities can continue the work of aggressively expanding their capacity to handle wastewater, treat that wastewater, return it to the receiving waters in good quality.

We have been delayed over the last 6 Congresses, not by unwillingness within our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but because of external factors within the House. Now that those external factors have been removed, we are bringing this bill to the floor with good and sustained bipartisan support. I appreciate very much the support of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer scheduling this legislation early on in the session; and I particularly appreciate the participation and cooperation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our ranking member, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources for the long participation that we have had and the splendid agreement and working relationship we had between our staffs on the Democratic and Republican sides, with one notable exception that will be debated at length here and which we debated extensively in subcommittee and full committee.

I especially want to express my great appreciation to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). For years now, she has worked as our ranking member on the Water Resources Subcommittee, learned the issues, mastered the subject matter, and is now Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee and has played a leading role in bringing this legislation to the floor.

The bill started out as $20 billion to replenish State revolving loan funds; but due to concerns by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, we scaled the legislation back to a $14 billion bill, paying for it through an additional revenue source, as within the authority of this committee. The CBO has said that municipalities in raising municipal bonds that are tax exempt will cause a loss in revenue to the Treasury, and, therefore, the revenue in this bill has to be offset by another source. We have done that in a bipartisan agreement, and this bill is at $14 billion, fully paid for. We will not have the debate that we have had on two other bills that were extraneous to the subject matter because we have covered this issue.

Unfortunately, the administration has steadily reduced funding for the State revolving loan fund over the past several years, and in the budget request for 2008 has a $200 million reduction, down to $687.5 million. That is totally unacceptable.

There was a time when we were investing $6 billion a year in Federal funds, matched by State and local dollars, to build sewage treatment facilities, raise them to tertiary treatment, removing nutrients, adding oxygen, returning clean water to the receiving waters. We are not doing that any longer. We are not keeping pace with the pressure on the Nation's water and wastewater systems nor our sewage treatment systems.

The only debate that we really have is, What shall be the wages paid to those who work on building these facilities? And I listened with great interest and concern to the debate on the rule. The manager of the rule said that cities will start looking to Washington for these projects to take care of their water system needs. That is almost the same language that Dwight Eisenhower used in 1960 to veto the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments when he said: Pollution is a uniquely local blight. Federal involvement will only impede local efforts at cleanup.

That was wrong then, it is wrong now, it was wrong when Richard Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act of 1972.

We have had a partnership of State and local government. They have invested billions of dollars at the local level. We need to continue that partnership into the future. This bill will do that.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, an original cosponsor of this bill, Mrs. Tauscher.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 10 seconds to simply assure the gentleman from Indiana that the bill is fully paid for. And I appreciate his fiscal concerns, but the bill is fully paid for with offsets that the committee has identified and has reduced the cost of the bill from $20 billion to $14 billion and the time frame from 5 years to 4 years. And I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about my service.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Republican leader on the committee, Mr. Mica. Mr. DeFazio was referring to a mandate upon cities to improve their sewage treatment facilities, not to a mandate in this act.

Secondly, in our committee report, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says H.R. 720 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or Tribal governments. So I can only assume the gentleman is making a statement of hyperbole, rather than a fact.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds to assure the gentleman that this bill will go a long way towards helping States target additional support to the colonias, as well as other disadvantaged communities throughout the country.

We will soon bring up, within the next 2 weeks I hope, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 under the leadership of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). In the past, we have had language to authorize the corps to help provide water and waste water infrastructure for the colonias.

We will work with the gentleman to provide such language in the future.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and my classmate of 1974.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

And the gentleman has only one speaker remaining?

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time, which should be about a minute.

Again, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member on the full committee, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who I have the greatest respect for, and I recall his distinguished and authoritative presentation during the committee tour post-Katrina at Baton Rouge where the gentleman had a mastery of the facts of the issues at hand, and we stood in solidarity and we do stand in solidarity on this legislation.

We have one difference of opinion. That is why we have a legislative body and a process through which to work these issues out, and as the late Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, said very thoughtfully many years ago, something like 60 years ago, We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable, and that is the manner in which I hope we will continue to conduct issues before our committee.

I just think back to the time when I worked, when I was in college working in construction jobs, and I was working as a truck driver and cement puddler for 50 cents below what was a union wage, below what was a standard wage, because this wasn't a unionized job, and I don't want to see that happen to anybody.

Madam Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters between Mr. Rangel, Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and me.

March 6, 2007.

Hon. James Oberstar,

Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Jim: I am writing regarding H.R. 720, the Water

Quality Financing Act of 2007, which is scheduled for floor

action later this week.

As you know, H.R 720 raises revenue by increasing vessel

tonnage duties, an authority which falls within the

jurisdiction ofthe Committee on Ways and Means. In addition,

H.R. 720 violates clause 5(a) of Rule XXI, which restricts

bills and amendments from carrying taxes and tariffs not

reported by the Ways and Means Committee.

In order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill,

and will not oppose H.R. 720 being given a waiver of Rule

XXI. This is being done with the understanding that it does

not in any way prejudice the Committee or its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confining

this understanding with respect to H.R. 720, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the record.

Sincerely,

Hon. Charles B. Rangel,

Chairman.

I thank the gentleman very much for his courtesy and if he would yield 3 minutes?

I thank the gentleman.

Twenty years ago, March 3, 1987, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, the Republican ranking member on the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which I had the privilege of chairing, and I held a hearing on this very subject, on the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We observed the agreement was signed in 1972 and renewed in 1978.

It continues in perpetuity, but we observed, while progress has been made, while the Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire, the bad news is that a great deal of that improvement is due to economic decline in the steel industry. Industries that formerly dumped waste are no longer operating.

Fish are able to survive, but now they are surviving with cancers. Some areas of the lakes where birds are deformed because of Toxiphene and Dieldrin. Mr. Clinger and I both observed the real test of our commitment is yet to come. Will we break out of the planning and research cycle, which we have failed to do in the case of acid rain, and begin to implement protective measures which would strengthen the laws and effective remedial programs.

Some of that has been accomplished in the ensuing years. The gentleman's proposal would move us further along during this Great Lakes week that we are celebrating on Capitol Hill with our colleagues throughout the Great Lakes States. The amendment would require the Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the governor of Canada, to identify problems with the wastewater infrastructure on both sides of the Great Lakes, develop recommendations for increased notification of overflows and increased cooperation. Those are all good and valid and important initiatives which we have pursued in a bipartisan effort within our committee for, as I said, over 20 years.

The gentleman's district is the bridge between the upper Lake Superior and the lower lakes. The St. Mary's River moves 130,000 cubic feet per second, and he is astutely vigilant over water quality.

I think accepting this amendment will move the purpose of intergovernmental cooperation further along, and I assure the gentlemen on both sides, I will work with the Committee on Foreign Affairs to fashion this bill, this language further as we go to conference with the other body.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

This is an issue on which there is a genuine disagreement on both sides of the aisle and within the committee, and a deeply felt view on each side.

I think it is instructive, however, to look at the history of Davis- Bacon, which originated, actually, in 1927, on Long Island, a district represented by Congressman Robert L. Bacon, Republican of New York, who said wages are fair, and there has been no difficulty in the buildings grades between employer and employee for quite some time. But he was upset when a contractor came to him who had bid on construction of a federally funded hospital on Long Island and noted that the contract was awarded to an Alabama firm that came into Long Island with low-wage workers, whom he housed in tents on the property and underbid local contractors.

He said, that's not right, you have to help us stop these underbidding contractors from coming in and taking away local jobs. He, Bacon, introduced legislation that did not inflate wages, as he said, artificially, but assured that government respects the existing local standard.

A few years, a year later, the Secretary of Labor, James Davis, supported that bill. By March 3, 1931, Davis had left labor, got elected to the Senate, and the two of them authored this legislation. It was signed into law March 3, 1931, by President Herbert Hoover.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In 1930, as the Davis-Bacon language was being shaped and debated in the Senate and in the House, Senator Davis of Pennsylvania, a Republican, and Congressman Bacon of New York, a Republican, said: The essence is this. Is the government willing, for the sake of the lowest bidder, to break down all labor standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped from State to State?

When the bill was taken up at the Senate, Robert LeFollette, chairman of the Committee on Manufacturers, the Republican chairman of the committee, noted that practices were not only disturbing to labor but disturbing to the business community as well and urged that this measure be speedily enacted. It does not require the government to establish new wage scales; it merely gives the government power to require its contractors to pay the prevailing wage scales in the vicinity of the building projects.

Now, the prevailing wage scale in the vicinity of building projects in Louisiana, for example, an average common laborer gets $7.86 an hour. That is the prevailing wage. I don't know how you save any more money by going lower than $7.86 an hour. The average well driller in Louisiana is paid $11.40 an hour. I don't know how you get much lower than that in order to save money.

This Davis-Bacon provision is prevailing, not union wage. If I could, I would support in law the union wage, but we are not doing that. It is the prevailing local wage. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Madam Chair, this language reinforces or adds an additional provision to section 305(b) of the act before us today. Section 602(b) reaffirms the deadlines, goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act, fishable-swimmable water goals. Section 603 deals with the affordability. And we have already prioritized in the basic legislation targeting funds to lower income communities to ensure that they get their fair share. This language will just take that affordability language one step further and impose on States the requirement to give full, fair consideration to projects that deal with immediate needs rather than adding capacity before you consider adding capacity.

Madam Chair, I rise to ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to it.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would include an additional requirement on State revolving loans on authorities not previously part of the State Revolving Loan Fund Program. The provision of section 204(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act is a longstanding title II construction grants requirement. We don't have construction grants any more, since 1987, that does require ``full and open bid competition for the construction of publicly owned treatment works.''

The gentleman's amendment would prohibit financial assistance recipients from including bid specs that contain proprietary, exclusionary, discriminatory requirements, other than those based on performance.

I have asked the staff to review and I, myself, have reviewed the Federal acquisition regulations which are generic to the Federal Government. These requirements for full and open bid competition are in place. They do generically apply to provisions of the Clean Water Act.

However, I think it is appropriate and is not confusing, nor is it in opposition to the Federal acquisition regulations, to include the gentleman's amendment. Therefore, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Can I ask the gentleman if he could yield me 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank the gentlelady for her amendment which reinforces a longstanding practice of this committee to deal with water resource needs on a watershed basis.

This watershed pilot project eligibility will greatly advance the cause of clean water and water availability.

The U.S. Geological Survey observed most recently there are clear connections between surface water, ground water, and the precipitation events that reach these areas. In our area, precipitation is snow. In Hawaii and Louisiana, it is rain. And impact on these water resources, whether through unchecked sources of pollution, wastewater, can have significant effects on the sources of water.

So the gentlelady's amendment will give an additional tool for communities to perfect and strengthen their planning for the best use and management of existing water resources, and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield if he has time remaining?

The gentleman, in years past, has been very participatory in the work of our committee. Notably, on railroad issues several years ago the gentleman took the lead on a very contentious issue, and we have greatly appreciated his contribution then and want to work with the gentleman.

The amendment would implement the change to the elevation pool before completion of the environmental assessment.

We have the Water Resources Development Act ready, I think, to move within 2 weeks or so. I would like to join with the gentleman in

ascertaining from the Corps the status of that environmental assessment and then determining, depending on where they stand with it, we could either dispense with the EIS and include the gentleman's provision in our WRDA bill, or if it is ready to go, if the EIS is completed, we will not have to take that action.

But I assure you, one way or another, we will find a way for the gentleman's, the language to be included in WRDA before we bring it to the House floor.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not in opposition to it.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

And, again, I want to reaffirm my colloquy with the gentleman, that we will work with him and with the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Florida on shaping appropriate language to include this study provision pilot project for the Lake Barkley initiative as we move forward with WRDA.

Madam Chair, as we come to the conclusion of this legislation, I want to express again my heartfelt appreciation to Ranking Member Mica, who has worked with us on all the measures, including how we would shape the debate on Davis-Bacon, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who has been most forthcoming and accommodating. We have, again, reached agreement on major provisions on this legislation. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who has devoted years of her service on the committee to this issue, is now the Chair.

But those who really bear the burden of the work are our staff: Ryan Seiger, Beth Goldstein, Rod Hall, Mike Brain on our side; John Anderson, Jonathan Pawlow, Geoff Bowman, Tim Lundquist on the Republican side, and our full committee staff, our brilliant leader, David Heymsfeld, our chief counsel, Ward McCarragher, Sharon Barkeloo, Jen Walsh, Erik Hansen, and on the minority side, Jim Coon, Charlie Ziegler, Fraser Verrusio and Jason Rosa.

We also greatly appreciate the work from Legislative Counsel's Office, Dave Mendelsohn and Curt Haensel. Dave Mendelsohn has been here almost as long as I have, and he is really good.

We have a superb staff. They have worked together diligently on this legislation. We owe them a deep and longstanding debt of gratitude for their superb work, especially Ryan Seiger, who stayed up many late hours at night fashioning all the responses to the many questions I have had on this legislation.

Madam Chairman, after a very thoughtful, productive, and constructive debate on the bill and the amendments thereto, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to dispensing with the reading. We have only just now received this language and I insist on the reading of the language.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion, although I don't know whether I am in opposition at this time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to observe and I appreciate the gentleman's comment about our side accepting amendments from the minority, and we have done that mostly where there has been prior consultation and discussion. In this case, this language was not available to our majority members on the committee until just prior to when it was offered on the floor.

I inquire of the offeror his explanation on page 2, subsection (4), ``A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18,'' what is that language? Can the gentleman read me the language of the U.S. Code?

I yield to the gentleman.

It is his amendment. On page 2 of the gentleman's amendment, ``(4) A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, U.S. Code,'' what does that refer to?

I have been able in just these few minutes to get chapter 113 but not

Reclaiming my time, I want to know what the language is. The gentleman is offering an amendment. If he is serious about it, then he ought to have the language.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has not been able to answer my question.

I was the author in our committee of the Port Security Act, along with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We had carefully crafted language that set standards for security clearance for maritime workers. We did not have any reference to chapter 113B. The transportation security workers card has not yet been issued. The readers for that card have not yet been put in place by the Transportation Security Administration.

The standards, apart from this provision that the gentleman lists here, generally are covered in the background checks required in our Port Security Act for maritime workers.

But this is very vague language in number (4). It is specific to a provision of U.S. Code, but the gentleman cannot explain to me what it is.

And then ``(5), A crime involving a transportation security incident,'' dropping down to subsection ``(A) is a security incident resulting in a significant loss of life,'' we don't know where that language comes from.

Mr. Speaker, we should not amend the Port Security Act on 30 seconds notice. There may be very good and valid provisions of this motion to recommit that we might very well be in support of, but only in due course, only in a proper forum. To come up here 30 seconds before the motion is offered and lay on the body this language without having the backup for it I think is inappropriate, and I object to the process. I object to the procedure that has been followed, not perhaps to the substance of it.

Our committee is fully prepared to deal with this issue in due course and give it full and thorough consideration, but not here, not in this context.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

You should be very well accustomed to it; you did it for 12 years.

Is the gentleman going to explain 113B?

Read it. Read the language.

Read it.

I do not yield further. I do not yield further.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 720, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this modified closed rule and to the underlying legislation. I also rise, regrettably, to report to the American people that, for the second week in a row, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor that benefits big labor bosses at someone else's expense.

Last week, American workers were the losers in the Democrat- controlled House when the majority leadership forced through legislation that would provide for unprecedented intimidation of employees by union bosses under a fundamentally anti-democratic process known as card check.

This week, the Democrat leadership has set its sights on one of their favorite targets, the American taxpayer. But the other losers in this bargain are far more shocking. They include local communities across the United States, small and minority-owned businesses, and the environment.

H.R. 720 would provide for an unprecedented expansion of the Davis- Bacon prevailing wage provision of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund or SRF. When the SRF was established, it applied Davis-Bacon only to the Federal portion of a Clean Water project. But today, in order to help big labor bosses pad their dwindling ranks, they would apply these same provisions to all non-Federal funds, such as loan repayments, State bond revenues, interest and State-matching funds.

Since the SRF program expired in 1995, no SRF project has been subject to Davis-Bacon. But today the Democrat Party wants to change that and to stack the deck in favor of big labor bosses whose ranks have dwindled to 12 percent in 2006 from their high of 35 percent in the 1950s.

I insert into the Record a letter from my colleague from Florida, John Mica, to Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier detailing the specifics of this unprecedented expansion.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Hon. Louise M. Slaughter,

Chairwoman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.

Hon. David Dreier,

Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Rules, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her words, except I would like to let her know, I know she was not in the body last year, but this body did pass a minimum wage bill last year. It should be noted that the bill included exactly what the Democrat leadership wanted, and we took their bill exactly as it was for minimum wage. The problem that the Democrat leadership had was that it was a balanced approach, and that is the reason why it did not move forward in the other body and why the President never got it.

Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans did was to take the Democrat bill on minimum wage and add to that a balanced provision which would help small businesses who are bearing the burden of most of the brunt of the minimum wage and allow them the opportunity to offset those changes so that we can continue growing the free market economy. Small business is the engine of our economy.

It is also worth noting, since the gentlewoman brought it up, that this body this year did pass a minimum wage without those equalizing factors or benefits to small business, and that is why it got stuck in the other body and why this body is having to come back to correct it to make it a more balanced view, the same kind of balanced view that the Republicans took last year in order to pass the minimum wage.

I know the gentlewoman was not here last year, but those are the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee we had an opportunity to receive a number of amendments and have feedback from Members who were talking about these important water projects, and I found one amendment yesterday that was presented very interesting. It was rejected by the Democrats, but it says this:

``This amendment quadruples the current penalty for dumping sewage into the Great Lakes to $100,000 per violation per day. The amendment also establishes a Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and directs the sewage dumping penalties into this new fund to be spent on wastewater treatment options.'' Here is the interesting part: ``These provisions would become effective January 1, 2027.''

Mr. Speaker, a colleague brought forth an amendment as a result of a discussion with a major mayor of a city on the Great Lakes. I have heard all sorts of conversations about how important clean water is. Yet the Great Lakes, which is an area of about 20 million people that need this clean water, wake up today to find out that someone was willing to come forward with an idea which, even if enacted, doesn't take place until January 1, 2027.

No, we are not going to do that in the Rules Committee.

So on one side the Democrat majority talks about how great they are for all this clean water. But when it really comes down to it, still 20 million people are being denied this opportunity to start this clean water revolving fund and direct that sewage dumped into the Great Lakes would be cleaned up and have higher penalties. Utterly incredible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman I will now yield myself the balance of my time, and then yield back my time and allow the gentlewoman to close.

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the administration policy on this bill.

Executive Office of the President Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 720--Water Quality Financing Act of 2007 (Rep. Oberstar (D) MN and

32 others)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 720, which

authorizes excessive Federal funding for the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund (SRF) and mandates the application of

Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements ``to the

construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in

part'' with SRF funding. For the reasons described below, if

H.R. 720 were presented to the President in its current form

his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The bill would expand Davis-Bacon Act coverage to a program

that has not been subject to any Davis-Bacon requirements

since 1994--first by reinstating coverage for Federally-

funded clean water state revolving fund projects, and second

by expanding Davis-Bacon Act coverage to non-Federal clean

water projects, including for the first time ever, projects

financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys

repaid to the state revolving fund. This provision will

increase project costs and impose new administrative burdens

on States. Furthermore, it is contrary to the

Administration's long-standing policy of opposing any

statutory attempt to expand or contract the applicability of

Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements.

In addition, the bill's total authorization of $14 billion

for the SRF during fiscal years 2008-2011 represents on

average a more than 250 percent increase over recent

appropriation levels and is unrealistic in the current fiscal

environment. This excessive authorization will distort market

signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from

moving toward full-cost pricing, as they have elsewhere.

Instead, this bill may encourage municipalities to delay

undertaking needed infrastructure projects to wait for

Federal subsidies, potentially diminishing reliability and

increasing the eventual costs to the public.

To provide additional opportunities to communities for

financing needed wastewater infrastructure, Congress should

enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal,

which would provide an exception to the unified annual State

volume cap on tax-exempt qualified private activity bonds for

wastewater and drinking water projects. To ensure the long-

term financial health and solvency of these drinking water

and wastewater systems, communities using these bonds must

have demonstrated a process that will move toward full-cost

pricing for services within five years of issuing the Private

Activity Bonds. Consequently, this proposal will attract more

private capital to meet the infrastructure needs of these

sectors, help water and wastewater systems become self-

financing, and minimize the need for future subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, part of what the President has said very clearly to Congress today is two things: number one, that this Davis-Bacon expansion will cost an incredible amount of money to local water districts that seek bonds and funding that go to the marketplace to get that money to match the Federal money; and that the President believes that by expanding Davis-Bacon arbitrarily, it will mean that the cost of all these projects will go up exponentially and make it far more difficult for local communities to get the funding they

need because it is more money than what should be paid reasonably for the projects to be done.

Secondly, the President makes a point which I think is very true, and that is by almost doubling the amount of money that is in this fund, America is now going to start looking to Washington to take care of these projects. Over my years in this body, we have seen over and over again the requests from the Democrats to let's go build more schools in this country--with Federal money. Oh, yes, with Davis-Bacon; but more importantly, it is a message to people back home, let's let Washington build our schools.

Republicans have said, the day we start doing that, there will be no more schools built by local people. Everybody will look to Washington.

The President is saying today, by this bill, people back home are going to start looking to Washington to take care of their water system needs. That is dangerous, and I think that is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, the choice that we are being asked to make is very clear. If you support fiscal responsibility, small business, States' right, rural communities, women- and minority-owned businesses and the environment, then you would want to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

However, I admit that the Democrats are going to win today, and we are going to lose; but instead, what that is going to mean is it is going to be environmental harm, market distortion, wasteful Federal spending and stacking the deck in favor of labor bosses. That is who is going to win today.

I include for the Record a letter to Speaker Pelosi and to the Republican leadership, John Boehner, signed by the National Association of Minority Contractors, the National Association of Women in Construction, the National Alliance for Working and Employee Rights, and the Women Construction Owners and Executives who make very clear their opposition for the reasons why we have talked about today: Excessive overspending and far-reaching expansion of Davis-Bacon that will mean that many of these communities who need the money the most will find that on up to 20 percent of their projects, the needs of their people cannot be met because of bloated spending that is contained within this bill. We want to make it very clear that we oppose this legislation.

March 7, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I do recognize that from time to time as we do these rules that people do come down. The gentleman who is asking to speak is a member of the Rules Committee, and based upon that request, I consent and agree, and I welcome the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 2 minutes of my time as a result of us yielding back our time because we did not anticipate any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, we think we are trying to make a point here today that there were some strong reservations that should have been taken into account by the Rules Committee. We are not trying to chip away at minimum wage. We tried last year to pass a new minimum wage.

What we are trying to do is get work done that is in the best interest of not only Americans who need these projects to complete things that have been done to their communities as a result of damage but also to move forward with more efficiency.

We support spending money for clean water. We don't support bloated projects that are against the market-based abilities that communities have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Chair, at this time I would yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of this Committee on Transportation, Mr. Mica.

Madam Chairman, at this time I claim 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the gentlelady and to the Chair for their diligent work in this area. Certainly, it is an arena in which there is a clear and established, well identified need for which there are too few resources available. It is also a problem which will require many, many years of dedicated work to ensure the delivery of a safe water infrastructure in the years ahead.

I, regretfully, have observed that the debate which will occur over the establishment of Davis-Bacon in this legislation is the one point around which great controversy has emerged.

In my own State, I can speak with authority as to our circumstance. Pursuant to the devastation of Katrina and Rita, we find our communities struggling to get back on their feet, and our infrastructure has been badly damaged. Water systems, pumping stations, sewage systems have been destroyed; and it will take, unfortunately, years for many communities to attain the status that they once had prior to the storms' impact.

It is clear to us that, although the American people and this Congress have been very generous to our State in making resources available, those resources are going to be stretched to their maximum extent possible; and yet we still have incredible needs that will yet be unmet. For this reason, we feel, at least in the view of our own State's interest, that the application of the Davis-Bacon requirement, artificially increasing the cost of construction of these important infrastructure projects, will only ensure that we are years longer in achieving the necessary recovery.

To state it quite simply, to spend more and accomplish less is not something we in Louisiana are comfortable in pursuing. For that reason, I join with my ranking Member, Mr. Mica, in expressing grave concerns over the inclusion of Davis-Bacon.

In the normal operative circumstance, when funds are made available from the State revolving account to a State for a particular project, Davis-Bacon has applied to that first-round funding. This bill will now make Davis-Bacon provisions extend to all subsequent utilizations of those funds, and that is the expansion to which we strongly object.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to extend to the gentleman from Florida, a valued member of the Committee on Transportation, the Honorable Congressman Connie Mack, 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, at this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the defender of the working man and hometown America, Congressman Tim Murphy.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is a defender of the taxpayer's best interest, Congressman Pence.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to Congressman King.

Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important to understand the operative nature of the State Revolving Fund and the results of the legislation before us on that operation of the fund.

If a community in Florida, the ranking member's State, which has no prevailing Davis-Bacon requirement, borrows money from the revolving fund, there is a match associated with that which is State dollars. There is also interest that accrues on that loan. When the State repays the loan, the State repays the interest, that comes back into the revolving loan account.

Each year, as the Federal funds are made available, assume $500 million would be made available of Federal resources for the revolving fund account, only that $500 million under current rule would be subject to Davis-Bacon application. All of the repayment made by the State of Florida, including the interest, would be exempt from the applicability of a Davis-Bacon requirement.

``For the first time,'' and I read from the statement of administration policy, the White House statement on the matter, ``For the first time ever, projects financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys repaid to the State Revolving Fund will be subject to Davis-Bacon requirements.''

So let there be no mistake about this, this is not merely voting to sustain Davis-Bacon as we currently know it. This is to expand the requirement for State-generated funds into States that have no Davis- Bacon requirement at the State level, and it will diminish those States' abilities to meet their identified water infrastructure needs. That is why this debate is occurring. It is not just about whether big business or big labor or the beneficiaries of some legislative initiative. This is about the real world in back home America, and are we going to provide the resources to help small communities get their water systems in decent and safe operating condition? We all agree that is a worthwhile goal.

The question is: How do we want to achieve it?

Do we want to constrain a free market system with arbitrary Washington rules that artificially drive up prices and give taxpayers less? Most of us think that is not advisable.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I have a speaker on his way, and so I would like to I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Chair, I only have one remaining speaker. May I inquire if the gentleman has multiple speakers remaining.

Correct, sir.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

I wish to express sincere and deep appreciation to the gentlewoman who is the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee and, of course, to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. In thinking back over my tenure on the committee, it really is hard to remember a time when there has been significant partisan difference. It truly is one of the committees of the House that works in a unified way and produces a consistent, unified voice.

We share the vision that America's infrastructure is the key to our Nation's economic future and that where infrastructure is damaged or inadequate, economies lag behind, employment is high, and circumstances are not good. So we really are joined here together in an effort to do what we believe is right and best for communities we represent.

In this one instance, we find ourselves on the opposite side of a policy which has, over time, divided this Congress, the requirement by government to tell those engaged in a business endeavor what you should pay your employees in meeting essential public need.

It is clear to me that in my home State, the economic dislocations because of the tragic storms is immense and widespread and felt deeply and unfortunately will be likely felt for many years to come. We all know that there aren't sufficient resources to solve every problem in every community and certainly not even in our own State. Despite the generosity of the American people and this Congress, there will be billions of dollars of unmet need.

The question, as we go to Dr. Boustany's district in southwest Louisiana to a small, small rural parish in Cameron, where there isn't even a municipality, where after the storm's terrible surge went across the land, you could stand on the northern edge of the parish and look all the way to the gulf coast and not see a structure standing. We don't have enough money to build it all back. We can't even tell people even when we are likely to build it back, but we are going to send some money, now in the form of a State revolving fund intended for the restructuring and rebuilding of critical water infrastructure.

What are we going to do with that $10? Are we going to artificially increase the cost of that project just to make it more difficult for rural Cameron parish to recover? I don't think we really want or intend to do that, but that is the consequence of this provision in this bill. It makes recovery more difficult. It will take recovery longer. It will cost more to build less.

We all pride ourselves in America on our strong free enterprise beliefs. Let's turn free enterprise loose. Let's let Louisiana rebuild. Let's do it in the most efficient and expeditious way possible. Let's strike Davis-Bacon provisions from this bill.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would yield time to the chairman of the full committee if he so chooses to claim time.

Certainly.

Madam Chair, I share the comments of our Chairman. I know of no opposition on our side, and I accordingly yield back the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of the amendment, Mr. King.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

I claim the remaining time.

I certainly respect the chairman's knowledge and views of these matters and appreciate that on 95 percent of the issues before the committee, we are generally in unanimity.

On this particular point, I would like to bring the issue to that of the individual who is trying to rebuild their home in the difficult area of south Louisiana. Materials are short, workmen are hard to find. Do we really want to tell an individual trying to rebuild their personal home, you are going to have to meet a government wage rate in order to build this house or else you cannot build it? This is about government injecting itself into a free market process, all for no apparent reason that is clear to me.

It will make the compliance of the rules for the rural and lower income communities much more difficult to achieve. Compliance with the Davis-Bacon provisions is a difficult and cumbersome task.

And where we have low-income communities, where resources are greatly limited, we are now going to require additional regulatory burden and a higher wage rate that is artificial to further inhibit the ability of that community rebuild. We wouldn't contemplate having that set of requirements on the individual trying to rebuild their own home, but yet we are going to force that set of standards on communities across this Nation, even where States have no Davis-Bacon provisions at the State level at all. And that I think is the most troublesome aspect of the implementation of the proposal as constructed. Eighteen States have chosen not to require a Davis-Bacon implementation, and yet we here in the Congress by virtue of the State revolving infrastructure fund are going to require those States now to comply with these new standards. I hope Members will carefully consider the consequences of this amendment and vote for the Baker-King amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Having no objection to the amendment, I yield back all time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition and therefore ask for unanimous consent for that purpose.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would be happy to yield the chairman 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I have no further speakers. And having no objection, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. CASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 229 provides for the consideration of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the substitute reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, modified by the manager's amendment in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order only those further amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI, are waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

And I am pleased to point out, Madam Speaker, that under this structured rule, the six amendments made in order are split equally, three Republican and three Democratic.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 720 reauthorizes an important part of the landmark Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act protects our neighborhoods and water bodies from water pollution. Clean water is vital to the health of our citizens and to our country.

The bill before us today reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund by providing $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution.

We have come a long way in this country. We have the technology and the engineering experience to prevent water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates a huge shortfall in funds available for wastewater improvements across the country. This shortfall is significant because, without considerable improvements to the wastewater treatment infrastructure, much of the progress made in cleaning up the Nation's rivers, creeks and streams and bays since the passage of the Clean Water Act is at risk.

Clean water is a top priority for the families in my district and throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership over the past few Congresses has failed to support this part of the Clean Water Act. Although legislation was introduced in the Congress then, it never made it to the House floor.

President Bush and the White House also proposed slashing this Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund in his latest budget proposal. But, nevertheless, we are hopeful today that a bipartisan vote in support of this measure will send a signal to the White House that clean and healthy water is absolutely vital to our communities. In fact, in my hometown of Tampa, Florida, the Clean Water Act Loan Funds for wastewater improvements have vastly improved the water quality of Tampa Bay. The expansion in wastewater treatment significantly improved the quality of water running into beautiful Tampa Bay.

In past years, Tampa received over $54 million for wastewater treatment plant expansion and thereby improved water quality. It has also played a role in significantly improving the water in our rivers, bays, creeks and streams as we are able to control the pollutants that run off into these vital water bodies.

This is the same story across the country for the improved health of our communities, on the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and other water bodies throughout our country. Check with your local governments and your neighbors who live around and who are mindful of the quality of the water in our lakes, rivers and bays in your hometown.

Appearing before our Rules Committee, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar said it best: ``This is not just a good bill. It is a necessary one. The good health of our communities depends upon it.''

And as a former county commissioner, I can tell you that the vast majority of costs in cleaning our water falls upon our local communities. And if we don't act now, we will be shifting a greater cost to future generations.

So I urge the Congress, Madam Speaker, to enact this rule and this important legislation to keep our communities, rivers, lakes and bays clean and, most importantly, to improve the health of our children, seniors, and all citizens.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague and I note that my colleague, unable to criticize the heart of this legislation, which is reauthorization of an important part of the Clean Water Act, instead reverts to attacking a portion of this legislation that is vital to workers across America, the Davis-Bacon provisions.

The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-State contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, which protects local interests and construction workers.

Unfortunately, it has become all too familiar from the other side of the aisle to attack workers across America. They blocked the minimum wage until this new Congress was elected. We have a White House that has favored outsourcing of jobs over time.

But now, through this legislation, we are able to reaffirm again that it is our policy, in fact, it is Congress's longstanding continuing tradition of applying prevailing wage requirements to federally funded construction projects. Studies have shown that by attracting more experienced, better-trained workers, that wage requirements lead to higher productivity and they reduce overall costs, which offset any higher wages.

The Davis-Bacon Act protects communities by ensuring that wage determination also for individual counties is based solely on the local workforce costs. Oftentimes, this means that projects come in under budget and on time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he wouldn't mind, prior to my closing, that we allow the distinguished gentleman from the Rules Committee to speak. He arrived as we were completing our dialogue, and I would like to yield him 2 minutes.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't delay any longer and that we take action on this rule and this legislation that reauthorizes an important part of the Clean Water Act.

I understand where some of the debate is going to occur today, and I understand that a sizable number of Members on the other side of the aisle oppose the Davis-Bacon requirements for fair wages across the country. But the Rules Committee has made in order an amendment on Davis-Bacon, and Members in this body will have an opportunity to debate and vote on that issue. It is important, however, as we enter that debate, that we recognize that Davis-Bacon ensures a higher- quality work product and ensures that the work is done right the first time as higher-paid workers are the best trained and most experienced.

I urge Members to defeat that amendment and continue in the new direction that is being charted by this new Democratic Congress where we stand up for the hard-working men and women across this great country.

It is too important to delay any longer this reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It is imperative that Congress now pass the Water Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, which will provide critically needed funds for clean water infrastructure. It will protect the public health, the environment and our quality of life. It will restore the viability of the Federal, State and local partnership to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. And ultimately, if we take action today, we will protect and improve the health of our citizens across America.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, let me thank the chairman for his leadership and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for her leadership.

Texas, under the President's budget, lost $18 million, and with the restoration of the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund of $14 billion, we will see now the possibility of the restoration of $49,413,000, a total that we had in the 2007 funding level and going up.

I know what it is like to deal with communities that do not have clean water. Bordersville in Houston, Texas, now has the opportunity to engage and use these dollars to build this community and develop clean water. The EPA recognizes that we have had difficulty across America and water crises and bad water.

This bill makes a good statement. It also makes the positive statement on prevailing wages. There simply is no excuse to not give people a living wage, and that is what prevailing wages are all about.

I want to thank my colleagues for recognizing that water is the source of life and the importance of making sure that the 34 percent cut by this Republican Congress in years past now needs to be amended and fixed. Today we fix it.

I rise in support of H.R. 720, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, the ``Water Quality Financing Act of 2007,'' which authorizes $14 billion over four years for the clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF) for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. This bill will go a long way toward restoring the $18 million cut in Texas share of the SRF.

Under the SRF program, the Environmental Protection Agency provides grants to States, and the States provide matching funds to establish a low-cost loan program to enable communities to upgrade wastewater treatment systems.

Madam Chairman, the Administration has not sought reauthorization for the revolving fund, preferring to turn the revolving fund into a self- sustaining loan program that is replenished by interest payments made on loans.

H.R. 720 reauthorizes the program at an annual funding level of $4 billion per year, well above the level of $1 billion contained in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for EPA currently working its way through Congress.

The bill would extend repayment periods for revolving fund loans up to 30 years, require a State to use part of its funding to provide subsidies for disadvantaged communities, and authorize $75 million annually in technical assistance to rural and small wastewater treatment projects.

H.R. 720 also directs the Government Accountability Office to study potential revenue sources to set up a Clean Water Trust Fund and encourage communities to consider ``green infrastructure'' such as the use of rain gardens to collect storm water runoff. The bill also uses water quality benefits and a watershed approach as the criteria to prioritize which projects receive funding.

Madam Chairman, it is no exaggeration to state that the Clean Water Act is the Nation's most successful environmental law. But the continued high quality of the Nation's water supplies is imperiled because over the past six years the Congress has not invested enough funding to replace or repair the aging and deteriorating wastewater infrastructure.

The State revolving fund's steady source of Federal funding ran out when reauthorization expired in 1994. Since then, Congress has been unable to get any bills affecting the fund through the House or the Senate because of disputes over Davis-Bacon Act requirements that local prevailing wages be paid on projects receiving Federal funds. Instead, Congress has been appropriated funds for the SRF on an annual basis, but at declining levels. The lack of a steady, dependable source of funding has had a detrimental effect on the ability of water management agencies to repair, build, and upgrade the Nation's water quality infrastructure. It puts at risk the Nation's clean water.

Madam Chairman, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there is a ``funding gap'' of $300 billion to $500 billion over 20 years between what is needed and what is actually spent on our water quality infrastructure. Without a Federal recommitment to clean water, the costs of maintaining existing and aging infrastructure further stressed by ever increasing population and industrial demands, as well as new and costly Clean Water Act requirements must be borne at the local level.

Madam Chairman, the needs of municipalities, counties, and towns have simply outgrown the funding levels of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). The SRF program has been under siege since 2004, plummeting from $1.35 billion in 2004 to less than $700 million proposed for 2007. A dedicated source of Federal funding must be identified to assure adequate and continued financial assistance to municipalities to meet the goals of the Federal water quality program. H.R. 720 takes a major step in this direction and provides a significant down payment on the investment that must be made to ensure the quality of the Nation's water supply.

Madam Chairman, I support the objectives of establishing a Clean Water Trust fund. Such a dedicated trust fund for clean water will ensure that infrastructure modernization and maintenance remains a priority and will secure the long-term viability of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), while also adding a significant grant component to help communities fully achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act.

I also support expanded eligibility under the SRF for water conservation measures. This would enable consumers to make more efficient use of treated water, including incentives for the modification, retirement, replacement of customer-owned water-using equipment, appliances, plumbing fixtures, and landscape materials. Saving water through improved efficiency can lessen the need to withdraw ground or surface water supplies for municipal or industrial demands. Strategic use of water conservation not only helps save the Nation's water resources but also can help extend the value and life of both water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure, extending the beneficial investment of public funds.

Finally, Madam Chairman, I strongly support the Davis-Bacon provisions in H.R. 720 requiring that workers on projects funded through the SRF not be paid less than the prevailing wage. By guaranteeing payment of the prevailing local wage rate, Davis-Bacon provides

a better standard of living and economic security for these workers.

Madam Chairman, Davis-Bacon ``prevailing wage'' standards are set by scientific surveys of actual wages paid in local communities. Accordingly, Davis-Bacon wages in lower-cost areas such as rural communities and small towns are closely tied to existing local wages and therefore ensure a reasonable wage comparable to those earned by other workers in that community. Obviously, the prevailing wage rates in higher-cost areas such as major urban centers are higher because the average wage and cost-of-living are higher. Moreover, in 1981, the implementing regulations for Davis-Bacon were specifically amended to prohibit the Department of Labor from using wage data collected in urban areas to make a prevailing wage determination in a nearby rural county.

Madam Chairman, I will strongly oppose any amendments by the minority to eliminate, weaken, or alter the Davis-Bacon provisions within this legislation. These are the latest in a long history of Republican attacks on the Davis-Bacon Act and the protections it provides to workers. Not only have three Republican presidents temporarily suspended the Act, but many of Republican colleagues have sought to repeal it altogether.

For all of these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 720 and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for its adoption by the House. I also call upon my colleagues to oppose any amendments to weaken this critical legislation that will address the real needs of the American people.