Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act of 2009

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.

We have no more speakers. I will close on our side if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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.

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

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 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan, a member of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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.

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.

How much time do I have remaining?

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 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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

Would the gentleman yield?

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.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

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 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.

Madam Chair, though I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, 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.

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.

Madam Chair, before proceeding with the vote, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 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).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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. 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 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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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.

I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 30 seconds to thank the chairman.

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 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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

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 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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

I thank the chairman for his comments. And I would certainly yield to our ranking member from the subcommittee as well.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.