James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. In 1930, as the Davis-Bacon language was being shaped and debated in the Senate and in the House, Senator Davis of Pennsylvania, a Republican, and Congressman Bacon of New York, a Republican, said: The essence is this. Is the government willing, for the sake of the lowest bidder, to break down all labor standards and have its work done by the cheapest labor that can be secured and shipped from State to State? When the bill was taken up at the Senate, Robert LeFollette, chairman of the Committee on Manufacturers, the Republican chairman of the committee, noted that practices were not only disturbing to labor but disturbing to the business community as well and urged that this measure be speedily enacted. It does not require the government to establish new wage scales; it merely gives the government power to require its contractors to pay the prevailing wage scales in the vicinity of the building projects. Now, the prevailing wage scale in the vicinity of building projects in Louisiana, for example, an average common laborer gets $7.86 an hour. That is the prevailing wage. I don't know how you save any more money by going lower than $7.86 an hour. The average well driller in Louisiana is paid $11.40 an hour. I don't know how you get much lower than that in order to save money. This Davis-Bacon provision is prevailing, not union wage. If I could, I would support in law the union wage, but we are not doing that. It is the prevailing local wage. I urge defeat of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. 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.

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to thank the gentlelady for her amendment which reinforces a longstanding practice of this committee to deal with water resource needs on a watershed basis. This watershed pilot project eligibility will greatly advance the cause of clean water and water availability. The U.S. Geological Survey observed most recently there are clear connections between surface water, ground water, and the precipitation events that reach these areas. In our area, precipitation is snow. In Hawaii and Louisiana, it is rain. And impact on these water resources, whether through unchecked sources of pollution, wastewater, can have significant effects on the sources of water. So the gentlelady's amendment will give an additional tool for communities to perfect and strengthen their planning for the best use and management of existing water resources, and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield if he has time remaining?

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman, in years past, has been very participatory in the work of our committee. Notably, on railroad issues several years ago the gentleman took the lead on a very contentious issue, and we have greatly appreciated his contribution then and want to work with the gentleman. The amendment would implement the change to the elevation pool before completion of the environmental assessment. We have the Water Resources Development Act ready, I think, to move within 2 weeks or so. I would like to join with the gentleman in ascertaining from the Corps the status of that environmental assessment and then determining, depending on where they stand with it, we could either dispense with the EIS and include the gentleman's provision in our WRDA bill, or if it is ready to go, if the EIS is completed, we will not have to take that action. But I assure you, one way or another, we will find a way for the gentleman's, the language to be included in WRDA before we bring it to the House floor.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And, again, I want to reaffirm my colloquy with the gentleman, that we will work with him and with the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Florida on shaping appropriate language to include this study provision pilot project for the Lake Barkley initiative as we move forward with WRDA. Madam Chair, as we come to the conclusion of this legislation, I want to express again my heartfelt appreciation to Ranking Member Mica, who has worked with us on all the measures, including how we would shape the debate on Davis-Bacon, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who has been most forthcoming and accommodating. We have, again, reached agreement on major provisions on this legislation. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who has devoted years of her service on the committee to this issue, is now the Chair. But those who really bear the burden of the work are our staff: Ryan Seiger, Beth Goldstein, Rod Hall, Mike Brain on our side; John Anderson, Jonathan Pawlow, Geoff Bowman, Tim Lundquist on the Republican side, and our full committee staff, our brilliant leader, David Heymsfeld, our chief counsel, Ward McCarragher, Sharon Barkeloo, Jen Walsh, Erik Hansen, and on the minority side, Jim Coon, Charlie Ziegler, Fraser Verrusio and Jason Rosa. 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. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I object to dispensing with the reading. We have only just now received this language and I insist on the reading of the language.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to observe and I appreciate the gentleman's comment about our side accepting amendments from the minority, and we have done that mostly where there has been prior consultation and discussion. In this case, this language was not available to our majority members on the committee until just prior to when it was offered on the floor. I inquire of the offeror his explanation on page 2, subsection (4), ``A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18,'' what is that language? Can the gentleman read me the language of the U.S. Code? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is his amendment. On page 2 of the gentleman's amendment, ``(4) A crime listed in chapter 113B of title 18, U.S. Code,'' what does that refer to? I have been able in just these few minutes to get chapter 113 but not B.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has not been able to answer my question. I was the author in our committee of the Port Security Act, along with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We had carefully crafted language that set standards for security clearance for maritime workers. We did not have any reference to chapter 113B. The transportation security workers card has not yet been issued. The readers for that card have not yet been put in place by the Transportation Security Administration. The standards, apart from this provision that the gentleman lists here, generally are covered in the background checks required in our Port Security Act for maritime workers. But this is very vague language in number (4). It is specific to a provision of U.S. Code, but the gentleman cannot explain to me what it is. And then ``(5), A crime involving a transportation security incident,'' dropping down to subsection ``(A) is a security incident resulting in a significant loss of life,'' we don't know where that language comes from. Mr. Speaker, we should not amend the Port Security Act on 30 seconds notice. There may be very good and valid provisions of this motion to recommit that we might very well be in support of, but only in due course, only in a proper forum. To come up here 30 seconds before the motion is offered and lay on the body this language without having the backup for it I think is inappropriate, and I object to the process. I object to the procedure that has been followed, not perhaps to the substance of it. Our committee is fully prepared to deal with this issue in due course and give it full and thorough consideration, but not here, not in this context.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman going to explain 113B?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Read it. Read the language.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Read it. I do not yield further. I do not yield further. Point of Order

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007.