H. Res. 235: H.R. 1262 – Water Quality Investment Act of 2009

COMMITTEE ACTION: REPORTED BY A VOICE VOTE on Wednesday, March 11, 2009.
FLOOR ACTION: ADOPTED BY A VOICE VOTE on Thursday, March 12, 2009.

MANAGERS: Arcuri/Diaz-Balart
111th Congress 
1st Session

H.RES 235

[Report No. 111-36]

H.R. 1262 – Water Quality Investment Act of 2009

 

  1. Structured rule.
  1. Provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  1. Waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
  1. Provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.
  1. Waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.  This waiver does not affect the point of order available under clause 9 of rule XXI (regarding earmark disclosure).
  1. Makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.
  1. Provides that the amendments made in order 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.
  1. Waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report except for those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
  1. Provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  1. House Resolutions 218, 219, and 229 shall be laid on the table.

—————

RESOLUTION


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

          Sec. 2.  House Resolutions 218, 219, and 229 are laid on the table.

 

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN ORDER
(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

 

1. Oberstar, James (MN)

Would authorize tribal governments to be eligible for technical and management assistance for small publicly-owned sewerage agencies; amend an existing Clean Water Act authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out pilot projects by ensuring that certain “green technology” activities are eligible for controlling stormwater runoff, and increase the authorization of appropriations for this authority to $100 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014; clarify the eligibility for construction of energy-efficient or renewable-energy generation technologies at publicly-owned sewerage agencies under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; provide additional criteria for States to determine “affordability criteria” for waste-water infrastructure projects and activities, including factors related to per capita income and local unemployment rates; provide additional transparency and accountability for expenditures from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by requiring EPA to conduct, and make publicly available, an annual performance review of expenditures from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, including a review of the types and categories of projects and activities carried out using the fund, and an estimate of the number of jobs created from proceeds of the fund; strike a provision related to the collection of tonnage duties that was unnecessary; authorize additional studies on the water-related infrastructure needs along the United States-Mexican border region, and the condition of wastewater infrastructure on the Great Lakes; require States to set-aside 20 percent of combined sewer and sanitary sewer grants to communities that implement green infrastructure or other water and energy efficient improvements; and require the EPA Administrator to conduct a study on the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the waters of the United States.

(10 minutes)

2. Mack, Connie (FL)

Would remove all Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions from the bill.

(20 minutes)

3. Markey, Betsy (CO)/Kratovil, Frank, Jr. (MD)

Would require states to use at least 15% (instead of 10% as required in the bill) of each capitalization grant for water pollution control to provide assistance to municipalities of less than 10,000 people to the extent that there are sufficient applications for assistance.

(10 minutes)

4. Miller, Candice (MI)

Would direct the EPA to convene a task force (EPA, FDA, and others appointed by the Administrator of the EPA) to develop recommendations on the proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and a strategy to educate the public on those recommendations.  It also would permit, at the request of the head of the task force, any federal agency or department to detail personnel to the task force.

(10 minutes)

5. Flake, Jeff (AZ)

Would prohibit earmarking of funds appropriated as a result of the reauthorization of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan Funds included in the bill.

(10 minutes)

6. Polis, Jared (CO)

Would require that States, in the development of their priority methodology, give priority to projects that construct bioswales that filter and naturally store stormwater runoff and floodwaters for future water supply and recharge of natural aquifers.

(10 minutes)

7. Roskam, Peter (IL)

Would require the Director of OMB to study programs authorized by the Act under the Program Assessment Rating Tool or a successor performance assessment tool developed by OMB.

(10 minutes)

8. Dahlkemper, Kathleen (PA)

Would require certification by a system operator that both water and energy conservation are components of their fiscal sustainability plan.

(10 minutes)

9. Wittman, Robert (VA)

Would require the OMB Director 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.  Also, the EPA Administrator would have to develop and update an adaptive management plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration activities.

(10 minutes)

10. Driehaus, Steve (OH)

Would increase from $1.8 billion to $2.5 billion the authorization level for the grant program that makes funds available for combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.

(10 minutes)