The House on Wednesday passed legislation that would authorize $1.7 billion over five years for grants to replace aging sewer systems.

The bill (HR 569), which passed 367-58, faces objections from the White House. The Bush administration says the measure would cost too much, but it has stopped short of issuing a veto threat.

Sponsored by Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., the bill is the first of three water-related measures the House is expected to pass this week. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., who chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he anticipates that the Senate will move quickly on all three.

Supporters said Wednesday’s vote marks an important first step in fortifying the nation’s aging water infrastructure.

“Because you can’t see it, people forget about how significant it is,” Pascrell said, adding that the bill would help cities like his hometown of Paterson, N.J., where sewers periodically overflow into the Passaic River.

The legislation aims to help local governments fund the repair and replacement of “combined sewer overflows” — outmoded sewer systems designed to carry both domestic sewage and industrial wastewater. The bill’s supporters say such sewer systems, which still exist in more than 700 communities nationwide, pose a risk to public health and the environment.

“We can’t let small communities all across the country shoulder this tremendous burden alone,” Pascrell said.

In a concession to fiscal conservatives, Oberstar agreed to accept an amendment by Iowa Republican Steve King that would cut the bill’s authorization level by 5 percent — to $1.7 billion — from the original $1.8 billion authorization level. King’s amendment was adopted by voice vote.

Oberstar said King’s amendment was “a very reasonable proposition” that helped garner support for the bill. The committee also pared the bill’s bottom line; the original version would have authorized $3 billion.

The White House expressed its concerns about the bill’s costs in a Statement of Administration Policy released March 6.

The bill “may encourage municipalities to delay undertaking needed sewer infrastructure projects to wait for federal subsidies,” the White House said.

But lawmakers rejected, 166-200, an amendment by Georgia Republican Tom Price that would have required offsets for any appropriations that eventually resulted from the bill.

Wednesday’s debate resulted in a parliamentary rarity: a successful motion to recommit. The move allowed Patrick T. McHenry, R-N.C., to force action on an amendment that would bar lobbyists from receiving any funds authorized by the bill.

McHenry moved to send the bill back to the Transportation and Infrastructure panel with instructions to include his amendment. The House voted 425-0 to support the motion. Oberstar accepted the amendment on behalf of the committee, and the House then adopted it by voice vote.

McHenry described the amendment as a “gut check” for Democrats, who pledged during last year’s election campaign to impose tougher lobbying restrictions.

The last successful motion to recommit occurred in July 2002, during debate on legislation to create the Homeland Security Department (PL 107-296).

On Thursday, the House will turn its attention to a second clean-water bill (HR 700) that would revive a $125 million pilot program aimed at developing alternative water-source projects.

Republicans plan to offer amendments that would require offsets for the bill’s cost, focus the funds on rural communities and set an expiration date on the authorization.

House Democratic leaders are waiting until Friday to consider the most complex water bill on this week’s agenda.

States are pressing lawmakers to enact that bill (HR 720), which would authorize $14 billion over four years for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which provides low-interest loans to construct wastewater treatment facilities and other pollution-abatement projects. Federal contributions to the loan program have shrunk in recent years.

Republicans submitted numerous amendments Wednesday to again challenge a provision that would apply federal wage rules to projects financed by the loans. The GOP lawmakers say the provision would expand the scope of the Davis-Bacon Act (PL 88-349), which requires workers on federal construction projects to receive local prevailing wages and benefits.

Democratic lawmakers and labor, meanwhile, launched a fierce pre-emptive defense of the Davis-Bacon provisions.

Corrine Brown, D-Fla., said lawmakers who oppose the prevailing wage language don’t believe “workers deserve fair wages for their work.”

Michael Teitelbaum contributed to this story.