Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It has been a good conversation, but I hope one thing is clear: this is not an infrastructure bill. This is an environmental deregulation bill that is masquerading behind the issue of infrastructure. Environmental laws, environmental reviews are not the reason new dams have not been built and it is not the reason new dams will not be built. All of the serious analyses point to other factors, the big one being they don't generate enough water to justify the huge price tags that go along with these projects. They are just rarely financeable, rarely do they make economic sense. So let's not scapegoat the environmental laws to try to address that problem. Now, if my colleagues across the aisle are interested in an honest infrastructure bill, including a water infrastructure bill, they will find a lot of willing partners across the aisle, including myself. We have put forth all sorts of ideas. We want to see water infrastructure. Surface storage and new dams can be part of that, but we have got to put real dollars on the table. We have got to do what prior generations did when they got serious about building infrastructure, and not hide behind this ulterior agenda of gutting our environmental laws, repackaging that, and representing that as being responsive to our Nation's critical need for new infrastructure. This bill simply doesn't meet that test. I request that my colleagues vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Orange County for those comments. I have been to Orange County and I have seen the cutting-edge water management work taking place in Mr. Rohrabacher's district. Among other things, they are doing amazing groundwater recharge and water-use efficiency, water recycling. In fact, they have got one of the most cutting-edge potable reuse systems in the country. It is their reliance on those 21st century water management tools instead of large reservoirs--that, for the most part, were running dry during this drought we just went through--that enabled them to get through the most critical drought any of us have ever seen in much better shape than any communities around the State. So kudos to the forward-looking water managers in Orange County. But if the gentleman is concerned about low-income people being impacted by water shortage and water management issues, I really hope he will pay a visit to my district, because on the north coast of California, you get the other end of this water management challenge. The fishing communities of the north coast have been hammered by the fact that our iconic salmon runs are teetering on the brink of extinction. We have left very little flow in the rivers, and this drought only exacerbated the problem. So I am representing people that are deeply impacted by water shortage and water management decisions that need to be part of this consideration instead of trivialized when we talk about water wasting out through the estuary. This is water that sustains these fishery runs that have been the lifeblood of the communities in my district for many years. Now, just to inject a couple of facts into what has been called a radical environmental agenda that caused the waste of all of this water during the drought--in fact, that didn't happen. In 2014, the fact is only 4 percent of all the runoff in the entire Bay Delta Watershed flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental protection. In 2015, it was even less. Two percent of the runoff for the entire watershed made it all the way out to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental purposes. The rest of that flow that made it through was to control salinity in the delta so that you could continue to serve municipal and industrial and other water-use needs. Most of that water was diverted and used. We need to remember the facts in what can sometimes be a hyperbolic discussion of California water. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, the State of California is being mentioned quite a bit in this conversation. It bears noting that the State of California is not asking for this legislation; and, in fact, the State of California has consistently opposed the rolling back of environmental standards and is busy passing bill after bill in this State legislative session to try to backfill for anticipated rollbacks in Federal environmental standards. So, certainly, if we are talking about the State of California and what it wants and it needs, its elected leaders are taking a very different direction than posing the false choice between environmental standards and infrastructure. Again, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has emphasized that there are other factors, that it is not environmental review that has stopped any water projects in the West. The Congressional Research Service has reached the same conclusion. And I just heard from my friend, Mr. McClintock, that we can't build new reservoirs until we change these laws. Well, I have got to point out that California has built new reservoirs under current law. You can ask the folks in Contra Costa County about Los Vaqueros Reservoir. They didn't need any environmental waivers or special legislation. They built their dam. And in fact, they are getting ready to move forward with an expansion of that surface storage project. It should be broadly supported, and they are not asking for any special tweaks to the environmental laws. The same would apply to Diamond Valley Reservoir in southern California. And, in fact, we have actually added nearly 6 million acre-feet of new surface and groundwater storage over the past few decades in California, all while honoring bedrock environmental protections like ESA and NEPA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I was in the California Legislature for at least one of the those environmental waiver bills that the majority leader referenced involving an NFL stadium, and I am glad to hear him criticize that because I, too, criticized it. It was a bipartisan mistake. I voted against it. There was a bit of vindication because at least one of those stadiums ended up not getting built anyway, despite the environmental waiver, and it sort of exposed the fact that these environmental laws are often put forward as scapegoats. We are often told that if you just clear away the environmental permitting, we can do these things. There were many other reasons why that stadium didn't get built, complicated issues involving NFL franchises and financing, which is usually the real scapegoat when these projects aren't moving forward. So it is a worthy example to talk about in the context of this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are debating today what is being called an infrastructure bill. I wish that were actually the case. Our country certainly needs Congress to take action to address our country's infrastructure needs, yet this Congress is spending its time today debating another sham infrastructure bill that won't actually provide a single cent for real infrastructure. Our Nation currently spends less on infrastructure as a percentage of our GDP than at any time during the past 20 years, and it shows. Far too many areas around the country have infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes. We have seen this occur with the recent tragedy and the situation for water at the Oroville Dam in California, and this bill offers no solutions for these issues. In truth, this bill is simply an environmental deregulation bill disguised as an infrastructure bill. Now, the bill's proponents have claimed that environmental laws, and specifically NEPA, are blocking new dam construction. This claim, Mr. Chairman, simply put, is bunk. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, not a single dam has been denied construction because of a lack of coordination between Reclamation and other agencies or because of delays associated with environmental review or permitting. So why do we not see all sorts of new dams sprouting up around the West like we did for years and years in the previous century? Because there is no new water to be captured, and because, frankly, all the best dam locations around the West were taken in the previous century when we had a heck of a dam-building spree. New dams don't get built because they don't yield enough water to justify their multibillion-dollar price tags. You can ask the CRS if you don't believe other experts. In 2012, the Congressional Research Service found that the most likely causes of delay for major infrastructure projects are a lack of funding and State permitting issues, not environmental laws. Now, new surface storage may be appropriate in some cases. The fact is, however, that much of the United States is already saturated with dams because of that dam-building spree we had in the previous century. The United States built tens of thousands of dams in the 20th century. California alone built 1,400 major dams. The best dam sites are already taken. Other than extraordinarily wet years like this one, thankfully, in California we are having a hard time even filling up the reservoirs that we already built. Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to peddle this fiction that we have to gut our Nation's environmental laws to build new dams and other infrastructure. I guess we should not be surprised because this crusade against our Nation's environmental laws is being led by a President whose relationship with the truth is complicated at best. A couple of weeks ago, President Trump claimed that projects like the Hoover Dam were built in 5 years because they didn't have to go through years of permitting and regulation that current infrastructure projects are subjected to. Well, the independent fact checkers at The Washington Post evaluated this claim and they awarded the President's claim, as you can see to my right, three Pinocchios, which is the rating for statements that include ``significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.'' Now, the fact checkers noted that, according to the U.S. GAO, 95 percent of public infrastructure projects are actually excluded from environmental reviews under current law. They further pointed out that the President ignored the many years of planning, permitting, negotiating, and preparing that was required to make sure that projects like the Hoover Dam were financially feasible and actually had public support. In fact, dam planning on the Colorado River began in 1902, yet the Hoover Dam was not completed until 1937. Not completed, I might add, until the Roosevelt administration put actual public infrastructure dollars on the table to get that project financed and moving. The project took many years because, even despite the absence of modern environmental laws, big complicated projects take time to plan and finance, and they always have. I am sorry that my Republican colleagues refuse to let such facts get in the way of their decades-long crusade against our country's bedrock environmental laws, but I hope we will eventually move on from this debate and get on to addressing real problems affecting our infrastructure, and that real problem is investment. In terms of water infrastructure, our Nation is still not making necessary investments like water reuse projects and recycling projects. These are 21st century infrastructure projects that can provide us with water supplies that don't depend on the whims of an increasingly unpredictable hydrology. Given our changing climate, we can no longer rely exclusively on our 20th century infrastructure projects like dams. Despite this, we have barely scratched the surface on building modern water infrastructure projects like reuse, recycling, desalination, groundwater storage, storm water capture, and water-use efficiency projects. Our country currently reuses less than 10 percent of our Nation's wastewater. Climate change will require us to do better. As George W. Bush's Reclamation Commissioner once said, the reuse of wastewater and recycled water could actually be the next river for the Western United States to tap for critical water supply. This Congress should be working across the aisle to fully tap that next great river for the 21st century. Reoperating existing facilities, modernizing those operations, is another example of something we should be working together on across the aisle. All around the West we are dealing with dams and reservoirs that are being operated with the best technology from decades ago. The flood control manual at Oroville Dam, for example, hasn't been updated since 1970, which actually makes it cutting edge when compared to many of the reservoirs that are operating on 1950s flood control manuals. We are using slide rules instead of computers, with meteorological predictions that are based on historic data, backward-looking data, instead of looking up at the sky and using the data from modern satellite technology. At Folsom Dam, we are watching a long overdue update to operations as part of a new auxiliary spillway. Forecast-informed operations, which is something that I have long advocated as part of comprehensive water legislation, is something we could work on together, and it would provide significant increases in water supply. If my Republican friends are interested in expediting environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, then there is another thing that we can work on together, and that is we can end the slashing of budgets in Federal agencies that are in charge of environmental reviews for infrastructure projects. Budget cuts do nothing but hamper the ability of these agencies to participate in the review process and to protect our other Nation's fisheries and other natural resources. This bill before us today compounds the problem by further undercutting the important role these agencies play to protect our natural resources. That is why several conservation and fishing industry groups have warned that this Congress should reject this bill, that it threatens tens of thousands of jobs in the fishing industry across the Pacific Coast. Many of our Nation's iconic fisheries are already on the brink of extinction. We have heard firsthand in our committee from the fishermen struggling to pay their mortgages, boats being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes being repossessed, and restaurants, hotels, and other retail and service businesses struggling just to scrape by. Let's not add to these struggles by passing an ill-conceived bill that does nothing to actually improve our infrastructure. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson to recognize the 100th anniversary of the American Red Cross of the California Northwest (Northwest Chapter), as it celebrates the occasion on June 22, 2017. Chartered in 1917, the American Red Cross of the California Northwest was originally comprised of eleven chapters from Sonoma to Del Norte Counties. These chapters provided necessary support and emergency services to United States Armed Forces and their families stationed in the area, as the country entered the First World War. Throughout the years, the Northwest Chapter's purpose has evolved to meet the region's growing population and increasingly diverse needs. Now covering six counties with a combined population of 941,000 people, the Northwest Chapter has provided emergency services, training programs, and continued support to Military personnel and their families throughout the region. This has led to critical emergency support during times of disaster both big and small. From the 1964 earthquake that devastated Crescent City to the Russian River Floods of 1955, 1982, 1995, and 2007, the Northwest Chapter has repeatedly answered the call for assistance with trained volunteers and broader emergency support. The Northwest Chapter responds to an average of 100 local disasters and assists an average 280 families each year through the efforts of its volunteer disaster workers. Mr. Speaker, the American Red Cross of the California Northwest has been a critical partner in providing local emergency support and preparation during times of crisis. It is, therefore, fitting to congratulate and thank the Northwest Chapter for a century of exceptional volunteer citizenship and community support.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Staff Sergeant Christopher Baradat for heroic actions that were essential in rescuing 150 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan on April 6, 2013, and ultimately earned him the Air Force Cross which was presented to him on April 20, 2017. Raised in Marin County, Mr. Baradat graduated from San Marin High School in 2007, and enlisted in the United States Air Force shortly thereafter. He served his country for eight years, and is now studying welding and technical skills at Laney College in Oakland, where he lives with his wife Kellie and his three children. On April 6, 2013, Staff Sgt. Baradat, a special tactics airman assigned to the 21st Special Tactics Squadron, was attached to a U.S. Army Special Forces Team in eastern Afghanistan. He was on his third deployment in Afghanistan. That day, his unit was called to support coalition soldiers who were surrounded and pinned down by Taliban fighters in a valley in the Kunar Province. Upon entering the valley his unit took direct fire from the ridge lines and other surrounding structures, forcing his team to take cover in a compound 400 meters away from coalition forces. Staff Sgt. Baradat's responsibility was to communicate with supporting aircraft and provide pilots with targeting information to strike enemy positions. Not being able to communicate with support aircraft through the compound walls, Staff Sgt. Baradat rushed out into the direct line of fire in order to communicate Taliban positions. Over the course of the next two hours, Staff Sgt. Baradat utilized 8 aircraft to drop 13 five hundred pound bombs and more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition on enemy positions surrounding his team and the coalition forces. The consistent barrage of fire created the conditions necessary for coalition forces and his team to withdraw from the valley. His heroism did not end there however, as he continued his communication with support aircraft throughout the exit out of the valley. Still putting himself in the direct line of fire, Staff Sgt. Baradat placed himself partially out of an armored carrier in order to maintain a secure communication signal with support aircraft. He would continue to do this until his entire team made it out of the valley. Because his actions had a decisive impact on the outcome of that day, Staff Sgt. Baradat received the Air Force Cross, which is the second highest military award that a member of the United States Air Force can receive. Staff Sgt. Baradat is only the ninth service member to have received the award since 9/11. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing deep appreciation for Christopher Baradat's extraordinary heroism that day, and for the sacrifices he and his family have made for this country.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson in recognition of Michael Dillabough, as he retires from the United States Army Corps of Engineers after a stellar 23-year career. After graduating from California State University at Chico with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering, Michael Dillabough began his professional career as an officer with the U.S. Air Force in 1979. His early work included Logistics Analyst at Westinghouse Electrical Corporation and Senior Engineer and Technical Writer at Martin Marietta Aerospace at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In 1988 he began working for the United States Navy as the Facility Manager assigned to Mare Island Naval Shipyard. For 6 years he managed more than 550 facilities and 25 miles of roads. He then transferred to the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1994 and began his 23-year career with the San Francisco District. Initially brought on to work with the Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise, he became the first Project Manager assigned to a remote site, Warm Springs Dam at Lake Sonoma in 2001. In 2003, he became responsible for the district's Emergency Management Office, Dredge Material Management Office, Office of Technical Services and Natural Resource Management, two flood- control/water-supply projects, the Navigational Debris Removal Section, as well as management of the Warm Springs Fish Hatchery and the Bay Model Visitor Center. In 2003 Michael Dillabough deployed to Kuwait and Iraq where he served as Senior Project Manager for the Gulf Regional Engineering Office and as the Chief Engineer for the Humanitarian Operations Center. The same year, Michael Dillabough was promoted to the position he retires from today, Chief of the Operations and Readiness Division for the San Francisco District. Over the course of his career he has been recognized with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, two Humanitarian Medals and the Air Force Commendation Medal. We have personally worked with Michael Dillabough and seen first- hand his outstanding dedication to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the public. His career is one of steadfast service to his country and is worthy of the highest distinction. Please join us in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his outstanding contributions to our nation.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a column written by Mary Ann Dickinson on the importance of the WaterSense program, which for ten years has saved consumers money and helped to conserve limited water resources. Trump Cutting the EPA WaterSense Program Makes No Sense at All (By Mary Ann Dickinson) President Trump promised clean water for all Americans while preserving our natural resources. Yet his recently announced 2018 budget seeks to eliminate or drastically curtail programs that do just that. It is especially perplexing to see EPA's small but mighty WaterSense program on the chopping block. WaterSense, like its larger predecessor EnergyStar, is a voluntary water product-labeling program that partners with business and communities to enhance the market for water-efficient fixtures and appliances. In this way, WaterSense encourages consumers to purchase products that save water and energy. In just ten years since its launch, the WaterSense program has already made valuable contributions to building water security for American communities. It has saved more than 1.5 trillion gallons of water, enough to serve all of California's residents for a year. Those savings help protect the nation's water future--ensuring that more water is available for future generations, emergencies and our waterways. Less water used also means less energy used to heat, pump and treat water--thereby eliminating 78 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from our atmosphere. The blue and green WaterSense logo helps customers easily choose new toilets, showerheads, faucets and irrigation controllers that have been independently certified to perform as well as or better than standard models--while using at least 20 percent less water. That choice is good for American families that already spend an average of $1,100 per year on water. In fact, it has already saved consumers $32.6 billion in water and energy bills. With water rates rising each year, WaterSense can help families better manage their household expenses. But WaterSense isn't just delivering more reliable and affordable water to consumers; it's actually driving innovation and supporting economic growth--goals at the core of Trump's platform. Large American plumbing and irrigation manufacturers have seen their businesses grow by adding WaterSense-labeled products to their portfolios, while start-ups and smaller shops are getting their products to market more quickly, thanks to the clearly defined performance standards and certification process in the WaterSense program. This has resulted in a competitive edge for companies manufacturing American-made WaterSense products. In addition, as water becomes more scarce and expensive, WaterSense can help all businesses reduce their operating costs and increase their resiliency by installing high-efficiency fixtures in their facilities. WaterSense isn't a mandatory program or an example of overreaching and costly regulations. It is a voluntary, public-private partnership program where businesses and communities opt in to participate. And they have overwhelmingly opted in. More than 1,700 partners build their businesses and support their communities by participating in the WaterSense program. Nearly 200 of them recently signed a letter asking EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to continue to fund it into the future. So how much money is it? WaterSense costs taxpayers a mere $3.1 million per year to run--a meager federal expenditure for a significant economic benefit delivered to businesses and individuals. Continued public investment is key. A product labeling program run by the private sector would lack objectivity and credibility to consumers. The WaterSense program is the best kind of government program. It leverages a small public investment into big savings for homeowners and businesses, while ensuring secure and sustainable water supplies. Let's make sure it stays in the 2018 budget.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Victoria (Vicki) Moyer Arden on her retirement as the Fine Arts Program Coordinator at Oak Grove Union School District in Sonoma County after over 16 years of exceptional service. Born in Reading, Pennsylvania and raised in Madison, Connecticut, Ms. Arden received her Bachelor's degree from Towson State University and a Master's in Art Education from the University of New Mexico. In 2001, she and her family moved to Sebastopol where she has resided ever since. During her tenure at Oak Grove Union School District, Ms. Arden developed a robust and comprehensive Fine Arts program that is a model for elementary and middle schools everywhere. She is well-regarded by her colleagues, students and their families for her passion for instilling a meaningful love of art in her students. She dedicated her entire professional career to supporting and promoting quality education for Sonoma students, where the fundamental subjects always included a well-rounded fine arts program. Her skills, talent and energy helped Oak Grove Elementary receive two prestigious California Distinguished School awards during her tenure there, among other distinctions. Her philosophy that, ``arts offer students a unique language to explore ideas, feelings, subject matter, and cultures'' was realized by numerous students over the years, many of whom will be grateful for this influence for years to come. Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing deep appreciation for Ms. Arden's extraordinary service to our public school children, and thank her for the indelible marks she has undoubtedly left on the thousands of students she has educated over the years, as well as her own two children, Paul and Gabe, and her husband John, and extend to her best wishes on her retirement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Valerie Pitts on her retirement after a stellar 35-year career in public education, most recently as Superintendent of the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District for the past 12 years. Dr. Pitts dedicated her professional tenure to supporting and promoting quality public education. She is passionate about ensuring equity for students, a climate of inclusion, high academic standards, engaging curriculum, and an ethos of continuous improvement. Born, raised, and educated in Larkspur, California, Dr. Pitts went on to earn a Bachelor's Degree in Music, a Master's Degree in Education, and a Doctorate in Education with an emphasis in Organizational Leadership, all from Bay Area universities. She spent her educational career in Marin County, first as a teacher for eight years at San Rafael High School before moving into curriculum support and administration for the duration. In 2005, Dr. Pitts returned to her home district in Larkspur where she spent the next dozen years. Throughout her tenure, Dr. Pitts shared her considerable educational experience, skills, and knowledge to amass a list of accomplishments that numerous students, families, and staff will enjoy for years to come. Among her many achievements, Dr. Pitts led the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District during a time of exponential growth in student enrollment, wherein she managed major facilities improvements funded by taxpayer dollars and created state-of-the-art learning environments and curriculum for the district. This included the installation of a solar energy project that is projected to save the district $2 million over 20 years. While serving as Superintendent in the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District, Dr. Pitts also acted as Superintendent for the Sausalito-- Marin City School District during transitions in leadership. This generosity of spirit was extended to her fellow superintendents around the County and in other school districts through her work on the Joint Legislative Advisory Committee and many other county leadership roles. Dr. Pitts' legacy of professional and civic contributions will leave indelible benefits to Marin County for years to come. She is a student focused leader, whose commitment to equity and excellence in public education is outstanding. It is appropriate that she has been selected for many honors, including the prestigious Marin County's 2017 Educator of the Year award as she retires from an exceptional career in public education, at the Golden Bell Award Ceremony on May 25, 2017, and hosted by the San Rafael Elks Lodge No. 1108, Marin County School Boards Association, Marin Association of Superintendents, and Marin County Office of Education. Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing deep appreciation for Dr. Pitts' long and extraordinary professional service, congratulate her on being named the 2017 Educator of the Year, and extend to her best wishes on her retirement.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to speak against the underlying bill. Unfortunately, I wasn't serving the House in 2011 when this bill was first brought to the floor. I was here in 2014, when the bill was brought up again, twice. I was here, also, in 2016, when it was brought up twice. This bill has gone through a number of name changes, but its intent remains the same, and that is, to allow the irresponsible application of pesticides into our Nation's waterways. Undermining the Clean Water Act, as this bill does, means taking the EPA out of the picture, blocking them from weighing in on pesticides that are dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams, without regard to the impacts of human health, or to those who rely on recreational, commercial, and Tribal fisheries. We know, unfortunately, that despite efforts to regulate pesticides for public health and safety, these dangerous chemicals continue to be detected in surface and groundwater bodies at dangerous levels. Impacts to fish and wildlife have been significant, and have already been devastating in some instances. Oysters, shrimp, sea trout, and redfish--four of the most important species to food webs, fishermen, and the economy along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts--have shown effects ranging from impaired survival skills, to damaged DNA, to death as a result of exposure to pesticides that have been approved for agricultural use. In 2006, USGS released its review on pesticide occurrence and concentrations in streams and groundwater. According to this report, at least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams tested throughout the Nation. In addition, chemicals such as DDT, which has been banned in the U.S. for decades, were still showing up, found in fish tissues sampled across watersheds nationwide. We see a similar situation at the State level. In my State of California, pesticides are among the top sources of water quality impairments in the State. 437 waterbodies are impaired by 40 different categories of pesticides. That is why commercial fishing groups oppose the underlying bill. My amendment will ensure that we don't deny either the EPA or a State their ability to require permits for pesticide use that could have negative effects on fisheries. Let's make sure that streams and rivers that support fish are clean. Let's make sure that the fish we catch, eat, and sell are free from toxic chemicals. America's fisheries are a backbone of both sport fishing and commercial fishing industries. The recreational sector alone accounts for more than $115 billion of our country's economy, and it employs more than 828,000 people. My amendment would protect these recreational activities, not only for current generations but for future generations of anglers to come. By accidentally contaminating our waterways, pesticides also exacerbate the precarious status of endangered and threatened species. In 1996, the death of over 90,000 steelhead fish, 100 coho salmon, and thousands of nongame fish resulted from an herbicide called acrolein that entered the waterways in Bear Creek, Oregon. Many wild salmon stocks are now on the brink of extinction on the West Coast, and losses in such sensitive populations make recovery efforts increasingly difficult. Pesticides can pose a dangerous threat to commercial fisheries. In 1999, a massive lobster die-off devastated the lives and livelihoods of Connecticut and New York lobstermen along the Long Island Sound, producing a multimillion-dollar settlement with pesticide manufacturers mishandling the chemical malathion. Similar concern has brought forth proposals to regulate methoprene and resmethrin in Maine in order to protect their commercial fishery, which is worth over $700 million. Mr. Chair, I have letters of support here for my amendment from the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Karuk Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Seafood Harvesters of America, and other organizations who are very interested in this amendment, and support it. May 24, 2017. Dear Representative: As the House considers H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, we the undersigned groups representing millions of hunters and anglers across the nation, urge you to ensure that H.R. 953 does not negatively impact water quality, fish health and the recreational fishing industry by supporting Amendment #3, sponsored by Representative Jared Huffman. The Huffman Amendment protects fisheries and water quality by ensuring any pesticide spraying into or over waterways that would negatively impact our nation's fisheries is properly monitored and permitted. The 47 million sportsmen and women that hunt and fish each year depend on strong Clean Water Act protections to ensure thriving fish populations that are safe to eat and the Huffman amendment would ensure it continues to do so. America's hunters and anglers contribute more than $200 billion to America's economy each year and this robust outdoor economy depends on healthy rivers, lakes, and streams. Nearly 2,000 waterways in the United States are known to be impaired because of pesticides, and, even at low levels, pesticides pose a particularly concerning threat to fish and wildlife populations. Without protective federal safeguards in place to regulate pesticides applied to our waterways, sportsmen and women will have access to fewer quality hunting and fishing opportunities. On behalf of our millions of members and conservation- minded hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts, we urge you to support this common-sense measure to safeguard our water resources and outdoor heritage and support the Huffman amendment. Sincerely, Benjamin Bulis, AFFTA President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association. John W. Gale, Conservation Director, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. Adam Kolton, Vice President, National Advocacy, National Wildlife Federation. Steve Moyer, Vice President, Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I prefer butter on my lobster rolls, not toxic pesticides. Let's make sure that States maintain their authority to prudently protect their economies and public health from pesticide impacts. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that some States may want to put their efforts into protecting water quality and the health of their fisheries and their ecosystems, rather than just carpet- bombing waterways with pesticides. This amendment says, those States have the authority to do that if they choose to. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sheriff Mike Downey, a longtime member of Humboldt County's law enforcement community, on his retirement. Sheriff Downey's service to Humboldt County has been exemplary. Mike moved his family to Humboldt County and first became a deputy sheriff in 1986. He was assigned to the Marijuana Eradication Team in 1988, earning several awards for service to the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. He was promoted to Field Training Officer in 1989, and then to Sheriff's Corporal in 1992. In 1994, Mike was selected as Resident Deputy to Shelter Cove. Three years later, he was assigned as Sheriff's Sergeant to the Garberville station, and was awarded the Outstation Deputy of the Year in 2000. In 2003, Mike was promoted to the rank of Sheriff's Lieutenant in charge of North Area Command patrol operations. Mike's professional development has been stellar over the tenure of his service. He was awarded every level of certification offered by the CA Commission on Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST), including Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory, Management, and Executive Certificates, and graduated from POST Command College. On May 7, 2006, Mike was promoted to Undersheriff under Sheriff Gary Philp. He was elected as Sheriff of Humboldt County and took office on January 1, 2001. Sheriff Downey has been a role model for excellence in professionalism and community policing throughout his career. In addition to his professional contributions, he has served the Humboldt County community through the Eureka Rotary Club, The Red Cross board of Directors, as the President of the Law Enforcement Chiefs Associations of Humboldt, and through the Board of Directors for the California State Sheriffs' Association. Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Mike Downey's commitment to the safety and peace of Humboldt County is commendable and worthy of recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to him.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the RotaCare Bay Area San Rafael Clinic's 20th Anniversary of caring for, and protecting, the people of Marin County. The RotaCare clinics of the Bay Area are important contributors to their communities' health. Starting with one clinic on the former Agnews State Hospital site, there are now twelve clinics located throughout the Bay Area in Concord, Daly City, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Monterey, Pittsburg, Richmond, San Jose, San Leandro, San Rafael, and Santa Cruz. Their mission, ``to provide free medical care in the Bay Area for those who have the greatest need and the least access,'' has been a guiding tenet to the many volunteers and philanthropic donors who support the program. RotaCare assists anyone in need and is known for their attempts to alleviate costly and time consuming emergency room visits for the uninsured. My district's own San Rafael clinic was founded in 1997 by Mike Osborne, Sharron Newton, Gus Catechi and Peter Pattengill, members of the Rotary Club of Marin Sunrise. The Rotary District theme that year was homelessness, which sparked the idea of starting a free clinic in San Rafael. At first, the clinic was held once a week at Ritter House in San Rafael, but as the clinic grew it was a forced to find a larger space. In 2003, the clinic moved to Kaiser Permanente's Downtown San Rafael Office and expanded their hours to twice a week to accommodate the growing need of free, quality health care that still continues today. Mr. Speaker, the RotaCare clinics' commitment to providing accessible, free health care to those who would otherwise go without care keeps our community thriving with healthy, active people. It is therefore fitting to honor and thank RotaCare Bay Area's San Rafael clinic for 20 years of success in adhering to the mission of providing health care to those who are most in need and to offer best wishes on many more years of important work.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, we rise today in memory of Judge Gary Thomas, who passed away on April 3, 2017, after a lifetime of service to his community. A graduate of the University of San Francisco and the University of San Francisco School of Law, Judge Thomas joined the California Bar in 1962. From 1962 to 1968, Judge Thomas was also a member of the United States Air Force Reserve. A San Rafael resident, Judge Thomas spent his professional life serving Marin County, first as a county prosecutor, then as an assistant district attorney, then as a Judge appointed in 1972 by Governor Ronald Reagan, where he was reelected by the public several times. Mr. Thomas was paralyzed during the 1970 shootout at the Marin County Civic Center when he was prosecuting a case of a San Quentin inmate who was charged with assaulting a prison guard. During the trial, the defendant's brother, along with others, took Judge Thomas, Judge Harold Haley, and three female jurors, hostage. During the escape, a gunfight began. With bravery and courage, Judge Thomas was able to grab one of the assailant's guns to protect himself and the other hostages. Judge Thomas was shot near his spine which left him paralyzed from the waist down. Judge Thomas returned to work five weeks later. Related to the injury, he would suffer from kidney problems, pneumonia, and other complications throughout his life; but he continued to serve on the bench until 1999, showing strength and resilience few will ever know. Mr. Speaker, the depth of Judge Thomas's service to his local community as well as his commitment to his family and the judiciary has left a positive legacy to many, and he will be dearly missed. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to him today and honor his memory.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on April 27, 2017, I was unable to vote on the amendment to H.R. 1694 offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Had I been present for roll call vote 232, I would have voted yes.