Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on. March 18, 2024. Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water protections. Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act, puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and wildlife depend on. Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes, wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of remedying those threats. In particular: Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional administrative processes and opening them up to industry lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly concerning for emerging contaminants. Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill'' activities, namely that the activities must have minimal adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the environment. Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have reason to expect such contaminants. Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries, drinking water supplies, and other resources. Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill would double the duration of general permits, such that advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering the full environmental consequences of permitted activities, as well as the effects of such activities on endangered species. Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill'' permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in many instances before the impacts of the permitted project are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them. In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show that people actually want stronger federal protections for our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be focused on putting people before polluters and working to ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income, has access to clean water, rather than attempting to undermine our critical clean water protections. Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our families and communities depend on and work against the Clean Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Sincerely, Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes; American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Bayou City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice; Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America. Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW); Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government; League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National Audubon Society. National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay. January 30, 2024. Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict, deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to streamline the permitting process for development projects, these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very foundation of environmental protection for our nation's wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality, public health, and economic stability. The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly eviscerate the EPA's authority. These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources. The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's commitment to protecting our precious water resources. Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step backward, compromising environmental health, public well- being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these provisions or any similar language that would hobble the EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries, drinking water, and other natural resources. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources for the benefit of all Americans. Sincerely, Bristol Bay Defense Fund. United Tribes of Bristol Bay. Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay. Businesses for Bristol Bay. SalmonState. Wild Salmon Center. Native American Rights Fund. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters. Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States. We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now. Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State. This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts. Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act. Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans. Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States. This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water. Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties. While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes. Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom. There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries. Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency. Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis. Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country. Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment. I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James). Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges. EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own. While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges. Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge. However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants. EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including PFAS. We should not be creating incentives for permittees to ignore the discharge of these chemicals. I support the gentleman's amendment to ensure that nothing in the act affects the EPA's authority to research PFAS chemicals. However, I do not support the provisions in the underlying bill that will undermine EPA's ability to track ongoing discharges of PFAS making it more challenging to utilize this research to help the communities threatened by PFAS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth. Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or activity associated with a foreign government of concern. That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if their activities trigger Clean Water Act review. I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3 billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in northern Michigan. . . . '' However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this amendment? How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company. How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a Chinese owner? Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones; however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000- square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas. Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.? House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job creation. House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable job creation and support of domestic manufacturing. Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be unimplement able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and ultimately only threatens clean water. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership. Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the programs possible. However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act, with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this authority. This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program. Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program. I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without proper oversight and review. The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input. This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process. I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure investments, and accelerating the economy of the future. House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects. It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies, including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment. Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr. Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.