Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 953, Reducing the Regulatory Burdens Act. As I have noted before on similar bills in the past, I remain concerned that this bill would mean that no Clean Water Act protections would be required for pesticide application to water bodies that are already impaired by pesticides. The Clean Water Act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations. In fact, the Clean Water Act permit provides a specific emergency provision to prevent outbreaks of diseases such as Zika virus. Under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are covered automatically under the permit and any spraying may be performed immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. In most instances, sprayers are only required to notify EPA of their spraying operations 30 days after the beginning of a spraying operation. Most pesticide applications in the United States are done in accordance with FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which only requires proper labeling on pesticide products regarding usage. However, FIFRA labeling is no substitute for ensuring that we understand the volumes of pesticide we seem to apply to our rivers, our lakes, our streams on an annual basis. According to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides, commonly used pesticides frequently are present in streams and groundwater at levels that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at levels that may affect aquatic or fish-eating wildlife and also human life. In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles of rivers and streams, 1,380 of bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides. The EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many of these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides that are currently being used. I am very concerned of the effect these pesticides have on the health of our rivers, our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies for all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and the poor and disenfranchised people who have no representation. We have much cancer appearing, and we have no idea what it is. Adding pesticides is not helping. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Federal report on how pesticides in California are the leading cause of impairments to water quality. U.S. EPA Report on California Water Quality Assessment California Causes of Impairment for reporting year 2012 Pesticides are the Cause of water impairment in California for 4,534 miles of rivers and streams, 235,765 acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 829 square miles of bays and estuaries, 35 miles of coastal shoreline, 42 square miles of ocean and near coastal waters, and 43 acres of wetlands.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Currently in California there are over 4,500 miles of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 829 square miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by pesticides. This is a significant concern in my home State, where every drop of water has to be cleaned and needs to be conserved, reused, and cherished. We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the concerns about the duplication of effort and the need to minimize the impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large. All the supporters are mostly farmers and other business entities. However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a very significant impact on water quality and that, with this bill, we are creating the exemption from water quality protection requirements without considering the impacts to the waters that are already impacted by pesticides, as they are in California. This, in turn, costs our water users, our ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of water before it is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on the 20-plus-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area that has pesticides as one of the contaminants. We cannot, and should not, take away one of the only tools available to monitor for adverse impacts of pesticides in our rivers, our streams, and our reservoirs. Over the past 6 years, this tool has been reasonable, has been workable to pest control operators and agricultural interests alike, and needs to be retained. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following letters to be made part of today's record: A letter from 46 national and State conservation and public health interest groups opposed to H.R. 953, and, secondly, a list of over 150 different organizations who oppose efforts to undermine the Clean Water Act protections for direct pesticide applications, including the Alabama Rivers, San Francisco, and the list goes on. And the organizations: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; from Alaska, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics; From Arkansas, the Earth Cause Organization; from California, Audubon and many others; from Alabama, Alabama Rivers; from Colorado, Colorado Riverkeeper; from the District of Columbia, Potomac Riverkeeper; from Florida, Emerald Coastkeeper; from Georgia, Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha Coastkeeper; from Idaho, the Idaho Conservation League; from Illinois, the Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; and from Iowa, Quad Cities Riverkeeper. And the list goes on, Mr. Chairman. May 22, 2017. Re Oppose H.R. 953 (Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017). Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 953 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017''). A more apt title for this damaging legislation is the ``Poison Our Waters Act'' because it would eliminate Clean Water Act safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide General Permit targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly six years now and alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers and others about the impacts of this permit have failed to bear any fruit. This bill is the same legislation that pesticide manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing for years. It has been opposed not only by the Obama Administration. but also more than 150 public health, fishing, and conservation organizations (see attached list). Contrary to earlier claims made by its proponents, this bill will not improve nor impact spraying to combat Zika virus and other human health threats. The Pesticide General Permit at issue already allows for spraying to combat vector-borne diseases such as Zika and the West Nile virus. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides that pesticide applications are covered automatically under the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared emergency pest situations'' (emphasis added). Further, the Clean Water Act has no significant effect on farming practices. The Pesticide General Permit in no way affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling pests (that is, spraying that doesn't discharge into water bodies). Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff do not require permits, even when they contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean Water Act remain. Repealing the Pesticide General Permit--as this damaging legislation seeks to do--would allow pesticides to be discharged into water bodies without any meaningful oversight since the federal pesticide registration law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) does not require tracking of such applications. Now that the Pesticide General Permit is in place, the public is finally getting information that they couldn't obtain before about the types of pesticides being sprayed or discharged into local bodies of water. All across the country, pesticide applicators are complying with the Pesticide General Permit to protect water quality without issue, The Pesticide General Permit simply lays out commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups opposed. Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all Americans by opposing H.R. 953. Sincerely, Earthjustice League of Conservation Voters Natural Resources Defense Council Center for Biological Diversity Sierra Club Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments American Sustainable Business Council National Family Farm Coalition Waterkeeper Alliance Clean Water Action Environment America Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations American Rivers Southern Environmental Law Center Defenders of Wildlife Friends of the Earth U.S. Environmental Working Group Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides Alabama Rivers Alliance Beyond Pesticides Beyond Toxics Cahaba River Society Center for Food Safety Defend H2O Endangered Habitats League Endangered Species Coalition Environmental Protection Information Center Gulf Restoration Network Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited Kentucky Waterways Alliance Klamath Forest Alliance Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, Program in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Oregon Environmental Council Prairie Rivers Network Pesticide Action Network North America PolicyLink San Francisco Baykeeper Save The River / Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper The Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change The Good Food Institute Toxic Free NC Turtle Island Restoration Network WE ACT for Environmental Justice WildEarth Guardians.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that I want to bring to the attention of this committee. One of the potential human health applications related to unregulated discharges to water is drinking water. In May of 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report entitled, ``Threats on Tap,'' that documented potentially harmful contaminants in tap water in every State of the Union. This report, based on information obtained from State and local public drinking water utilities, documented tens of thousands of drinking water violations related to chemicals and other contaminants currently found in our domestic water supply. The report included a focus on synthetic organic compounds commonly found in a wide variety of products, from household cleaners to industrial, commercial, and agricultural products, including pesticides and herbicides regulated under FIFRA. According to this report, human exposure to these contaminants can lead to cancers--I repeat, lead to cancers--developmental effects, central nervous system, and reproductive difficulties, endocrine issues, or liver and kidney problems. According to an appendix of this report, which I include in today's Record, in 2015, there were 6,864 drinking water violations associated with synthetic organic compounds, potentially affecting as many as 2.6 million drinking water users. Of these, a number were for direct, health-related violations affecting more than 300,000 individuals. This report documented ongoing drinking water violations for the worst of the worst pesticides in terms of human health effects, including, atrazine, chlordane, endrin, and glyphosate. Mr. Chairman, thanks to this report, we have more information on exactly where these drinking water violations are occurring and how increased use of pesticides on or near water increases the risk that humans will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals when they turn on the tap; which begs the question: Why the proponents of this bill want to reduce the public disclosure and monitoring requirements of the Clean Water Act relating to pesticide applications? Do these proponents want to let these pesticide applications and chemical companies go back in the shadows where information on the release of pesticides is no longer known? I include in the Record a list of chemicals and their potential health impact. Synthetic Organic Chemicals Regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chemical, Source, Potential Health Impact, MCL (PPB), MCLG (PPB), Number of Violations in 2015 are as follows: 2,3,7,8- TCDD (dioxin), Emissions from waste incineration and other combustion; discharge from chemical factories, Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 0.00003, 0, 124; 2,4,5-TP, Residue of banned herbicide, Liver problems, 50, 50, 214; 2,4-D, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems; possible cancer risk, 70, 70, 232; Alachlor, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia; increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 0; Aldicarb, Runoff/leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor neurological symptoms, 3, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfone, Runoff/ leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor neurological symptoms, 2, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfoxide, Runoff/leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor neurological symptoms, 4, 1, 32; Atrazine, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Cardiovascular system or reproductive problems; possible cancer risk, 3, 3, 263; Benzo(a)pyrene, Leaching from linings of water storage tanks and distribution lines, Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 246; Carbofuran, Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa, Problems with blood, nervous system, or reproductive system, 40, =40, 255. Chlordane, Residue of banned termiticide, Liver or nervous system problems; increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 255; DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane), Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards, Reproductive difficulties, increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 166; Dalapon, Runoff from herbicide used on rights-of-way, Minor kidney changes, 200, 200, 213; Di(ethylhexyl)-adipate, Discharge from chemical factories, Weight loss, liver problems, possible reproductive difficulties, 400, 400, 253; Di(ethylhexyl)-phthalate, Discharge from rubber and chemical factories, Reproductive difficulties; liver problems; increased risk of cancer, 6, 0, 286; Dinoseb, Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables, Reproductive difficulties, 7, 7, 215; Diquat, Runoff from herbicide use, Cataracts, 20, 20, 147; EDB (ethylene dibromide), Discharge from petroleum refineries, Problems with liver, stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer, 0.05, 0, 177; Endothall, Runoff from herbicide use, Stomach and intestinal problems, 100, 100, 150; Endrin, Residue of banned insecticide, Liver problems, 2, 2, 230. Glyphosate, Runoff from herbicide use, Kidney problems; reproductive difficulties, 700, 700, 150; Heptachlor, Residue of banned termiticide, Liver damage, increased risk of cancer, 0.4, 0, 258; Heptachlor epoxide, Breakdown of heptachlor, Liver damage; increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 258; Hexachlorobenzene, Discharge from metal refineries and agricultural chemical factories, Liver or kidney problems; reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 1, 0, 224; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Discharge from chemical factories, Kidney or stomach problems, 50, 50, 269; Lindane, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cattle, lumber, gardens, Liver or kidney problems, 0.2, 0.2, 0; Methoxychlor, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, livestock, Reproductive difficulties, 40, 40, 257; Oxamyl, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on apples, potatoes, and tomatoes, Slight nervous system effects, 200, 200, 255; PCBs, Runoff from landfills; discharge of waste chemicals, Skin changes; thymus gland problems; immune deficiencies; reproductive or nervous system difficulties, increased risk of cancer, 0.5, 0, 214; Pentachlorophenol, Discharge from wood preserving factories, Liver or kidney problems; increased cancer risk, 1, 0, 220; Simazine, Herbicide runoff, Blood problems, 4, 4, 255; Toxaphene, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton and cattle, Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems, increased risk of cancer, 3, 0, 222.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I just implore all our colleagues to take a good look at what this can have an effect on our general populace, I mean, the human impact, and I trust that they will vote ``no'' on this bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty). The amendment would help ensure the protection of public health from discharges of toxic chemicals such as benzene, chlordane, and vinyl chloride. In my view, the protection of our families and children from seemingly limitless exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and our water and our neighborhoods should be paramount, yet here we are today considering legislation to waive the simple requirement that a chemical pesticide sprayer fill out an application providing notice of where he intends to spray known toxic chemicals, such as the ones I mentioned, all known to have toxic effects on humans. The amendment under consideration says that we should, at a minimum, disclose and monitor the dangerous chemicals for potential toxic effects. These are chemicals that Congress has already designated as ``toxic,'' ``hazardous substances,'' or ``extreme hazardous substances'' in Federal statute. As Congress, we should want to make sure that these dangerous chemicals do not wind up in our rivers and streams, potentially contaminating our local drinking water sources and leading to greater toxic exposure by our families and children. The level of protection is worth 10 minutes of time by a commercial pesticide applicator. Mr. Chair, I approve Ms. Esty's amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I totally support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman). If this amendment is adopted, it would maintain the existing Clean Water Act general permit requirements to protect commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, and Tribal treaty obligations. I support the amendment.

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Vote No. 259, I would have voted Nay on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 323, providing for consideration of H.R. 115. On Roll Call Vote No. 260, I would have voted No on agreeing to H. Res. 323, providing for consideration of H.R. 115. On Roll Call Vote No. 261, I would have voted Nay on tabling the ruling of the Chair. On Roll Call Vote No. 262, I would have voted Yea on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1177, Removing Outdated Restrictions to Allow for Job Growth Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Vote No. 263, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 324, providing for consideration of H.R. 1039. On rollcall Vote No. 264, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to H. Res. 324, providing for consideration of H.R. 1039. On rollcall Vote No. 265, I would have voted ``nay'' on passage of H.R. 115, Thin Blue Line Act. On rollcall Vote No. 266, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1892, Honoring Hometown Heroes Act. personal explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call vote No. 258, I would have voted Yea on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 1616, Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the long career of public service provided by an outstanding educator in my region, Dr. Manuel Baca, who has served the students, staff, and faculty of Rio Hondo College with distinction for the past 32 years. Dr. Baca has been an invaluable resource to me and my staff, and will be truly missed at Rio Hondo College. Dr. Baca has served in many capacities as Professor of Political Science, Director, Dean, Vice President, and Interim Superintendent/President of Rio Hondo College. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of one of the largest community colleges in the Country, Mt. San Antonio College, and is the immediate past President of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors. I have been privileged to work with Dr. Baca in numerous areas that have improved educational opportunities for students and the needs of our region. We have worked together on expanding transit services to the student body and staff by offering free and reduced price transit passes and buying shuttle buses for enhanced connectivity, Dr. Baca has supported the growth of Rio Hondo College's police, fire and first responder training programs that have benefited the greater Los Angeles Community by providing a well-educated workforce for our public safety agencies. I am particularly thankful for the work Dr. Baca has done to increase educational opportunities at Rio Hondo College for veterans. As a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, Dr. Baca understood the important role Rio Hondo College could play in helping post-9/11 veterans and all veterans receive workforce training and other services to start new careers and assimilate into civilian life. In addition, Dr. Baca has assisted in organizing veteran student summits throughout the State of California. Our nation is grateful for Dr. Baca's service as a Marine and his continued service to the men and women of our military. Dr. Baca has been a role model and leader in opening up opportunities for Latino/a students by advocating for legislation at the state and federal level to support Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Rio Hondo College Community and the many people he has impacted in the greater Los Angeles Region, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Manuel Baca on his retirement, and thanking him for his long career of public service to Rio Hondo College, the State of California and our nation.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on a rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 232.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce to the House and bid welcome to Father Mike Gutierrez today. He is the pastor at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church and school in the city of Baldwin Park in California. Thank you, Father, for coming from Baldwin Park and for the wonderful prayer. Father Mike, as he is known--he doesn't use Gutierrez--leads a parish of 10,000 families with a focus on Filipino and Hispanic communities. He has increased participation in religious and educational programs, youth and family ministry, and allows the church to bring attention and encourage activism on issues impacting the area. He is an integral part of the 32nd District's, my district, annual immigration clinic event and is known for his joviality and smiling consistently. Since my move to the California 32nd, he has been helpful in many issues and events that I have put forth, recognized by the California State Legislature and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for support of social issues. Father, thank you. Thank you for today's blessing and for the work you do to spread and promote Gospel throughout the San Gabriel Valley. May God continue to bless you and your ministry.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote number 178 on H.R. 1353, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, good morning, and listen, America. One of the Affordable Care Act's biggest successes was increasing mental health services for all the people through mental health parity protections and Medicaid expansion. The GOP's pay-more-for-less bill cuts taxes on the wealthy at the expense of those who can least afford to pay for their health coverage, like low-income families. One in five of Medicaid's 70 million beneficiaries have a mental health or a substance abuse disorder, and reports show services are needed especially for children. The bill would hurt those people by eliminating Medicaid expansion and gutting mental health services for this group, including the nearly 60,000 now covered in my district. I strongly oppose this repeal effort and urge our Republican colleagues to work with us to strengthen the Affordable Care Act so more Americans can have access to lifesaving care. Please, please, do that for us.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask to bring up H.R. 724 to rescind President Trump's refugee ban on persons like Mustafa, who worked on a construction crew on American bases to fortify them and was tortured because of it.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, one of ObamaCare's most critical successes was increased mental health services. Because of ACA, over 48 million are now covered by mental health and parity laws. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for patients needing mental health services, but we do need tougher enforcement on this, as well as the insurance rate increases. The ACA expanded Medicaid, the single largest payer of behavioral health services, to a new population. That has allowed over 1.6 million Americans to gain access to substance abuse treatment. Last month, we signed into law reforms to mental health and substance abuse grants and services. Repealing ACA would harm those advances. ACA should be strengthened, not repealed, so more Americans have access to lifesaving mental health services. We must move mental health forward, not back. Support ACA.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Water Resources Development Act, S. 612. I strongly support the bipartisan work done by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the Army Corps provisions that create policy and authorize projects around the country for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water supply, recreation, and navigation. There is something for everyone in this bill. I am particularly appreciative that this bill authorizes the Los Angeles River project, which will rejuvenate the river by improving wildlife habitat and creating recreational opportunities for southern California residents. I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and Chairman Gibbs for working with me and my staff to include multiple provisions that will improve water supply and local collaboration at the Army Corps facilities. These provisions include: Providing more water supply to local communities by improving on WRDA '14 provisions and requiring the Corps to capture more water for groundwater replenishment, especially in Long Angeles County; Promoting local and private sector combined efforts to remove sediment from Corps dams and improve water supply, which will benefit all dams, including Santa Fe Dam in my district; Requiring the Corps to work more collaboratively with local communities on sharing water data and improving watershed management, in other words, transparency; and Extending current law on donor port provisions important to the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and many other ports. I also support the provisions in the bill that include providing assistance for the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, and other areas of the country, which include California, although we should be investing more in our outdated drinking water infrastructure. I disagree with the leadership's decision to add a California water provision to WRDA at the last minute. This provision should have been addressed as its own legislation and not attached to the traditionally bipartisan WRDA bill that so many Members, including Senator Boxer, have worked so hard on. If I had been consulted on this provision, I would have strongly advocated for more than $50 million for title XVI and $100 million for WaterSmart, as these programs are the most cost effective at addressing our drought crisis. I want to thank the many water agencies and associations, such as the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District, and the Three Valleys Municipal Water District that have worked with my office on this bill throughout the process, and overwhelmingly support WRDA. I greatly respect and recognize that there are Members who disagree on the final passage based on the needs of their own districts and constituents, and I would like to work with them. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, December 6, 2016. Re: Support Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Bi- Partisan Drought Provision Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: As the nation's largest provider of drinking water, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California would like to thank you for your leadership in responding to California's unprecedented drought. We support the drought provisions that you negotiated with the House, included in H.R. 2533 the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, to help us better manage our limited water resources. We also support the broader WRDA package which will provide strategic authorizations and investments to develop, manage and improve essential water infrastructure and operations in the United States. While rains have returned to Northern California, we have little assurance of the water year ahead. Southern California is heading into its sixth year of drought. Were it not for the imported water that Metropolitan brings to the Southland, the groundwater basins and surface reservoirs would be at historic lows. This imported water remains an essential component of Southern California's water supply portfolio, and we cannot afford to miss out on capturing supplies during the few large storm events that come each year. Your drought provisions will help to maximize pumping while maintaining the protections provided to California's native species through the Endangered Species Act and the Biological Opinions that currently protect salmon and smelt. These protections are important to Metropolitan to ensure we continue to operate in an environmentally responsible manner. Equally important is the need for investment in new local water supplies to help California adjust to climate conditions that are reducing our snowpack and changing rain patterns. Investments in recycling, desalination, groundwater treatment and conservation that are included in the drought provisions of the legislation are vital to this region. Reforming Title XVI to allow recycled water projects to compete for funding is an important first step. WRDA includes many other important provisions that will benefit California water users including funding for improvements to U.S. rivers and harbors, improved science, conservation initiatives, infrastructure development, ecosystem restoration and sustainability. These programs will improve the nation's drinking water resources and improve our water resiliency as a nation. Metropolitan appreciates your leadership on national water policy initiatives and your ongoing support and commitment to finding solutions for California's water supply and water quality concerns. We look forward to continuing to work with you to advance these objectives. Sincerely, Jeffrey Kightlinger, General Manager.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I was absent on Monday, December 5, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 601--H.R. 5015--Combat-Injured Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2016, as amended, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 602--H.R. 6427--Creating Financial Prosperity for Businesses and Investors Act, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 603--House Amendment to S. 1635--Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017, as amended.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I am very concerned that, after many months of bipartisan work on this bill, we are bringing it to the floor today under a partisan procedure where it stripped out in rules a very important section. Also, it does not address the ongoing crisis in Flint. We have 100,000 people in Flint living without clean drinking water. One million people in California live without clean drinking water. We should be doing much more to address the drinking water crisis in this country--we should not have problems with it--and investing in our outdated infrastructure. I am glad that the Senate does include provisions to address this crisis. I had hoped that the House would do so as well. I do appreciate the work that has been done to add many important provisions to the bill. First, this bill includes 31 Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility studies for projects to study water resource projects across the country for a diverse array of purposes, including flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and navigation. This is really important, especially in drought-prone areas like California. Second, H.R. 5303 authorizes 29 Chief's Reports currently pending before Congress. These reports include several of great importance to my home State of California, including the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation project, the West Sacramento flood risk management project, the American River Common Features flood risk management project, and the San Diego County hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project. This is critical because storms are eroding our beaches. I am also pleased to see the inclusion of several provisions that will assist communities experiencing drought and water supply shortages. They include: Promoting non-Federal efforts to remove sediment behind Army Corps' dams and increase water supply. This has been one project that we have been pushing for a long time in order to get the Corps to reduce that sediment. Also, authorizing the Secretary of the Army to evaluate and implement water supply conservation measures of projects owned or managed by the Corps in states with drought emergencies. In 17 Western States, this is critical. Further, encouraging the Corps to share the data the Corps collects on operations and maintenance of its facilities and to improve coordination with local stakeholders. My understanding is that they are going to get the Library of Congress to do that. Also, allowing environmental infrastructure and water supply projects to be eligible for the 7001 process that authorizes Corps projects. Lastly, creating a pilot program to encourage the beneficial use of dredged material for shoreline restoration and environmental use. I am very confident these provisions, if enacted, will provide drought-ridden regions like mine with the tools necessary to increase water supply and water conservation matters and be better prepared for future storm events.