Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to give thanks to both Mr. Shuster and Mr. DeFazio for their great work on this bill. It is absolutely amazing. Thank you so very much. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Royce and Mr. Calvert and would allow a State or local transportation agency to apply for a waiver from the current HOV degradation standard if the Secretary of Transportation determines that a waiver is in the best interest of the traveling public and that the State or local agency has made a good faith effort to improve the performance of the HOV lane. The Secretary may require the public authority to take additional actions to improve the HOV lane. The current HOV degradation standard requires HOV lanes to maintain an average speed above 45 miles per hour 90 percent of the time during peak hours. I repeat: during peak hours. This arbitrary standard does not take into consideration or account the specific transportation concerns of each State. Over 60 percent of California's highways are noncompliant by this Federal degradation standard, which means that California will be forced to spend limited resources on transportation projects that do not meet the needs of the general public. California will also have to reduce the amount of energy-efficient vehicles that it allows in the HOV lane. In California, we have studied the issue and have found that they do not meet the minimum driving speed standard because of accidents, weather events, and other unpredictable events. The degradation standard is supposed to address manageable recurring congestion, but California is noncompliant in the standard based on manageable traffic events. This amendment would allow the DOT to recognize that there are special circumstances in each State that lead to lane degradation and that they do not always include recurring congestion. The amendment would allow the DOT to grant waivers to States and local agencies that apply based on their local congestion concerns. It would protect States against a one-size-fits-all Federal policy that does not work for each State. I ask for the support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this particular amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). This amendment would raise the allowable gross vehicle weight of automobile transporters to 84,000 pounds, as was stated. It would also allow higher allowable axle weight, up to 5 percent above levels set in current law. We have agreed in the base bill to provide an exemption for the extra length to allow additional vehicles to be added to an automobile transporter. Amendments to raise truck weights are very controversial and have the potential to weaken support for an otherwise carefully negotiated bill. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Johnson amendment, and I thank my colleague from Texas for offering it. This amendment would allow unused TIFIA funds to be reprogrammed into--in other words, to be put back into--the TIFIA account. The L.A. Metro, in my region, is one of the biggest recipients of the financing from TIFIA. TIFIA is an incredibly important tool in Los Angeles County that allows us to use our two transportation sales tax measures to complete projects in 10 years instead of 30 years. Speeding up project construction saves money in the long run, and it allows our transportation users the benefits of an improved multimodal system. I understand the need to reduce TIFIA from $1 billion to $200 million for transportation funding in the underlying bill in order to provide for other important programs, such as a freight program. This amendment would help reduce the burden that decreased TIFIA funding will have on local communities. Madam Chairman, I support the Johnson amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank my colleague, Mr. Gibbs, for introducing this very important amendment. I do strongly support this amendment that requests a DOT study regarding the federally funded materials used by the States for culvert and stormwater pipes. This issue was brought to my attention in my area in Los Angeles by companies that were being forced out of competition for federally funded transportation projects. The States were having a little problem and were the local governments that sole-sourced materials. State and local governments should be allowed to have open and fair competition on the best products available for use in these sewer and culvert systems. Mr. Gibbs' amendment, which I am happy to cosponsor, requires the Department again to study and report to Congress on these materials in order to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent in a most cost- effective and efficient way. I am very grateful to my colleague. I thank him for allowing me to co-offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it does encourage State DOTs to utilize the private sector for engineering and design services. The States deserve that flexibility to decide whether it is more cost effective and efficient to utilize their own staff or to contract with the private sector to deliver such transportation projects. The adoption of this language will encourage outsourcing and will waste already scarce transportation dollars. Countless studies from across the Nation confirm that outsourcing engineering and design services on transportation projects is more expensive than using publicly owned engineers and does not speed up project delivery. In California alone, they spend $237,000 per outsourced engineer per year, compared to $116,000 per State-employed engineer, according to the 2014 State budget. Louisiana spends $197,942 per outsourced engineer per year, compared to $82,364 for a State-employed engineer, according to the consulting firm contracted by the State in 2014 to recommend cost-savings measures. Tennessee DOT found they could save 15 percent if it brought in more in-house engineers. Colorado DOT also studied the issue, and they saved 29 percent by bringing the engineering and design services in-house. Adding this language into Federal law would be a first step toward incentivizing, or even mandating, the use of private sector for engineering and design services. States should be allowed to use public engineers if they believe that the public engineers are the most effective at, one, protecting the public interest, and two, ensuring public safety. I would like to mention that the professional engineers in California and the Governor are opposed, as are the transportation trades. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, first enacted in 1918, makes it unlawful to take, kill, or capture any migratory bird. This landmark legislation is the product of treaties with Canada, with Mexico, and with Japan, and is credited with protecting over 800 species of endangered birds. The amendment's supporters claim that it is a waiver of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act solely for emergency situations. However, the amendment is overly broad and would act as a blanket waiver to allow the taking of swallows for any bridge construction, any repair, or any maintenance without a permit if certain conditions are met. Further, the amendment is unnecessary, as section 704(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act already provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to allow the taking of migratory birds, including swallows, if certain conditions are met, and it also directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations allowing the taking in those circumstances. As a waiver process already exists allowing for the taking of the migratory birds in emergency situations, I cannot support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the dedicated and selfless work of the distinguished La Verne/San Dimas Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 12034. VFW Post 12034, known as the ``Band of Brothers,'' provides Honor Guard service for Veterans Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and other civic ceremonies in my district. Post 12034's Honor Guard helps us to recognize and pay solemn tribute to our veterans by providing Honor Guard for over one hundred military funerals every year. VFW Post 12034's Honor Guard has travelled thousands of miles to honor the sacrifice of servicemembers--men and women--who preserved the freedoms we too often take for granted. Because of VFW 12034 Band of Brothers' enduring service and sacrifice to honor a debt we can never fully repay, but a debt we must honor, these distinguished patriots have been recognized as an ``All-State'' and an ``All-American'' Veterans of Foreign Wars Post. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues today to join me and the residents of the 32nd District of California in acknowledging and thanking VFW Post 12034 for their commitment to the values that drive our brave men and women in uniform--the noble values of honor, respect, courage, and selflessness.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I agree with my colleague. If not now, when? We have been asking that for many, many generations. Because of the mass shootings, American families are demanding Congress to act. They want action, but Congress has not heard any bills. They refuse to hear them. There is nothing. There is no opportunity to have the light of day or to have some transparency to it. The last meaningful gun violence prevention bill was in 1994, and that was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Shootings, as was pointed out, are now an everyday occurrence. It is commonplace, so people are becoming numb, except for those who are immediately affected and are asking us to move and pass legislation, give it the light of day, discuss it, bring it up, start some methodology to be able to understand what this House is looking at doing for our American people, for our children, and for our families. Now, collective action, we need it. Transparent discussion is necessary and much needed. Enough of skirting this issue. What is more important, gas and oil or the lives of human beings? Keep guns away from people that should not have them and/or would use them to harm others. H.R. 1217 mandates universal background checks for all purchases. It is a step in the right direction. It would move our country forward in beginning the process of addressing this epidemic that we are facing. We need real, constructive legislation. We need to prevent and lessen violence. We must keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have access to them, such as the dangerously mentally ill. Now, domestic abusers and people with violent histories also should not have access to them, and they currently do. Now, without stigmatizing those with mental illness because then you have a problem on your hands, we need to inform, educate, and help young people, families, and educators. We need to help those who are exhibiting emotional disturbances and help them learn how to access information and assistance.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness, I rise to recognize an outstanding community leader, Alvin Jay Fugitt, who died after battling Parkinson's disease and cancer for several years. A resident of the city of La Verne, Mr. Fugitt embraced life, people, and causes that saved endangered species, protected the environment and enriched the lives of the poor and the oppressed. Mr. Fugitt was an avid reader who co-founded the Friends of La Verne Library, which has provided educational resources to the poor and struggling service men and women. He worked closely with elected officials of La Verne and is recognized as the embodiment of kindness after a lifetime of advocacy for environmental causes, energy conservation, urban development, and improving education. Mr. Fugitt's selfless service will be missed greatly by his family, friends, and neighbors. We are all devastated by the loss of one so loved, and I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to join my constituents and me in honoring Mr. Fugitt for his lasting, positive impact to our San Gabriel Valley community.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do heavily oppose H.R. 2898. It does create no new wet water. I am hearing a lot of rhetoric on all these different things that have happened. I have been on that subcommittee for 17 years, and I have heard it all. I have been to the Central Valley. I have been talking to farmers. But I don't see any of my colleagues on the other side visiting southern California and checking out how we do things in San Diego and Los Angeles, to be able to have hearings with the water agencies and all those that are critically affected by what is affecting southern California. Now, this bill has been introduced. There has been no hearing in our Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. There has been no consultation with Democrats, except one maybe, with no water agency, with State agencies, with cities, and with tribes. It does nothing for farmworkers, the ones who are really affected by the drought and who have no way of being able to have income or other way of subsidence. The bill focuses on the Central Valley at the expense of the rest of both northern California and southern California. It requires mandatory pumping to agribusiness, which reduces southern California water deliveries. It creates a complicated and ill-defined system that is a very poor attempt at protecting State water deliveries to southern California. And it is proof, also, that the authors know that the bill will reduce deliveries to southern California due to water quality and environmental problems created with increased pumping to the Central Valley. This bill affects the entire country, the U.S., by weakening Federal environmental review laws, by creating unreasonable deadlines for environmental review when the biggest problem with delayed view is ``inadequate funding.'' California's Natural Resources Secretary, John Laird, states that this bill would ``reignite water wars, move water policy back into the courts, and try to pit one part of the State against another.'' California Senator Dianne Feinstein, senior Senator, said the bill contains provisions ``that would violate environmental law.'' California Senator Barbara Boxer says the bill ``will only reignite the water wars.'' The White House opposes this legislation and will veto it, saying that ``it fails to address critical elements of California's complex water challenges and will, if enacted, impede an effective and timely response to the continuing drought while providing no additional water to the hard-hit communities.'' We must work on this water issue in a bipartisan manner to address California's entire State drought. I have introduced H.R. 291, the Water in the 21st Century Act, which would provide actual drought relief to all of California with water conservation programs, water recycling projects, groundwater improvement operations, stormwater capture solutions, and desalinization. We need to support long-term solutions with shovel-ready projects that quickly create water.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There is a $300 million backlog on title XVI for recycled water that would help southern California be able to wean itself off of the imported water. Key House Democratic proposals have been excluded from the bill we are marking up today. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2898.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 25th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Motion to Refer the Thompson (MS) Resolution to the Committee on House Administration.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 25th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 386. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 338, Providing for consideration of a Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 25th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 387. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1615, the DHS FOIA Efficiency Act, as amended.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 25th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 388. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TAA/AGOA).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 25th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 389. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2200, the CBRN Intelligence and Information Sharing Act, as amended. personal explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 384. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on passage of H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 381. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Pallone Amendment. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rush

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 380. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 333--Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 24th, 2015, I was absent during rollcall No. 379. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 333--Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2042--Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 and H.R. 2822--Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. (By unanimous consent, Mr. BARTON was allowed to speak out of order.) 54th Annual Congressional Baseball Game

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, I was absent during roll call vote #376. Had I been present, I would have voted ``NO'' on passage of H.R. 1190, the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2015.