Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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.

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, Tim Spohn has ably served the citizens of the City of Industry for eight years on the City Council (2007-2015) and served the citizens of the City of Industry as Mayor for two years; and Whereas, Tim Spohn championed regional economic strength and stability for the entire San Gabriel Valley by promoting manufacturing, trade, retail, construction, and financial industries, to name just a few, as a public servant for the City of Industry; and Whereas, Tim Spohn provided counsel and guidance for residents and fellow elected officials of the San Gabriel Valley with his commitment to regional government by serving as a representative on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments; and Whereas, Tim Spohn provided leadership on critical regional issues of mobility, air quality, transportation control measures, and communications as a member of the Southern California Association of Governments' Transportation Committee for five years; and championed the concerns of San Gabriel Valley residents while serving as a member of the Ad- Hoc Regional Transportation Plan Committee; and Whereas, Tim Spohn served on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' Transportation Committee for eight years providing policy recommendations and technical expertise on transportation programs and infrastructure improvements; and was a delegate and Board Member of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments: Now, therefore, be it Recognized, That Mayor Tim Spohn of the City of Industry has made enduring contributions to the State of California; and we applaud his sacrifice and commitment to the well-being of families and to neighborhoods; and we encourage all to honor the leadership and service he provided for San Gabriel Valley residents.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague who is the co-chair on the Congressional National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Caucus--bipartisan, may I add--to help our throwaway kids. They are 16- to 18-year-olds who have fallen through the cracks, so we work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that some of these youngsters have a second chance. We thank the Appropriations Committee for the funding increase over President Obama's 2016 request of $145 million. The 2016 Defense Appropriations will fund the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program at $150 million, with the current funding of $135 million. As my colleague has stated, this amendment increases by $5 million the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program to $155 million, and it reduces the operation and maintenance, defensewide account by the same amount. It helps to start new programs in four States. Each new program is $4 million. The California third program will cost $10 million to $15 million due to the Superfund site. It is critical for hundreds of youth who are dropouts to have the same options to be able to have a second chance. The ChalleNGe program has graduated, as was stated, over 120,000 nationally. It is voluntary, free, with no cost to the child or to his or her family. It is a 22\1/ 2\-week residential boot camp program that is led by the National Guard cadre. It also prepares them to reenter society and to be successful, to build employment potential, and to return to school. A 2012 RAND study finds, for every dollar spent, it results in a return of $2.66 to the taxpayer. It is rated as the best youth program in the Nation. It effectively addresses part of our Nation's dropout epidemic on a small level. It is beneficial to business, communities, and the Nation's ability to compete in our future economy. We need more programs, not fewer. More than 12,000 applicants are rejected due to no space, so we ask our colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 1st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 266. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 1335--Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. personal explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Monday, June 1st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 265. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Lowenthal Amendment to H.R. 1335--Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 1st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 267. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the final passage of H.R. 1335--Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. Personal Explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Monday, June 1st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Dingell Amendment to H.R. 1335--Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wittman was allowed to speak out of order.) Sportsmen's Trophy Presentation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Thursday, May 21, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 261. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Edwards Amendment to H.R. 2262, Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015. Stated against:

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 21st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 262. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on passage of H.R. 2262, Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 21st, 2015, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 263. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 274, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1335) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes. Personal Explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz has ably served the citizens of Monrovia as Mayor for six years (2009-2015); and also was elected and served the citizens of Monrovia as a member of the City Council for six years (2003-2009); and Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz was a member of the Executive Committee of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for the last four years; and provides guidance and counsel as President of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments; and Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz has provided leadership for residents and fellow elected officials of the San Gabriel Valley with her commitment to regional government; and is recognized for her leadership and longtime advocacy for environmental causes, energy conservation, economic development, and critical water supply issues; and Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz has championed the concerns of San Gabriel Valley residents regarding Storm Water Compliance and Mitigation affordability while serving as a member of the United States Conference of Mayors; and has served as a representative to the Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Authority and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts; and Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz has volunteered her time as a liaison to the Monrovia Unified School District and to the Monrovia Public Library to promote educational achievement and the growth of literacy; and furthered educational excellence by participating with the Youth Employment Service (YES!) and the Adult School/ROP & Santa Fe Middle School Adopt-a-School programs; and Whereas, Mary Ann Lutz's leadership and selfless service will be missed greatly by all the cities of the San Gabriel Valley; and would be appropriate to recognize the outstanding accomplishments and longtime commitment to serving the citizens of Monrovia and the residents of the San Gabriel Valley; and now, therefore, be it Recognized, That Mayor Mary Ann Lutz of Monrovia has had an enduring influence and given exceptional contributions to the State of California; and we applaud her selfless commitment to the well-being of Southern California families; and we encourage all to honor the leadership and service provided for San Gabriel Valley residents by this wonderful leader.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Also, for the Record, I submit the Statement of Administration Policy from the Office of the President, which states at the end: ``If the President were presented with H.R. 1732, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, April 29, 2015. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 1732--regulatory integrity protection act The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1732. If the President were presented with H.R. 1732, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) to withdraw and re-propose specified draft regulations needed to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The proposed rule has been through an extensive public engagement process. Clean water is vital for the success of the Nation's businesses, agriculture, energy development, and the health of our communities. More than one in three Americans get their drinking water from rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that are at risk of pollution from upstream sources. The protection of wetlands is vital for hunting and fishing. When Congress passed the CWA in 1972, to restore the Nation's waters, it recognized that to have healthy communities downstream, we need to protect the smaller streams and wetlands upstream. Clarifying the scope of the CWA helps to protect clean water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 focused on specific jurisdictional determinations and rejected the analytical approach that the Army Corps of Engineers was using for those determinations, but did not invalidate the underlying regulation. This has created ongoing questions and uncertainty about how the regulation is applied consistent with the Court's decisions. The proposed rule would address this uncertainty. If enacted, H.R. 1732 would derail current efforts to clarify the scope of the CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. H.R. 1732 also would delay by a number of years any action to clarify the scope of the CWA, because it would: (1) require the agencies to re-propose a rule that has already gone through an extensive public comment process; and (2) create a burdensome advisory process that would complicate the agencies' rulemaking and potentially constrain their discretion. The agencies have already conducted an extensive and lengthy outreach to a broad range of stakeholders who will continue to be engaged in the current process. Duplicative outreach and consultation would impose unnecessary burdens and excessive costs on all parties. The final rule should be allowed to proceed. EPA and Army have sought the views of and listened carefully to the public throughout the extensive public engagement process for this rule. It would be imprudent to dismiss the years of work that have already occurred and no value would be added. The agencies need to be able to finish their work. In the end, H.R. 1732, like its predecessors, would sow more confusion and invite more conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation. Simply put, this bill is not an act of good government; rather, it would hinder the ongoing rulemaking process and the agencies' ability to respond to the public as well as two Supreme Court rulings.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member DeFazio for the opportunity to rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, for several reasons. First, frankly speaking, I oppose the bill because it simply does not work. Just before the recess, the House passed the Energy and Water Appropriations, as was pointed out by Mr. DeFazio, that included a rider which I opposed that would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from using any appropriated funds to develop or implement a change to the current rules that define the scope of Clean Water Act protections. Yet that is what the sponsors of H.R. 1732 say this bill is meant to do. The sponsors of this bill claim that it will not kill the ongoing rulemaking but only tells the Corps and EPA to do the rulemaking over again. Yet just 2 weeks ago, as was pointed out, the House voted to prevent the agency from taking any action to change the current rules. So which is it? Does the majority want the agencies to do the rulemaking over? Or do they want to kill any effort to change the current process that has been uniformly criticized by farmers, developers, other industries, and environmental organizations as unworkable, arbitrary, and costly? Secondly, I am opposed to H.R. 1732 because it is yet another attempt to delay needed clarification to the scope of the Clean Water Act. Remember, the executive branch has been trying to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act since January 2003. Now that is what, 15 years ago, roughly, since the Bush administration released their Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for public comment. Since that time there have been six--again six--attempts by the executive branch to release their interpretation of the Waters of the United States. We have waited 12 years for clarity. For 12 long years, Mr. Chairman, our Nation's streams and rivers have been vulnerable to pollution and degradation. For 12 years our government has spent millions of dollars working on bringing clarity to the decisions made by the Supreme Court. Delaying this further would cost our American taxpayers--all of us-- many more millions of dollars and a lot of wasted time. Intervening now and forcing the administration to start over again, particularly when we are on the cusp of clarity, is reckless. For example, stopping the administration's rulemaking to clarify the Clean Water Act could further impact the already dire circumstances Western States are facing with prolonged drought. Mr. Chairman, 99.2 percent of my State in California drink water from public drinking water systems that rely on intermittent, ephemeral, and headwater streams. These streams are drying up in the West. And, to add insult to injury, our actions today would force the administration to withdraw a rule that protects those streams that provide drinking water for 117 million Americans.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There you are, Mr. Chairman. We still oppose H.R. 1732, but I would really like to ensure that we continue to work with the EPA to get in place something that is really going to help America's farmers and industry. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The Army Corps of Engineers--the Corps--and the EPA have testified that their revised clean water protection rule will provide more certainty and clarity to the current clean water permitting process, that it will reduce regulatory confusion and costs, and that it will protect our Nation's waters, our economy, and our American way of life, as was stressed in the committee hearing which we all attended. I believe that it is something that they were very sure they wanted to do. Fact: on April 6, 2015, the Corps and the EPA submitted this revised clean water protection rule to OMB for final review, bringing it closer to publication later this spring, but my Republican colleagues are attempting to stop the rulemaking without even seeing the final product. As Mr. McCarthy just said, we are going to stop this regulation. Fact: H.R. 1732 would halt the near final rulemaking needed to clarify Clean Water Act protection for countless streams and wetlands, many of which serve as primary sources of drinking water for one in three Americans. If you want to put it in millions, it would be 117 million people. Fact: rather than allow the Agency to provide additional regulatory certainty and clarity, it would leave in place 2003 and 2008 Bush guidance documents, which have been uniformly criticized by industry as confusing, costly, and frustrating that provide little environmental benefit. Fact: it is simply a bureaucratic redo, forcing the agencies to repeat steps in what has been a nearly decade-long rulemaking process of unprecedented public outreach, for no other reason than to prevent this administration from finalizing clean water protection rulemaking. The last fact: if it is released, it fails to protect our water resources and our economy, and Congress simply has multiple avenues with which to address those concerns. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the facts and the myths. I have five of them. The proposed rulemaking, the Federal Clean Water Act authority over ditches--it reduces Federal authority over ditches by specifically excluding ditches, including roadside ditches that are constructed in dry lands, et cetera, and it goes on. Myth number two, it is not based on sound science. Fact, in 2015, the Office of R&D--Research and Development--released its ``Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters'' report of more than 1,200 existing peer-reviewed publications which support this. Myth number four, a power grab by the EPA to exert greater Federal authority--fact, it preserves existing statutory and regulatory exemptions for common farming, ranching, and forestry practices, and it goes on. Myth number five, the EPA did not adequately consult with States and did not take local concerns into consideration. Fact, again, there were 900,000 public comments, and 19,000 provided substantive comments, and they reached out to other States. March 19, 2015. Myths vs. Facts: EPA and Corps' Clean Water Rule Myth # 1--Expanded Regulation of Ditches Dear Colleague: Last April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed a Clean Water rule to clarify the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act. This proposal was intended to simplify and improve the process for determining what waters (and wetlands) are, and are not, protected by the Act, consistent with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that time, a number of questions or misconceptions about this proposal have been raised. This is the first in a series of Dear Colleagues to address these questions or misconceptions.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, this legislation puts the legislative agenda of a well- heeled few ahead of the Nation's--our taxpayers'--drinking water. It aims to protect the rights of speculators and developers over the need to conserve and reuse every precious drop of water that falls in our State. The bill potentially creates new opportunities for individuals to overturn decades of Western water law for their own personal benefit. Mr. Chairman, many of us have had many concerns with the proposed rule--the original one. But I appreciate that the administration has addressed those concerns and most of the concerns of the States and the stakeholders. The administration has pledged to work with stakeholders on implementation of the rule once it is final, which should happen in the next few months. So, today, we will hear many platitudes that this bill is not about killing the rule but about simply asking for public comment. Yet such statements ignore the fact that the House just passed a rider, as was pointed out, in the Energy and Water bill to block the bill from taking effect and blocking any change to the existing rulemaking or guidance. So, Mr. Chairman, today's rhetoric that this is simply an attempt to gather more public comment is simply that--just words. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1732.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You have heard a lot about the EPA, that it is a bad agency doing bad things; but, if it weren't for the EPA, many of our communities would be facing undrinkable water because of the pollution that is left behind, without any followup. We discussed this during the committee, and one of the issues that was brought out was that some of the EPA's regional offices were being a little heavyhanded. I suggested they may be able to take it up with the administrators, themselves, to figure out how we could really bring that to the forefront. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off with a few facts, and we have covered them already. There are broad environmental and conservation organizations that also oppose the bill. For the Record, I will submit 59 of them that are in opposition. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure H.R. 1732, Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 Outside Group Letters of Opposition May 12, 2015 Alliance for the Great Lakes, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Arkansas Wildlife Federation, Audubon Naturalist Society, California River Watch, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Clean Oceans Competition, Clean Water Action, Coalition to Protect Blacksburg Waterways, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Endangered Habitats League, Environment America, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental Working Group, Freshwater Future, Friends of Accotink Creek, Friends of Dyke Marsh. Friends of the Nanticoke River, Friends of the Weskeag, Galveston Bay Foundation, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, Gulf Restoration Network, Izaak Walton League of America, Jesus People Against Pollution, Lake Erie Region Conservancy, League of Conservation Voters, Little Falls Watershed Alliance, Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy, Maryland Conservation Council, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Montgomery Countryside Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Abounds. Neighbors of the Northwest Branch, Anacostia River, Ocean River Institute, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Wetlands Association, People to Save the Sheyenne, Piedmont Environmental Council, Potomac Riverkeeper Network, Protecting Our Waters, River Network, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, St. Mary's River Watershed Association, Surfrider Foundation, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Trout Unlimited, Virginia Conservation Network, WasteWater Education, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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