Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the principals, teachers, board members, staff, students, and families of Glen A. Wilson High School, Mesa Robles School, Los Molinos Elementary, and Wedgeworth Elementary in the Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District (HLPUSD), which all received the prestigious National Blue Ribbon Award this year from the U.S. Department of Education.

In particularly want to commend the more than 450 students at these four distinguished schools who live in La Puente, Valinda, and West Puente Valley in California's 31st Congressional District: Wilson (197): Mesa Robles (137); Los Molinos (64); and Wedgeworth (55). I also extend my congratulations to Superintendent Dr. Alfonso Jimenez, Board of Education President Christine H. Salazar, and the entire district, whose distinguished schools have made a profound and lasting impact on the lives of the students and families in the community.

Each year, the Department of Education recognizes the academic excellence and success in closing achievement and opportunity gaps of a select few elementary, middle, and high schools across the nation through the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program. The Blue Ribbon designation process is highly selective, with only 33 schools across the State of California and 353 nationally, receiving a 2023 Blue Ribbon designation.

On behalf of my constituents in California's 31st Congressional District, I want to proudly congratulate and thank everyone who has helped make these four Hacienda-La Puente schools the exemplary institutions that they are today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great enthusiasm and immense gratitude, to congratulate University of La Verne President Dr. Devorah Lieberman on her retirement.

Serving as president since 2011, Dr. Lieberman has demonstrated unwavering commitment to the mission and vision of the University of La Verne, as well as constant dedication to its remarkable students and faculty. Her passion for the University of La Verne is evident to anyone who has ever met her.

President Lieberman's vision has loyally supported the university values and mission of delivering quality academic programs at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral levels. Some of her tremendous accomplishments include: establishing a College of Health and Community Well-Being; instituting the La Verne Experience; raising $128 million in the largest comprehensive campaign in institutional history; significantly increasing funding for student scholarships; fostering growth of the university as a Hispanic-Serving Institution; expanding the international student population; increasing the number of named colleges, endowed deans, and endowed faculty positions; and, significantly increasing the institutional endowment.

Dr. Lieberman is the 18th president of the University of La Verne, a nationally ranked and Carnegie-recognized private institution for civic and community engagement. Located in Southern California in the 31st Congressional District, the University of La Verne was founded in 1891 and educates approximately 8,000 students.

President Lieberman is currently Chair-Elect of the New American Colleges & Universities (NAC&U), and serves on the Boards of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (CUMU), the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), Casa Colina Centers for Rehabilitation, La Plaza de Cultura y Artes, the L.A. County Fair Board, and the LA Chamber of Commerce.

Dr. Lieberman has broadly published books and articles in higher education literature on the topics of intercultural communication, faculty development, diversity, and institutional transformation. Awards she received include the Oregon Council for Hispanic Advancement's ``Si Se Puede Award,'' the Carnegie Foundation ``Oregon Professor of the Year,'' the ACE ``Bringing the World into the Classroom'' National award, the Student Union President of the Year, and the Ellis Island Award.

Prior to her presidency at the University of La Verne, Dr. Lieberman was Provost at Wagner College on Staten Island and Vice Provost and Professor of Communication Studies at Portland State University. She graduated with her Ph.D. from the University of Florida; with her MA from San Diego State; with her BA from Humboldt State, and her AA from Mt. San Antonio College.

After receiving a request from the University of La Verne led by President Lieberman, I was very proud to secure $2.2 Million in FY2023 Community Project Funding for the University of La Verne's Institute of Mental Health. Both my District and D.C. offices have had an excellent working relationship with President Lieberman and her government relations team, which we look forward to continuing as Dr. Lieberman serves in an advisory role to the university. I extend my sincere congratulations to my dear friend, Dr. Devorah Lieberman, and wish her a happy and fulfilling, well-deserved retirement. I thank her, and God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes due to testing positve for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 236 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 237.

Madam Speaker, I was absent for votes due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 233, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 234 and ``yea`` on rollcall No. 235.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 232, passage of S.J. Res. 11.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, particularly division C, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 1152, and was marked up by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with strong opposition from my Democratic colleagues. The polluters over the people act let polluters off the hook for harmful actions and damaging impacts to our rivers, lakes, and our streams that our local communities rely on for clean, safe drinking water.

Division C is an attack on section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which is a key mechanism for States and Tribes to evaluate projects that cross within their borders and have an impact on their waters and environment for decades.

Section 401 has been a successful example of cooperative federalism, while preserving State authority to manage their natural resources. Section 401 has been a well-supported, effective tool since the beginning of the Clean Water Act, but the Trump administration found a way to make it a scapegoat for the failure of senseless and harmfully polluting mega-projects.

The provisions in the polluters over people act will tie the hands of States and Tribes seeking to preserve stream flow for their water supplies, to prevent runoff and water pollution, and to minimize impacts to flood-preventing wetlands. It goes against the Clean Water Act's rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.

First, in California, this bill would have huge impacts. For one, limiting analysis to only discharges would mean the State would be unable to consider the impact of the whole project, such as increasing impervious surfaces, or considering downstream effects. Our State is trying to preserve every drop of water we can get. Yet, this bill would stop my State from protecting its water supply from the adverse impacts of projects pursued by out-of-State interests.

Second, this bill places arbitrary, and likely impossible timelines on the States to act on permit requests. Despite how complicated or huge the project might be, this bill will severely limit the time allowed for a State to review its impact. My friends across the aisle may not realize this, but this bill may lead to greater numbers of project rejections as the State is pressured to respond without the time to fully analyze the project.

This bill is another attempt to gut--really gut--the Clean Water Act and allow pollution and industry to act without repercussion. We must defend human health, our economy, and the natural environment, and oppose the damaging bill that will harm local communities.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the State of California, State of Washington, and the State of New York in strong opposition to H.R. 1152, which is the bill that became division C, H.R. 1.

February 28, 2023.

Hon. Chairman Graves,

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Graves: As the water quality certifying

agencies for California, New York, and Washington, we write

to underscore the importance of existing law in protecting

state waters from water pollution associated with federally

licensed projects. On February 24, 2023, Representatives

Rouzer and Graves introduced H.R. 1152--Water Quality

Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act of 2023, to

amend section 401 of the Clean Water Act that would, among

other things, revise section 401 to: (1) reduce the scope of

states' and tribes' 401 water quality certification authority

to apply only to the discharge to a water of the United

States, rather than the whole of the activity; (2) narrow

states' and tribes' section 401 water quality certification

authority to exclude much of what is required to comply with

water quality standards and implementation plans under

section 303 of the Clean Water Act; (3) remove the states'

and tribes' authority to ensure compliance with ``other

appropriate requirement[s] of State law''; (4) replace

references to an ``application'' for certification with a

``request'' for certification; and (5) impose a time

requirement on states and tribes to identify information

needed before taking an action on a certification request,

(6) make other changes to the law that introduce substantial

uncertainty about the scope of section 401 for project

proponents and state and tribes. Each of these changes would

undermine states' abilities to protect water quality within

their states and erode five decades of successful,

cooperative federalism. We ask that Congress preserve the

existing state authority in the Clean Water Act to

substantively review a project's effects on water quality

before a federal permit or license is issued.

Background

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a federal agency

may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity

that may result in any discharge into waters of the United

States unless a section 401 water quality certification is

issued, or certification is waived. The State Water Resources

Control Board (``State Water Board'') and the nine California

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (collectively, ``Water

Boards''), [NY Signatory], [WA Signatory] are certifying

agencies pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. In

all three states, the most common federal licenses subject to

section 401 are Clean Water Act section 404 dredge or fill

permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

licenses for hydropower facilities issued by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission.

During the five decades since Congress enacted section 401

in the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, state water

quality agencies diligently processed thousands of section

401 requests each year with little controversy. The vast

majority of section 401 certifications were issued promptly

and most section 401 certifications were granted, with only a

handful of denials issued each year. Beginning around 2016,

prompted by a handful of high-profile section 401 denials,

some project applicants and industry lobbyists began claiming

that states were ``abusing'' their section 401 authority.

Such claims of abuse are not, and never have been, true. In

the handful of cases when project applicants have alleged

improper certification decisions or delay by state agencies,

they have been fully capable of protecting their rights under

section 401 through the traditional framework of

administrative and judicial review.

Section 401 is a cornerstone of the cooperative federalism

principles enshrined by the Clean Water Act

Cooperative federalism is a foundational component of the

Clean Water Act. As set forth in Clean Water Act section 101

(b), ``[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize,

preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights

of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution'' and

``to plan the development and use . . . of land and water

resources.'' Section 510 further specifies that except as

expressly provided, nothing in the Clean Water Act shall

preclude or deny the right of any State to adopt or enforce

any standard or limitation respecting discharges of

pollutants or any requirement respecting control or abatement

of pollution.

The section 401 certification program is an embodiment of

these cooperative federalism principles. A state

certification is the mechanism of ensuring that a federal

license or permit is not used as an excuse to violate state

or federal water quality standards. As currently written, the

language in section 401 acknowledges that states are in the

best position to understand their own laws and that

additional conditions may be necessary to ensure compliance

with state law and applicable Clean Water Act requirements.

As the federal permitting or licensing agency is often not an

agency primarily tasked with managing environmental issues,

the federal agency may in fact be reliant on the

certification authority's expertise regarding water quality.

To prevent a section 401 certification from becoming a rubber

stamp, any revision to the section 401 language must preserve

an expansive view of the cooperative federalism principles

originally envisioned by the Clean Water Act and repeatedly

affirmed by the Supreme Court. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty.

v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994); S.D.

Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Env't Prot., 547 U.S. 370 (2006).

The Clean Water Act should continue to protect the whole

range of water quality effects resulting from the

proposed activity

We strongly support the existing statutory language, which

gives states and tribes the authority to regulate the

potentially water-polluting activity as a whole, rather than

being limited to a strict interpretation of effects from only

the discharge, because regulation of the activity as a whole

protects waters from the widest range of impacts. States

should be able to protect water quality regardless of whether

the pollution or other water quality impacts would be

specifically attributable to a discharge or from some other

aspect of the activity being permitted. States should be able

to use the certification process to address impacts to

groundwater, impacts to isolated surface waters, or impacts

from non-point sources, all of which are likely not directly

attributable to the discharge to a water of the United

States, because these are water quality impacts that would

not occur without issuance of the federal permit or license.

The problems with limiting certifications to the discharge

rather than the whole of the activity would be particularly

impactful on the states' ability to protect water quality

during the decades long term of Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (``FERC'') licenses in the hydropower licensing

context. States and tribes must be able to fully address the

water quality impacts of such activities as a whole during

the 30- to 50-year term of the FERC license to reduce

water quality impacts that, depending on the

circumstances, may not be attributable to a point-source

discharge, but result from the activity's construction,

operations, and facilities. Common water quality impacts

associated with hydropower activities include changes in

turbidity, sediment, siltation, temperature, habitat loss,

alterations to stream geomorphology, dissolved oxygen,

algal productivity and algal-produced toxins, erosion,

barriers to fish passage, alterations to stream

geomorphology, and reductions in stream flow. Each of

these impacts can have profound, generational impacts on

the state's water resources.

To prevent or minimize these potential impacts, states have

imposed, or considered the need for certification conditions

to protect water quality on project activities that fall

outside the typical understanding of point-source discharges,

such as requirements for minimum instream flows and ramping

rates; temperature management; aquatic invasive species

management; plans for gravel replenishment, large woody

material placement and other habitat measures; reservoir

operation plans; erosion and sediment management plans; and

monitoring and management of dissolved oxygen, mercury,

pesticides, and other constituents of concerns. Previously

issued certifications have typically included management,

monitoring, and reporting measures to ensure compliance with

water quality measures and to identify potential

modifications if circumstances change. Revising the statutory

language to contradict longstanding interpretations would

introduce confusion and invite arguments about the nexus

between the discharge and the impact, when a state or tribe's

focus should more appropriately be on all water quality

impacts resulting from the project. Introducing the concept

of whether the activity will ``directly result'' in a

discharge in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(4) would inject

additional uncertainty and potentially further limit the

certifying authority's ability to protect water quality.

Although the states would rely on their state authority to

continue to preserve robust protection of water quality

whenever possible, state authority would not be an available

remedy where state law is preempted by federal law. Because

the Federal Power Act preempts the field of hydropower

regulation absent an express exception to preemption, and

FERC project licenses are valid for a fixed period of up to

50 years, water quality certifications for FERC license

applications provide the states with a singular opportunity

to ensure compliance with the state's water quality standards

and other requirements. If the states' ability to regulate

FERC licensed projects to the same extent that it has been

able to for decades is significantly weakened, other, non-

FERC projects would be subject to more stringent requirements

to compensate for the failure of FERC-licensed projects to

contribute what would otherwise be their allocated

responsibility.

The Clean Water Act should continue to authorize

certifications to implement water quality standards and

implementation plans adopted or approved under section

303 of the Clean Water Act

Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act a water quality

certification implements the applicable provisions of

sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act

and any other appropriate requirement of state law. The most

important of the enumerated provisions of the Clean Water Act

is section 303, which provides for water quality standards

and implementation plans. Section 303 requires development

and approval of water quality standards, which consist of

designated uses, criteria, and anti-degradation policies;

establishment of total maximum daily loads, which allocate

responsibility for meeting standards that cannot be met

solely through compliance with the technology-based

requirements of the Clean Water Act; and implementation of a

continuing planning process.

In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld state authority to set

conditions of certification to protect uses designated as

part of the water quality standards under section 303. PUD

No. 1, 511 U.S. at 700. The Court rejected an argument that

certification is limited to implementing the criteria

component of those standards. Consistent with the Supreme

Court's ruling, states have made effective use water quality

certification authority to protect water quality needed for

commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries and other

important uses of state waters.

The proposed revision to limit ``applicable provisions'' of

section 303 to ``requirement of state law implementing water

quality criteria under section 303 necessary to support the

designated use or uses of the receiving navigable waters''

could strip the states' authority to use their certification

authority to protect the uses of waters of the United States

designated as part of water quality standards under section

303. By inexplicably omitting any reference to federal

requirements that implement section 303, it would also create

substantial uncertainty about states' and tribes' ability to

enforce water quality criteria, total maximum daily loads,

and antidegradation requirements adopted by U.S. EPA.

Congress should not remove the states' authority to require

compliance with state water quality requirements

We strongly oppose the bill's proposed revisions that would

limit the certifying authority to ensuring compliance with

only specific sections of the Clean Water Act by deleting the

existing reference to ``any other appropriate requirement of

State law'' set forth in section 401 subsection (d). Such a

revision would disregard a state's right to impose more

stringent water quality requirements and be contrary to the

protective goals of

the Clean Water Act. As is accounted for and endorsed by the

Clean Water Act, many states have state-based programs and

attendant requirements that arguably or explicitly expand

beyond the state's Clean Water Act authorities. The Clean

Water Act expressly contemplated a state's authority to

establish and enforce more stringent state requirements

beyond the Clean Water Act. For example, certifications may

include monitoring and reporting requirements that arguably

go beyond ensuring compliance with specific sections of the

Clean Water Act, and instead help determine whether water

quality is being degraded or to shape the development of

future actions to protect water quality.

We urge Congress to refrain from making an unwarranted

intrusion into a state's authority to impose stricter

conditions to protect the quality of waters within its

borders.

Section 401 should preserve the certifying authority's

ability to define the contents of a request for

certification and create submission procedures

The bill proposes revising references to ``application'' to

be ``request.'' Although the intention behind that revision

is not clear, we support language that recognizes that the

certifying authority may define the contents of a request for

certification and create submission procedures. The state's

ability to define what is required for a request for

certification is significant because a receipt of such a

request is the trigger for the beginning of the reasonable

period of time for a certifying authority to act on the

request. The bill proposes an addition requiring certifying

authorities to ``publish requirements for certification,''

but it is not clear whether this language is an indirect

reference to a certifying authority's ability to define

required information for applications and submittal

procedures. To the extent that ``requirements'' were intended

to require the enactment of new state regulations, 30 days is

insufficient time to comply with public notice and comment

requirements for State Water Board adoption.

Section 401 should not impose an arbitrary time limit on the

certifying authority's ability to request information

The bill proposes revisions to subsection (a)(1) that

specify that by 90 days after request for a certification,

the certifying authority must inform the applicant if any

additional information is necessary for the certification

authority to take an action on the request. As explained

above, to the extent that the language requires the

certifying authority to identify what, if any, information is

necessary to submit a complete application for water quality

certification, many state laws, including California's, do

this. But the revised language may be construed as preventing

the states from requesting that the applicant clarify,

amplify, correct, or supplement information required in the

application, which is permissible under state law.

For these reasons, we write to ask that Congress preserve

the existing state authority in Clean Water Act Section 401

to substantively review a project's effects on water quality

before a federal permit or license is issued, and protect

five decades of successful, cooperative federalism.

Sincerely,

Eileen Sobeck,

Executive Director, California State Water Resources

Control Board.

Basil Seggos,

Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation.

Laura Watson,

Director, Washington State Department of Ecology.

In this letter, the States highlight how this legislation will undermine States' ability to protect water quality within their States, and erode five decades of successful, cooperative federalism.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent due to representing the United States government at the United Nations 2023 Water Conference. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following way: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 144, suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 1159, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 145, suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 1159.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

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 over half of the United States is experiencing drought conditions. Even though we have had rain, we are still in drought conditions. 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.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District, the biggest in the area, commented at our subcommittee last month, the definition of WOTUS is central to the Clean Water Act's implementation and has significant implications for water agencies' day-to-day operations and for water source protection efforts.

That is why I support the efforts of the Biden administration to permanently repeal the previous administration's dirty water rule, a rule that eliminated Federal protections on a minimum of 75 percent of streams and wetlands that have been protected by the act since its inception.

These waters and the wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure the long-term supply of water and recharge our underground water aquifers.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how this resolution, which seeks to undermine and confuse agency efforts to protect our clean water, makes any sense to my constituents who are already making sacrifices to protect our local waters.

This resolution would increase levels of pollution in our waterbodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and make it harder for communities like mine to maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the horrible impacts of this resolution. The Biden rule provided the best available

option to balance the need for protection of waters with the desire for familiarity and workability within the constraints of the law and interpretations of the Supreme Court. This resolution achieves none of those outcomes and is only more likely to make it worse, not better.

Mr. Speaker, I very strongly oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President on H.J. Res. 27, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States.' ''

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 27--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department

of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the

Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' ''--Rep. Graves, R-MO, and 170 cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res.

27, a joint resolution to disapprove ``Revised Definition of

`Waters of the United States' '' (``final rule''). The final

rule's definition of ``waters of the United States''

carefully sets the bounds for what activities are regulated

by the federal government under the Clean Water Act. The

final rule provides clear rules of the road that will help

advance infrastructure projects, economic investments, and

agricultural activities--all while protecting water quality.

The rule reestablishes critical protections for the nation's

vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986

regulations with appropriate updates, exclusions, and

streamlining clarifications. This pre-2015 approach to

``waters of the United States'' provides regulatory certainty

and reflects the agencies' long experience, the best

available science, and extensive stakeholder engagement. In

comparison, H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a

clear ``waters of the United States'' definition. The

increased uncertainty would threaten economic growth,

including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream

communities. Farmers would be left wondering whether

artificially irrigated areas remain exempt or not.

Construction crews would be left wondering whether their

waterfilled gravel pits remain exempt or not. Compared to the

kind of uncertain, fragmented, and watered-down regulatory

system that H.J. Res. 27 might compel, the final rule will

secure substantial and valuable benefits each year in

critical flood protections, enhanced water quality, and the

treasured recreational activities--fishing, swimming,

boating, and more--that fill the lives and livelihoods of

tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy

wetlands and streams.

If Congress were to pass H.J. Res. 27, the President would

veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of West Covina on being named one of the safest cities in the United States. The announcement of this recognition comes just as the City of West Covina is celebrating its 100th anniversary.

According to a MoneyGeek study published last month, West Covina is ranked the 3rd safest among cities with a population over 100,000. MoneyGeek's annual analysis looked at the most recent FBI crime statistics to estimate the cost of crime in 263 cities across the U.S. The analysis paired reported crime statistics with academic research on the societal costs of different types of crimes to estimate the cost of crime for each city.

While the national average cost of crime per capita in U.S. cities is $1,836, in West Covina it is $181, and while the national average for violent crimes is over 560 crimes per 100,000 residents, West Covina has a rate around 49 per 100,000 residents.

Incorporated in 1923, West Covina was an agricultural community with orange groves and walnut groves that was turned into a bedroom community.

After receiving a request last year from the city, I was very proud to secure $7,000,000 in FY23 Community Project Funding for pedestrian handicap accessibility and signal synchronization improvements along Azusa Avenue, a central corridor with the city limits of West Covina. It has been my honor to represent this thriving community in Congress for the past 10 years, and I will continue fighting to deliver federal dollars to meet the needs of the city and all residents.

I extend my hearty congratulations to Mayor Rosario Diaz and all distinguished members of the city council, City Manager David Carmany and the rest of the hard-working city staff, Police Chief Richard Bell and the entire courageous West Covina Police Department, and to the wonderful residents of West Covina. May their great city continue to be safe. God Bless.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7832 to rename the post office located at 396 South California Avenue in West Covina, California after the late Congressman Esteban E. Torres, a long-time San Gabriel Valley legislator and beloved community leader.

A proud son of immigrants, Rep. Torres dedicated his life to serving his community, our nation in uniform, and working families across Eastern Los Angeles County. I proudly introduced this legislation with Rep. Linda Sanchez so future generations will remember Rep. Torres' legacy and be inspired by his service to our region and nation.

Rep. Torres was born on January 27, 1930, in Miami, Arizona. Shortly after finishing high school, he enlisted in the U.S. Army from 1949 to 1953 during the Korean War conflict and was honorably discharged with the rank of sergeant first class.

After attending various institutions including, the Los Angeles Art Center, East Los Angeles College, and California State University Los Angeles, Rep. Torres was subsequently elected to serve California's 34th district. He represented the cities of Artesia, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera, parts of Whittier, South El Monte, Industry, La Puente, Baldwin Park, and West Covina for 16 years in Congress. During his first five terms, Rep. Torres served on the House Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs and the Small Business Committees. In 1993, he was named to the powerful Appropriations Committee where he was responsible for delivering millions of dollars for public transit projects in Los Angeles County and throughout the State of California and advocating for U.S. policies that advanced democracies throughout the world. Rep. Torres also served as Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and as a Deputy Whip for the House's Democratic leadership.

Rep. Torres also was an accomplished artist. His art was featured in the Washingtonian Magazine, at numerous galleries throughout Los Angeles, and admired by his colleagues in Congress, friends, and family. Among his proudest accomplishments was being one of the founders, along with Supervisor Gloria Molina, of LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes, a world-renowned museum honoring the past, inspiring the future, and recognizing the cultural influence of Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and all Latinx in the greater Los Angeles community.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 7832. Renaming the West Covina Post Office in Rep. Torres' honor will be a small token of gratitude for his lifetime of dedication to his community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Ranking Member Rouzer in bringing to the floor the bipartisan and bicameral Water Resources Development Act of 2022.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart to honor the life of Chuck Fuentes, my dear friend and confidant, who passed away on September 13 at the age of 70.

Born March 16, 1952 in Whittier, CA to Robert H. and Theresa M. Fuentes, Charles Patrick ``Chuck'' Fuentes was raised in the City of Norwalk, CA. He attended St. John of God Catholic School, St. John Bosco High School, Cerritos Community College, and the University of California-Berkeley.

Chuck was raised a proud Democrat by his father, Robert H. ``Bob'' Fuentes, a politico of some note. Chuck ran countless campaigns and ran for office himself. He was a shrewd strategist with a keen sense of timing, and he had a knack for connecting a candidate's vision to voters' concerns.

Chuck was a ubiquitous presence in city, county, state, and national politics, causes, and committees, and was elected the youngest member of the Cerritos Community College Board of Trustees. He served for 26 years on the Democratic State Central Committee, was elected Vice Chair of the California Democratic Patty in 1989, and was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Working at all levels of government, Chuck was at one time my right hand, serving as my advisor on the Norwalk City Council and my Chief of Staff in the State Assembly and the United States Congress. My gratitude for all his years of service knows no bounds. He was instrumental in helping guide me as a public servant but was so much more than an employee. Chuck was family, and his loss is immeasurable.

Chuck was also campaign manager for James K. Hahn in his final successful campaign for City Controller and his later successful campaigns for City Attorney and for Mayor of Los Angeles. He served as Chief Administrative Officer for the Los Angeles City Controller's Office and later as the Chief Administrative Officer for the Los Angeles City Attorney. Chuck was City Manager of Pico Rivera and was General Manager at the Central Basin Municipal Water District.

A devout Roman Catholic and member of the Knights of Columbus, Norwalk Council 3678, Chuck was an active member of numerous church communities and served as a parish bereavement minister.

Chuck is survived by his spouse, Linda L. Unruh; siblings Christine M. Fuentes, Roberta T. ``Bobbi'' Buescher, Andrea Kunkel (Robert), Cecilia C. Fuentes, Robert H. Fuentes III, Christopher Fuentes (Paul), and Joseph A. Fuentes (Amy); and godchildren Ryan A. Kunkel, Jonathan Palomares, Robert H. Fuentes IV, and Ray Morones.

I extend my deepest sympathies to the family, colleagues, and friends of Chuck Fuentes, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing his distinguished life and public service. Although he is deeply missed, he will forever remain in our hearts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life, achievements, and legacy of Rodrigo ``Rod'' Garcia, a respected visionary, leader, and advocate, for his lifelong dedication to empowering the Hispanic community to achieve educational excellence, economic opportunity, and social equity.

Rodrigo ``Rod'' Garcia was born on March 29, 1943, in Los Angeles, California to Genevieve Hernandez and Rodrigo Garcia. He earned an Associate's Degree in Engineering from East Los Angeles College, and a Bachelor's Degree of Science in Engineering from California State University, Los Angeles.

Rod served as a civil engineer for the City of Los Angeles and worked in Public Works, Building and Safety, and at the Port of Los Angeles. Additionally, Rod Chaired the City of Monterey Park Planning Commission, and served on the Advisory Board for the Dean of Engineering at California State University.

Rod was one of the few Hispanic engineers amidst a tech boom in California in the early seventies. Despite being in the minority in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) field, he gathered a cohort of fellow Hispanic engineers determined to contribute and diversify the STEM industry.

In 1974, Rod founded and incorporated the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) with the mission of ensuring networking and education opportunities for Hispanic students and professionals in the Southern California region. Not too long after and with the collaboration of Administrators, professors, and students at California State University, East Los Angeles College, and the University of Southern California, the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers established its first collegiate chapters.

The result of five decades of Rod's high-spirited and fearless leadership propelled the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers to reach 13,000 members and 286 chapters nationwide. His unique ability of uniting community partners and leaders around the country will serve as evidence that closing the STEM education gap and increasing the number of Hispanics in STEM can and will be done.

Rod is remembered by his colleagues and thousands of current and former SHPE students and professionals for his devotion and service to expanding awareness, access, support, and development opportunities to Hispanics in STEM to realize their fullest potential and positively impact society. His legacy of empowering the Hispanic community to achieve educational excellence, economic opportunity, and social equity will guide many generations to come.

Mr. Garcia is survived by his wife, Cynthia Cathy Wong, and his children Marlene Tomasina Zamora, Marianne Pilar Garcia, and Rodrick Fitzgerald Garcia.

Madam Speaker, I extend my deepest sympathies to the family, colleagues, and friends of Rodrigo ``Rod'' Garcia, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing his incredibly life of service for others.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life of the incomparable Tzeitel Paras-Caracci, who proudly served the City of Duarte as Mayor Pro Tem until her passing on June 25 at the age of 49, after a 3-year battle against lung cancer.

Born August 8, 1972, in Quezon City, Philippines, Ms. Paras-Caracci and her family moved to Duarte in 1985. She graduated from Duarte High School in 1989 and went on to graduate from the Woodbury University in Burbank before returning home to her beloved city.

A trailblazing, dedicated, and caring public servant, Ms. Paras- Caracci was the first Filipino-American to be elected to the Duarte City Council. She served as mayor in 2006, 2011, 2015, and 2019, and was the longest sitting United States Filipino-American municipal elected official in office.

Ms. Paras-Caracci participated in many 32nd District Congressional events, always proud to represent her city. She was a member of the National League of Cities Board of Directors, the League of California Cities Board of Directors, and President of the Asian Pacific American Municipal Officials. She was also a director for the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, a governing board member of Foothill Transit, a board member of the Duarte Community Coordinating Council, and she was also a long-time member of the Duarte Woman's Club. One of her proudest accomplishments was initiating the Mayor's Youth Council to help students become familiar and active with government.

Ms. Paras-Caracci is survived by her parents, Lino and Russel Paras; her husband, K.C. Caracci, stepdaughter, Dr. Blake Caracci, and their son, Jack Russell; and her brothers, Bertrand and John Paul George.

I extend my deepest sympathies to the family, colleagues, friends, and constituents of Tzeitel Paras-Caracci, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing her life and public service. She will be sorely missed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act. I am honored to have my bill, H.R. 721, the Mental Health Services for Students Act, included in this package. Today is a historic day in recognizing the need for more comprehensive school-based mental health resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the lives of our nation's children and youth and added additional stressors that have significantly strained and continues to strain their mental health and well-being. Children and youth across the nation continue to confront the traumatic challenges of this pandemic, including disruptions to their lives, fear and anxiety about the virus, and the tragic death of loved ones. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mental health disorders are chronic conditions that, without proper diagnosis and treatment, can lead to problems for children at home and in school, interfering with their health and future development.

H.R. 721 acknowledges this problem by providing $130 million in competitive grants for school-based mental health programs nationwide. It expands the scope of the Project AWARE program by providing onsite licensed mental health professionals in schools across the country.

H.R. 721 is based on the successful Youth Suicide Prevention Program that I helped establish with Pacific Clinics in Los Angeles County in 2001, after learning 1 in 3 Latina adolescents, age 9 to 11, had contemplated suicide. We need to secure the long-term availability of mental health services to ensure a bright future for our students, which my bill would help accomplish.

I would like to thank the many advocates in and outside of Congress who have played an integral role in this legislation. H.R. 721 has 86 bipartisan co-sponsors and has the support of over 50 mental health organizations, as well as local governments and teacher unions. I would also like to thank my co-lead Rep. John Katko, Chairman Pallone and his staff, and my own staff who contributed toward today's passage.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 7666, which will help address our ongoing mental health crisis. it is now time to act on this bill and provide the necessary funding and resources to reach children and youth early on in life.