Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated member of my staff, Nicholas (Nick) Hromalik, who is leaving this week after serving in many capacities over the past six years.

Nick graduated from the University of California, San Diego, in 2009, but he began on the path of public service even earlier, working as an intern for Senator Dianne Feinstein and then-Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom while still in college. After graduation, he traveled to Washington to intern for my predecessor in Congress, Lynn Woolsey, and was soon hired to work for the Green the Capitol Initiative at the CAO. In that role, he helped to make the operations of the Capitol complex more sustainable and led outreach efforts to Member offices. Nick was called home to California upon that program's defunding, joining my team for the first time.

Drawing on his deep Petaluma roots, Nick built relationships across the North Bay, meeting with community leaders and learning about local issues. Starting as a volunteer, he ultimately became the field director of my newly-announced campaign for Congress. On a break from the campaign, Nick also spent some time in my Assembly district office in San Rafael that year, where he helped constituents with casework, and served as a liaison to organized labor and Sonoma County elected officials.

After my election to Congress in November 2012, Nick returned again to Washington, this time as one of my first hires in this office. Since my swearing-in in 2013, Nick has served California's second Congressional district with distinction, staffing me on issues as diverse as health care, agriculture, trade, energy, and education.

In the six years I have had the pleasure of working with him, Nick has never lost sight of our mission--to solve problems and make a positive difference--and he has maintained deep connections to California that have served him well in his career. He has championed causes that needed a champion, from special education to clean energy, and he has maintained his good humor and dedication throughout.

My family, my staff, and I all wish him and his fiancee Colleen Kilbride all the best as they travel to Chicago for the next step in their careers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Rotaplast International's 25th Anniversary of enabling children across the world with cleft lips and palates to receive life-changing surgery.

Founded in 1992 as part of the Rotary Club of San Francisco by its members Dr. Angelo Capozzi and Peter Lagarias, Rotaplast has since sponsored over 200 missions that have helped over 18,000 children worldwide. From the fast mission to La Serena in northern Chile, Rotaplast has been saving smiles and changing lives in 26 countries, including Chile, Columbia, Guatemala, Mexico, the Philippines, India, Ethiopia, and Tanzania.

Rotaplast is able to do this tremendous work because of the thousands of medical

professionals and Rotarians who volunteer countless hours of their time to this worthy endeavor. Multi-disciplinary teams of medical professionals travel around the world to provide free training to care for the children, in addition to the free reconstructive surgery. These volunteers help foster Rotaplast's mission of building goodwill among people from different countries, languages, cultures, and ways of life, and the education Rotaplast provides its patients and their families will help improve lives long after Rotaplast leaves.

Thanks to the support of Rotary International and the many Rotary Clubs and Districts around the world who have participated in this program, Rotaplast International's work in my district and around the world has been exemplary. It is therefore fitting to honor and thank Rotaplast for 25 years of success in changing children's lives and adhering to Rotary International's motto of ``doing good in the world.'' I offer them my sincere congratulations and best wishes for many more years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of California Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Werdegar on her retirement after 23 years of exceptional stewardship on the court and 55 years of public service.

A resident of Marin County, Justice Werdegar received her Bachelor's degree with honors from the University of California, Berkeley, whereupon she began her subsequent legal studies and became the first woman to be elected editor-in-chief of the California Law Review. She completed her law degree at the George Washington University School of Law, where she graduated as the valedictorian of her class.

Upon graduating from law school, Justice Werdegar went to work as an attorney for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1962. She showed clear determination and initiative, working directly with Attorney General Robert Kennedy and writing the amicus brief that pressed for the release from jail of Martin Luther King, Jr.

After moving back to California in 1963, Justice Werdegar took on a number of academic and legal challenges before going to work as a research attorney for the State Court of Appeal in 1981. Showing a voracious work ethic and attention to detail, she went on to become a senior staff attorney for the California Supreme Court only four years later.

Justice Werdegar's career as a judge began in 1991, when Governor Wilson appointed her to the State Court of Appeal, only ten years after becoming a staff member for that body. Shortly thereafter, in 1994, Justice Werdegar was appointed by the Governor to the California Supreme Court where she has been ever since.

During her tenure on the California Supreme Court, Justice Werdegar strove to understand the real world impacts of each case brought before her. In doing so, she went beyond politics and ideology to prioritize the rights of people in both her majority and dissenting opinions. Some notable examples of this include her majority opinion that greatly softened California's three strikes law, her 2008 ruling that bans on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional, and her single dissenting opinion that gun manufacturers have a responsibility for the weapons they sell to the public. Because of her clear dedication to the law and rigorous approach to each case, Justice Werdegar is well regarded by her colleagues on and off of the bench.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing deep appreciation for Justice Werdegar's extraordinary service to the legal profession and the public at large by extending to her best wishes on her retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, so much for regular order. The bill before us today has not received a hearing in committee where witnesses could have testified about its effects. It has not gone through the markup process so that the committee of jurisdiction could actually debate and offer amendments to improve it.

Moreover, we are about to vote on a bill with several provisions that no one has ever seen before last Wednesday, aside from a small group of Republican offices and special interests that have been working on the bill.

Now, this closed-door process not only ignores the changing conditions of drought in California and how the State has already been adapting to meet water conservation needs, but it also ignores all of California's water provisions that were included, albeit at the last minute, in the WIIN Act last year, which is now Federal law.

There has been no discussion, no hearing, no way to know how the provisions of this bill that overlap with the enacted law will actually be implemented by the Trump administration. This is legislating blind, and it is a bad idea.

On some level, I do understand my Republican colleagues' fear of regular order on this bill. The more sunlight and public scrutiny that this bill gets, the uglier it looks. Make no mistake, if enacted, this bill will hurt a lot of people.

This bill takes water away from fishermen, from tribes, the environment, Delta farmers, and others in order to redistribute it primarily to a small group of some of the Nation's biggest and most politically connected agribusiness interests.

My Republican colleagues often talk about States' rights, yet this bill repeatedly overrides State laws over the objection of that State. I am talking, of course, about California.

A letter of opposition to H.R. 23 recently came from Governor Jerry Brown, sent to the speaker of the house in the California Congressional Delegation attesting to this. Governor Brown writes: ``This bill overrides California water law, ignoring our State's prerogative to oversee our waters. Commandeering our laws for purposes defined in Washington is not right.''

This assault on California law and its values are why both California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Kamala Harris oppose this bill as well.

Now, here are just a few examples of the sections in this bill that preempt State law. Section 108(d) begins with the words ``California law is preempted'' on page 21, paragraph 3. That section goes on to remove State protections for certain fisheries.

Section 113 of the bill preempts California law that requires the restoration of California's second longest river and that river's native salmon runs.

Section 108 of the bill tells the State of California that it is barred from managing the State's water in any way that would ``protect, enhance, or restore . . . any public trust value.'' In other words, the broader public interest can't be considered by the State when it is managing the water that belongs to the people of California.

Additionally, this bill eliminates existing fishery protections, which could put many of California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs they support on a path to extinction. That means that this is more than just a California problem, because fishing communities in Oregon and Washington also depend on California salmon runs.

There was a recent UC Davis report that found that if present trends continue, many of California's salmon runs are on a path to extinction in the decades ahead. This bill would hasten that prediction into reality.

This is not just an environmental impact. It is a human one as well. We have heard from fishermen who are struggling to pay their mortgages, boats are being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes are being repossessed. We have heard about the struggles of small- business owners running restaurants, hotels, and other retail and service businesses. We have also heard from Indian Country, like the Hoopa Valley Tribe that I represent, and others about the danger that this bill poses to tribal fisheries, to tribal water, fishing, property, and other rights.

Rather than simply picking winners and losers, as this destructive bill does, Congress should be working together to grow water supplies for everyone without violating Tribal responsibilities or overriding State sovereignty. Congress could be supporting a range of modern water technologies like reuse, desalination, water use efficiency, storm water capture, and groundwater storage and remediation. These are the tools that have increased California's water supplies in recent years and are making our State more drought resilient, but this bill does none of that.

These are not controversial suggestions working on these modern water supply tools; in fact, it was the reclamation commissioner for President George W. Bush who described the water that we could tap through reuse as the next great river of the American

West. We should be focusing on those kind of noncontroversial consensus solutions.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We often hear about water that flows through the estuary of California's Bay-Delta system, we hear that sometimes described as wasted. There are some inconvenient facts that we have to bring up when that happens, like the fact that almost all of that water that flows out through the estuary is to prevent salt water intrusion so that the State and Federal water pumps aren't sending salty water to millions of Californians. That wouldn't work. In fact, if we shut down all of that outflow that my colleague just mentioned, that is exactly what you would see: massive salt water intrusion and a shutdown of the State and Federal water projects.

There is also incredible value in the water that flows through that estuary for downstream communities and farmers and senior water right holders, and others who have depended on it for decades. No one understands that better than my colleague who represents some of those communities in the estuary, in the delta, Mike Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, our environmental laws are not preventing new dams from being built. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation, the GAO, and the Congressional Research Service have looked at this and haven't been able to identify a single--nor my colleagues across the aisle have been able to identify a single dam project that somehow was blocked because of environmental laws.

What has been stopping many of them--not all, but many of them--has been the financing challenge because many of these projects just don't make a lot of sense. It is important to realize that projects that do make sense have moved forward. They have secured financing. They haven't needed special shortcuts from the environmental laws. And they have happened, projects like Diamond Valley, projects like Los Vaqueros, probably the coming expansion of Los Vaqueros.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly respond to my friend's reference to a manmade drought.

What California just went through is what hydrologists, scientists, and historians tell us is the most significant drought the State has ever experienced--a natural one. I certainly knew that human activities were impacting the climate, but, wow, if human beings could actually cause the snowpack to be 5 percent of normal and cause a drought like that, that is taking human-induced climate change to a whole new level. We have got to be careful in this debate. We are beginning to give hyperbole a bad name.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), representing the Sacramento Valley.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), my colleague from the Sacramento area.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Responding briefly to a bit of hyperbole just now that somehow environmental laws have created a ``desert that produces nothing in California,'' we do need to remember the facts.

The truth is, even through this historic drought, farm employment rose statewide each year during the drought. The agricultural economy is thriving, and, thankfully, this year, even the most junior Federal contractors are enjoying a 100 percent allocation. They are fully realizing the vision of being the breadbasket of this country and the world. It is hardly a desert that produces nothing.

With that, I do need to contrast what has been happening on the other end of the system, many of the communities I represent, where fishing communities really do have nothing.

The California salmon season this year will be little or nothing. The Yurok Tribe that I represent that is dependent on fisheries, salmon fisheries in California since long before there was agriculture, will, for the second year in a row, close its Tribal fishery. We are seeing folks selling their boats. We are seeing fishing communities impacted in dramatic ways. There is real genuine hardship, much like what was just described by my friend. So the facts do matter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is causing the fact checking machines to melt down, unfortunately. We just heard that there hasn't been a single major storage project in California since the 1970s. That is going to come as shocking news to the folks of the Metropolitan Water District which completed a huge storage project, Diamond Valley, during that period. It will certainly surprise the folks in Contra Costa, which completed Los Vaqueros without any special environmental shortcuts and with their own financing for the most part. It will surprise local water districts around the State, including my own Marin Municipal Water District, which completed two dam expansion projects in that same timeframe. It will surprise the folks at the current and semitropic groundwater banks that expanded significantly groundwater storage during that timeframe.

In fact, the truth is, California has added nearly 6 million acre feet of new storage, surface and groundwater storage, over the past few decades in this timeframe we have been talking about. So facts really do matter.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the redefinition of ``major water storage

projects.'' It is not a definition that I think is recognized anywhere else other than just now on this floor, but I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, there are many problems with this bill, and I do want to urge my colleagues to oppose it. I can't keep track of the number of times the State of California has come up in our debate here these last several minutes. So let's look to the State of California and see what the State of California says about this bill.

The Governor of the State of California opposes it in a hard-hitting letter that went out to the California delegation and others just a few days ago. The new attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, wrote an equally critical letter opposing this bill. Both U.S. Senators from California oppose this bill.

It is going nowhere in the Senate and will not become law because of fundamental flaws that have been brought up each of the past several years that this bill has been introduced in this Congress.

It overrides California State sovereignty and State water laws in ways that are unacceptable to the people of California and to the government of California. So when we keep bringing up California, let's just be very clear that California doesn't want this bill. California opposes this bill.

Now, I represent the downstream end of some of these water systems that we are talking about. When we talk about people and fish and jobs, it is important to remember that fishing jobs matter, too. In the communities that I represent, and also communities throughout Oregon and Washington that depend on California salmon runs, they are hurting.

This summer we are going to probably see a closure, for all intents and purposes, of the commercial salmon season. We are certainly going to see a closure of the Yurok Tribal Salmon Fishery for the second year in a row. That is not only economically devastating to Tribal communities that I represent, it has an emotional impact as well. These are communities that are hurting. In fact, the Yurok are reporting suicide rates among young people that are alarmingly high. The closure of this sacred fishery that is their grocery store, that is a sacred part of their existence, is certainly not going to help, and I think could very well contribute to the very severe problems that they are experiencing.

Fishing jobs matter, the environment matters, downstream communities that depend on this water that would be redistributed and reallocated by Congress through this short-sighted bill, that all matters, too.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this wrong-headed bill, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to do what we have been inviting them to do each of the past several years, and that is to reach across the aisle on bipartisan, commonsense water solutions. There is a lot that we could do together. Many of my colleagues served with me in the California State legislature. They know, because we did it together, that there is a different way. There is a better way.

We were able to pass landmark, bipartisan water legislation during our time together in Sacramento, and we did it because we didn't try to pick winners and losers. We found all sorts of low-hanging fruit and consensus solutions, and we came up with something that was supported across party lines, and in every region of the State. We can do that here, too, but we won't do it through this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I also represent northern California. My friend, Mr. LaMalfa, just said that this bill fully protects northern California's water. Well, we represent the two districts right next to each other that are the northernmost districts in California, and I can tell you, my part of northern California doesn't do so well under this bill.

In fact, the only way we have been able to prevent a repeat of a catastrophic fish kill disaster in the Klamath River system each of the last several years has been by releasing cold water in the Trinity River, which is a major tributary to the lower Klamath River. That has been a lifesaver for the communities downstream that depend on those salmon runs. This bill would legislatively prohibit the Bureau of Reclamation from ever doing that again.

So this is not a bill that is good for northern California, certainly, my part of northern California. And I think the same goes for the other northern California colleagues that we heard testify in opposition earlier.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I actually have no problem with my colleague's attempt to make a clarification to this bill. That clarification is needed, I am sure, but it is important to realize that the reason it is needed is because we haven't gone through regular order. We are talking about provisions that have not had the benefit of hearings, of markups, of witness testimony, clarifications that would have been made in the regular order process.

The underlying bill, it is important to remember, does enormous damage to California water law. That is why it is opposed by the Governor, by our attorney general, by our two U.S. Senators, and by many members of the California delegation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly offer my support for my colleague's amendment. This is a commonsense amendment that recognizes the tremendous potential that groundwater storage represents. This is one of the most important tools in our water management toolbox. We know that our future hydrology will be less certain because of climate change. It is going to make droughts across our country more frequent and severe.

This amendment will help make sure we are taking the appropriate steps to prepare. So I want to thank my colleague for this forward- thinking amendment, and I support its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for this amendment as well.

The headwaters of our watersheds play a crucial role in ensuring the reliability and the quality of water supplies throughout our State. Our water supply depends not just on artificial reservoirs, but also on natural reservoirs of snowpack and groundwater retention in the forests of these headwater areas.

Healthy, vibrant forests provide multiple benefits, including carbon capture and shade to reduce rapid snowmelt. When they are properly protected, forest soils act like sponges to absorb rainfall and slowly release it back into rivers and streams throughout the year.

This amendment is one of the many ways that we can ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation is building a 21st century water supply system for California and the West, so I strongly encourage support for it.

Mr. Chairman, in defense of the economics of water recycling, I need to correct the record.

The WateReuse Research Foundation has found that recycling projects tend to be among the cheapest ways to increase water supply. Potable water reuse is generally comparable or less expensive than alternative options.

The Congressional Research Service has found that title 16 water recycling projects are comparable in price to alternate water sources-- in some cases, substantially cheaper--and there is vast new potential to develop these water supplies.

This is exactly the kind of forward-thinking conversation we ought to have if we are serious about California water.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate that my colleagues are trying to help mitigate a small amount of the harm caused by this bill, but, unfortunately, the underlying bill remains a disaster for Indian Country.

Title 5 of this bill is a direct attack against the existing rights of Tribes in my district. As I have said previously, the salmon in the Klamath River system are the grocery store, the church, the lifeline for the Tribes in my district, and this bill explicitly prevents Federal agencies from making emergency water releases to combat fish disease and prevent massive fish kills that would devastate these Tribal balance fisheries.

That is important to remember, lest we get too carried away with whatever curative effects this amendment might have.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ivan Lee Welty, as he retires from a 45-year career as an engineer and land surveyor on the Mendocino Coast.

Born in Hill City, Kansas, in 1942, Mr. Welty received his degree in Civil Engineering from Kansas State University before making his way to Mendocino, California. He distinguished himself quickly by participating in efforts to establish the Class K Housing designation that expanded affordable housing options in rural Mendocino County. In 1975 he started his business, I.L. Welty and Associates, which has provided engineering and design services for more than 40 years.

As a business owner, Mr. Welty provided pro bono engineering and design work to numerous nonprofits including the Mendocino Coast Botanical Gardens, the Humane Society, the Mendocino Coast Hospitality Center, the Kelley House Museum, and Habitat for Humanity. In addition to donating his time, Mr. Welty paid his staff to assist on many of these projects over the years.

Mr. Welty married the love of his life, Sally, in 1974. Together they were active in many environmental and community issues. They helped found the Mendocino Land Trust and reinstitute the historic Mendocino Fourth of July Parade. They were also strong supporters of the Mendocino Whale Wars, in which community members fought the international whaling fleets to end whaling in and around Cape Mendocino. The first Mendocino Whale War Festival, now the Mendocino Coast Whale Festival, swiftly became an annual tradition that continues today.

Lee Welty's career is one of dedicated service to his community and the environment. Please join me in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his outstanding contributions to the Mendocino Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Dietrich (Diet) Stroeh, who passed away on May 30, 2017, after a lifetime of public service to his community. Born on October 22, 1936, Mr. Stroeh attended the University of Nevada where he earned a degree in civil engineering before joining the United States Air Force Reserves in 1955. After joining the Marin Municipal Water District as an engineer in 1960, he served a variety of roles in the agency, and became the General Manager in 1974. After twenty years with the agency Mr. Stroeh co-founded an engineering firm in 1980, which eventually became CSW/Struber-Stroeh Engineering group. He successfully ran the firm for 37 years until his passing.

Mr. Stroeh's legacy to the community extends from a personal mission to serve the public that was evident throughout his professional life. As the General Manager of the Marin Municipal Water District, his creative leadership was critical for securing Marin County's water supply during the 1976 California Drought. His solutions led to the development of a new in-county water supply, the county's first comprehensive water management plan, and the implementation of conservation education throughout the region. These events led the local press to declare him ``the hero of the drought,'' because he not only ran the agency during this time, but genuinely inspired a community ethic to conserve water as an ongoing practice. Mr. Stroeh had a dual life as a civil engineer by trade and a tireless public servant throughout his tenure on numerous volunteer boards and commissions. His volunteer services include such roles as Director of the North Coast Rail Road Authority, Director of the Bank of Marin, chair of the Novato Economic Development Commission, member of the Bay Area Water Works Association, and president of the Golden Gate Bridge District's Board of Directors, among many others.

Mr. Stroeh is survived by his wife Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh and his beloved children: Christina Stroeh, Jody Hunter, Erica Antonio, David Brown and Dona Brown, his seven grandchildren, five nieces and nephews, and four cats.

Mr. Speaker, the depth of Mr. Stroeh's service to his community has left a positive legacy across the Bay Area, and he will be dearly missed. When asked about his role on the Golden Gate Bridge District, Mr. Stroeh once reflected that he was ``just a cog in the machine,'' a typically humble comment from a man who dedicated his life to public service. It is therefore appropriate that we pay tribute to him today and honor the memory of leadership that sought service above self.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson to recognize the 100th anniversary of the American Red Cross of the California Northwest (Northwest Chapter), as it celebrates the occasion on June 22, 2017.

Chartered in 1917, the American Red Cross of the California Northwest was originally comprised of eleven chapters from Sonoma to Del Norte Counties. These chapters provided necessary support and emergency services to United States Armed Forces and their families stationed in the area, as the country entered the First World War.

Throughout the years, the Northwest Chapter's purpose has evolved to meet the region's growing population and increasingly diverse needs. Now covering six counties with a combined population of 941,000 people, the Northwest Chapter has provided emergency services, training programs, and continued support to Military personnel and their families throughout the region.

This has led to critical emergency support during times of disaster both big and small. From the 1964 earthquake that devastated Crescent City to the Russian River Floods of 1955, 1982, 1995, and 2007, the Northwest Chapter has repeatedly answered the call for assistance with trained volunteers and broader emergency support. The Northwest Chapter responds to an average of 100 local disasters and assists an average 280 families each year through the efforts of its volunteer disaster workers.

Mr. Speaker, the American Red Cross of the California Northwest has been a critical partner in providing local emergency support and preparation during times of crisis. It is, therefore, fitting to congratulate and thank the Northwest Chapter for a century of exceptional volunteer citizenship and community support.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating today what is being called an infrastructure bill. I wish that were actually the case. Our country certainly needs Congress to take action to address our country's infrastructure needs, yet this Congress is spending its time today debating another sham infrastructure bill that won't actually provide a single cent for real infrastructure.

Our Nation currently spends less on infrastructure as a percentage of our GDP than at any time during the past 20 years, and it shows. Far too many areas around the country have infrastructure that is crumbling before our eyes. We have seen this occur with the recent tragedy and the situation for water at the Oroville Dam in California, and this bill offers no solutions for these issues. In truth, this bill is simply an environmental deregulation bill disguised as an infrastructure bill.

Now, the bill's proponents have claimed that environmental laws, and specifically NEPA, are blocking new dam construction. This claim, Mr. Chairman, simply put, is bunk. According to the Bureau of Reclamation, not a single dam has been denied construction because of a lack of coordination between Reclamation and other agencies or because of delays associated with environmental review or permitting.

So why do we not see all sorts of new dams sprouting up around the West like we did for years and years in the previous century?

Because there is no new water to be captured, and because, frankly, all the best dam locations around the West were taken in the previous century when we had a heck of a dam-building spree.

New dams don't get built because they don't yield enough water to justify their multibillion-dollar price tags. You can ask the CRS if you don't believe other experts. In 2012, the Congressional Research Service found that the most likely causes of delay for major infrastructure projects are a lack of funding and State permitting issues, not environmental laws.

Now, new surface storage may be appropriate in some cases. The fact is, however, that much of the United States is already saturated with dams because of that dam-building spree we had in the previous century. The United States built tens of thousands of dams in the 20th century. California alone built 1,400 major dams. The best dam sites are already taken. Other than extraordinarily wet years like this one, thankfully, in California we are having a hard time even filling up the reservoirs that we already built.

Despite these facts, my Republican colleagues continue to peddle this fiction that we have to gut our Nation's environmental laws to build new dams and other infrastructure. I guess we should not be surprised because this crusade against our Nation's environmental laws is being led by a President whose relationship with the truth is complicated at best.

A couple of weeks ago, President Trump claimed that projects like the Hoover Dam were built in 5 years because they didn't have to go through years of permitting and regulation that current infrastructure projects are subjected to.

Well, the independent fact checkers at The Washington Post evaluated this claim and they awarded the President's claim, as you can see to my right, three Pinocchios, which is the rating for statements that include ``significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.''

Now, the fact checkers noted that, according to the U.S. GAO, 95 percent of public infrastructure projects are actually excluded from environmental reviews under current law. They further pointed out that the President ignored the many years of planning, permitting, negotiating, and preparing that was required to make sure that projects like the Hoover Dam were financially feasible and actually had public support.

In fact, dam planning on the Colorado River began in 1902, yet the Hoover Dam was not completed until 1937. Not completed, I might add, until the Roosevelt administration put actual public infrastructure dollars on the table to get that project financed and moving. The project took many years because, even despite the absence of modern environmental laws, big complicated projects take time to plan and finance, and they always have.

I am sorry that my Republican colleagues refuse to let such facts get in the way of their decades-long crusade against our country's bedrock environmental laws, but I hope we will eventually move on from this debate and get on to addressing real problems affecting our infrastructure, and that real problem is investment.

In terms of water infrastructure, our Nation is still not making necessary investments like water reuse projects and recycling projects. These are 21st century infrastructure projects that can provide us with water supplies that don't depend on the whims of an increasingly unpredictable hydrology. Given our changing climate, we can no longer rely exclusively on our 20th century infrastructure projects like dams.

Despite this, we have barely scratched the surface on building modern water infrastructure projects like reuse, recycling, desalination, groundwater storage, storm water capture, and water-use efficiency projects. Our country currently reuses less than 10 percent of our Nation's wastewater. Climate change will require us to do better. As George W. Bush's Reclamation Commissioner once said, the reuse of wastewater and recycled water could actually be the next river for the Western United States to tap for critical water supply.

This Congress should be working across the aisle to fully tap that next great river for the 21st century.

Reoperating existing facilities, modernizing those operations, is another example of something we should be working together on across the aisle.

All around the West we are dealing with dams and reservoirs that are being operated with the best technology from decades ago. The flood control manual at Oroville Dam, for example, hasn't been updated since 1970, which actually makes it cutting edge when compared to many of the reservoirs that are operating on 1950s flood control manuals. We are using slide rules instead of computers, with meteorological predictions that are based on historic data, backward-looking data, instead of looking up at the sky and using the data from modern satellite technology.

At Folsom Dam, we are watching a long overdue update to operations as part of a new auxiliary spillway. Forecast-informed operations, which is something that I have long advocated as part of comprehensive water legislation, is something we could work on together, and it would provide significant increases in water supply.

If my Republican friends are interested in expediting environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, then there is another thing that we can work on together, and that is we can end the slashing of budgets in Federal agencies that are in charge of environmental reviews for infrastructure projects. Budget cuts do nothing but hamper the ability of these agencies to participate in the review process and to protect our other Nation's fisheries and other natural resources.

This bill before us today compounds the problem by further undercutting the important role these agencies play to protect our natural resources. That is why several conservation and fishing industry groups have warned that this Congress should reject this bill, that it threatens tens of thousands of jobs in the fishing industry across the Pacific Coast.

Many of our Nation's iconic fisheries are already on the brink of extinction. We have heard firsthand in our committee from the fishermen struggling to pay their mortgages, boats being scrapped because owners can't pay mooring fees, homes being repossessed, and restaurants, hotels, and other retail and service businesses struggling just to scrape by. Let's not add to these struggles by passing an ill-conceived bill that does nothing to actually improve our infrastructure.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I was in the California Legislature for at least one of the those environmental waiver bills that the majority leader referenced involving an NFL stadium, and I am glad to hear him criticize that because I, too, criticized it. It was a bipartisan mistake. I voted against it.

There was a bit of vindication because at least one of those stadiums ended up not getting built anyway, despite the environmental waiver, and it sort of exposed the fact that these environmental laws are often put forward as scapegoats. We are often told that if you just clear away the environmental permitting, we can do these things.

There were many other reasons why that stadium didn't get built, complicated issues involving NFL franchises and financing, which is usually the real scapegoat when these projects aren't moving forward. So it is a worthy example to talk about in the context of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, the State of California is being mentioned quite a bit in this conversation.

It bears noting that the State of California is not asking for this legislation; and, in fact, the State of California has consistently opposed the rolling back of environmental standards and is busy passing bill after bill in this State legislative session to try to backfill for anticipated rollbacks in Federal environmental standards. So, certainly, if we are talking about the State of California and what it wants and it needs, its elected leaders are taking a very different direction than posing the false choice between environmental standards and infrastructure.

Again, the United States Bureau of Reclamation has emphasized that there are other factors, that it is not environmental review that has stopped any water projects in the West. The Congressional Research Service has reached the same conclusion.

And I just heard from my friend, Mr. McClintock, that we can't build new reservoirs until we change these laws. Well, I have got to point out that California has built new reservoirs under current law. You can ask the folks in Contra Costa County about Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

They didn't need any environmental waivers or special legislation. They built their dam. And in fact, they are getting ready to move forward with an expansion of that surface storage project. It should be broadly supported, and they are not asking for any special tweaks to the environmental laws. The same would apply to Diamond Valley Reservoir in southern California.

And, in fact, we have actually added nearly 6 million acre-feet of new surface and groundwater storage over the past few decades in California, all while honoring bedrock environmental protections like ESA and NEPA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Orange County for those comments. I have been to Orange County and I have seen the cutting-edge water management work taking place in Mr. Rohrabacher's district. Among other things, they are doing amazing groundwater recharge and water-use efficiency, water recycling. In fact, they have got one of the most cutting-edge potable reuse systems in the country. It is their reliance on those 21st century water management tools instead of large reservoirs--that, for the most part, were running dry during this drought we just went through--that enabled them to get through the most critical drought any of us have ever seen in much better shape than any communities around the State.

So kudos to the forward-looking water managers in Orange County. But if the gentleman is concerned about low-income people being impacted by water shortage and water management issues, I really hope he will pay a visit to my district, because on the north coast of California, you get the other end of this water management challenge.

The fishing communities of the north coast have been hammered by the fact that our iconic salmon runs are teetering on the brink of extinction. We have left very little flow in the rivers, and this drought only exacerbated the problem.

So I am representing people that are deeply impacted by water shortage and water management decisions that need to be part of this consideration instead of trivialized when we talk about water wasting out through the estuary. This is water that sustains these fishery runs that have been the lifeblood of the communities in my district for many years.

Now, just to inject a couple of facts into what has been called a radical environmental agenda that caused the waste of all of this water during the drought--in fact, that didn't happen. In 2014, the fact is only 4 percent of all the runoff in the entire Bay Delta Watershed flowed to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental protection. In 2015, it was even less. Two percent of the runoff for the entire watershed made it all the way out to San Francisco Bay solely for environmental purposes. The rest of that flow that made it through was to control salinity in the delta so that you could continue to serve municipal and industrial and other water-use needs. Most of that water was diverted and used.

We need to remember the facts in what can sometimes be a hyperbolic discussion of California water.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It has been a good conversation, but I hope one thing is clear: this is not an infrastructure bill. This is an environmental deregulation bill that is masquerading behind the issue of infrastructure.

Environmental laws, environmental reviews are not the reason new dams have not been built and it is not the reason new dams will not be built. All of the serious analyses point to other factors, the big one being they don't generate enough water to justify the huge price tags that go along with these projects. They are just rarely financeable, rarely do they make economic sense. So let's not scapegoat the environmental laws to try to address that problem.

Now, if my colleagues across the aisle are interested in an honest infrastructure bill, including a water infrastructure bill, they will find a lot of willing partners across the aisle, including myself. We have put forth all sorts of ideas. We want to see water infrastructure. Surface storage and new dams can be part of that, but we have got to put real dollars on the table. We have got to do what prior generations did when they got serious about building infrastructure, and not hide behind this ulterior agenda of gutting our environmental laws, repackaging that, and representing that as being responsive to our Nation's critical need for new infrastructure. This bill simply doesn't meet that test.

I request that my colleagues vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Costa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I, unfortunately, must oppose this amendment. I am not sure if it was the intent of my friend, Mr. LaMalfa, but it appears that this amendment would prioritize permitting surface storage projects under the WIIN Act and not groundwater storage WIIN Act projects.

The WIIN Act, of course, authorized money for both surface and groundwater storage projects. These projects are yet to be named and prioritized. That still needs to happen.

Yet this amendment applies this bill's streamlining provisions to WIIN's ``State-led projects for new surface water storage projects.''

Now, providing surface storage above all other types of water infrastructure projects certainly is in keeping with some of the obsession with new dams that we have heard from my colleagues across the aisle. But the truth is, there are all sorts of other worthy projects that are needed if we are going to get serious about water infrastructure in California; and to put a thumb on the scale for one particular kind is not the right way to go.

So, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I rise in support of this amendment.

My colleague across the aisle just asked the rhetorical question: Why is this amendment needed?

It is needed because fishing jobs matter. The people whom I represent on the north coast of California and also other fishing communities up and down the Pacific Coast, including Oregon and Washington, their jobs matter, and their limited opportunity to have their interests considered when a dam project is moving forward is what is shortened by the streamlining in this bill.

Their interests are already subordinated oftentimes, but they get subordinated even further by the streamlining in this case, which places the Bureau of Reclamation, the proponent of the new dam, in charge of the administrative record, which places the fish agencies-- which often advance the interests of protecting fisheries--in a subordinate role to the Bureau of Reclamation that controls the administrative record, which imposes shortened timelines to make it even harder for their interests to be considered.

Fishing jobs matter. And the truth is, right now, in my district and in many other fishing communities, people are hurting because they have been damaged by poorly operated and poorly permitted dams.

Let's not make things worse. This amendment is absolutely necessary, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Staff Sergeant Christopher Baradat for heroic actions that were essential in rescuing 150 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan on April 6, 2013, and ultimately earned him the Air Force Cross which was presented to him on April 20, 2017.

Raised in Marin County, Mr. Baradat graduated from San Marin High School in 2007, and enlisted in the United States Air Force shortly thereafter. He served his country for eight years, and is now studying welding and technical skills at Laney College in Oakland, where he lives with his wife Kellie and his three children.

On April 6, 2013, Staff Sgt. Baradat, a special tactics airman assigned to the 21st Special Tactics Squadron, was attached to a U.S. Army Special Forces Team in eastern Afghanistan. He was on his third deployment in Afghanistan. That day, his unit was called to support coalition soldiers who were surrounded and pinned down by Taliban fighters in a valley in the Kunar Province. Upon entering the valley his unit took direct fire from the ridge lines and other surrounding structures, forcing his team to take cover in a compound 400 meters away from coalition forces. Staff Sgt. Baradat's responsibility was to communicate with supporting aircraft and provide pilots with targeting information to strike enemy positions.

Not being able to communicate with support aircraft through the compound walls, Staff Sgt. Baradat rushed out into the direct line of fire in order to communicate Taliban positions. Over the course of the next two hours, Staff Sgt. Baradat utilized 8 aircraft to drop 13 five hundred pound bombs and more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition on enemy positions surrounding his team and the coalition forces. The consistent barrage of fire created the conditions necessary for coalition forces and his team to withdraw from the valley. His heroism did not end there however, as he continued his communication with support aircraft throughout the exit out of the valley. Still putting himself in the direct line of fire, Staff Sgt. Baradat placed himself partially out of an armored carrier in order to maintain a secure communication signal with support aircraft. He would continue to do this until his entire team made it out of the valley.

Because his actions had a decisive impact on the outcome of that day, Staff Sgt. Baradat received the Air Force Cross, which is the second highest military award that a member of the United States Air Force can receive. Staff Sgt. Baradat is only the ninth service member to have received the award since 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing deep appreciation for Christopher Baradat's extraordinary heroism that day, and for the sacrifices he and his family have made for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson in recognition of Michael Dillabough, as he retires from the United States Army Corps of Engineers after a stellar 23-year career.

After graduating from California State University at Chico with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering, Michael Dillabough began his professional career as an officer with the U.S. Air Force in 1979. His early work included Logistics Analyst at Westinghouse Electrical Corporation and Senior Engineer and Technical Writer at Martin Marietta Aerospace at Vandenberg Air Force Base.

In 1988 he began working for the United States Navy as the Facility Manager assigned to Mare Island Naval Shipyard. For 6 years he managed more than 550 facilities and 25 miles of roads. He then transferred to the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1994 and began his 23-year career with the San Francisco District. Initially brought on to work with the Earthquake Preparedness Center of Expertise, he became the first Project Manager assigned to a remote site, Warm Springs Dam at Lake Sonoma in 2001. In 2003, he became responsible for the district's Emergency Management Office, Dredge Material Management Office, Office of Technical Services and Natural Resource Management, two flood- control/water-supply projects, the Navigational Debris Removal Section, as well as management of the Warm Springs Fish Hatchery and the Bay Model Visitor Center.

In 2003 Michael Dillabough deployed to Kuwait and Iraq where he served as Senior Project Manager for the Gulf Regional Engineering Office and as the Chief Engineer for the Humanitarian Operations Center. The same year, Michael Dillabough was promoted to the position he retires from today, Chief of the Operations and Readiness Division for the San Francisco District. Over the course of his career he has been recognized with the Meritorious Civilian Service Award, two Humanitarian Medals and the Air Force Commendation Medal.

We have personally worked with Michael Dillabough and seen first- hand his outstanding dedication to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the public. His career is one of steadfast service to his country and is worthy of the highest distinction. Please join us in congratulating him on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his outstanding contributions to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a column written by Mary Ann Dickinson on the importance of the WaterSense program, which for ten years has saved consumers money and helped to conserve limited water resources.

Trump Cutting the EPA WaterSense Program Makes No Sense at All

(By Mary Ann Dickinson)

President Trump promised clean water for all Americans

while preserving our natural resources. Yet his recently

announced 2018 budget seeks to eliminate or drastically

curtail programs that do just that.

It is especially perplexing to see EPA's small but mighty

WaterSense program on the chopping block. WaterSense, like

its larger predecessor EnergyStar, is a voluntary water

product-labeling program that partners with business and

communities to enhance the market for water-efficient

fixtures and appliances. In this way, WaterSense encourages

consumers to purchase products that save water and energy.

In just ten years since its launch, the WaterSense program

has already made valuable contributions to building water

security for American communities. It has saved more than 1.5

trillion gallons of water, enough to serve all of

California's residents for a year. Those savings help protect

the nation's water future--ensuring that more water is

available for future generations, emergencies and our

waterways. Less water used also means less energy used to

heat, pump and treat water--thereby eliminating 78 million

metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from our atmosphere.

The blue and green WaterSense logo helps customers easily

choose new toilets, showerheads, faucets and irrigation

controllers that have been independently certified to perform

as well as or better than standard models--while using at

least 20 percent less water.

That choice is good for American families that already

spend an average of $1,100 per year on water. In fact, it has

already saved consumers $32.6 billion in water and energy

bills. With water rates rising each year, WaterSense can help

families better manage their household expenses.

But WaterSense isn't just delivering more reliable and

affordable water to consumers; it's actually driving

innovation and supporting economic growth--goals at the core

of Trump's platform.

Large American plumbing and irrigation manufacturers have

seen their businesses grow by adding WaterSense-labeled

products to their portfolios, while start-ups and smaller

shops are getting their products to market more quickly,

thanks to the clearly defined performance standards and

certification process in the WaterSense program. This has

resulted in a competitive edge for companies manufacturing

American-made WaterSense products. In addition, as water

becomes more scarce and expensive, WaterSense can help all

businesses reduce their operating costs and increase their

resiliency by installing high-efficiency fixtures in their

facilities.

WaterSense isn't a mandatory program or an example of

overreaching and costly regulations. It is a voluntary,

public-private partnership program where businesses and

communities opt in to participate.

And they have overwhelmingly opted in. More than 1,700

partners build their businesses and support their communities

by participating in the WaterSense program. Nearly 200 of

them recently signed a letter asking EPA Administrator Scott

Pruitt to continue to fund it into the future.

So how much money is it? WaterSense costs taxpayers a mere

$3.1 million per year to run--a meager federal expenditure

for a significant economic benefit delivered to businesses

and individuals. Continued public investment is key. A

product labeling program run by the private sector would lack

objectivity and credibility to consumers.

The WaterSense program is the best kind of government

program. It leverages a small public investment into big

savings for homeowners and businesses, while ensuring secure

and sustainable water supplies. Let's make sure it stays in

the 2018 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Victoria (Vicki) Moyer Arden on her retirement as the Fine Arts Program Coordinator at Oak Grove Union School District in Sonoma County after over 16 years of exceptional service.

Born in Reading, Pennsylvania and raised in Madison, Connecticut, Ms. Arden received her Bachelor's degree from Towson State University and a Master's in Art Education from the University of New Mexico. In 2001, she and her family moved to Sebastopol where she has resided ever since.

During her tenure at Oak Grove Union School District, Ms. Arden developed a robust and comprehensive Fine Arts program that is a model for elementary and middle schools everywhere. She is well-regarded by her colleagues, students and their families for her passion for instilling a meaningful love of art in her students. She dedicated her entire professional career to supporting and promoting quality education for Sonoma students, where the fundamental subjects always included a well-rounded fine arts program. Her skills, talent and energy helped Oak Grove Elementary receive two prestigious California Distinguished School awards during her tenure there, among other distinctions.

Her philosophy that, ``arts offer students a unique language to explore ideas, feelings, subject matter, and cultures'' was realized by numerous students over the years, many of whom will be grateful for this influence for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing deep appreciation for Ms. Arden's extraordinary service to our public school children, and thank her for the indelible marks she has undoubtedly left on the thousands of students she has educated over the years, as well as her own two children, Paul and Gabe, and her husband John, and extend to her best wishes on her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Valerie Pitts on her retirement after a stellar 35-year career in public education, most recently as Superintendent of the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District for the past 12 years. Dr. Pitts dedicated her professional tenure to supporting and promoting quality public education. She is passionate about ensuring equity for students, a climate of inclusion, high academic standards, engaging curriculum, and an ethos of continuous improvement.

Born, raised, and educated in Larkspur, California, Dr. Pitts went on to earn a Bachelor's Degree in Music, a Master's Degree in Education, and a Doctorate in Education with an emphasis in Organizational Leadership, all from Bay Area universities. She spent her educational career in Marin County, first as a teacher for eight years at San Rafael High School before moving into curriculum support and administration for the duration. In 2005, Dr. Pitts returned to her home district in Larkspur where she spent the next dozen years.

Throughout her tenure, Dr. Pitts shared her considerable educational experience, skills, and knowledge to amass a list of accomplishments that numerous students, families, and staff will enjoy for years to come.

Among her many achievements, Dr. Pitts led the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District during a time of exponential growth in student enrollment, wherein she managed major facilities improvements funded by taxpayer dollars and created state-of-the-art learning environments and curriculum for the district. This included the installation of a solar energy project that is projected to save the district $2 million over 20 years.

While serving as Superintendent in the Larkspur-Corte Madera School District, Dr. Pitts also acted as Superintendent for the Sausalito-- Marin City School District during transitions in leadership. This generosity of spirit was extended to her fellow superintendents around the County and in other school districts through her work on the Joint Legislative Advisory Committee and many other county leadership roles.

Dr. Pitts' legacy of professional and civic contributions will leave indelible benefits to Marin County for years to come. She is a student focused leader, whose commitment to equity and excellence in public education is outstanding. It is appropriate that she has been selected for many honors, including the prestigious Marin County's 2017 Educator of the Year award as she retires from an exceptional career in public education, at the Golden Bell Award Ceremony on May 25, 2017, and hosted by the San Rafael Elks Lodge No. 1108, Marin County School Boards Association, Marin Association of Superintendents, and Marin County Office of Education.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in expressing deep appreciation for Dr. Pitts' long and extraordinary professional service, congratulate her on being named the 2017 Educator of the Year, and extend to her best wishes on her retirement.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to speak against the underlying bill.

Unfortunately, I wasn't serving the House in 2011 when this bill was first brought to the floor. I was here in 2014, when the bill was brought up again, twice. I was here, also, in 2016, when it was brought up twice.

This bill has gone through a number of name changes, but its intent remains the same, and that is, to allow the irresponsible application of pesticides into our Nation's waterways. Undermining the Clean Water Act, as this bill does, means taking the EPA out of the picture, blocking them from weighing in on pesticides that are

dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams, without regard to the impacts of human health, or to those who rely on recreational, commercial, and Tribal fisheries.

We know, unfortunately, that despite efforts to regulate pesticides for public health and safety, these dangerous chemicals continue to be detected in surface and groundwater bodies at dangerous levels. Impacts to fish and wildlife have been significant, and have already been devastating in some instances. Oysters, shrimp, sea trout, and redfish--four of the most important species to food webs, fishermen, and the economy along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts--have shown effects ranging from impaired survival skills, to damaged DNA, to death as a result of exposure to pesticides that have been approved for agricultural use.

In 2006, USGS released its review on pesticide occurrence and concentrations in streams and groundwater. According to this report, at least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams tested throughout the Nation. In addition, chemicals such as DDT, which has been banned in the U.S. for decades, were still showing up, found in fish tissues sampled across watersheds nationwide.

We see a similar situation at the State level. In my State of California, pesticides are among the top sources of water quality impairments in the State. 437 waterbodies are impaired by 40 different categories of pesticides. That is why commercial fishing groups oppose the underlying bill.

My amendment will ensure that we don't deny either the EPA or a State their ability to require permits for pesticide use that could have negative effects on fisheries. Let's make sure that streams and rivers that support fish are clean. Let's make sure that the fish we catch, eat, and sell are free from toxic chemicals. America's fisheries are a backbone of both sport fishing and commercial fishing industries.

The recreational sector alone accounts for more than $115 billion of our country's economy, and it employs more than 828,000 people. My amendment would protect these recreational activities, not only for current generations but for future generations of anglers to come.

By accidentally contaminating our waterways, pesticides also exacerbate the precarious status of endangered and threatened species. In 1996, the death of over 90,000 steelhead fish, 100 coho salmon, and thousands of nongame fish resulted from an herbicide called acrolein that entered the waterways in Bear Creek, Oregon. Many wild salmon stocks are now on the brink of extinction on the West Coast, and losses in such sensitive populations make recovery efforts increasingly difficult.

Pesticides can pose a dangerous threat to commercial fisheries. In 1999, a massive lobster die-off devastated the lives and livelihoods of Connecticut and New York lobstermen along the Long Island Sound, producing a multimillion-dollar settlement with pesticide manufacturers mishandling the chemical malathion.

Similar concern has brought forth proposals to regulate methoprene and resmethrin in Maine in order to protect their commercial fishery, which is worth over $700 million.

Mr. Chair, I have letters of support here for my amendment from the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Karuk Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Seafood Harvesters of America, and other organizations who are very interested in this amendment, and support it.

May 24, 2017.

Dear Representative: As the House considers H.R. 953, the

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, we the undersigned

groups representing millions of hunters and anglers across

the nation, urge you to ensure that H.R. 953 does not

negatively impact water quality, fish health and the

recreational fishing industry by supporting Amendment #3,

sponsored by Representative Jared Huffman.

The Huffman Amendment protects fisheries and water quality

by ensuring any pesticide spraying into or over waterways

that would negatively impact our nation's fisheries is

properly monitored and permitted. The 47 million sportsmen

and women that hunt and fish each year depend on strong Clean

Water Act protections to ensure thriving fish populations

that are safe to eat and the Huffman amendment would ensure

it continues to do so.

America's hunters and anglers contribute more than $200

billion to America's economy each year and this robust

outdoor economy depends on healthy rivers, lakes, and

streams. Nearly 2,000 waterways in the United States are

known to be impaired because of pesticides, and, even at low

levels, pesticides pose a particularly concerning threat to

fish and wildlife populations. Without protective federal

safeguards in place to regulate pesticides applied to our

waterways, sportsmen and women will have access to fewer

quality hunting and fishing opportunities.

On behalf of our millions of members and conservation-

minded hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts, we urge

you to support this common-sense measure to safeguard our

water resources and outdoor heritage and support the Huffman

amendment.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Bulis,

AFFTA President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association.

John W. Gale,

Conservation Director, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.

Adam Kolton,

Vice President, National Advocacy, National Wildlife

Federation.

Steve Moyer,

Vice President, Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited.

Mr. Chairman, I prefer butter on my lobster rolls, not toxic pesticides. Let's make sure that States maintain their authority to prudently protect their economies and public health from pesticide impacts.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that some States may want to put their efforts into protecting water quality and the health of their fisheries and their ecosystems, rather than just carpet- bombing waterways with pesticides.

This amendment says, those States have the authority to do that if they choose to.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sheriff Mike Downey, a longtime member of Humboldt County's law enforcement community, on his retirement.

Sheriff Downey's service to Humboldt County has been exemplary. Mike moved his family to Humboldt County and first became a deputy sheriff in 1986. He was assigned to the Marijuana Eradication Team in 1988, earning several awards for service to the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. He was promoted to Field Training Officer in 1989, and then to Sheriff's Corporal in 1992. In 1994, Mike was selected as Resident Deputy to Shelter Cove. Three years later, he was assigned as Sheriff's Sergeant to the Garberville station, and was awarded the Outstation Deputy of the Year in 2000. In 2003, Mike was promoted to the rank of Sheriff's Lieutenant in charge of North Area Command patrol operations.

Mike's professional development has been stellar over the tenure of his service. He was awarded every level of certification offered by the CA Commission on Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST), including Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory, Management, and Executive Certificates, and graduated from POST Command College. On May 7, 2006, Mike was promoted to Undersheriff under Sheriff Gary Philp. He was elected as Sheriff of Humboldt County and took office on January 1, 2001.

Sheriff Downey has been a role model for excellence in professionalism and community policing throughout his career. In addition to his professional contributions, he has served the Humboldt County community through the Eureka Rotary Club, The Red Cross board of Directors, as the President of the Law Enforcement Chiefs Associations of Humboldt, and through the Board of Directors for the California State Sheriffs' Association.

Mr. Speaker, Sheriff Mike Downey's commitment to the safety and peace of Humboldt County is commendable and worthy of recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in extending our congratulations to him.