Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman shares a lot of childhood memories running around here with his dad being a Congressman and Congressman Regula for all those years. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who is from the Cincinnati area.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Toledo (Ms. Kaptur), who serves on the Appropriations Committee and who, I am sure, has some interesting tales to tell about Congressman Regula.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Stark County Courthouse, which celebrates its bicentennial this year. The halls of the Stark County Courthouse have a significant place in American history--recounting the area's evolution into a prominent community in Northeast Ohio. President William McKinley argued cases before the court as Stark County Prosecutor, and citizens would travel to the courthouse to hear news and updates from the battlefield during the Civil War. The current courthouse is the third constructed on the grounds in Stark County, sculpted from brick, sandstone, and marble. The building itself is an illustration of justice, with the clock tower adorned with four Trumpeters of Justice symbolizing the Courthouse occupants' devotion to truth and integrity. The triangular sandstone pediment on the front of the Courthouse demonstrates figures of commerce, justice, agriculture, and industry produced in Stark County. The Stark County Courthouse is a treasure of Northeast Ohio, and I am proud to join in celebration of its place in our history.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear that the Senate will not be able to take up the healthcare bill this week, but this is a tough issue. It is a tough issue because, at least on my side of the aisle, we want to do the right thing. We want to make sure that people can buy health insurance that is affordable and accessible, and not pull the rug out from under people who have issues. In the House, we passed a bill, and one of the big issues was preexisting conditions. We made sure that people with preexisting conditions can buy health insurance that is reasonably priced, similar to people who have no preexisting conditions, but then we kicked in billions of dollars to subsidize those premiums to help those people be in the insurance market because I think it is important that those people are in the insurance market and have access to insurance that is affordable. I think it is really un-American to pull the rug out from people because they got sick. ObamaCare is imploding. In Ohio--and this is from the Health and Human Services Agency--ObamaCare in Ohio, since 2013, premiums have increased 86 percent. We had almost 236,000 families pay almost $44 million in penalties because they couldn't afford their health insurance. Then there is also a myth out there that the price is going through the roof, it is collapsing because of the current administration. Well, if you look at the facts, the average premium skyrocketed by nearly $3,000 across the country during the previous administration's final term. Eighty-three insurers left the market, and the average exchange premium spiked 25 percent last year alone. Americans living in roughly one-third of our Nation's counties have only one option of healthcare coverage precisely because this law has continued to fail. All this has occurred prior to the current administration. Mr. Speaker, I got a phone call last night from a lady whom I have known for over 30 years. She is self-employed, running a service-type business, and she was struggling to pay for her healthcare under the ObamaCare exchanges. She has prayed these last few years that she wouldn't get sick because she wouldn't be able to meet the deductible. She works 12-hour days. She is in one of those at least 20 counties in Ohio that will not have an insurer on the individual market for next year. She has no options to buy health insurance next year. She called me up and said: I don't know what I am going to do. I didn't have a good answer for her. That is why we need to get this done. Prior to ObamaCare--I don't know if a lot of people realize this-- when I was a self-employed farmer, I bought my health insurance through association plans. ObamaCare did away with association plans and forced people onto the exchanges and mandated what kind of coverage you had to buy. Ironically, as a Member of Congress, I am required to be on ObamaCare, and I am. But the ironic thing is, next year, if things don't change--and I was forced to be on the D.C. exchange, but if I was forced to be on my county exchange back where I live, my county does not have a health insurer in the individual market next year. I think it is ironic as a Member of Congress, if I wasn't on the D.C. exchange, I wouldn't be able to buy insurance through my exchange back home because it will not be available. How do we fix this? I think we have to incorporate free-market principles. We have to get the cost down, and then the market will work. How do we get the cost down? We have to have price discovery, and how you get that is through competition. I think health savings accounts is one way you will get competition and personal responsibility. People will shop around on a nonemergency-type basis, and it will help drive the cost down. ObamaCare did away with health savings accounts. Also, tort reform. We need to make sure that doctors practicing medicine don't have to worry about frivolous lawsuits and fight defensive medicine. That is really important. We need to be able to buy insurance across State lines. We have it in property and casualty insurance. We have it in auto insurance. We ought to have it in health insurance. It ought to be portable, you take it with you. And you also have your health savings account that you can take with you and be portable. These are some of the things that we can do, but we have to let the market work. That is my hope. And this is a tough issue. The Senate is working through it. They want to do the right thing. They want to make sure that Americans have affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage that they can buy. We need to work through that, and I think the Senate will get there. Hopefully, we will get a bill on the President's desk so my friend, whom I have known for over 30 years, can buy health insurance next year and not have to worry about the risk of what happens if she gets sick, or if she will have to go on Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, one out of four Americans today are on Medicaid. That is not really a good option. I am seeing some of our physicians are not treating Medicaid patients. Do you know why that is? Because they are a service business, and there are only so many hours in the day. So they have to have people with health insurance or self- payers, and they can't have too many people on their client portfolio that have Medicaid with reimbursements that are too low for the cost of service. That is what we have moved to.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Today we are considering H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, introduced to clarify congressional intent regarding pesticide use in or near navigable waters. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, otherwise known as FIFRA, is the appropriate Federal statute to govern safety and the use of pesticides. FIFRA first passed in 1910, 62 years before the Clean Water Act was passed. In 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court decision, the National Cotton Council v. EPA, changed how this all works. For years before the Clean Water Act, pesticide use was regulated by the EPA under FIFRA. Under FIFRA, the EPA regulates and approves pesticides for safe use under the label, and they have full jurisdiction under FIFRA. The EPA previously ruled that using pesticides under FIFRA-approved use does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, otherwise known as NPDES, permit under the Clean Water Act. Because of this court decision in 2009, those who have been safely applying products to control pest populations now must comply with additional NPDES permitting. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have called this Groundhog Day in the past. I agree. Time after time, they have supported increasing the regulations just for regulation's sake. They are even willing to risk public health and outbreaks of Zika and West Nile virus. The Sixth Circuit Court decision ignored the congressional intent when the FIFRA and the Clean Water Act were passed. The court ignored sensible agency interpretation, it ignored years of regulatory precedent, it expanded the clean water jurisdiction beyond the scope set by Congress and over areas already appropriately regulated. The court decision placed burden on the EPA, requiring a new and expanded NPDES permitting process for products already regulated. The EPA says there are about 365,000 pesticide applicators affected by this ruling. They would include State agencies, cities and counties, mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers and ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens or homeowners. The EPA estimates $50 million in paperwork to comply alone every year with this new regulation. Federal, State, and local agencies are forced to spend taxpayer dollars in permitting, paperwork, and compliance. Private applicators, like farmers and ranchers, also face increased costs. This adds compliance costs, adds permitting costs, and it adds time and hurts productivity and efficiency. It does not add any new environmental protections. This bad court decision affecting the budgetary decisions from local agencies, I will give you some examples here: the Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District preserves 20 percent of its annual budget in case it is sued under the Clean Water Act. I think it is important to mention when the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, it was set up with severe penalties to go after the polluters we had--I like to say the polluters of the 1960s--to clean up our waters, that we had severe problems. And when it did that, it also opened it up for citizens' lawsuits and opens up the door for more litigation. The Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District, $37,000 in permit costs and paperwork they have spent. Benton County could have treated almost 2,600 acres for mosquito abatement or 400 lab tests for West Nile virus, or paid for three seasonal workers. In Gem County, Idaho, the Mosquito Abatement District's staff spends 3 weeks a year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications related to permit oversight. California vector control districts have estimated that it costs them $3 million to conduct administration of the NPDES permits. They also have to spend 20 percent of their annual operating budget just to maintain the computer software related to the unnecessary NPDES permit. As a result of this court ruling, mosquito districts, State and local agencies, are now vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits for things like simple paperwork violations under the Clean Water Act. Fines for these paperwork violations, which obviously don't have any affect on the environment, can be as much as $50,000 a day. For example, the Gem County, Idaho, Mosquito Abatement District was forced to spend $450,000 to resolve a lawsuit. In my home State of Ohio, the Mosquito Control District for Toledo is currently embroiled in a citizen's lawsuit from a simple paperwork violation. The 2012 West Nile outbreak is proof NPDES permits and association costs are hindering the ability to protect the public. In 2012, the first year of the permitting requirement from the court case, West Nile cases jumped from 712 cases to almost to over 5,600 cases. That is nearly an 800 percent increase because of the unnecessary permit requirements. The States and communities affected by West Nile had to wait until after a public health emergency was declared. Only then could relief from the NPDES permit be approved. Only after the West Nile had spread could local agencies use lifesaving pesticides to kill mosquitoes carrying the virus. Keep in mind, when the local entity, municipality, declares an emergency, they don't need to get a permit. They can spray. I like to say it is after the fact when the mosquitoes are out of control, then we do aerial spraying. Maybe we could have prevented it with surface spraying and be less harm to the environment. We shouldn't have to wait until it becomes an emergency. H.R. 953 gets rid of the unnecessary red tape so communities can prevent outbreaks of diseases like Zika and West Nile. Cities that need to conduct the routine preventative mosquito abatement should not have to do it with one hand tied behind their back. H.R. 953 provides a narrow, limited exception from NPDES permit requirements for those pesticides already approved under FIFRA law and used in compliance under the label which is approved by the EPA. I think this is an important point to keep in mind: EPA already regulates these pesticides and approves them under FIFRA. It goes through rigorous testing and reporting requirements, and they set the label and make the determination. They approve how it is going to be used. If it is a restricted pesticide, they can also put more restrictions on the applicators and who the applicators are. Therefore, removing this redundant NPDES permit is appropriate because the EPA already has full control and can handle the situation like they did for over 60 years before this court case. The EPA has assisted in drafting H.R. 953, which does not roll back any environmental protections. It fixes the regulatory problem caused by the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and maintains the EPA's jurisdiction through FIFRA. Similar legislation has passed the House every Congress since the court's decision, and I look forward to passing it again today, and then passing it in the Senate and have the President sign it into law. A list of organizations--this is a snapshot of the many organizations because I don't have enough time to list all the organizations, but the American Mosquito Control Association supports it; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers Association; and United Fresh Produce Association. Those are just a few groups representing thousands of Americans who depend on commonsense EPA regulations for their livelihood. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record--and I want to talk about it here for a minute--I have a letter from former Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. In 2009, he was Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration. When this court case happened, he sent out a letter to Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In his letter, he urges the EPA to consider the significant adverse effect of the Sixth Circuit Court's 2009 decision, the National Cotton Council and EPA will have on American farmers and USDA agencies. He said in the letter: ``By broadening the Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a newly minted NPDES permit requirement. . . .'' ``The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange.'' I want to repeat that. The Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration said that this court case has little environmental benefit, and it hampers American farmers to do their job to produce the most wholesome, safe, affordable food in the world. ``Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional regulatory regime''--he goes on to say--``of the CWA is duplicative and will not help protect the environment.'' Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this letter, dated March 6, 2009, from Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and his opposition to the court case and, in his opinion, what this bill does. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC, March 6, 2009. Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Subject: The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 06- 4630; 07-3180/3181/3182/3183/3184/3185/3186/3187/3191/ 3236 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009). Dear Ms. Jackson: The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Rule entitled, ``Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Compliance With FIFRA.'' 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006) (Final Rule). A petition for rehearing or for rehearing en bane before the Sixth Circuit is due on April 9, 2009. I would very much appreciate your taking into consideration the significant adverse effect that the court's decision will have on American farmers, as well as on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies, and therefore request that you seek further review of this decision by the Sixth Circuit. In its Final Rule, the EPA reasonably interpreted the term ``pollutant'' in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as generally excluding pesticides that are applied in compliance with the relevant requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Final Rule established that the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA would not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit when they are applied directly into waters of the United States in order to control pests, or when they are applied to control pests that are present over waters of the United States, including near those waters, when a portion of the pesticides unavoidably will be deposited into the water in order to target the pests effectively. The EPA specifically concluded that the terms ``chemical wastes'' and ``biological materials'' in the CWA's definition of pollutants do not encompass the types of pesticide applications addressed in the Final Rule. 71 Fed. Reg. 68,486. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Final Rule was contrary to the plain language of the CWA. Although the court agreed with the EPA that chemical pesticides applied directly to water to perform a useful purpose are not chemical wastes, it held that excess pesticides and pesticide residue meet the common definition of waste, and therefore are pollutants under the CWA. The court held that the EPA is required to regulate the residue of chemical pesticides when the pesticide is applied to land or air, and the residue finds its way into the navigable waters of the. United States, and when the pesticide is applied directly to the water and the residue has a lasting effect beyond its intended purpose. The court also found that Congress intended for ``biological materials'' to encompass more than ``biological wastes.'' The court held that all biological pesticides are biological materials, and therefore pollutants under the CWA. The court's adverse decision will have profound implications for American farmers. The panel's ruling effectively broadens the potential application of the CWA to reach agricultural activities that the EPA has never regulated under the provisions of the CWA. By broadening the Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a newly minted NPDES permit requirement for the application of all FIFRA-compliant biological pesticides whenever those pesticides might find their way into waters of the United States, and for all FIFRA-compliant chemical pesticides whenever the residues of those pesticides find their way into waters of the United States. The permit requirement could reach almost any pesticide application, requiring farmers to navigate a permitting system that is ill-suited to the demands of agricultural production. Failure to obtain a timely permit for pesticide application could cripple American farmers' emergency pest management efforts and hamper their ability to respond quickly to new pest infestations or threats of infestations, thus increasing the risk of crop losses. Additionally, several USDA agencies engage in the ground and aerial application of pesticides, and would be adversely affected by the panel's decision. The Forest Service (FS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) now will be required to obtain NPDES permits, which could compromise the agencies' ability to respond with efficiency and flexibility to emerging threats and emergency situations. The delay and expense associated with complying with the NPDES permitting requirement could substantially curtail the agencies' use of pesticides. For the FS, this could result in diminished efforts to protect the National Forests from pest infestation and could potentially increase the risk and severity of wildfires. It could also significantly hamper aerial spraying programs such as APHIS's Mormon Cricket and Grasshopper Program, undertaken in cooperation with western states. Additionally, research programs involving both the conventional and the experimental applications of pesticides undertaken by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) also will be detrimentally affected by the panel's decision. The time-consuming and costly process of negotiating the NPDES permit application process will diminish the efficiency with which the ARS will be able to undertake its initiatives, and may, in some instances, curtail the agency's projects entirely. The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange. Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional regulatory regime of the CWA is duplicative and will not help protect the environment. FIFRA mandates that the EPA approve and issue a registration for a pesticide product only after the EPA has determined that the product will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' The pesticide registration and re-registration process under FIFRA considers the effects of pesticides on both human health and aquatic resources. If the EPA has concluded that a pesticide satisfies FIFRA and will not have an ``unreasonable adverse effect on the environment,'' then it is reasonable to exclude the application of that pesticide from the permitting requirements of the CWA. In short, I am concerned that the court's decision will compromise American farmers' and USDA agencies' ability to respond efficiently and effectively to emergency threats, while providing little or no additional environmental protection in return. Thank you for taking these issues into account as you consider seeking further review of this case. Sincerely, Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I have nearly 120 organizations that support H.R. 953, representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders. I have a letter from the nearly 120. I listed some of those. Some of the additional names are Agricultural Retailers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Mosquito Control Association; the Association of Equipment Manufacturers; CropLife America; Family Farm Alliance; National Agricultural Aviation Association; the National Alliance of Forest Owners; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Farmers Union; National Pest Management Association; and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. I include that letter in the Record. May 3, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the over one hundred undersigned organizations, we urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. For almost forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pesticide applicators including public health agencies charged with mosquito control operated exclusively under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In fact, EPA has testified to the adequacy of FIFRA's comprehensive regulatory requirements including substantial enforcement mechanisms in pursuit of that goal. However, a 2009 activist-inspired lawsuit resulted in a federal court decision identifying a technicality in the law that Congress had not properly clarified its intent that FIFRA should have preeminence over the Clean Water Act (CWA). This decision resulted in pesticide users being required to obtain a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These permits were originally created to address the discharge of waste by major industrial polluters, but now are mandated for mosquito control districts and others who are applying pesticides approved by EPA for use in the environment for their beneficial purposes of trying to prevent or control the spread of public health disease in the

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the National Association of Counties. NACo recommends that Congress address some of challenges posed by the EPA's Clean Water Act permit for pesticides to allow counties to more quickly respond to the mosquito- based public health threats. Counties have reported either significantly scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due to the additional, duplicative, and expensive paperwork and monitoring obligations required by the program. National Association of Counties, Washington, DC, May 21, 2017. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As the U.S. House of Representatives moves forward with the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017'' (H.R. 953), we would like to highlight the impact that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) program has on county governments' ability to respond promptly and effectively to emerging public health threats. As the summer months approach and we enter mosquito season, counties are concerned about the health and safety impacts of mosquito-borne illnesses such as Zika. The Zika virus is an emerging mosquito-borne illness, primarily stemming from the bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes, and there is no vaccine. Since mosquitos and their breeding habitats pose the largest threat to public safety, counties can play a major role in minimizing the potential spread of the virus and other mosquito-borne illnesses through public education and mosquito eradication. However, since EPA's PGP program was instituted in 2011, counties have reported that they have either significantly scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due to additional, duplicative and expensive paperwork and monitoring obligations required under the permit. We recommend that Congress address some of the challenges posed by EPA's PGP permit to allow counties to more quickly respond to mosquito-based public health threats. We thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with you on issues important to counties. Sincerely, Matthew D. Chase, Executive Director, National Association of Counties.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the Agriculture Committee chairman, Mike Conaway; and the Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, Bill Shuster, who are the leadership on this issue. I want to thank the Agriculture Committee ranking member, Collin Peterson, as well. Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense effort to reform this duplicative EPA regulation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague and friend from Minnesota for his bipartisan support of H.R. 953. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a few remarks on what my friend, my colleague from Oregon said. I call it the rest of the story. We talked about the fish kill in 1996 of the steelhead. I inquired of this tragic incident and came to the conclusion that NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act would not have prevented the fish kill. In 2003, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs published a report which looked at this potential risk posed by the herbicide that was used in the 1996 fish kill. The report stated: Where sufficient information has been provided, it appears that the fish incidents are as a result of misuse. The form of misuse is that water was released from the irrigation canals too early. In some cases, this was because the gate valves were not properly closed or that they leaked. In other cases, the applicator opened them intentionally, but too soon. In one case, boards that helped contain the irrigation canal water may have been removed by children playing. The EPA goes on in the report to address each of the various species of salmon and steelhead analyzed and repeatedly states: It is very unlikely the pesticide suspected to cause the Oregon fish kill would have affected the steelhead or salmon if it was used in accordance with the label requirements. Completing NPDES permit paperwork and paying a permit fee does not prevent fish kills, nor does it improve water quality. Pesticide applications in accordance with FIFRA pesticide labels will avoid adverse environmental impacts, including fish kills. If a pesticide is improperly applied, there are enforcement mechanisms in place to address this violation. In the case of the 1996 Oregon fish kill, I understand the party was subject to more than $400,000 in fines and reimbursements for the incident. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In my closing, I just want to really reemphasize the importance to pass this bill and get it signed into law because the environment is at risk, human safety is at risk, human health is at risk. We have over 100 Zika outbreaks currently in the United States. We have hundreds of West Nile outbreaks. And what this bill does is it puts a tool in the toolbox for our mosquito control districts, an additional tool to help eradicate or control the mosquito population to prevent and protect human health around our citizens. There has been a lot of talk about pesticide chemicals in the water, and some of these chemicals that have been mentioned are what we call legacy chemicals that were used years ago. As a farmer, I can tell you some of the chemicals we used when I started farming in 1975 didn't break down. They weren't biodegradable. The industry has changed a lot. We have new chemicals, better chemicals, safer chemicals. Many of them are biodegradable. So these legacy issues are not--the contaminants in a lot of the water today isn't from chemicals being used in today's agricultural environment, but it is from past years because those chemicals last in the environment for many years. I think it is also important that the former Secretary of Agriculture--I stated earlier--Tom Vilsack, was very concerned about this, and he sent a letter to the EPA Administrator at the time, Lisa Jackson, that this court case doesn't do anything to help protect the environment or protect water quality in the United States, and it adds additional costs and burdens to our agricultural producers in their efforts to produce the wholesome, safe, affordable food supply to feed the world. This is commonsense legislation, and I urge people to vote for H.R. 953. As has been said earlier, this bill has been up several other times in previous Congresses; it has had strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Senate did not move on it and take action. Hopefully this time we will see that, especially with the outbreaks of Zika and West Nile and seeing the cost. It was mentioned earlier, too, about the cost of getting the permit. Obviously, doing the permit, actually applying it probably isn't much costly, but to get all the stuff lined up, the consultants and all the paperwork they have to do to get the information there is quite costly. We had in previous committee hearings mosquito control districts coming in and talking about the cost. The thousands of dollars they are spending has blown their budget where they could be using that to spend on mosquito eradication. So, obviously, we have hundreds of groups around the country that support this legislation. It is needed, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we can move on and protect the environment, enhance the environment, and also human health and safety. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, a couple of points I would like to make. When my colleague from Connecticut talked about spraying chemicals, pesticides over water, the EPA has full authority, full jurisdiction to restrict those pesticides, how they are used, when they are used, and also who is using them; and they can restrict it to a manner where the applicator has to have specific training. And there is nothing to stop the EPA to say that if you are going to spray over a body of water, you have to notify the EPA. The EPA has that authority. They have the jurisdiction to do that. I think it is also interesting to mention when talking about spraying and getting a permit after the fact, yeah, that if the local entity declares an emergency, then they can go in. But my argument is that since this additional permitting requirement, this additional red tape bureaucracy is stopping the preventive programs, so we shouldn't have to get to an emergency situation where we just spray and do the permit after the fact. But her amendment, H.R. 953 eliminates the duplicative, expansive, and unnecessary permit process, and helps free up resources for States, counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of diseases like Zika and West Nile virus. This amendment, in effect, undermines these efforts. The amendment intends to make the bill's exemption from the Clean Water Act permitting ineffective by carving out from the bill those waters that may receive a discharge containing any one of several hundred listed chemical substances. The vast majority of substances referenced in this amendment are not even a pesticide and have nothing to do with the regulation of a pesticide. Additionally, a discharge covered under this amendment does not have to be related in any way to the use or application of a pesticide. The net effect of this amendment is to undermine the bill based on circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the use of a pesticide. Further, the amendment would require a pesticide user to conduct extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. This defeats the bill's purpose of reducing the regulatory burdens. I urge Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I just urge the Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I will just say that the comment about this amendment would allow States to do it, I don't think there is anything to stop the States from doing it now. If States want to do more to protect water quality in their States, I think they have the right to do that. Under the Clean Water Act, what it says is: The States will implement and enforce the Clean Water Act under the guidance of the Federal Government, but they have to be, at the least, a standard of the Federal Government. They can exceed that standard if they want, so I don't think there is anything stopping that. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, well, that was a lot of drama. Let's not lose sight that what we are trying to do in H.R. 953 is to free up the resources so States, counties, local governments can fight the mosquito population, fight Zika, fight the West Nile virus, and let our agricultural producers have the most efficient way to protect the environment, and also produce a safe, wholesome food supply. This amendment undermines the base bill. The amendment intends to carve out from the bill those waters that have a discharge of any type. That means the way this amendment is written, any type of discharge-- even if it is not a pesticide--any type of discharge, a nutrient discharge, anything would fall under this and undermines the bill. This amendment covers all types of discharges. I think that is important to mention. In addition, most waterbodies in this country are fishable, and, therefore, subject to this amendment's carve-out. As a result, the types of discharges and waterbodies in question under this amendment do not need to be related at all to the actual regulation of a pesticide. Further, the amendment would require that a pesticide user conduct extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. Moreover, the amendment's standard of any negative effect is vague and subjective and could include an effect that has nothing to do with a pesticide. Registered pesticides already take into account aquatic species' and fisheries' health into consideration during the registration process. I think it is important that they go through a rigorous testing process, and more testing, and the EPA has full control. They can reject that. If they determine that a pesticide is environmentally harmful, or potentially harmful, they can pull that product off. They can also restrict the product even more so, and restrict who the applicators are, and there is nothing to stop the EPA or the State EPAs to say: Before you apply a pesticide over a waterbody, you need to tell us first before you do it. There is nothing to stop the EPA from doing that. So all this amendment does, it defeats the bill's purpose, reducing the regulatory burdens, and I urge my Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary and aims to undermine the purpose of the bill. The underlying bill, H.R. 953, eliminates the duplicative, expensive, and unnecessary permit process that helps free up the resources for our States, counties, and local governments to better combat the Zika, West Nile virus, and other diseases; but this motion, in effect, aims to undermine the bill. In this motion, the bill says it will not apply to anybody who makes a discharge of a pesticide if they made a political contribution to the President or to any Federal official charged with registration, regulation, or approval of the use of a pesticide. That is utterly absurd. You can't make political contributions to regulators at the EPA. Let's keep in mind that the EPA has full authority to regulate these pesticides, pull pesticides off the market, and regulate who applies them, and they have full authority to protect our water and our human health. This amendment simply aims to gut the bill. It is unclear how it ever would work. We need to stop creating unnecessary roadblocks to the use of products that stand to protect public health and feed the Nation. H.R. 953 is a good bill that will help protect public health and the environment and stop mosquitoes from spreading Zika and the West Nile virus and other diseases to our vulnerable populations. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about Melanie, a constituent from Ohio's Seventh Congressional District. Melanie and her husband are near retirement. Before ObamaCare, their monthly health insurance premiums were around $600. ObamaCare promised them reduced insurance premiums and increased access to care. But this promise to Melanie, like it was to millions of Americans, was broken. Melanie's premium skyrocketed to nearly $1,000 a month for a plan with a $5,000 deductible. Her monthly premium is now more than their mortgage. When her husband was laid off, their options were limited: continuing coverage through COBRA or entering the ObamaCare marketplace. The ObamaCare plans were even more expensive. While Melanie's husband was looking for work, they depleted their savings trying to maintain health insurance. Melanie is one of millions of Americans who have been hurt by ObamaCare. It has raised Melanie's premiums and deductible, and when she needed an affordable option in an emergency, it wasn't there. ObamaCare is collapsing. It is time to repeal it and provide relief to the millions of Americans suffering because of it.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Conrad Conway's brave service in the Navy during World War II. His fight to protect our freedoms and liberties is cherished by our entire nation. Mr. Conway served in the Pacific Theater during the Second World War as a Signalman in the Navy. For his bravery in the line of duty, Mr. Conway earned the Distinguished Service Cross and the Bronze Star. He and his fellow Seamen's service in the Pacific was documented in Life Magazine, a tribute to the heroes who fought imperialism. When Mr. Conway returned to the United States, he worked for Cooper Industries in Mount Vernon, Ohio. A devoted member of the community, Mr. Conway served as City Council President for nearly 30 years and was deeply involved in several veterans associations. He is the proud father of nine children, several grandchildren, and even great- children. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Ohio's 7th Congressional District, I would like to thank Conrad Conway for his service. Our country is forever indebted to the sacrifices he made to defend our freedoms.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mr. Richard Biedenbach for his achievement as Veteran of the Year for 2016 by the Greater Canton Veterans Council. Upon his graduation from Central Catholic High School in Canton, Ohio, Mr. Biedenbach joined the Army in the 1960s, where he was stationed in Berlin, Germany at the height of the Cold War. As a photographer in West Germany, Mr. Biedenbach monitored East German activity near the border between East and West Germany. His contributions to the effort against the Soviet Union helped advance the cause for democracy around the world. After he was discharged from the Army at the rank of E-4 Specialist in 1963, Mr. Biedenbach dedicated his time to his fellow veterans, volunteering to transport veterans to and from the Veterans Affairs clinic in Canton. Today, he is a member of American Legion Canton Post 44, where he serves on the Burial Honor Guard. On November 11, 2016, Richard was named Veteran of the Year by the Greater Canton Veterans Council for his selfless commitment to caring for and improving the lives of his fellow veterans. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to represent SPC Richard Biedenbach in the United States Congress. He established a patriotic example for all Americans to emulate and I am humbled to recognize Mr. Biedenbach's service to our great nation.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the students of Oakwood Middle School, finalists in the Future City competition. Each year, more than 40,000 students from 1,350 schools across the country compete in the Future City competition, which challenges students to create futuristic cities and solve sustainability issues within the city. Thirty-four eighth-grade students from Oakwood Middle School in Canton, Ohio participated in this year's competition under the guidance of their teacher, Ms. Vanessa Board. This year's competition tasked the students to create an efficient, eco-friendly city set 100 years in the future. These talented students used their knowledge in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math to create the city of Skotgeta, an Icelandic city powered by geothermal energy, which harnesses sustainable natural resources and utilizes technology to cure cancer. Their hard work earned them First Place at the regional competition and qualified them to compete in the national Future City competition. The achievements of these students demonstrate the same ingenuity and determination of other Ohioans like Neil Armstrong, Thomas Edison, and the Wright Brothers. I am confident in the future of our nation when Oakwood Middle School's Future City team represents the next generation of American leadership. Mr. Speaker, this accomplishment is a testament to the students and their teacher's dedication to academic excellence. I am proud of each of these individuals, and I wish them much success in the future.