Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, in his last month in office, President Obama fired one last shot in his war on coal. By finalizing the so-called stream protection rule, the Obama administration made it more difficult for an already distressed industry to provide a reliable and affordable energy source for our economy. In reality, the only thing President Obama tried to protect was the jobs of bureaucrats at the expense of hardworking Americans. This rule adds no new environmental protections. It only duplicates what Federal and State regulators are already doing to protect the environment. Additionally, this rule could close off as much as half of the U.S. coal reserves for mining. The bureaucrats writing this rule did not truly understand the impact of this because, in the 7 years they took to write it, no one bothered to visit an actual mine. We cannot allow out-of-control bureaucrats to regulate an industry that employs thousands of Americans out of existence simply to save the radical liberal agenda. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution of disapproval of yet another regulatory overreach by the Obama administration.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, this Congress must keep our promises to the American people. Our first responsibility is to institute policies that will grow our economy and create jobs. For 8 years, Americans looking for work have suffered while the regulatory state sucked nearly $2 trillion out of our economy. We must rescind these burdensome regulations and enact a commonsense approach to regulations. ObamaCare has failed, and it is time to repeal or replace it with a patient-driven plan that incorporates free market-based principles. We have to repeal the mandates and taxes of ObamaCare and make sure no one falls through the cracks. Finally, we have to reform our Tax Code. It is far too long and complicated. We have to cut the tax rate from a maximum of 15 to 20 percent. These policies will jump-start the American economy from a stagnant growth rate to more than 4 percent GNP growth rate. Only a vibrant economy can provide for a strong national security and robust infrastructure capable of supporting jobs.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Section 6: ``The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.''

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 612, the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, the WIIN Act. The WIIN Act is a vital water infrastructure bill that contains the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, our jurisdiction includes water resources development missions of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This bill is a compromise between the Senate and the House and authorizes the construction of key water infrastructure projects throughout the Nation. These projects create jobs here at home and have a direct impact on our economy and our national security. The critically important Corps project authorizations are for the purposes of navigation and flood control, recreation, water supply, environmental protection, and so on. Each of the projects--30 projects that were mentioned by the chairman--was recommended by non-Federal sponsors to the Corps. Each of these are economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and technically achievable. They are the gold standard. My subcommittee held multiple hearings to discuss the chief's reports and post-authorization change reports in depth, and my subcommittee provided strong congressional oversight of these proposed activities. Many State, local, and regional areas will gain from the economic benefits of this bill. One example is the upper Ohio chief's report will greatly benefit my home State of Ohio by improving navigation within the existing locks and dams. More importantly, this project provides even greater benefits to the Nation, ensuring commodities reach foreign and domestic markets in a cost-effective manner. This bill is fiscally responsible. The new project authorizations are fully offset by deauthorizations of projects that are outdated or no longer viable. This bill contains an important pilot program for the beneficial reuse of dredged materials. This innovative program looks for ways to maximize dredged material based upon environmental, economic, and social benefits. The WIIN Act contains no earmarks, it strengthens our water transportation networks, and it increases transparency for non-Federal sponsors and the public. I strongly urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, this bill is fiscally responsible. The new project authorizations are fully offset by de-authorizations of projects that are outdated or no longer viable. H.R. 5303 contains no earmarks, strengthens our water transportation networks, and increases transparency for non-Federal sponsors and the public. This is a good, commonsense bill, and I urge support of this bill.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time and for his continued leadership on restoring the normal biennial cycle for the Water Resource Development Act. Today I rise in strong support of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act of 2016. By considering WRDA 2016 today, we are returning to regular order and restoring the 2-year cycle for improving water infrastructure projects critical to our economy. Transportation and infrastructure is one of Congress' most important responsibilities. This bill authorizes the construction of key water infrastructure projects throughout the United States, creating jobs here at home and directly contributing to our economic and national security. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, our jurisdiction includes these water infrastructure projects carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. H.R. 5303 contains vitally important Corps project authorizations for navigation, flood control, shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply, environmental protection, restoration and enhancement, and fish and wildlife management. Each project authorization was proposed by local non-Federal sponsors and underwent a rigorous planning process before congressional review. Each Chief's Report was recommended to Congress by the Corps' Chief of Engineers. In short, this was a bottom-up, grassroots-driven process. In WRRDA 2014, we accelerated the delivery schedule for Corps of Engineers projects. H.R. 5303 strengthens the numerous reforms made in WRRDA 2014 by streamlining permitting for infrastructure projects. The committee-passed version of H.R. 5303 contains 27 specific project authorizations. My subcommittee held hearings to discuss the Chief's Reports in depth and provide strong congressional oversight of the proposed projects. This bill further expedites nine feasibility studies to help locally developed needs and contains study authorizations for future potential Corps projects. More often than not, projects are delayed by study after study, and sometimes literally studied to death. Because of the reforms in WRRDA 2014, the 29 feasibility studies this bill is authorizing are not intended to exceed 3 years in duration or exceed $3 million in Federal costs. We have reformed the process to save taxpayers time and money.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Bea McPherson for her service to the United States of America during World War II as a Cartographer for the Army Map Service. Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, America's Greatest Generation answered the call to combat the Axis Powers in the European and Pacific Theaters. As personnel were reassigned to all fronts, the Army Map Service found itself in need of more patriots. Upon graduating from Kent State University, Ms. McPherson selflessly joined the Army Map Service, where she was assigned to Montgomery County, Maryland. As a Cartographer, Ms. McPherson created maps used in preparation for military operations throughout Fiume, Italy and the famed Battle of the Bulge. During her service, Ms. McPherson also served as a recruiter, returning to Ohio to recruit other females into the Army Mapping Service. Nicknamed the ``Military Mapping Maidens,'' Ms. McPherson and other female cartographers played a vital role in defense of America and our allies abroad. Shortly after the Allies declared victory over Nazi Germany and Japan, Ms. McPherson resigned from the Army Mapping Service. On October 4, 2016, Ms. McPherson will be inducted into the Geospatial Intelligence Hall of Fame for making significant and transformative contributions to the Army Mapping Service. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to represent Ms. Bea McPherson in the United States Congress. She established a patriotic example for all Americans to emulate and I am humbled to stand before this body to recognize Ms. McPherson's service to our great nation.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017. This bill responsibly ensures that EPA's regulatory overreach is checked by Congress. Key provisions in this legislation will stop the EPA's most burdensome and damaging regulations, including the waters of the United States rule. WOTUS is nothing more than a power grab that will expand the Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. This rule would force farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, local governments, and property owners to seek permission from Federal bureaucrats before beginning any activity remotely related to water, and this must be stopped. I am also pleased to see the committee supports fully funding an integrated planning approach to help communities affordably manage and meet their regulatory obligations under the Clean Water Act. Communities face enormous financial pressure to provide quality drinking and wastewater for their residents. Integrated planning will allow communities to work with the EPA to determine investments that ensure the greatest water quality benefit. Lastly, this bill provides new funding for the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act, otherwise known as WIFIA, that was authorized in WRRDA 2014. This loan and loan guarantee program works as a complement to the Clean Water SRF to provide communities with options and flexibility for their water infrastructure projects. With each WIFIA dollar loaned able to leverage $10, I look forward to the EPA making the first WIFIA loans in FY 2017 and monitoring the program's success. I thank Chairman Calvert for recognizing the importance of these provisions and for putting together a bill that sets appropriate levels for the agencies and programs.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, just 2 weeks ago the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on an important case that deals with private property rights, the Clean Water Act, and the ability of Americans to challenge administrative decisions made by Federal agencies. In the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes decision, a private company wanted the ability to dispute a proposed determination by the Corps before they were put through the burdensome and costly process of applying for a section 404 permit. When the Hawkes Company, which wanted to harvest peat from a tract of land that is 120 miles from the Red River in Minnesota, began the process with the Corps, the Corps provided a jurisdictional determination--also called a JD--that stated there was a ``significant nexus'' between the Red River and the acreage Hawkes expected to harvest. Thus, requiring a permit. But there was no guarantee that the permit would even be approved. The Hawkes Company believed they should not be forced to spend thousands of dollars in permit applications only to be denied and then go through the long process of appealing the decision. The government's lawyers tried to argue that the approved jurisdictional determination is not the same as the final agency action, which is required before any legal or judicial review can even begin. This is one of several important points made in the Supreme Court's unanimous decision siding with the Hawkes Company. While the Federal Government argued to the Court that an approved JD is not a final agency action, the Court found that the Army Corps considers it so in other Federal regulations. Using conditions set by previous court precedents, the Supreme Court sided with Hawkes and agreed that an approved JD essentially constitutes a final agency action. This now gives Hawkes and other entities applying for Clean Water Act permits in the future the ability to dispute rulings by the Corps before spending thousands and thousands of dollars for permits. The Federal Government's arguments in this case were unconvincing at best and repugnant at worst. Army Corps lawyers contended that Hawkes had an alternative to the expensive permit application. They argued the company could simply begin their operations without a permit, face the wrath of the Environmental Protection Agency, and attempt to argue in court that a permit isn't necessary. The problem with these alternatives is that Hawkes would be facing fines as much as $37,500 a day by operating without a permit. In their 8-0 decision, the Court rightly sided with reason and sanity. American citizens and private companies should not be at the mercy of a bureaucracy that is effectively extorting them to have their day in court. On the surface, this court case was about a peat company in Minnesota trying to sell some turf to golf courses, but it represents much more than that. We have a government that is too large, spends too much, and interferes with the private sector, especially at a time when our economy is stagnant and millions of Americans are struggling to find the work they are eager to take on. We have the ability to return the government's role in the economy to its original and appropriate place by creating the conditions for economic growth for all Americans rather than attempting to pick winners and losers through a centrally planned economy. Yesterday, Speaker Ryan introduced a proposal by House Republicans that provides a better way toward economic prosperity for all Americans. One of those ways is to reduce the regulatory and administrative burdens placed on the private sector. If we modernize the regulatory framework, provide real and aggressive oversight of major regulations by requiring an up-or-down vote by Congress, and give the American people a larger role in the development of the Federal rules and regulations that affect them, we can set our economy on a path towards prosperity. More importantly, we can make sure all Americans have the opportunity to improve their lives, to live out their own version of the American Dream, and allow their children and grandchildren to inherit a more confident and prosperous Nation.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following letters of support that we received for the bill last week: A letter from nearly 100 organizations supporting H.R. 897, including: the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Ohio Professional Applicators for Responsible Regulation, the Pesticide Policy Coalition, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. The National Pest Management Association. Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment. The American Farm Bureau Federation. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 17, 2016. Dear Member of Congress: The nearly one hundred undersigned organizations urge your support for HR 897, the Zika Vector Control Act, which the House will consider today under suspension of the rules. Pesticide users, including those protecting public health from mosquito borne diseases, are now subjected to the court created requirement that lawful applications over, to or near `waters of the U.S.' obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated states. HR 897 would clarify that federal law does not require this redundant permit for already regulated pesticide applications. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIERA), all pesticides are reviewed and regulated for use with strict instructions on the EPA approved product label. A thorough review and accounting of impacts to water quality and aquatic species is included in every EPA review. Requiring water permits for pesticide applications is redundant and provides no additional environmental benefit. Compliance with the NPDES water permit also imposes duplicative resource burdens on thousands of small businesses and farms, as well as the municipal, county, state and federal agencies responsible for protecting natural resources and public health. Further, and most menacing, the permit exposes all pesticide users--regardless of permit eligibility--to the liability of CWA-based citizen law suits. In the 112th Congress, the same Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act--then HR 872--passed the House Committee on Agriculture and went on to pass the House of Representatives on suspension. In the 113th Congress, the legislation--then HR 935--passed the both the House Committees on Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure by voice vote, and again, the House of Representatives. The water permit threatens the critical role pesticides play in protecting human health and the food supply from destructive and disease-carrying pests, and for managing invasive weeds to keep open waterways and shipping lanes, to maintain rights of way for transportation and power generation, and to prevent damage to forests and recreation areas. The time and money expended on redundant permit compliance drains public and private resources. All this for no measureable benefit to the environment. We urge you to remove this regulatory burden by voting ``YES'' on HR 897, the Zika Vector Control Act. Sincerely, Agribusiness Council of Indiana; Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona; Agricultural Alliance of North Carolina; Agricultural Council of Arkansas; Agricultural Retailers Association; Alabama Agribusiness Council; American Farm Bureau Federation; Alabama Farmers Federation; American Mosquito Control Association; American Soybean Association; AmericanHort; Aquatic Plant Management Society; Arkansas Forestry Association; Biopesticide Industry Alliance; California Association of Winegrape Growers; California Specialty Crops Council; Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association; The Cranberry Institute; CropLife America; Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology. Family Farm Alliance; Far West Agribusiness Association; Florida Farm Bureau Federation; Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association; Georgia Agribusiness Council; Golf Course Superintendents Association of America; Hawaii Cattlemen's Council; Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation; Idaho Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Potato Commission; Idaho Water Users Association; Illinois Farm Bureau; Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association; Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association; Louisiana Cotton and Grain Association; Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation; Maine Potato Board; Michigan Agribusiness Association; Minnesota Agricultural Aircraft Association; Minnesota Crop Production Retailers. Minnesota Pesticide Information & Education; Minor Crops Farmer Alliance; Missouri Agribusiness Association; Missouri Farm Bureau Federation; Montana Agricultural Business Association; National Agricultural Aviation Association; National Alliance of Forest Owners; National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; National Pest Management Association; National Potato Council; National Rural Electric Cooperative; Association National Water Resources Association; Nebraska Agri-Business Association; North Carolina Agricultural Consultants Association. North Carolina Cotton Producers Association; North Central Weed Science Society; North Dakota Agricultural Association; Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance; Northeastern Weed Science Society; Northern Plains Potato Growers Association; Northwest Horticultural Council; Ohio Professional Applicators for Responsible Regulation; Oregon Potato Commission; Oregonians for Food & Shelter; Pesticide Policy Coalition; Plains Cotton Growers, Inc.; Professional Landcare Network; RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment); Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association; SC Fertilizer Agrichemicals Association; South Dakota Agri-Business Association; South Texas Cotton and Grain Association; Southern Cotton Growers, Inc.; Southern Crop Production Association. Southern Rolling Plains Cotton Growers; Southern Weed Science Society; Sugar Cane League; Texas Ag Industries Association; Texas Vegetation Management Association; United Fresh Produce Association; U.S. Apple Association; USA Rice Federation; Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Forestry Association; Washington Friends of Farm & Forests; Washington State Potato Commission; Weed Science Society of America; Western Growers; Western Plant Health Association; Western Society of Weed Science; Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine; Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation; Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association; Wisconsin State Cranberry Growers Association; Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop Improvement Association; Wyoming Wheat Growers Association.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 742, I call up the bill (H.R. 897) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 897.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been 1 year since the first alerts about the Zika virus were issued in Brazil. Since then, the virus has been spreading north. Many nations to our south have spent the better part of that year in fighting to stop the spread of Zika. It has already affected Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories as the virus spreads by contact between people. So far, we have been fortunate to avoid any transmission of Zika by mosquitos inside the United States, but that might change soon. Last week the Director from the National Institutes of Health announced that mosquitos carrying the Zika virus could be arriving in the United States as soon as June. The World Health Organization has declared Zika to be a worldwide health emergency, and burdensome Federal regulation should not get in the way of addressing a potential emergency in the United States, especially since we have the ability to prevent the spread of mosquitos carrying the virus before they mature. The Zika virus is a serious health threat to pregnant women. It can cause birth defects, like microcephaly and a paralyzing neurological condition. As of May 11, the CDC reported that there were 503 cases of Zika in the United States and 701 cases in U.S. Territories and 113 pregnant women were reported to have Zika. Last week this body acted to send additional funds to the Department of Health and Human Services to fight the spread of Zika. We should be investing in research and development to find a treatment and a vaccine for Zika. We also have the ability to make it easier for States and local governments to stop the spread of this mosquito-borne disease. Unfortunately, a duplicative and unnecessary permitting regulation is making it more difficult for cities, municipalities, and mosquito control districts to spray for mosquitos. Because of a bad court decision, time and money that should be spent on eradicating mosquitos will be spent on bureaucratic paperwork instead. In 2011, a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in The National Cotton Council of America v. United States Environmental Protection Agency reversed 60 years of commonsense regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency and imposed national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting on pesticide use. That case upended a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency rule that codified EPA's 35-year-long interpretation of the law. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known as FIFRA, regulated pesticides for 60 years before the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, and FIFRA regulated and improved pesticides for decades after the Clean Water Act. EPA had, for over 80 years, held that the application of a pesticide for its intended purpose and in compliance with the results of FIFRA is not a discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, and, therefore, no NPDES permit is required, but the court decided otherwise. In vacating the EPA's longstanding rule, the Sixth Circuit effectively legislated from the bench, negating reasonable agency interpretations of the law. The court undermined the traditional understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with other environmental statutes and expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act from the bench and pushed further regulation into areas and activities not originally intended by Congress or interpreted by the EPA. As a result, Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users face increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the duplicative permitting process--but the NPDES permit and its cost comes with no additional environmental protection. My colleagues across the aisle like to call this Groundhog Day, and I agree. We have seen previous public health emergencies that could have been prevented by the removal of the unnecessary NPDES permit. Despite this, many on the other side of the aisle continue to support this regulatory burden. Last week, some of my colleagues circulated a letter that stated obtaining the NPDES permit was just a ``modest notification and monitoring requirements,'' but the organizations that must apply for it tell a different story. NPDES compliance costs and fears of potentially devastating litigation associated with complying with the new NPDES requirements are forcing States, counties, and mosquito control districts and other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources in order to comply with the regulatory requirements. I include in the Record this statement from the American Mosquito Control Association on the NPDES burden. This statement discusses many examples of this burden across the country, including how the local vector control managers in Oregon have explained repeatedly the negative impacts the permit is having on mosquito control. American Mosquito Control Association Statement on NPDES Burden From the perspective of the agencies charged with suppressing mosquitoes and other vectors of public health consequence, the NPDES burden is directly related to combatting Zika and other exotic viruses. For over forty years and through both Democratic and Republican administrations, the EPA and states held that these permits did not apply to public health pesticide applications. However, activist lawsuits forced the EPA to require such permits even for the application of EPA- registered pesticides including mosquito control. AMCA has testified numerous times to establish the burden created by this court ruling. The threat to the public health mission of America's mosquito control districts comes in two costly parts: Ongoing Compliance Costs Though the activists contend that the NDPES permit has ``modest notification and monitoring requirements'' the experience of mosquito control districts is much different. Initially obtaining and maintaining an NPDES comes at considerable expense. California vector control districts estimate that it has cost them $3 million to conduct the necessary administration of these permits. The Gem County Mosquito Abatement District in Idaho has testified that their staff spends three weeks per year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications associated with permit oversight. Additionally, they have had to invest in a geographic information software program that cost 20% of the district's annual operating budget to maintain this information. That software has no other function than serving the unnecessary NPDES permit. In Congressman DeFazio's district in Oregon, the local vector control managers have explained the negative impacts the permit was having on their districts. The managers of those districts have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly in Washington D.C. over the past several years regarding the burden NPDES is having on mosquito control in Oregon. The funds to operate districts like those in Oregon, California, Idaho and across the country come from taxpayers for the purpose of mosquito control, but are being diverted into this bureaucratic oversight function. The fact that the existence of the permit has no additional environmental benefit (since pesticide applications are already governed by FIFRA) makes these taxpayer diversions from vector control unconscionable. So why would the activist organizations be so adamant that these permits be mandatory for public health pesticide applications . . .? Exposure to Activist Litigation . . . Because it leaves municipal mosquito control programs vulnerable to CWA citizen lawsuits where fines to mosquito control districts may exceed $37,500/day. Under FIFRA, the activists would need to demonstrate that the pesticides caused harm or were misapplied (because our pesticides are specific to mosquitoes and used in low doses by qualified applicators that would be extremely difficult). However, the CWA 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision allows for any third party to sue a government entity. Additionally, the CWA does not require actual evidence of a misapplication of a pesticide or harm to the environment, but rather simple paperwork violations or merely allegations of errors in permit oversight. Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was the subject of one of these activist lawsuits utilizing the 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision. It took ten years and the grand total of an entire year's annual operating budget ($450,000) to resolve that litigation against that public health entity. These ongoing compliance costs and threat of crushing litigation directly refute any activist statements that ``Clean Water Act coverage in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations.'' The existence of this unnecessary requirement for mosquito control activities is directly related to our ability to combat the vectors related to Zika. It diverts precious resources away from finding and suppressing mosquito populations. The American Mosquito Control Association urges rapid action to address this burden.

Mr. GIBBS. Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District calculated their compliance with the NPDES permit cost them $37,334. They spent over $37,334 doing paperwork to secure the Federal and State permits. This money was used to update maps to secure the permit. They spent money on the permit fees; they spent this money on software to help with the reporting requirements for the permit; and they spent this money on countless requirements associated with the permit. None of that over $37,000 was spent on spraying for mosquitos. Benton County estimates they could have treated 2,593 acres of water where mosquitos breed, or they could have paid for over 400 virus lab tests, or they could have hired three seasonal workers. But Benton County was forced to spend over $37,000 to comply with the redundant Federal permit. The Gem County Mosquito Abatement District in Idaho has testified that their staff spends 3 weeks per year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications associated with permit oversight. Additionally, they have had to invest in software that costs 20 percent of the district's annual operating budget to maintain this information. That software has no other function than serving the unnecessary NPDES permit. Mosquito control districts in California estimate that it has cost them $3 million to conduct the necessary administration for their NPDES permits. Millions of dollars have now been spent on permitting and compliance rather than eradicating mosquitos. On top of the cost of the permit, it also opens up permit holders to the threat of citizen lawsuits where fines may exceed $35,000 a day. Citizen lawsuits under the Clean Water Act have a much lower threshold, and the simple allegation of permit errors and paperwork violations can take mosquito control districts to court. Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was subjected to one of these lawsuits, which took 10 years and $450,000 to resolve the litigation. This is equal to their entire annual operating budget. We know that the NPDES permits are delaying, hindering, and preventing the use of lifesaving EPA-approved pesticides right now. In 2012, the first year that this duplicative permitting went into effect, the number of cases of West Nile virus jumped from 712 to 5,674 cases in the United States. In response to those West Nile outbreaks, many States and communities were forced to declare public emergencies. This allowed them to use the lifesaving pesticides to control mosquitos without the delay caused by the NPDES permitting process. But they were only able to do this after they declared an emergency: West Nile had infected the community; they declared an emergency, and they could spray without having to get any permits. Congress should not be forcing States, cities, and mosquito control agencies to put their own residents, especially pregnant women, at risk of contracting Zika. H.R. 897 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito control programs by providing a limited and temporary exemption for pesticides that are authorized by FIFRA and used in compliance with its label under EPA guidance. The EPA already reviews, approves, and regulates the use of these pesticides under FIFRA. Exempting them from NPDES permitting is a simple fix to a very bad court decision that added unnecessary red tape. H.R. 897 was drafted very narrowly to address only the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and gives States and local entities that spray to control mosquito populations the certainty and the ability needed to protect public health. EPA even provided technical assistance in drafting this bill so it can achieve these objectives. Well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name a few, these organizations include the American Mosquito Control Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, the Agricultural Retailers Association, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association. I thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson on the Agriculture Committee for their leadership on this issue. This is a responsible, commonsense bill that will help ensure public health officials aren't fighting Zika with their hands tied behind their back. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to reiterate, when I introduced this bill back in 2011, 5 years ago, the Director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs under this current administration said this: ``When used properly, pesticides provide significant benefits to society, such as controlling disease-causing organisms, protecting the environment from invasive species, and fostering a safe and abundant food supply. FIFRA's safety standard requires EPA to weigh these types of benefits against any potential harm to human health and the environment that might result from using a pesticide.'' He went on to say: ``Under FIFRA, the Agency''--the EPA, in this case--``can impose a variety of risk mitigation measures--ranging, for example, from changes to how the pesticide is used to prohibition of specific uses or cancellation of all products containing a particular active ingredient--that ensure the use of the pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. When we are concerned about the risks arising from pesticides in water, we may require a reduction in application frequency or rates, a prohibition of certain application methods, the establishment of no-spray buffer zones around waterbodies, a requirement that limits use only to trained and certified applicators, or other restrictions.'' The important point to remember here, the EPA has full regulatory authority under FIFRA to ensure that the pesticide did not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or in the environment, including our Nation's waters. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I just want to address a few comments that were just made. I believe the witness that he was referring to was the head of the EPA under this administration. So that wasn't their witness, I guess. I don't know. It seems odd to me. Funding. We passed a funding bill out last week, over $600 million to go to the end of this fiscal year, September 30. My side of the aisle is committed to appropriating more money, if need be, during the regular appropriation process for the next fiscal year starting October 1. Regarding the fish kill, we had a discussion on this last week. It is very unfortunate when there is a fish kill, but we looked into this and concluded that even if this fish kill had happened back--I don't know-- in 1996, I believe, the NPDES permit, if it was in place, would not have prevented the fish kill, would not have resolved it. What we found out from the EPA's own investigation from the Office of Pesticide Programs was that the fish incident was the result of misuse of the pesticide. The EPA goes on to report that with the various species of salmon and steelhead analyzed, if the pesticide had been applied in accordance with all the label requirements and under FIFRA and EPA requirements, they wouldn't have had the Oregon fish kill. So completing the NPDES permit paperwork and paying for permit fees doesn't prevent fish kills or improve water quality. It just adds cost and takes money away from fighting mosquitoes in this case. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we know that since this court decision, there has been mosquito control districts, municipalities, that have delayed the preventative mosquito control programs, and then they have waited until epidemic proportions, epidemic levels, especially of the West Nile virus, which is what happened with Zika. We just heard that you can have emergency provisions. It doesn't matter. You can still do it. Well, even with the emergency provisions, with this court decision in place, they have forgotten that the NPS permit emergency provisions have extensive compliance costs that go along with that provision. The emergency provisions do not ease the threat of third-party lawsuits in the event a State, Federal, or local government declares an emergency. Pesticide applicators are required to file notice of intent no later than 15 days after the beginning of the application that provides a detailed description of the application and includes the rationale supporting the determination. A user that fails to file the correct paperwork--this is key--can still be found in violation of the Clean Water Act and fined up to $37,000 a day. Now, you heard me say earlier we have got mosquito control districts where that is their entire annual budget. Timely paperwork does not protect the mosquito control districts from legal disputes from the third party that argues the appropriate measures that were not taken to avoid potential adverse effects and impacts. So it is just ridiculous to think that it is okay, delay your preventative programs, but then when you have epidemic proportions of mosquitoes with West Nile or Zika, declare an emergency. Go ahead and spray, but if you don't file your paperwork under the Clean Water Act, you will get fined $37,000 a day. So guess what happens? We don't control the mosquitoes and protect the public. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for H.R. 897 from the American Mosquito Control Association--by the way, I think their interest is more than just their self-interest; I think it is the interest of the general public--the Pesticide Policy Coalition, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association. The American Mosquito Control Association, May 16, 2016. Hon. Bob Gibbs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Gibbs: The American Mosquito Control Association, in concert with mosquito control agencies, programs and regional associations throughout the United States, want to express our enthusiastic support for passage of HR 897 the Zika Vector Control Act clarifying the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitting issue facing our public health agencies. Each year, over one half million people die worldwide from mosquito-transmitted diseases. In the U.S. alone, the costs associated with the treatment of mosquito-borne illness run into the millions of dollars annually. This amendment addresses a situation that has placed mosquito control activities under substantial legal jeopardy and requires ongoing diversion of taxpayer-supported resources away from their public health mission. Though the NPDES was originally designed to address point source emissions from major industrial polluters such as chemical plants, activist lawsuits have forced US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require such permits even for the application of EPA registered pesticides, including insecticides used for mosquito control. These permits are mandated despite the fact that pesticides are already strictly regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Currently, mosquito control programs are vulnerable to lawsuits for simple paperwork violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) where fines may be up to $35,000 per day for activities that do not involve harm to the environment. In order to attempt to comply with this potential liability, these governmental agencies must divert scarce resources to CWA monitoring. In some cases, smaller applicators have simply chosen not to engage in vector control activities. Requiring NPDES permits for the discharges of mosquito control products provides no additional environmental protections beyond those already listed on the pesticide label, yet the regulatory burdens are potentially depriving the general public of the economic and health benefits of mosquito control. This occurs at a time when many regions of the country have seen outbreaks of equine encephalitis, West Nile virus, dengue fever and the rapidly spreading new threat of the Zika and chikungunya viruses. This negative impact on the public health response and needless legal jeopardy requires legislative clarification that the intent of the CWA does not include duplicating FIFRA's responsibilities. HR 897 seeks to achieve that goal and we strongly encourage its passage via any legislative vehicle that enacts its clarifying language into law. Thank you for your strong leadership on this important public health issue. Adams County (WA) Mosquito Control District, American Mosquito Control Association, Associated Executives of Mosquito Control Work in New Jersey, Atlantic County Office of Mosquito Control, Baker Valley Vector Control District. Benton County (WA) Mosquito Control District, Columbia Drainage Vector Control District, Davis County (UT) Mosquito Abatement District, Delaware Mosquito Control Section, Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gem County (ID) Mosquito Abatement, Georgia Mosquito Control Association, Idaho Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Jackson County (OR) Vector Control District, Klamath Vector Control District, Louisiana Mosquito Control Association, Magna Mosquito Abatement District, Manatee County (FL) Mosquito Control District. Matthew C. Ball, Multnomah County (OR) Vector Control Program, New Jersey Mosquito Control Association, North Carolina Mosquito & Vector Control Association, North Morrow Vector Control District, Northeast Mosquito Control Association, North Shore Mosquito Abatement District (Cook County, Illinois), Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Oregon Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Pennsylvania Vector Control Association, Philip D. Smith, Richmond County (GA) Mosquito Control District, South Salt Lake Valley Mosquito Abatement District, Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District, Texas Mosquito Control Association, Teton County (WY) Weed & Pest District, Union County (OR) Vector Control District, Washington County (OR) Mosquito Control. Members of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California: Alameda County MAD, Alameda County VCSD, Antelope Valley MVCD, Burney Basin MAD, Butte County MVCD, City of Alturas, City of Berkeley, City of Blythe, City of Moorpark/VC, Coachella Valley MVCD, Colusa MAD, Consolidated MAD, Compton Creek MAD, Contra Costa MVCD, County of El Dorado, Vector Control, Delano MAD, Delta VCD, Durham MAD, East Side MAD, Fresno MVCD, Fresno Westside MAD, Glenn County MVCD. Greater LA County VCD, Imperial County Vector Control, June Lake Public Utility District, Kern MVCD, Kings MAD, Lake County VCD, Long Beach Vector Control Program, Los Angeles West Vector and Vector-borne Disease Control District, Madera County MVCD, Marin/Sonoma MVCD, Merced County MAD, Mosquito and Vector Management District of Santa Barbara County, Napa County MAD, Nevada County Community Development Agency, No. Salinas Valley MAD, Northwest MVCD, Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District, Oroville MAD, Owens Valley MAP, Pasadena Public Health Department, Pine Grove MAD, Placer

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I really urge my colleagues to support this bill for several reasons. We need to make sure that we give our local communities and our States all the tools in that tool chest to fight this virus because this could reach epidemic proportions this summer. If we don't do that, it is on us. What we tried to do here on this bill--viruses, they kind of run a course, and they go through that. We went through it with Ebola and other things. You have seen it with swine flu and other things. During this virus running its course, we should do everything we can to try to mitigate the effects and the impact to the public's health and safety. So one thing we did in this bill is we put a 2-year sunset provision. So on September 30 of 2018, this provision, H.R. 897, expires. It sunsets. So, really, to attack the issue here, while this disease runs its course--and, hopefully, it runs its course and we do the right thing and mitigate it by providing the resources to our local communities and our States to fight it; to provide for research, which we are doing in our bill that we passed last week; and, also, to give them the tools so they can spend all the money they have on the mosquito control programs and not on administration and paperwork. That court decision back in the mid-2000s was a bad court decision. It added redtape and duplication and is delaying preventive programs from mosquito control. We know that. We have examples of that. We saw the numbers of West Nile a couple of years ago just explode in West Nile cases because those mosquito programs weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing, because it is important to get in there and attack the issue early, kill the larvae before they grow mosquitoes. So this is a commonsense bill that gives an additional tool to our local communities and States to fight that. This argument that applicators go out and just haphazardly apply pesticides and chemicals is just playing on people's emotions. It is just not true. First of all, these pesticides aren't cheap. They are expensive, and we try to use them in limited amounts to do the best thing. Under FIFRA, a certified pesticide applicator, like I said, has to document everything they do, and those documents have to be made readily available if their regulator--in this case, the EPA--comes in and says they want to see them. So if there is an issue with some waterbody, they can come in and find out. We saw that in that spill that was mentioned back in the 1990s in Oregon. That was a spill. It was done by either incompetence or not by a certified applicator. We also got reports that certain irrigation gates were open. Things just didn't happen the way they were supposed to happen. The NPS permit would not have prevented that spill. We need to make sure that we do everything we can and give the tools to communities to protect the environment, foster and protect public health, and not have to wait to do an emergency declaration and do aerial spraying and everything else. Let's get those preventive programs going, and then we will give them the resources to do that and head off this potential epidemic before it occurs and protect the safety of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 897. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just to respond a little bit, the EPA sets the label requirements. It sets all the requirements for the certified applicators. And to apply a restricted pesticide, you have to be a certified applicator. Now, ironically, here, the EPA is the agency, the regulator, that can set what is restricted. In most cases what we are talking about here is the pesticides being used to control mosquitoes and stuff are restricted pesticides, and the certified applicators have to keep records. The regulators can come in and check those records. Those records consist of the date you applied the pesticide, the time of day, the wind speed, the temperature, the humidity--all sorts of things-- and, obviously, the location. And so the EPA controls this under FIFRA, and they can come in and require to see those records if there is a problem, and they have absolute control of what is restricted and what is not restricted, and they can add to that list. They have full, broad ability to do that under FIFRA under the current law. So I want to make that known--that you don't go out and apply restricted pesticides haphazardly. You just open yourself up to all kinds of legal problems and regulatory problems. It is an erroneous argument that that is going to happen. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary. The underlying bill, H.R. 897, eliminates the duplicative, expensive, and unnecessary permit process and helps free up resources for States, counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of Zika. But this motion, in effect, aims to undermine those efforts. There are already adequate protections built in the FIFRA law. The FIFRA review process can restrict or deny. The process is rigorous and requires the EPA to evaluate the human health and environmental effects of pesticides prior to allowing their use. EPA goes through their process. If there is any risk to the environment or human health, a pesticide will not get registered with an approved label. There won't be a label. It is that simple. It will be a restricted pesticide and won't be approved for use. There are already enough protections in the current FIFRA law. So all this redundancy is just plain unnecessary. So we need to move ahead and stop creating unnecessary roadblocks and use the products that we have to protect the public. The argument about harming farm workers is just unbelievable, too, because EPA controls the label. If it is restricted pesticides--which EPA can make all pesticides restricted. It has to be a certified applicator. So any farm worker has to be under the supervision of a certified applicator, and we have that in effect. So farm workers are not harmed from this. The FIFRA law is adequate. H.R. 897 is a good bill that will help protect pregnant women and stop mosquitos before they spread the Zika virus to vulnerable populations. I strongly oppose the motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 897) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 on H.R. 897.