Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 897, the Zika Vector Control Act. This summer, it is evident that the Nation will have to contend with the outbreak of the known Zika virus. Like West Nile virus, it is spread to people primarily through the bite of an infected mosquito. It has been a year since the first alerts of the Zika virus spreading to Brazil were issued. Since then, the virus has been spreading north, and with warmer months approaching, communities in the United States should be given the tools necessary to stop Zika. Many States, counties, and municipalities rely on mosquito-spraying programs to protect public health, especially with the threats like Zika, which is particularly harmful to pregnant women. But protecting communities from Zika and other mosquito-borne diseases has become difficult thanks to a burdensome and duplicative Federal regulation that requires more time and money to be spent on compliance rather than protecting the health and safety of the American people. Congress cannot let this bureaucratic nonsense stand in the way of potentially preventing a public health crisis like the spread of the Zika virus. For 60 years, before the Clean Water Act was passed, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, regulated the use of pesticides in the United States. Even after the Clean Water Act was implemented, the Environmental Protection Agency believed that FIFRA was the appropriate regulatory authority for pesticides. It was only after the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case, National Cotton Council v. EPA, were permits under the Clean Water Act required for pesticide use. This case vacated a 2006 EPA rule that codified their longstanding interpretation that the application of a pesticide for its intended purposes, and in compliance with the requirements of FIFRA, is not a discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act and, therefore, an NPDES permit is not required. To put this in simple terms, the court's ruling cast aside Congress' intent in pesticide permits, and added another layer of bureaucracy for entities that work to protect the public health. In vacating the rule, the Sixth Circuit Court simply reversed sensible agency interpretation, and instituted a new Federal policy by judicial decision. In the process, 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 regulation further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by Congress, and against longstanding EPA interpretation. As a result of this court decision, EPA has been required to develop and impose a new and expanded NPDES permitting process under the Clean Water Act to cover pesticide use. EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, including State agencies, cities, counties, and mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens that perform some of the 5.6 million pesticide applications annually, are affected by the court's ruling. This substantially increases the number of entities subject to NPDES permitting. With this ill-advised court decision, 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 are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new unnecessary permitting process. Despite what the fear mongers suggest, all this expense comes with no additional environmental protection. NPDES compliance costs and fears of potentially ruinous litigation associated with NPDES requirements are forcing States, counties, mosquito control districts, and other pest control programs to reduce their operations and redirect resources in order to comply with the regulatory requirements. We know that routine mosquito prevention programs have been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. Two anecdotal examples: In Orchard City, Colorado, the city council decided to abandon their aerial mosquito spraying due to the new NPDES permits. The Colorado Aerial Applicator Association, which was certified, completely discontinued all aquatic application services due to compliance of either the Colorado or NPDES permits. In Utah, for the last 3 years, an Idaho-based NAA operator has been contracted with a homeowner association north of Salt Lake City for treatment of mosquitos. It was not uncommon for him to treat 17,000 acres in one night. The NPDES permit makes it impossible for him to continue his services as he will be liable for noncompliance because the client/decisionmaker did not require any sort of paperwork other than to substantiate that his equipment was calibrated, thereby constituting noncompliance under that Federal permit system. In 2012, this most likely increased the impact of the record-breaking outbreak of West Nile virus around the Nation. In response to those West Nile outbreaks, many States and communities were forced to declare public health emergencies, but this was only after the outbreak of the West Nile virus. So what happens here when they have an outbreak, an epidemic of West Nile in their community, they can declare an emergency, and they don't have to get any permits. They can just go out and spray to attack the epidemic. So let's do this right and do it under the permitting process, but let's have a process that works. It is absolutely irresponsible to allow a public health crisis to get to this emergency stage, and then we have the ability to prevent it before removing a simple regulatory barrier. H.R. 897 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito control programs without additional bureaucracy getting in the way. H.R. 897 provides a limited exemption for pesticides regulated by FIFRA and used under its product label--which is, by the way, approved by the EPA. Keep in mind, the pesticides necessary to combat Zika and stop the spread of mosquitos are already appropriately regulated under FIFRA. The red tape and compliance costs of an additional NPDES permit make it more difficult for our applicator sprayers to stop the Zika virus. FIFRA regulation includes human health and environmental safeguards when pesticides are approved, including the rules of label use of a pesticide. Adding an NPDES requirement is redundant and unnecessary. H.R. 897 was drafted very narrowly to address only the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and gives State and local entities that spray to control mosquito populations the certainty and the ability needed to protect public health. This commonsense legislation even received technical assistance from the EPA to achieve that goal safely and effectively. Well over 100 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 organizes 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, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, the Biopesticide Industry Alliance, the Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, the Agricultural Retailers Association, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as Chairman Conaway of the Ag Committee and Ranking Member Collin Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for their leadership on this important public health 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 897. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond a little bit to the gentlewoman from California's concerns about USGS studies. A lot of these studies are more than 10 years old and do not reflect the current status of pesticide conditions and pesticide regulation today. Many of the detections were what we call legacy pollution stemming from many years ago. Many of the detections were of pesticides that have not been used in the United States for many years. The vast majority of these detections that were in the more current studies have found very low concentrations, which were at levels well below what they consider human health benchmarks. For example, approximately 99 percent of monitored water wells and greater than 90 percent of the monitored stream sites were below human health benchmark levels. Between 2002 and 2011--so before this court decision was in place-- USGS only found one stream where human health benchmarks exceeded levels of danger. That is just one stream in the entire United States. Because the USGS data is old, the data does not reflect improvements made by the EPA made to its pesticide regulatory program under FIFRA over the past 10 years. This program has become more rigorous than it was a decade or more ago. The committee has also received testimony on how EPA uses its full regulatory authority under FIFRA to ensure that pesticides do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment, including our Nation's water resources. In fact, EPA's pesticides and water programs both use the same risk assessment data, which helps to ensure that both programs are providing the same level of protection against risk. Pesticide usage patterns have changed, technologies have become more sophisticated, and pesticides are much more carefully applied, in part driven by more elaborate label instructions and the high cost of pesticides. Consequently, to argue that the USGS reports show that regulating the use of pesticides under the Clean Water Act is needed is nothing more than just a red herring. To address the issue that my good friend from Oregon raises about the fish kill, NPDES permitting is really a permit to discharge. If an applicator misuses that pesticide under the label, under FIFRA, that is illegal. They broke the law. So not fixing this court decision doesn't have any effect on the unfortunate situation that happened in Oregon with the fish kill. Nothing in the Clean Water Act will stop misapplication. It is already illegal under FIFRA. The person should be held accountable, prosecuted, and responsible for damages. On the cost, there is more evidence out there of what is going on. The California vector control districts came out with a report that estimated the cost is $3 million to conduct the necessary administration for these permits. Just to conduct the administration, the $3 million in California, that money could be used in other ways to fight and control mosquitos. Also, as another example, Benton County, Washington's, Mosquito Control District calculated that their compliance with the NPDES permit cost them $37,334. They spent over $37,334 doing paperwork to secure the Federal and State permits. They spent this money updating maps to secure the permit. They spent this money on permit fees. They spent this money on software to help with the reporting requirements for the permit. They spent the money on lots of things associated with the permit, but they did not spend that money spraying for mosquitos. Benton County estimates that, with that $37,334, they could have treated 2,593 acres of water where mosquitos breed or they could have paid for over 400 West Nile lab tests or they could have hired three seasonable workers. But Benton County got to spend their $37,334 to comply with a redundant Federal permit. The National Agricultural Aviation Association, whose members perform over 17,000 public health and mosquito abatement applications every year, estimates that, for one of their members with two planes and five employees, compliance with the NPEDS permit requires one full-time employee and $40,000 annually for one full-time employee to comply with this additional permitting. This permit is not simply ``the modest notification and monitoring requirements are providing valuable safeguards against over-application of pesticides'' that my colleague is claiming. It is an incredibly heavy-handed, expensive, time-consuming process that takes dollars away from public health protection, putting it to more paperwork and putting more people at risk and the health of our communities at risk. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of support: A letter from nearly 100 organizations supporting H.R. 897, including the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, Ohio Professional Applicators for Responsible Regulation, the Pesticide Policy Coalition, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; The American Mosquito Control Association; National Pest Management Association; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment; and American Farm Bureau. May 17, 2016. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 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 (FIFRA), 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, American Hort, 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. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Boy, talk about fear mongering. Comparing responsible pesticide use in protecting the environment and in protecting human health to Agent Orange is just really over the top. I do agree with one thing the previous gentleman spoke about, which is that we have to do more for Zika, and we are going to do more in the House this week. This is one tool in the toolbox to address this. As for this bit about spraying pesticides uncontrollably all over the place, as a farmer, I have heard that all of my adult life, and it is really bizarre because pesticides cost a lot of money. It is really bizarre in this case because to use these pesticides, you have to be certified by the State and the EPA, and you have to be applying it by the label that the EPA has already approved. This goes through rigorous testing and regulation, so it is not uncontrollable. It is under FIFRA, which is the law the Congress set up many, many years ago to control this. This is not an uncontrolled application of pesticides that is contaminating our water bodies. As I said, the recent geological studies document that we are not contaminating our water bodies. I will make this clear that this is not uncontrollable and that we have laws in place that are called FIFRA. If you break that law, you break the law, and you should be punished and held accountable. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, the gentleman from Oregon talked about the recordkeeping. There are additional burdensome records on this requirement, the MPDS, but a certified pesticide applicator under FIFRA has to keep records. They have to keep records on what they applied, how they applied it, when they applied it, what the wind speed was, and what the temperature was--all of that--so that there is a record there. I wanted to correct his information as he was inaccurate on that. We talked about West Nile. In 2012, we had a crisis in this country of the West Nile epidemic. Dallas, Texas, had to declare an emergency. They probably weren't doing what they needed to do because of the MPDS permits. If they declare an emergency, they can spray without a permit. That is why we put a sunset provision in this bill. On September 30, 2018, this bill sunsets. The reason we put that in there is to address this towards Zika. Zika will probably run its course. Hopefully, in 2 years, we will forget about it like we have done with Ebola. The problem is that we need to do everything we can to mitigate the problem in the interim. We saw last week there were 103 pregnant women in the United States who had the Zika virus. Today, I heard there were 113. That number is jumping up. It is going to jump up fast because we are in mosquito season. When these mothers start delivering those babies and when we have all kinds of problems, it is not going to be a pleasant experience; so we need to do everything we can. That 2-year sunset provision in there will really target and address this issue. We need to give our States and local communities the tools they need, and we are going to do more this week. We are going to give them the resources, the dollars, they need; but we also have to make sure they can spend that money, like in the example I gave of the $37,000. Instead of spending it on administrative paperwork, they can spend it on killing the larvae and the mosquitos. It is easier to kill the mosquito population if you kill the larvae before they hatch. The risks are high, but we need to make sure we do this. I reiterate that FIFRA is already in place to make sure that we don't have bad actors out there who are polluting our water bodies. If they do, they are going to be held accountable, and the EPA can step in and investigate those and do that. The EPA has all of the authority they need because they approve the label, they approve the pesticide certification, they approve the applicators. They can go back to every applicator and ask for their records. They can go into my local farm co-op and ask: When did you apply? What did you apply? What date did you apply? And all of those records are there for our regulators to see. They can do that. All this bill does is fix the bad court decision that it has a regulatory burden. We need to support this bill and let our communities and our States do their jobs to protect the public health. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and 2010, when the other side of the aisle had complete control of Congress and the White House, the American people saw what liberals would pass when given free rein and a blank check. With Dodd-Frank, Democrats deemed it necessary to punish small community banks with burdensome regulations they cannot afford to comply with. Dodd-Frank created a new, unaccountable bureaucracy called the CFPB, which is funded in a way that obscures its transparency and prevents Congress' direct oversight of the agency. The lack of accountability like that seen with the CFPB and the heavy hand of agencies like the EPA and the IRS have become hallmarks of this administration. With the stimulus bill, Democrats gave handouts to their union and so-called green energy friends. Taxpayers were on the hook for loan guarantees to companies like Solyndra, which used its political connections in the White House to push through irresponsible loan approvals. When Solyndra went bankrupt, it was at the cost of the American people. Many other smaller boondoggles came out of the stimulus: silly studies on ducks, over $1 million on road signs that promote the stimulus, and over $3 million for a tunnel for turtles in Florida. This leaves ObamaCare. Too many Americans have felt the negative consequences of what boils down to a government takeover of the healthcare industry. The President claimed this law would decrease premiums by $2,500 per year. Instead, they have risen since ObamaCare has been enacted. To go with the increase in cost, many Americans have seen a sharp decrease in their choices. There are fewer plans available, restricting the ability of hardworking families to choose coverage that is appropriate for their circumstances. Taken together, this trio of liberal policies is adding layers of bureaucratic red tape, forcing Americans to pay more for health care and putting taxpayers on the hook. In 2009, Democrats used the blank check to add $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 2011, we put discretionary spending on a downward trend. Discretionary spending funds our Federal agencies such as the EPA and the IRS, as well as the Department of Defense. We have made real cuts in spending, not slowdowns in growth and not projected cuts down the road--honest-to-God cuts in spending. Since I took office in 2011, discretionary spending has been cut significantly by $434 billion. But this does not address mandatory spending, which is the real driver of our national debt. This includes programs like food assistance, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on our debt. Reforms are needed to ensure these programs work efficiently and are sustainable. Because of the way ObamaCare was written and enacted, mandatory spending also includes large portions of ObamaCare funding. Mandatory spending is on autopilot and will continue with or without Congress' annual appropriations process. The fact is we have to change the law. That means both Chambers of Congress have to pass reforms and the President has to sign them or we have to override a veto. Mandatory spending accounts for three-quarters of all money spent by the Federal Government. This is a 180-degree change from when I was a teenager, when in 1970, mandatory spending was only about a third of government spending. Realistically, there is only one path to a balanced budget and shrinking our national debt. That path is to pass a budget and use a process called reconciliation. A budget facilitates reconciliation, which only requires a 51-vote majority in the United States Senate and avoids a filibuster by liberals who want to continue running up America's credit card. Not doing a budget forfeits the opportunity to do reconciliation. Reconciliation with mandatory spending program reforms, coupled with real tax and regulatory reforms, will send a strong signal to our entrepreneurs and businesses, which will unleash innovation and the American spirit and will, thus, grow our economy and provide for our national defense. A vibrant economy will provide for our national security and priorities without raising taxes. We have an opportunity with a new President next year to send two reconciliation bills to his desk--one for this fiscal year and another for the next fiscal year. Elections do matter, and this one has historic implications--one being a path to a stronger America and opportunity for every American or a path on a downward spiral of economic disaster, risking our personal and economic freedoms. God help us.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 223) to authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 223, as amended.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who has fought for years to protect the Great Lakes.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up H.R. 223, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2016, introduced by my Ohio colleague, Congressman Dave Joyce, on the floor today. The Great Lakes are an important resource for the United States. More than 30 million people live in the Great Lakes region, and the lakes help support over $200 billion a year in economic activity. The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force of Federal agencies was created in 2004 by executive order to help ensure coordination between the Federal, State, and private parties protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. In 2010, the task force released an action plan as part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. Under the Initiative, the Environmental Protection Agency collaborates with other Federal partners, including the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, to select the best combination of projects and activities for Great Lakes protection and restoration. In September of 2014, the Federal agencies released an updated Action Plan II, which summarizes the actions that the Federal agencies plan to implement during fiscal years 2015 through 2019. The Action Plan aims to strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and to accelerate progress toward long-term goals. H.R. 223 will formally authorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for 5 years and modifies the program based on recommendations that the Committee received from stakeholders, hearings, and the GAO reports on EPA's activities during multiple years of oversight. The bill is a positive step forward for the Great Lakes region and the United States as a whole as we continue to prioritize protection and restoration of one of our Nation's most valuable resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), who has been a strong advocate for the protection of the Great Lakes and a sponsor of the bill.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a couple of closing comments. We had some hearings in my subcommittee on this, and part of our oversight responsibility is to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being spent the way they should be. We requested a GAO--a government accountability--report, and I am pleased to announce that the report came back very favorable, that the monies to be invested to protect the Great Lakes is being spent the way it is intended to be. The only negative that was in the report--which is really minor--was the agencies, the EPA needed to do a better job working together and communicating, and they already had started that when they got the report. So I want to assure our fiscal hawks out there that this money is being spent the way it is intended by Congress, and we got that as part of our oversight duty. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I urge our support of H.R. 223 and to continue to protect and enhance the Great Lakes. Mr. 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 (S. 1523) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 1523.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to reauthorize the National Estuary Program found in section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Last June, here in the House, we passed Mr. LoBiondo's H.R. 944, and today we are passing S. 1523, which was introduced by Senator Whitehouse. Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are important to the ecological and economic bases of our Nation. Congress first authorized the National Estuary Program in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act to promote the protection of nationally significant estuaries in the United States that are deemed to be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. Unlike many of the programs under the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary Program is a nonregulatory program. Instead, it is designed to support the collaborative, voluntary efforts of Federal, State, and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. Using consensus building and a collaborative decisionmaking process instead of a top-down driven regulatory approach, the National Estuary Program has been effective at promoting locally based involvement. In addition, NEP leverages non-Federal money for restoration activities by providing funding for the program. In reauthorizing the National Estuary Program, S. 1523 makes prudent fiscal adjustments. The amendment to S. 1523 strikes the text of the Senate bill and instead uses the legislative text of the House-passed bill, H.R. 944. An agreement was reached to split the difference in authorized appropriations levels of the two bills. As amended, the bill reauthorizes section 320 of the Clean Water Act through 2021, at an amount of $26.5 million a year. This amount is consistent with appropriations over the past 5 years and in recognition of the fiscal realities of today. S. 1523 also directs more funds to where they need to be, the individual estuaries in the program. The bill achieves this by reducing the amount of discretionary funds made available to the EPA. Finally, the bill allocates a portion of the eligible program funds for competitive awards to Federal, State, and local stakeholders to address certain high-priority estuary needs, including algal blooms, hypoxia, flooding, and invasive species. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who is a sponsor of the bill and has worked tirelessly to protect estuaries throughout the Nation.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important legislation to protect estuaries throughout the country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, with tax day yesterday and millions of Americans feeling the sting of a burdensome government agency, the House will focus its efforts on giving taxpayers relief from the bureaucratic mess known as the IRS. When the scandal broke that the IRS improperly targeted conservative 501(c)(4) groups, the Nation was shocked, but not surprised. After thorough investigations by Congress and unrelenting criticism by liberals and conservatives, several high-level officials resigned. While the IRS can and has fired many low-level employees for other abuses and poor performance, a report by the IRS Inspector General found that many of the IRS employees were rehired. That is why this week we are passing the Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce Act, which will prevent the agency from rehiring anyone who was previously terminated for misconduct. Government employees, especially those in the IRS, who work with private and sensitive data of American citizens should not be given the chance to do it again. This week the House will show the American people that we take our responsibility to stop corruption, misconduct, and abuse of power in the Internal Revenue Service seriously.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke to a group of civil engineers, local water utility managers, and others involved in the water infrastructure industry at their 2016 Water Week Conference. While roads and bridges and airports and train tracks get a lot of attention, water infrastructure is just as critical to the health of our Nation's economy. Water transportation is the safest and most fuel- efficient, least polluting, and least expensive means of moving goods. The public and private sectors must work together to deliver safe and affordable water to millions of Americans every day. In 2014, we wrote a landmark Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which was signed into law. It reformed the way the Army Corps of Engineers studies and completes their projects; it shortened the nearly endless study and environmental review process; and, most importantly, it included no earmarks. Our economy cannot afford to see the locks and dams of our Nation's inland waterways system fail, preventing cargo from reaching its destination. Our agriculture and energy industries depend on open and secure water transportation systems, and we hope to accomplish that in WRRDA 2016.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week regarding the Second Amendment. By overturning the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Court has reaffirmed not only that Americans have the right to self- defense, but also that stun guns are covered under the Second Amendment. The case began when a woman named Jaime Caetano was continually threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend who, at one point, put her in the hospital. At the urging of a friend, she began carrying a stun gun for protection. After an incident that a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend failed to prevent, the threat of a nonlethal device prevented any harm of Ms. Caetano. Yet, Massachusetts had previously outlawed the ownership of stun guns, and she was arrested. Massachusetts' highest court sided against the Supreme Court's Heller decision, which set clear standards for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court Justices clearly saw the foolishness in the State court's decision and reversed it this week, reasserting that the right to bear arms ``extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence'' when our Nation was founded. This is a reminder that the rights of all Americans must be defended vigilantly by every generation. I commend the Supreme Court for its decision and Justice Alito for his concurring opinion that gives individuals in all States a necessary nonlethal option for protection against violence.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act; specifically, title IV of the bill, which includes the Recreational Lands Self- Defense Act. This legislation is vital to preserving and expanding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. In 2010, legislation was enacted that allows campers, hikers, and sportsmen who are legally allowed to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their families on land operated by the National Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, this law left millions of acres overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers closed to those who want to legally arm and protect themselves. Every year, millions of Americans camp, hunt, and hike on Federal lands. They are often in remote locations with no easy access to emergency services or law enforcement. These Americans deserve to have peace of mind and the ability to protect themselves while recreating. The Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of the law preempts State firearms laws; thus, preventing Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Even if someone is permitted by the State to carry a firearm, they cannot do so while on the Corps' 11.7 million acres or camping at one of the Corps' 90,000 campsites. Title IV will prevent the Corps from prohibiting law-abiding American citizens from carrying a firearm as long as they are not prohibited from owning a firearm and the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the State they are located in. This title in the SHARE Act will provide uniformity and clarity for hunters, campers, and hikers who want to merely protect themselves, and it will preserve the right to bear arms on recreational Federal lands. I want to thank Congressman Wittman for introducing this legislation and including the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act in the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to support the SHARE Act.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 583, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 22) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of ``waters of the United States'' under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 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 materials on S.J. Res. 22.