Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my constituent water agencies for their input through the process, including the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Watermaster, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and my local Corps people, Colonel Gibbs and David Van Dorpe. I ask for a ``no'' vote since the Flint provision was not included in this bill.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Jennie Lou Hawley, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the House floor.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on gun violence. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, but rarely part of the conversation. These deaths are not inevitable. Allowing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research this, along with doing universal background checks, can and do save lives. September is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. It is time for advocates to share stories of hope and to find solutions to self-harm. We must educate ourselves and our neighbors on signs and symptoms of depression to reduce suicide by gun. Further work is needed. We must promote gun safety without stigmatizing those with mental illness. Congress must work to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them: domestic abusers and individuals with violent histories like assaults. This is too important. We must act now. No longer can we tolerate it.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I want to bring to light the fact that we are still trying to get two bills passed in the House. How many more innocent lives will be lost before that happens? My people, everybody's people, the American people want gun reform. My Republican colleagues are blocking the vote. But we need to have a voice. No more silence. Stop blaming mental health issues for mass shootings. The fact is, more often they are the victims rather than the perpetrators. Anger, hate, and racism are the main causes of mass shootings. Reducing the mental health stigma would save lives, as two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. I encourage those who need help, to seek help, reduce self-harm, and learn the signs of mental illness. We need to focus on prevention and training, especially of police and the public, on mental health, not more guns. We need to educate youth on how to peacefully resolve problems by conflict resolution and anger management. We must change the culture of violence. Violent images are too common in media, entertainment, and video games. Learn to have less hatred, more tolerance, and focus on what unites us. Allow us a vote to prevent terrorists and others on the no-fly list from buying guns and universal background checks for guns.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, we are here because a lot of the families from everywhere are asking for gun control. Families in our district want the House to act. Poll after poll indicates public support to prevent gun violence. Democrats want to pass real reform, but the House Republicans refuse to allow a vote. We want action in this House, but Congress passes nothing. No more silence. Watch who is preventing the action: the gun lobby, NRA, and our Republican colleagues. The last meaningful legislation on gun control was in 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Crimes involving guns happen frequently, too often, 91 a day, motivated mostly by hate and racism. We need dialogue in this House of the people. This is where the action is, on the floor and in committee. I would like to thank all of my friends and people in the district who called, wrote, and posted on social media. They all want action. They want Congress, the House to pass and do something. We must keep guns out of the hands of individuals with violent histories and domestic abusers. We need to pass no fly, no buy so that no one on the terrorist watch list is allowed to purchase a gun. There needs to be universal background checks in all States. Do not stigmatize those with mental illness who are more often victims rather than perpetrators of gun violence. We will continue to push for a vote. I encourage all of you to continue the calls to the Speaker and my House Republican colleagues. This is too critical. We must act now. Give us a vote.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent due to a delayed flight into Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on H.R. 5388 (Roll Call No. 335).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent due to a delayed flight into Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on H.R. 5389 (Roll Call No. 336).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent due to a delayed flight into Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on H.R. 5525 (Roll Call No. 334).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4369, which would allow for a local settlement agreement in Southern California between the City of Los Angeles and the new Ontario Airport Authority. I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for bringing this bill to the House floor today, and I thank Congresswoman Titus for managing the floor debate. I would also like to thank my bipartisan colleagues from California, Rep. Calvert and Rep. Torres, for their leadership on this bill. Mr. Speaker, after 5 years of negotiations the City of Los Angeles has agreed to transfer its ownership of the Ontario Airport to a new airport authority created by the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County. This deal has been supported by all stakeholders in order to give the people of the Inland Empire in Southern California control over their own airport. The residents, businesses, and cities in my district in the San Gabriel Valley are also very supportive of this agreement. The Ontario Airport is only 15 miles from the center of my district, whereas Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is 40 miles from the center of my district, and there is constant traffic. San Gabriel Valley residents and businesses would much rather use Ontario Airport than LAX if it had better flight options to more locations, which this bill will help accomplish. Allowing for local control of the airport puts the best interest of our region first in improving and managing the airport. I am also appreciative that this agreement makes sure that airport workers will not lose their jobs during and after the transition. The major point in this local agreement was providing for the repayment of passenger facility charge fees (PFCs) that Los Angeles had collected at LAX in the 1990s and used to construct a new terminal at Ontario Airport. The settlement agreement requires Ontario Airport to pay back LAX with future PFCs collected at Ontario. The problem is that federal law only allows the transfer of PFCs from one airport to another airport if they are owned by the same airport authority. This is the current law that allowed LAX to transfer PFCs to Ontario. Since the new agreement transfers control of Ontario Airport to a new airport authority, without our legislation the new Ontario Airport authority is prohibited from paying back the PFCs to LAX. Mr. Speaker, our bill today is a narrow change in the use of PFCs to allow those collected at Ontario International Airport to be used for projects at LAX. This amendment was carefully written as to only apply to Ontario Airport and LAX. There are no federal funds used in this amendment, and it does not change any of the policy requirements of the use of PFCs. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of my colleagues for H.R. 4369.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 293.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 270.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to H.R. 897 from 13 national environmental organizations. They are Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, San Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, Beyond Pesticides, Southern Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth. Re Oppose H.R. 897 (``Zika Vector Control Act''). May 16, 2016. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 897 (``Zika Vector Control Act''), which would eliminate Clean Water Act safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide General Permit targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly five years now and alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers and others about the impacts of this permit have failed to bear any fruit. This bill is the same legislation that pesticide manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing for years. It will not improve nor impact spraying to combat Zika virus, contrary to the new, last-minute title given to the bill. The Pesticide General Permit at issue allows for spraying to combat vector-borne diseases such as Zika and the West Nile virus. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides that pesticide applications are covered automatically under the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared emergency pest situations'' (emphasis added). Further, repealing the Pesticide General Permit--as this damaging legislation seeks to do--would allow pesticides to be discharged into water bodies without any meaningful oversight since the federal pesticide registration law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) does not require tracking of such applications. Now that the Pesticide General Permit is in place, the public is finally getting information that they couldn't obtain before about the types of pesticides being sprayed or discharged into local bodies of water. All across the country, pesticide applicators are complying with the Pesticide General Permit to protect water quality without issue. Further, the Pesticide General Permit has no significant effect on farming practices. The permit in no way affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff do not require permits, even when they contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean Water Act remain. Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 897 that would undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with more information on the issue. The Pesticide General Permit simply lays out commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups opposed. Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all Americans by opposing H.R. 897. Sincerely, Earthjustice; League of Conservation Voters; Natural Resources Defense Council; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Sierra Club; San Francisco Baykeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Southern Environmental Law Center; Clean Water Action; Defenders of Wildlife; Greenpeace; Beyond Pesticides; Friends of the Earth.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 897. To be clear, H.R. 897 was not created to respond to Zika. Now, I hear my colleague's information in regard to all that has happened with the EPA and all the budget items. I suggest that we start looking at increasing the budget for EPA so they can do a better job. Insofar as herbicides and pesticides, I have a lot of information from my own experience in California, where it has created a Superfund that has taken many years and will take many more to create. Up until 2 weeks ago, the so-called Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act was drafted to relax our laws protecting public health to reduce the paperwork burdens on commercial pesticide spraying operations. If you will notice, most of them were people in the spraying business, in the ag business, and it is to their advantage. What about the public interest? This will be the fourth time in 3 years that we will vote against the legislation. To be clear, a great number of waterbodies in the U.S. are already impaired or threatened by pesticides; yet for some reason, our Republican majority wants it to be easier for companies to add more of these pesticides to our waters, yet not report these additions nor monitor, for any reason, immediate health impacts that may result. I am very concerned about the effect these pesticides have on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially on the drinking water supply of all our citizens, including pregnant women. Last week, the majority argued that even though this bill would exempt pesticide applications from the Clean Water Act, public health would not be impacted because FIFRA labeling requirements would remain in place. However, FIFRA labeling does not address the volumes of pesticides being directly or indirectly applied to our rivers, lakes, and streams on an annual basis. In many cases, we simply do not know the quantities and location of the pesticides being added to our waters because this data is not tracked by Federal or State regulators. And if we don't know what is being added to our waters, we cannot accurately be looking for the potential human health or environmental impacts of these pesticides. In fact, the only way we often learn of a problem is in examples like the gentleman from Oregon cited on the floor: massive fish kills or other environmental catastrophes. It is reckless to rely on a system of catastrophes or massive die-offs to identify where problems may be lurking. Proponents of this legislation also argue that this legislation would protect the health of pregnant women and their children. How so? I think it is important to note that it could hurt both. However, this legislation does nothing demonstrable to prevent the spread of Zika in the United States. What I fear, however, is that this legislation will relax standards for pesticide application to the point where even more waterbodies become impaired or threatened by pesticides. Madam Speaker, we know there are significant health risks associated with exposing pregnant women and young children to pesticides. Let me name a few: birth defects, neurodevelopmental delays and cognitive impairments, childhood brain cancer, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, endocrine disruption. That is just to name a few. To be clear, the bill under consideration today will make it easier-- I will say it again, easier--to contaminate our drinking water supplies with pesticides known or suspected to pose health risks. The majority will say that FIFRA ensures these chemicals are safe. What the majority cannot say definitely, however, is that continued exposure to these chemicals over and over in the same watershed is also safe. Peer-reviewed science suggests that there are impacts, and that evidence should be enough for us to be cautious. If my choice is cautious use of pesticides to protect public health or the elimination of the paperwork requirement, I believe protection of health is more important. Furthermore, according to The Washington Post, of the 544 reported cases of Zika in the United States, nearly all of them involve people who have contracted the disease when they traveled to a country where the disease is prevalent. While a handful of the 544 cases of Zika may have involved sexual transmission of the virus, no one has acquired the disease from mosquitos in this country--I repeat, no one. Let me repeat that. No one has reported acquiring the Zika virus from a mosquito in this country. We cannot and should not eliminate the role of the Clean Water Act in the regulation of pesticides. Over the past 5 years, this regulatory process has been reasonable and has been workable for pest operations and ag interests alike. It needs to be retained. Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, what I could tell you about the vector control. I served on the board for a few years, and what I know is something else, but, unfortunately, most of the proponents are people who benefit from the pesticide application. So I take exception, where is the public interest in this? Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record several news editorials from coast to coast, including one from The New York Times that refers to this legislation as a ``pretext to weaken environmental regulations'' and ``a ruse to benefit pesticide manufacturers and farmers who find the regulation burdensome.'' [From the New York Times, May 19, 2016] Stealing From Ebola to Fight Zika (By the Editorial Board) Nobody should be surprised when the present House of Representatives, dominated by penurious reactionaries, produces a stingy response to a danger that calls for compassionate largess. But for sheer fecklessness it's hard to top the House's response this week to the Zika virus. The salient feature is that in providing money to fight one health menace, it steals from other funds meant to fight an even more dangerous threat--the Ebola virus. In February, President Obama asked Congress for $1.9 billion to help fight Zika, a virus that can cause severe birth defects and has been linked to neurological disorders in adults. Transmittable by mosquitoes and through sex, Zika broke out last year in Brazil and has since spread to the United States and other countries. Experts fear there could eventually be hundreds of thousands of infections in Puerto Rico, where nearly half the population lives below the poverty line, with possibly hundreds of babies affected. States in the American South with large mosquito populations are also at particular risk. On Thursday, the Senate voted for $1.1 billion in emergency funds for research, vaccine development, mosquito control efforts and other programs The bill does not provide as much money as public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say they need, but it is a decent start. The House bill approved Wednesday would provide just over half that--$622 million. Further, the House insisted that even that sum be offset by cuts to other programs, including those aimed at Ebola. That makes no sense. It would shortchange critical efforts to strengthen public health systems in Africa in order to prevent a resurgence of Ebola, which killed more than 11,000 people, and other diseases. The money in the House bill would be available only until the end of September, when the fiscal year ends. That cutoff seems to assume that Zika will no longer be a problem by then, an absurdly risky line of reasoning that most health experts do not accept. Cutting off funds that early would also severely hamper the effort to create a Zika vaccine, which is expected to take more than a year to develop and test. Some ultraconservative House Republicans have said that they do not consider Zika a major health crisis. Perhaps they have yet to see (or, more distressingly, they deliberately ignore) the photographs of babies born with small heads because of the virus. Or perhaps they do not think of this as an emergency worthy of their attention because those babies were not born in the United States or to their constituents. Perversely, while not doing much to contain the virus, some House members have seized upon it as a pretext to weaken environmental regulations. Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow businesses to spray pesticides on or near waterways without first notifying regulators, as now required by law. Once called the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, the bill was recently given a more ominous name, the Zika Vector Control Act, the idea being that with Zika lurking around the corner, local governments should be able to use pesticides more easily. The bill, rejected on Tuesday under a rule that required a two-thirds majority in favor, could come up again under a rule requiring only a simple majority. In any case, it's a ruse to benefit pesticide manufacturers and farmers who find the regulation burdensome. The Environmental Protection Agency says that in emergencies, spraying can occur without prior notification. The House seems incapable of seeing that Zika is a real threat, not a device to satisfy its anti- regulatory zeal.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, during the debate on H.R. 897 last week, it was suggested that the recordkeeping requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, were equal to or exceeding those required under the Clean Water Act permit. We checked with EPA and found a very different story. First, contrary to suggestions otherwise, all private pesticide applicators are not required to keep any pesticide applications under FIFRA or its implementing regulations. Only commercial application of restricted-use pesticides are required to keep application records under FIFRA recordkeeping requirements. Second, pesticide application records do not have to be filed with the EPA, any State or tribal agency, or person. They are only required to keep and be maintained at a place where pesticides are used, and available for inspection upon request by an authorized regulatory representative. Yet, in contrast to the clean water requirements, the FIFRA application records are not publicly available. While in some States applicators can be required by State or regulation to lead to more robust recordkeeping requirements, it is not accurate to say those are required under FIFRA. So in sum, FIFRA requires far fewer pesticide applicators to keep any records, does not require that these records be filed with the Federal, State, or tribal regulatory agency, and does not make these records publicly available. In my view, then, it is not accurate to say that the recordkeeping requirements of FIFRA and the Clean Water Act are synonymous. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I listened to the arguments, and I hope that, for the fifth time, this measure is opposed and rejected. I think of California and its many rivers and streams that are heavily impacted by the pollution of pesticides and herbicides, and I urge my colleagues to consider that this could happen in their area, too. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 897. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to welcome Dr. Patricia Venegas of Without Spot Or Wrinkle Ministries International. I thank her and her husband for coming from La Verne, one of my cities. She started the church in 1998 with her husband, Reverend Benjamin Venegas, who is up in the gallery somewhere. From 1977 to the present, she serves as a chaplain to the Covina Police Department. She was ordained as a minister of the Gospel in December 2006. She published one book, ``The Bride of Christ Without Spot Or Wrinkle.'' She develops and writes curricula for conferences and seminars. Thanks for the work that you do, Reverend, to spread the Gospel throughout the San Gabriel Valley and beyond. May God bless you and God bless our country.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong opposition to H.R. 897, the Zika Vector Control Act. The Clean Water Act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations. In fact, the Clean Water Act permit provides a specific emergency provision to prevent outbreaks of disease, such as Zika. Under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are automatically covered under the permit, and spraying may be performed immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. In most instances, sprayers are only required to notify EPA of the spraying operations 30 days after the beginning of the spraying operation. As I have noted before on similar bills, I have remained concerned that this bill would mean that no Clean Water Act protections would be required for pesticide application to water bodies that are already impaired by pesticides. Most pesticide applications in the U.S. are done in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, which requires proper labeling of pesticide products regarding usage. However, FIFRA labeling is no substitute for ensuring that we understand the volumes of pesticides that we seem to apply to our rivers, our lakes, and our streams on an annual basis. According to a 2016 USGS report on pesticides, commonly used pesticides frequently are present in streams and groundwater at levels that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at levels that may affect aquatic life or fish-eating wildlife. In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles of rivers and streams, 1,380 bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides. EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many of these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides that are currently being used. I am very concerned about the effect these pesticides have on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies of all of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, which are the young, the elderly, the poor and disenfranchised, who have no other protection. I would also add that, if our true concern here is protecting the health of pregnant women in particular, we should focus on preventing pesticide application directly or indirectly to drinking water sources. Mr. Speaker, I have here a Federal report on how pesticides in California are a leading cause of impairments to water quality. Currently in California, there are over 4,500 miles of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 829 square miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by pesticides. This is a significant concern in my home State, where every drop of water needs to be conserved, reused, and cherished.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the concerns about duplication of effort and the need to minimize the impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large. However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a very significant impact on water quality and that we are creating this exemption from water quality protection requirements without considering the impacts to the waters that are already impaired with pesticides, as they are in California. This, in turn, costs our ratepayers, our water users, hundreds of millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of the water before it is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on the 15-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area that has pesticides as one of its contaminants. We cannot and should not take away one of the only tools available to monitor for adverse impacts of pesticides in our rivers, streams, and reservoirs. Over the past 5 years, this tool has been reasonable. I oppose this bill.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Thursday, March 3, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following ways: Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 106--Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4557. Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 107--H. Res. 635--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 2016. Vote ``yes'' on rollcall No. 108--S. 1826--To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 99 West 2nd Street in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, as the Lieutenant Colonel James ``Maggie'' Megellas Post Office. Vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 109--Passage of H.R. 4557--Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns (BRICK) Act of 2016. Personal Explanation