Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 820 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I know the gentlewoman from Minnesota will like on an issue critical to livestock farmers, not just in my State and district, but across the country. In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency approached four dairies in Washington State about high nitrate levels in nearby wells, suspecting semi-permeable manure lagoons may be the cause. The dairies entered into a consent decree with EPA to identify and treat the cause if it was, in fact, stemming from the dairies. Disturbingly, an environmental group FOIA'd the information the dairies provided to EPA and used it to file a citizen suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA, against the dairies. Unfortunately, in early 2014 a Federal judge ruled with the environmental group, asserting that dissolved nitrates constituted a solid waste under the law, and high nitrate levels constituted open dumping. There are a number of problems with this case. However, the biggest one by far is the very law used to file the lawsuit. To be clear, there are a number of laws and regulations both at the State and the Federal level which apply to nutrient management, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act. The problem is, Congress never intended RCRA to be used to regulate agriculture. In fact, EPA expresses that RCRA does not apply to agricultural waste, including manure and crop residue, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners. I don't know how you can get much clearer than nutrient management was not intended to be governed under this law; and, unfortunately, this ruling has left agriculture producers in a legal gray area trying to figure out exactly how to comply with the law that was not intended to regulate them. All this decision has done is to create a culture of fear and distrust between farmers and regulatory agencies. If you are a good steward and come forward to proactively address problems, all you are doing is making yourself a target for lawsuits. Also, it creates a fear that a judge could capriciously decide that you are subject to a law despite clear intent that the law does not apply to you. Mr. Chairman, farmers rely on the land and water being clean and want to be good environmental stewards, and this self-defeating culture is not one we want to cultivate. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from enforcing current regulations under RCRA. It does nothing to prevent EPA from issuing or enforcing Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act rules. All my amendment does is prevent EPA from issuing and expanding new regulations under RCRA that would reflect this poor interpretation of current law. While I am not aware of a desire by EPA to do this, unfortunately, there have been a number of other recent legal precedents directing EPA to take actions they didn't want to take. This amendment will ensure EPA's current regulations stand until Congress has the ability to weigh in and reassert its intent. Mr. Chairman, no one is saying livestock producers, like all Americans, do not share in the responsibility of good environmental stewardship. They certainly do. But there already exists appropriate laws and regulations intended to govern these activities, and there are ones that are not intended to. We, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to make that clarification, which is what my amendment takes steps to do. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's statement that we must work together to protect critical resources, and that is exactly why I am presenting this amendment for our consideration, so that dairies that want to do a good job know which rules they need to follow. Is it the Clean Water Act, is it the Safe Drinking Water Act or is it the RCRA rules? They need to know, and they can't be brought to court, being sued under rules that they didn't realize that they were supposed to be following. It is like if you are driving down the freeway going 70 miles an hour, and the State patrolman pulls up and says, I am sorry, sir, today the speed limit is only 45. How are you supposed to know that if it is not posted? That is the kind of simplistic direction certainty that we are trying to give farmers across the country, so that is the reason for the amendment. Certainly, I agree, EPA is not making plans to use RCRA to promulgate new rules, which is exactly why it shouldn't be a problem for us to be able to put that forward, because they are not. It shouldn't be a problem, so we are not going to be standing in their way. Dairies are being sued by environmental groups, and judges are making rulings using RCRA rules as a basis for the decisions. And so that is why I think it is important for us to reassert Congress' original intention as well as EPA's clear regulations. We have to reassert that to keep clarity and certainty for our farmers and ranchers so that they can better protect our natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to offer an amendment that would restore funding for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program. This program assists livestock producers in undertaking proactive, nonlethal activity to reduce the livestock loss from predation by wolves, and addresses livestock losses caused by wolves. Mr. Chairman, this demonstration program was authorized in 2009 under a Democratic administration, and $1 million in funding was appropriated in the FY 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act. Since its inception, the Wolf Livestock Demonstration Program has played a critical role in minimizing conflicts with wolves while providing ranchers with much-needed support for non-lethal activities and another tool to minimize their livestock losses from wolves. Grants provided by this program go to 10 States with significant wolf populations, including my home State of Washington, and support each State's highest priority needs in assisting livestock producers in dealing with predation by wolves. The grants provided by this program are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and stipulates that the Federal cost share not exceed 50 percent. Mr. Chairman, this program has been funded every year since 2010. My amendment would continue this funding at the 2010 level, respecting our country's current fiscal situation and tight budgetary guidelines. The Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program encourages the wider use of nonlethal programs by livestock owners and ranchers who frequently rely on lethal control methods to address livestock-wolf conflict. As wolf populations continue to grow across the Lower 48, it is vital that we continue this demonstration program in order to benefit livestock producers willing to take proactive measures to protect not only their livestock, but wolves as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the gentlewoman that the original program, the demonstration program, was authorized in 2009, and then $1 million was appropriated in the 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act. And so it is just being consistent with what we have done as a Congress before I got here.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time, I believe that that is authorizing legislation and this is appropriating legislation. So that would be the only difference that I could see. I certainly respect the gentlewoman has much more experience than I have, but I would still offer this amendment. It has been a good program in helping livestock producers as well as also being safer for the wolf population. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's knowledge and work on this issue in her home State of Minnesota. However, I think it is time that we in this country declare a success, declare a win when it comes to the gray wolf. There are at least 6,000 wolves in the Great Lakes States, the Rocky Mountain States, the Pacific and Northwest States; 14,000 in the whole United States. As I said before, this is no longer an endangered species. It does not fit the criteria for endangered species. My own State Fish and Wildlife Department 3 years in a row has sent letters to Congress asking and pointing out the reasons why the wolf could be, should be delisted. You talk about coexisting with other species. If you look at the elk population of Yellowstone, in the 10 years between 1996 and 2006, the population has been decimated by 50 percent. If you look at the Shiras moose population of Utah, it has been decimated by 90 percent because of these healthy populations of wolves. I think there are issues that we are experiencing because of being unable to manage them in ways that States have proven that they are capable of doing. It does not take away the ability for States to do those kind of things. The Federal Government fully has, until June 30 of 2017, to continue managing the wolf in the way it does now. This just sets a timeline, provides an incentive for the agency to move forward with its own rule and the process that has been in place. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Farm Regulatory Certainty Act. In 2015, a federal judge ruled in a citizen suit that dissolved manure nitrates constitute a ``solid waste'' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and held four Washington State dairies culpable of ``open dumping'' due to their nutrient management practices. A farmer myself, I firmly believe farmers have and must continue to lead the charge on good stewardship and conservation. While I agree there are a number of statutes that do govern nutrient management practices, Congress never intended for RCRA to be one of those statutes. Moreover, the EPA's regulations confirm that agricultural wastes, such as manures and crop residues, were not intended to be governed under RCRA. This misguided ruling has placed farmers across the country in a legal gray area. It is unfair for agricultural nutrients to be exempt from law, then have a court find farmers at fault for non-compliance with the very law they are exempt from. Farmers need certainty as to what rules apply to them. The legislation I introduce today would clarify and reaffirm that RCRA was not intended to govern nutrient management activities. Moreover, this bill would prevent farmers who are already engaged in legal action and who are diligently working with the state or federal government to address nutrient management issues from being targeted by citizen suits. We want to continue to encourage farmers to be good stewards, and create an environment where farmers can feel comfortable working with state and federal regulatory agencies to address stewardship issues-- not have farmers fear that documents and samples provided to regulators will be acquired by third-parties and used against them in these ``double-jeopardy''-like lawsuits. This commonsense legislation will clarify Congress' intent on this statute, and work to restore a relationship of trust and confidence between farmers and regulators.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of a veteran who always looked for ways to serve his brothers in arms. This Saturday, June 18, Rod Bluechel will be inducted into the Vietnam Memorial's In Memory program, which honors many veterans whose eventual passings were related to their service. Rod served honorably in the United States Army from 1960 to 1963, during which time he deployed to Vietnam. On April 2, 2014, Mr. Bluechel died of causes related to his exposure to Agent Orange during his service. He was known in the Kennewick, Washington, area for his work with the Columbia Basin Veterans Coalition, especially for his efforts on behalf of homeless veterans. Mr. Bluechel took to heart the moral mandate our Nation holds: ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' It is my hope that we can best remember his service by following his example.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation that extends the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in my district. Specifically, this legislation will provide for a commencement of construction deadline extension for the Enloe Dam Hydroelectric Project that is being developed in Washington State by the Okanogan Public Utility District, in partnership with Energy Northwest. On July 9, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted the Okanogan Public Utility District an original license for the Enloe Dam Hydroelectric Project, which will be located at the existing Enloe Dam that is situated about 3.5 miles northwest of the City of Oroville in the State of Washington. The current Enloe Dam was constructed in 1920 on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for power generation. However, operations ceased in 1958 when the extension of Bonneville Power Administration's high voltage transmission line into the Okanogan Valley provided a less expensive source of power. The proposed Enloe Dam Hydroelectric Project makes economic and environmental sense as it will convert currently untapped energy in existing flow releases into clean, renewable electricity. The Enloe Dam Hydroelectric Project will have a footprint that is roughly half the size of the existing facility but will provide approximately three times the generating capacity of the decommissioned plant. Completion of the Project will provide Washingtonians and the Pacific Northwest region with a clean, renewable energy resource that generates an estimated 45,000 megawatt hours per year of carbon-free, renewable power. Additionally, the proposed project will create jobs and needed employment opportunities in a region with an unemployment rate that far exceeds the national average, underscoring the many positive benefits this project will have for the local community, state, and region. The legislation will allow for development of this critical hydropower facility to move forward under a realistic regulatory timeline and in a manner consistent with prior Congressional actions on similar projects. By passing this measure and extending the commencement of construction deadline for the Enloe Dam Hydroelectric Project, Congress can help spur hydropower development in Central Washington and ensure the Project's many benefits are realized. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, which will have a positive and lasting impact on the region's energy supply and economic viability.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just inquire of the gentlewoman from New York if she has any further speakers.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 743, providing for consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 5055, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 5055 under a modified open rule, allowing for consideration of all amendments that are germane to the bill and conform to House rules. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill appropriates annual funding for national defense nuclear weapons activities, the Army Corps of Engineers, various programs under DOE, and other related agencies. Over the past few years, we have seen increasing threats to our national security, historic droughts in many regions of the United States, the importance of water, and the need for greater energy security and independence. This legislation addresses all of these issues, as well as many others, and invests in efforts to promote a more secure and prosperous future for our Nation. With ever-changing global security threats from Russia and Iran to terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda, national security continues-- as well it should--to be a top concern for many Americans. Now it is more vital than ever that the U.S. maintain our nuclear security preparedness, and this legislation takes important steps to ensure our nuclear weapons stockpile is modern, secure, stable, and available. It provides a total of $12.9 billion for DOE's nuclear weapons security programs. That is a $327 million increase above the 2016 level. And this funding will uphold the Nation's nuclear deterrence posture, maintain the safety and the readiness of our weapons stockpile, and allow the U.S. to meet any nuclear threat. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5055 also addresses the need for reliable water resources. As we have seen from the severe droughts that have impacted many Western States, accessibility to safe and adequate water resources is critical to our local communities. In my home State of Washington, we have seen historic droughts over the past few years, with serious water supply shortages that have impacted the agriculture, energy, and manufacturing sectors as well as many families and small businesses that rely on an adequate and stable supply of water. Additionally, Washington and much of the Western United States have experienced catastrophic wildfire seasons over the last 2 years, with Washington enduring back-to-back years of record-setting fires which have been fueled by a lack of rainfall and extremely arid conditions. This legislation contains funds for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to help manage, develop, and protect the water resources of Western States. Further, the measure includes several new provisions to help Western communities by providing relief from the onerous and excessive Federal regulations that have exacerbated this situation. Energy independence is paramount to the future of our country, and the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill invests in an all-of-the-above energy strategy in order to promote a more secure and prosperous future for our Nation. Under the legislation, funding is allocated for DOE energy programs, and the bill prioritizes and increases funding for the programs that encourage U.S. economic competitiveness and help advance the goal of greater domestic energy production and security. This bill provides funds for research and development to advance coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy technologies which will help the U.S. make better use of our rich national energy resources and help keep energy costs low. Additionally, nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration activities are increased. Mr. Speaker, while this bill includes funding for many activities that are critical to our country's future, it also appropriates funds to address an important issue from our past, and that is the cleanup of our country's defense nuclear sites that supported our previous nuclear weapons production. These sites played a critical part in our country's ability to win World War II as well as the cold war by producing the basic and complex materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons. It just happens that the largest of these sites is the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which is located in my central Washington State district. It produced plutonium for nuclear weapons development both during and after World War II. There are many similar sites across the country where the Federal Government has a moral and a legal obligation to clean up the remaining contaminated facilities and hazardous nuclear waste. A key component of our defense environmental cleanup efforts is the availability of a viable nuclear repository where this waste can be stored. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Yucca Mountain is the country's only legal and permanent nuclear repository, though for years there have been efforts to kill the use of this site, efforts that would hinder defense nuclear cleanup for decades and would waste the Federal Government's $15 billion investment in this repository. This legislation continues congressional efforts to support Yucca Mountain by providing funding for the nuclear waste disposal program and funds for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the adjudication of DOE's Yucca Mountain license application. Additionally, the bill denies the administration's funding proposals for non-Yucca nuclear waste activities. Another component of this measure is strong support for our national laboratories, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory located in Washington's Fourth Congressional District. These labs perform critical research on cybersecurity, develop high-performance computing systems, and advance the next generation of energy sources which lay the groundwork for a more secure energy future, helping to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign energy and ensuring continued economic growth. Finally, H.R. 5055 includes many conservative policy priorities that are critical to combating the administration's efforts to undermine economic growth through excessive and burdensome regulations. The bill effectively prohibits the EPA and the Corps from implementing the waters of the United States rule and any changes to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It also restricts the application of the Clean Water Act in certain agricultural areas. There is also language prohibiting the administration from changing the definition of ``fill material'' and ``discharge fill material.'' From the beginning, the WOTUS rule has been an unprecedented Federal power grab that expands Federal regulation over ponds, over streams, and over irrigation ditches in the middle of cropland, giving the EPA unprecedented say over what farmers can or cannot do with their land. This bill takes the important step of prohibiting funding for the implementation of this deeply misguided rule which would have devastating economic consequences for farmers, for ranchers, for small businesses, and for communities across our country. Additionally, the legislation protects Americans' constitutional Second Amendment rights by including language that allows law-abiding Americans to possess firearms on Army Corps of Engineers public lands. In places in my district, these public lands are used heavily by the community. The bill includes language that I offered along with Congressman Gosar of Arizona to prevent the removal of any Federal dams, protecting the critical flood control and the hydropower benefits provided by these facilities. Hydropower is a key resource throughout the West, and we must prevent misguided attempts to shut down these dams. Finally, it continues a restriction from fiscal year 2016 to prevent any funds from being used to start or enter into any new nuclear nonproliferation contracts or agreements with Russia. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 5055, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. This is a responsible measure that supports the U.S. national security, safety, and economic competitiveness; advances an all-of-the- above energy strategy; and makes strategic investments in infrastructure and water resources projects--balancing these critical priorities while still maintaining tight budget caps. These efforts will help promote a more secure and prosperous future for our Nation, which is why I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a good friend of mine from the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 743 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to agree with the gentlewoman from New York. I certainly, too, appreciate the bipartisan effort that was put into this bill on the part of both Chairman Simpson as well as Ranking Member Kaptur. They did an excellent job, which is illustrated in both the committee and the subcommittee. This legislation passed on a voice vote. That is a demonstration of great bipartisan support, and certainly speaks well to this committee doing excellent work together. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the good gentlewoman from New York. Mr. Speaker, the rule we have considered provides for the consideration of a very important piece of legislation that will protect our country from security threats; that will ensure we have a modern, safe, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons program; that will promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy; and that will make critical investments in water resources and infrastructure projects. The funds appropriated for national security needs, improvements in our Nation's infrastructure, domestic energy development, and growing our economy will benefit all Americans. This bill is a responsible measure that supports U.S. national security, energy research, water resource development, and economic competitiveness, balancing these critical priorities while maintaining tight budget caps. In the current fiscal climate, where our national debt is approaching a staggering $20 trillion, many difficult decisions had to be made by the committee in drafting this measure, and I believe we have a bill that preserves fiscal responsibility, advances sound conservative and progrowth economic policies, and prioritizes funding for our country's most pressing needs. The past few years have seen the U.S. face growing security threats abroad, highlighting the need to keep our country at the pinnacle of nuclear security preparedness as well as the importance of investing in domestic energy production that takes much-needed steps towards energy independence. In the Western United States, Americans have endured severe droughts and catastrophic wildfires, which have drastically restricted the availability of water and have devastated ground infrastructure. This legislation addresses these issues as well as many others, and it invests in efforts to promote a more secure and prosperous future for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, the 2017 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act also includes much-needed conservative reforms and policies to counter the administration's issuance of one crippling regulation after another, hindering our domestic energy development and security and undermining overall economic growth. H.R. 5055 prohibits the EPA and the Army Corps from implementing the excessive WOTUS rule, which would vastly expand Federal jurisdiction over our water resources. It prevents any changes to Federal authority under the Clean Water Act and impedes efforts to apply the Clean Water Act in certain agricultural areas, such as farm ponds and irrigation ditches. The legislation blocks efforts to remove Federal dams, and it protects Americans' Second Amendment rights by allowing for the possession of firearms on Army Corps lands. Finally, it continues a policy from last year that restricts any funds from being used to enter into any new nuclear nonproliferation contracts or agreements with Russia. Mr. Speaker, this bill responsibly funds infrastructure, water, and defense programs that are critical to our national security, to our safety, and to our economic competitiveness, all while making tough choices to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely. I urge my colleagues to support the rule's adoption and invest in a secure and prosperous future for our country by passing the 2017 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments as they relate to the moral and legal obligation of the Federal Government to continue the nuclear waste cleanup that we have all over this country. And then the gentlewoman from Nevada certainly has voiced some concerns that we have heard before that are important to the people in the State of Nevada. Let me just remind everyone that we are under a modified open rule. If there are changes to this bill, every Member in this body has an opportunity to provide amendments to this bill. Under a modified open rule, everything is on the table. If that is something that she can get the support of the majority of the people on this floor, then that is certainly something that she can take out of this bill. But I have another opinion, another viewpoint. I have been to Yucca Mountain. I don't know that there is a perfect place in the universe to store nuclear waste, but Yucca Mountain, to me, seems to be about as close to perfect as you can find. In that mountain, we have 1,000 feet of rock above where the waste would be stored, and you have 1,000 feet of rock below where that storage situation would be. And I should remind the body that Yucca Mountain is the country's only legal and permanent nuclear repository. It is for both commercial as well as defense waste, and it is a critical component of our efforts to clean up the defense nuclear waste created during and after World War II. While I appreciate the gentlewoman's differing opinion, she does have the opportunity to offer amendments, and I would encourage her to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and also for his hard work on this important piece of legislation. Coming from mosquito country, I am very much interested in this legislation. Madam Speaker, passing the Zika Vector Control Act is a step that we must take today that will have a major impact on preventing the spread of the Zika virus as well as many other deadly mosquito-borne illnesses. Right now the Centers for Disease Control is advising Americans to adopt the most commonsense method to avoid contacting Zika, and that is preventing mosquito bites. Since a vaccine does not exist, we need to prevent bites in the first place. Our Nation's mosquito control districts are on the frontline of reducing mosquito populations that not only carry Zika, but other dangerous diseases such as West Nile virus. I can just tell you that I have a personal friend who passed away from West Nile, and I also know several people in my community whose lives have been changed forever by infection from West Nile. Dengue fever and various forms of encephalitis are huge problems also. The legislation being offered today by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) offers a simple, commonsense fix to one of the biggest burdens of our mosquito control districts. For more than 40 years, both Democrat and Republican administrations alike have not required mosquito control districts to seek a permit for treating mosquitoes since the EPA already approves every pesticide and every applicator being used. However, several years ago, EPA required another permit in addition to the approval processes chemicals and applicators already go through. This duplicative permitting is very costly. The State of California alone--the gentlewoman's State--spends $3 million annually on these duplicative permits. That is $3 million less in resources to combat mosquitoes. To make matters worse, mosquito control districts now face increased legal uncertainty due to these new permits. One district in my State informed me that they now set aside fully 20 percent of their budget for potential legal challenges related to the permits. Now, that is 20 percent of their budget that is not going to combat mosquitoes. To me, that is an example of government red tape at its worst, and it is putting lives at risk. So I would disagree with my friend from Oregon that it does reduce the amount of control that we do see. Opponents of this legislation say that this will place our waters at risk. But, Madam Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth. Appropriate regulation already exists. All of the pesticides being used have already been approved by the EPA for safe use. The only risk to public health that will come from this legislation would be not to pass it.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Not passing this bill will continue to unnecessarily expose millions of Americans to Zika and other mosquito-borne diseases and will restrict resources for those desperately trying to keep the American people safe.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Port of Benton Restriction Release Act of 2016. This legislation will lift the conveyance restrictions on a 71.5 acre parcel of land that was deeded to the Port of Benton (Port) in 1996 by the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Port acquired this parcel of land as part of an effort to transfer excess and unneeded land from the ``Former 3000 Area'' of the Hanford nuclear reservation, located in the Tri-Cities region of Central Washington, back to the local communities. Recently, the Port has explored economic development opportunities on this parcel, however the existing conveyance restrictions have inhibited their ability to develop the land for the economic benefit of the Tri-Cities region. In recent years, there has been an increase in economic activity near this property, including over $70 million in investments, the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historic Park in 2014, and the transfer of 1,641 acres of Hanford land back to the local communities for further economic and industrial development. The Port of Benton has targeted uses for this land that include clean energy manufacturing, bio products, solar array, and industrial operations, which could yield investments of $1 billion for the local communities and the creation of 1,500 jobs for the region. However, the conveyance restrictions on this property have inhibited the Port's ability to attract private and small businesses to make investments in the Former Hanford 3000 Area. These restrictions require that all sub-leases over five years on the property be submitted to MARAD for approval. Additionally, the Port is required to submit annual reports to MARAD for the parcel. This important legislation will release all remaining federal deed restrictions on the 71.5 acre property, which will allow the Port of Benton and the surrounding communities to continue their hard work to create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and retain a skilled workforce in the area, and this parcel of land is a critical component of this effort. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, which will have a positive and lasting impact on the economic viability and competitiveness of the Tri-Cities region.