Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 78 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2446-H2455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ZIKA VECTOR CONTROL ACT

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

H.R. 897

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Zika Vector Control Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in section 402(s) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Administrator or
a State may not require a permit under such Act for a
discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a
pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under
this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from
the application of such pesticide.
``(B) Sunset.--This paragraph shall cease to be effective
on September 30, 2018.''.

SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.

Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from
a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue
of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the
violation; or
``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation.
``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under
subsection (p).
``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under
this section:
``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention.
``(3) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective
on September 30, 2018.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.

General Leave

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 897.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 897, the
Zika Vector Control Act.

[[Page H2447]]

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.

{time} 1330

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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H2448]]

Well, Groundhog Day came a month earlier this Congress. That is how I
described this bill 2 years ago, July, because this is the third time
that we have considered this bill. Now, we must admit the rationale has
changed. Just last week--last week--it was named the Zika Control Act.
But before that, it was the Regulatory Burden Removal Act.
So the first time it was considered, it was H.R. 1749. That one, the
109th Congress defeated. That was for West Nile virus--whoops. Then
H.R. 872, last Congress, Reducing the Regulation Burdens Act, at the
request of the American Farm Bureau because of a huge burden; and now
just renamed last week, we are going to try and game a very serious
thing, which is the potential spread of Zika, for which the Republicans
thus far have appropriated zero dollars to help the States--zero. Now
we are going to pretend we are doing something here today about Zika.
It is not about Zika.
Now, this is pretty darn personal for me because the reason we have
this rule is because of a huge, massive fish kill in Oregon--a
misapplication of pesticide, an aquatic pesticide, into an irrigation
canal. We are talking about applications in or near water.
People drink water, fish swim in water, and other things are
dependent upon water. We are talking about, no, we don't want to have
the EPA watch the pesticide operators who are putting pesticides in or
around water. They should not be allowed to do that.
Now, 92,000 steelhead died in Oregon, and that was essentially the
beginning of this rule. Now they are saying this is horribly
burdensome.
Well, first off, in my State, my one, little, isolated State, we have
825 miles of rivers that are showing a significant level of pesticides,
10,000 acres of lakes. Nationwide, it is hundreds of thousands of
miles, tens of thousands of miles and hundreds of thousands of acres.
We haven't been testing for pesticide residues in water, in drinking
water, until very recently. But now we don't want to do that anymore.
We don't want people to know. Let's just stop, because this is a
horrible burden.
Well, actually, not so much. This is controlled at two levels: the
EPA and the States. Now, we just heard one anecdote about an aerial
applicator in one State that just came up yesterday, unnamed,
anecdotal, they suspended operations. Why? Who knows why? We don't know
why. There are no facts behind it. But we should end the whole program
nationwide because of one anecdote regarding one applicator who may
have been misapplying it in Colorado. We don't know.
So the committee asked the EPA and the States, how many people have
complained and have had their operations interrupted? Interesting
answer: zero and zero. The 50 States say zero, except we now hear about
an anecdote in Colorado, and the EPA says zero.
So now we are going to pretend this has something to do with Zika.
This has nothing to do with Zika. It has to do with whether or not
someone is going to misapply a pesticide that is going to get in your
drinking water.
Now, we should become kind of sensitive about drinking water after
what happened in Michigan, but, nah, we don't care. Get rid of those
stinking regulators. Don't worry. No one would ever misapply a
pesticide. It won't get in your drinking water and won't kill fish--
even though it clearly did that in Oregon. So this is really a kind of
transparent renaming and opportunistic approach to Zika.
How about considering a real bill to put some real money to partner
with the States to deal with this? By the way, they can spray wherever
they want because of a declared emergency, so it is automatically
covered.
But we are going to pretend that somehow we are going to facilitate
the spread of Zika if we don't wipe out the EPA's authority to keep
pesticides out of our water. This has been defeated twice before. Even
though it was creatively renamed in the last week, I would recommend
that my colleagues oppose it yet again.
Mr. Speaker, 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. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Zika
Vector Control Act and want to commend Congressman Gibbs for his
leadership in bringing this forward as we work here in the House to
combat Zika.
The House is doing a number of things this week. Number one, we are
moving legislation to reprioritize money so that there will be a total
of $1.2 billion of moneys allocated to combat Zika.
But, in addition, while we are fighting Zika and giving not only
Federal, but local agencies the resources they need to combat this
terrible disease from spreading, we know, and CDC has told us, that it
is spread by mosquitos. Mosquitos are the agents that spread Zika.
So here we have got Congressman Gibbs identifying a problem where the
EPA is making it harder to actually kill mosquitos.
I come from south Louisiana. We have a lot of mosquitos in south
Louisiana, and we don't like them. We actually spray using federally
approved pesticides to kill mosquitos where they breed. Where do they
breed, Mr. Speaker? They breed by water. They breed by sources of
water. So you have got federally approved sprays and pesticides that
are used to go and kill the mosquitos so that they can't spread Zika,
and yet the EPA comes in and has a rule that makes it harder and more
expensive to actually go kill mosquitos.
All that Congressman Gibbs is saying is let's block that rule because
local governments, by the way, still control this. It is our local
governments, our parishes and counties, that are doing the spraying.
They understand how to comply with their own local laws. They are not
going to do anything to jeopardize groundwater, but what they want to
do is kill mosquitos so that the mosquitos don't spread Zika to our
constituents.
If you look, this legislation actually was passed. It actually was
passed in 2011 when we were responding to West Nile. So the House did
pass this legislation already, and it was good legislation then. In
fact, it got a wide bipartisan vote. All of a sudden, some people want
to politicize it. This isn't a political issue. This is about common
sense.
Mr. Speaker, the EPA is just putting additional hurdles in place. It
is not like they are saying don't spray these pesticides. They are just
jacking up the costs. It is an EPA money grab that makes it more
expensive and more difficult to actually go kill mosquitos.
So while we are debating whether or not to prioritize more money for
Zika--which we are doing, by the way, $1.2 billion worth--shouldn't we
make sure that the money can actually be used to effectively kill the
mosquitos that spread Zika? If the EPA has got a rule that makes no
sense and makes it harder to kill mosquitos, shouldn't we remove that
rule and that barrier and allow and trust our local governments?
There are some people up here who think that Washington knows best,
and if your local parish or county knows what they need to do to
control the mosquito population in their parish or county, shouldn't
they be able to do it? Or you don't trust them; you don't want to give
them the ability to go kill mosquitos.
Well, I do trust our local governments, and I want to give them the
tools that they need to actually go and kill mosquitos at the source
where they breed, and that is near sources of water. It is not in a way
that contaminates groundwater at all. In fact, EPA still gives these
permits out, but it just costs a lot more money to go and kill the
mosquitos. So let's remove that burden so we can kill more mosquitos
and stop Zika from spreading.
Mr. Speaker, it is a really good, commonsense piece of legislation,
and I urge its adoption.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the horrible burden the gentleman is talking about is a
notice of intent which says where and how something was applied. It is
virtually cost free. You can use a standardized form. But it is just
good to know where we are putting the pesticides and what pesticides
are being used in case there are problems like the massive fish kill in
Oregon, which we were able to trace back to one misapplication by one
private company, not by the local county or any other public entity.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano).

[[Page H2449]]

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.

{time} 1345

This is a significant concern in my home State, where every drop of
water needs to be conserved, reused, and cherished.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman and additional 1
minute.
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.
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

[[Page H2450]]

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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the House
consideration of the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act that House
Republicans have incorrectly and misleadingly renamed the Zika Vector
Control Act.
In the 113th Congress, this exact legislation with a bill number of
H.R. 935 failed under suspension of the rules 253-148. At the time,
Republicans subsequently rescheduled it 2 days later under a closed
rule to allow passage.
I was a Democratic manager of that bill under consideration in 2014.
In fact, since my statement laid out a real substantive concern with
the legislation, I include in the Record a copy of my remarks from that
time.
Mr. Speaker, in the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved
similar legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the
process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome, that it would
grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related
activities.
Some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the
impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pesticide
general permit.
However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the
agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost non-existent
level of concern expressed after almost three years of implementation,
you would likely question why we are here this evening debating this
bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric, EPA and the States have successfully
drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit (PGP) for the
last two-and-a-half years that adopted several common-sense
precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by
pesticides. And they do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators
to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related
activities in a cost-effective manner.
The sky has not fallen, farmers and forestry operators have had two
successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully
address multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness, while at the same
time complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water
Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
I say sensible because, as we should clearly understand, the intended
focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different.
FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of
pesticides on national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects
on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating
approved uses and restrictions.
However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining
the integrity of the nation's waters, with a primary focus on the
protection of local water quality.
It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate
for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with
FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its
label--farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of that
pesticide on local water quality.
So, why are groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation
to Crop Life America so adamantly opposed to this regulation?
One plausible answer is because these groups do not want to come out
of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to
discharge unknown pesticides in unknown quantities, with unknown
mixtures, and at unknown locations.
I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for
decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially-
harmful materials, almost completely below the radar.
In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the
only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a
voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were
purchased from commercial dealers of pesticides.
No comprehensive information was required, or available, on the
quantities, types, or location of pesticides applied in this country.
Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for
decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our nation's
surface and ground waters.
Which leads me to question how eliminating any reporting requirement
on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the
environment?
All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of
pesticide contamination in our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and
make accountability for these discharges more difficult. If this
legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who
manufacture pesticides, than those who actually release these dangerous
chemicals into the real world.
During the debate on Monday, several speakers questioned the
environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the
application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so
obvious, it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked.
First, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires
pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use
of pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I
find it difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of
pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.
Second, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires
pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents
that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish
or wildlife kills would be a mutually-agreed upon benefit.
Also, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires
pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides
are being applied throughout the nation.
Again, if data is showing that a local waterbody is contaminated by
pesticides, I would think the public would want to quickly identify the
likely source of the pesticide that is causing the impairment.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware, despite repeated
requests to both EPA and States, of any specific example where the
current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide
applicator from performing their services. Despite claims to the
contrary, the Clean Water Act has not significantly increased the
compliance costs to states or individual pesticide sprayers, nor has it
been used as a tool by outside groups or EPA to ban the use of
pesticides.
So, let me summarize a few points.
One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring
that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the
appropriate times, and that pesticides are not having an adverse
impacts on human health or the environment.
Two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has
imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to
provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health
communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically
covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by the
filing of an electronic ``Notice of Intent.''
Three, Federal and state data make it clear that application of
pesticides in compliance with FIFRA, alone, as was the case for many
years, was insufficient to protect waterbodies throughout the nation
from being contaminated by pesticides, so if we care about water
quality, more needed to be done.
I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of
potentially-harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that
existed prior to the issuance of the Clean Water Act pesticide general
permit. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or
significant financial burden, and has been implemented seamlessly
across the country.
As was stated during the debate on Monday, this legislation is
seeking to address a pretend problem that simply doesn't exist.
I urge a no vote on H.R. 935.

[[Page H2451]]

In this Congress, this legislation was marked up early last year in
the Agriculture Committee as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. The
committee of primary jurisdiction, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, has taken no action on the bill this time
around; yet, here we are again on the House floor.
The Republican leadership has now changed the name of the bill to the
Zika Vector Control Act. A new name and the inclusion of a sunset date
in 2018 are the only differences from previous iterations of this bill.
H.R. 897 is the exact same legislation that pesticide manufacturers
and other special interests have been pushing for the past several
years. It 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 5 years now, and alarmist predictions by pesticide
manufacturers and others about the impacts of this permit have failed
to bear any fruit.
In fact, in March 2015, before the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator
of the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency,
testified that:
``We have not been made aware of any issues associated with the
pesticide general permit. Nobody has brought an instance to our
attention where somebody has not been able to apply a pesticide in a
timely manner . . . There have been no instances.''
Yet, here we are. Since then, all across the country, pesticide
applicators--usually utilities managing their rights-of-way--are
complying with the Clean Water Act permits to protect water quality.
The public is getting information they need that we couldn't get before
about what pesticides are being sprayed into what bodies of water.
Congress should not and must not respond to outdated sky-is-falling
problems that history has shown has never occurred and weaken
protections for the water our children drink.
In past Congresses, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
chosen a public health emergency de jour as rationale to pass and enact
this legislation into law. At one time, they cited, as they have again
today, West Nile virus. The next time it was the western wildland fire
suppression. Last Congress, it was the drought.
Now, in nothing less than a purely political move, Republicans are
considering this bill on suspension, but this time under the guise of
combating the spread of Zika.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. EDWARDS. Let us be clear. This bill has absolutely nothing to do
with Zika or trying to stop the threat of the Zika virus. Despite
claims made by my colleagues to the contrary, the permit already in
effect allows spraying for Zika or other mosquito control programs.
H.R. 897 is simply another attack on the Clean Water Act as part of
the Republican's anti-environmental, deregulatory agenda. I urge my
colleagues to vote this legislation down.
And let's do something real to combat Zika. The President has asked
for $1.9 billion in emergency funding because it is an emergency. It is
a public health threat. If we did that now, then we would be fulfilling
our duties and responsibilities.
But this legislation today fulfills no responsibilities, gets in the
way of protecting clean water, and does absolutely nothing to combat
the Zika virus that, if you look at the map, is quickly spreading
across this country.
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

[[Page H2452]]

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.
____

The American Mosquito

Control Association,

Mount Laurel, NJ, May 16, 2016.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gibbs: The American Mosquito Control
Association, in concert with mosquito control agencies,
programs and regional associations throughout the United
States, want to express our enthusiastic support for passage
of HR 897 the Zika Vector Control Act clarifying the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permitting
issue facing our public health agencies.
Each year, over one half million people die worldwide from
mosquito-transmitted diseases. In the U.S. alone, the costs
associated with the treatment of mosquito-borne illness run
into the millions of dollars annually.
This amendment addresses a situation that has placed
mosquito control activities under substantial legal jeopardy
and requires ongoing diversion of taxpayer-supported
resources away from their public health mission. Though the
NPDES was originally designed to address point source
emissions from major industrial polluters such as chemical
plants, activist lawsuits have forced US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to require such permits even for the
application of EPA registered pesticides, including
insecticides used for mosquito control. These permits are
mandated despite the fact that pesticides are already
strictly regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Currently, mosquito control programs are vulnerable to
lawsuits for simple paperwork violations of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) where fines may be up to $35,000 per day for
activities that do not involve harm to the environment. In
order to attempt to comply with this potential liability,
these governmental agencies must divert scarce resources to
CWA monitoring. In some cases, smaller applicators have
simply chosen not to engage in vector control activities.
Requiring NPDES permits for the discharges of mosquito
control products provides no additional environmental
protections beyond those already listed on the pesticide
label, yet the regulatory burdens are potentially depriving
the general public of the economic and health benefits of
mosquito control. This occurs at a time when many regions of
the country have seen outbreaks of equine encephalitis, West
Nile virus, dengue fever and the rapidly spreading new threat
of the Zika and chikungunya viruses.
This negative impact on the public health response and
needless legal jeopardy requires legislative clarification
that the intent of the CWA does not include duplicating
FIFRA's responsibilities. HR 897 seeks to achieve that goal
and we strongly encourage its passage via any legislative
vehicle that enacts its clarifying language into law.
Thank you for your strong leadership on this important
public health issue.
Adams County (WA) Mosquito Control District, American
Mosquito Control Association, Associated Executives of
Mosquito Control Work in New Jersey, Atlantic County Office
of Mosquito Control, Baker Valley Vector Control District,
Benton County (WA) Mosquito Control District, Columbia
Drainage Vector Control District, Davis County (UT) Mosquito
Abatement District, Delaware Mosquito Control Section,
Florida Mosquito Control Association, Gem County (ID)
Mosquito Abatement, Georgia Mosquito Control Association,
Idaho Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Jackson County
(OR) Vector Control District, Klamath Vector Control
District, Louisiana Mosquito Control Association, Magna
Mosquito Abatement District.
Manatee County (FL) Mosquito Control District, Matthew C.
Ball, Multnomah County (OR) Vector Control Program, New
Jersey Mosquito Control Association, North Carolina Mosquito
& Vector Control Association, North Morrow Vector Control
District, Northeast Mosquito Control Association, North Shore
Mosquito Abatement District (Cook County, Illinois),
Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Oregon
Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Pennsylvania Vector
Control Association, Philip D. Smith, Richmond County (GA)
Mosquito Control District, South Salt Lake Valley Mosquito
Abatement District, Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement
District, Texas Mosquito Control Association, Teton County
(WY) Weed & Pest District, Union County (OR) Vector Control
District, Washington County (OR) Mosquito Control.
Members of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of
California:
Alameda County MAD, Alameda County VCSD, Antelope Valley
MVCD, Burney Basin MAD, Butte County MVCD, City of Alturas,
City of Berkeley, City of Blythe, City of Moorpark/VC,
Coachella Valley MVCD, Colusa MAD, Compton Creek MAD,
Consolidated MAD, Contra Costa MVCD, County of El Dorado,
Vector Control, Delano MAD, Delta VCD, Durham MAD, East Side
MAD, Fresno MVCD, Fresno Westside MAD, Glenn County MVCD.
Greater LA County VCD, Imperial County Vector Control, June
Lake Public Utility District, Kern MVCD, Kings MAD, Lake
County VCD, Long Beach Vector Control Program, Los Angeles
West Vector and Vector-borne Disease Control District, Madera
County MVCD, Marin/Sonoma MVCD, Merced County MAD, Mosquito
and Vector Management District of Santa Barbara County, Napa
County MAD, Nevada County Community Development Agency, No.
Salinas Valley MAD, Northwest MVCD, Orange County Mosquito
and Vector Control District, Oroville MAD, Owens Valley MAP,
Pasadena Public Health Department, Pine Grove MAD.
Placer MVCD, Riverside County, Dept. of Environmental
Health VCP, Sacramento-Yolo MVCD, Saddle Creek Community
Services District, San Benito County Agricultural Commission,
San Bernardino County Mosquito and Vector Control Program,
San Diego County Dept. of Environmental Health, Vector
Control, San Francisco Public Health, Environmental Health
Section, San Gabriel Valley MVCD, San Joaquin County MVCD,
San Mateo County MVCD, Santa Clara County VCD, Santa Cruz
County Mosquito Abatement/Vector Control, Shasta MVCD, Solano
County MAD, South Fork Mosquito Abatement District, Sutter-
Yuba MVCD, Tehama County MVCD, Tulare Mosquito Abatement
District, Turlock MAD, Ventura County Environmental Health
Division, West Side MVCD, West Valley MVCD,
____

Dear Representative, I am writing to you today as a pest
management professional requesting your support for H.R. 897,
the Zika Vector Control Act. H.R. 897 is scheduled to be
considered by the full House of Representatives tomorrow, May
17. H.R. 897 would suspend the need to obtain unnecessary and
burdensome permits, allowing our industry to better protect
you from the mosquitoes that transmit the Zika virus.
Zika is an emerging mosquito-borne virus that currently has
no specific medical treatment or vaccine. Zika virus is
spread through the bite of infected mosquitoes in the Aedes
genus, the same mosquitoes that carry dengue fever and
chikungunya. The Zika virus causes mild flu-like symptoms in
about 20 percent of infected people, but the main concern
among leading health organizations is centered on a possible
link between the virus and microcephaly, a birth defect
associated with underdevelopment of the head and brain,
resulting in neurological and developmental problems. The
World Health Organization (WHO) recently declared Zika virus
a global health emergency.
Currently, pest management professionals who apply even
small amounts of pesticides in and around lakes, rivers and
streams to protect public health and prevent potential
disease outbreaks are required to obtain an additional,
redundant and burdensome National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to application. Under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), all pesticides are reviewed and regulated for use
with strict instructions on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (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.
Pest management professionals are on the front lines of
protecting the public, using a variety of tools, including
pesticides. Requiring pest management applicators to obtain
an NPDES permit to prevent and react to potential disease
outbreaks wastes valuable time against rapidly moving and
potentially deadly pests. Water is the breeding ground for
many pests.
The pest management industry strongly urges you temporarily
remove this regulatory burden and help us protect people
throughout your community from mosquitoes that transmit
dangerous and deadly diseases, like Zika, by voting YES on
H.R. 897, the Zika Vector Control Act.
Sincerely,
National Pest Management Association.
____

Responsible Industry for a

Sound Environment,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2016.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Gibbs: Thank you for re-introducing the
H.R. 897. RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment)

[[Page H2453]]

is a national not-for-profit trade association representing
producers and suppliers of specialty pesticides including
products used to control mosquitoes and invasive aquatic
weeds.
For most of the past four decades, water quality concerns
from pesticide applications were addressed within the
registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) rather than a Clean Water Act
permitting program. Due to a 2009 decision of the 6th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Clean Water Act National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES) have been
required since 2011 for aquatic pesticide applications. NPDES
permits do not provide any identifiable additional
environmental benefits, but add significant costs and
paperwork requirements which make it more expensive to
protect people from mosquitoes that can vector the Zika
Virus, West Nile Virus, Dengue Fever and other viruses.
Permits also make it more expensive to control invasive
aquatic plants that over take our waterways and impede
endangered species habitat.
H.R. 897 would clarify that duplicative NPDES permits are
not needed for the application of EPA approved pesticides.
The elimination of these permits will speed response to
public health and other pest pressures, save resources for,
states, municipalities, and communities. We support this
legislation look forward to working with you and your
colleagues to advance this legislation.
Sincerely,
Aaron Hobbs,
President.
____

American Farm Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, May 16, 2016.
Hon. Members,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: Later this week, the House will
vote on legislation that clarifies congressional intent
regarding regulation of the use of pesticides for control of
exotic diseases such as Zika virus and West Nile virus, as
well as for other lawful uses in or near navigable waters.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) strongly supports
the ``Zika Vector Control Act of 2016'' and urges all members
of Congress to support this legislation.
AFBF represents rural areas nationwide that will be
impacted by the spread of dangerous exotic diseases like
Zika. The only control measure at this time is vector
control. Our members are aware that local mosquito control
districts face tight budgets and are concerned with the
operational disruptions and increased costs associated with
unnecessary and duplicative permitting requirements. Any
disruption in vector control will expose a large portion of
Farm Bureau members to mosquitos that may carry diseases like
Zika and West Nile virus.
We urge all committee members to vote in favor of the
``Zika Vector Control Act of 2016.''
Thank you very much for your support.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President.

Mr. GIBBS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come down here to oppose this bill. I
am not on the committee, but I was sitting in my office and it made me
angry to hear people down here talking about H.R. 897.
You put out a title that says Zika Vector Control Act. That sounds
like a good thing. People ought to be happy we are going to control the
specter that is out there. But it is a lie.
This does nothing about Zika. It doesn't do anything with the
research that the President has asked the money for. What it does
simply is turn the applicators and the pesticide manufacturers loose on
this country again.
I have been here long enough to remember all of the problems with the
bird eggs that had soft shells and the birds were dying. All these
animals were dying all over the place because of DDT and all of the
things that happen with that kind of application freely in this
society.
One of the things that you have to think about and what I would
caution my congressional friends in the Republican Caucus of is that
you ought to learn from history. Philadelphia was once full of malaria.
Philadelphia was a malaria city. You kept the windows closed at night
because you didn't want to get malaria.
Now, what we are seeing today because of global warming is that
moving north from the equator are the organisms that create disease.
I heard somebody from Louisiana say: Oh, my God. We have got malaria.
We have got all kinds of problems in Louisiana.
You are going to have them. You can find evidence everywhere that
these organisms are there. But the answer is not to let there be
unrestricted and uncontrolled application of pesticides.
That doesn't solve the problem because what it does is it creates
another set of illnesses related to the effects of pesticides on human
beings and on animals and on reproduction.
So what you are doing is you are saying: Well, if you spread this
stuff out on the ground and all over the water and people are going to
get in contact with that water, there is no question about it, directly
or indirectly, and you are going to have the other diseases that come
from this.
I won't give a whole long lecture on the effects of pesticides on
people, but I will remind Members about something called Agent Orange.

{time} 1400

Guys like me who were around during the Vietnam war saw that stuff
being sprayed all over the trees. People said: Oh, that doesn't do
anything. It is just that the leaves drop off.
Then we had an epidemic of physical illnesses that were secondary to
Agent Orange. We told veterans for years: It is not a problem. It is
not a problem. It was not that Agent Orange that got you.
Then we found out that, in fact, it was, and we have been paying and
paying and paying.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. McDERMOTT. So this is one of those issues where you put it on
cheap, but you are going to pay for it in the long term.
Now, some of you over there, clearly, don't care. As for the guy in
Michigan who made the decision that they use that dirty river water and
inflict that on the children of Flint and the lead poisoning and the
lead effects on their heads, that is the kind of mentality we are
dealing with with the people who run this bill every 2 years from the
companies that make this stuff. It came in 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015. Here
it is again this year. It will be back. This bill isn't done. They are
going to keep trying to convince the American people that you can just
spread chemicals everywhere, and it doesn't have effects on people, but
it does. That is what environmental health is all about.
That is why this bill is a step backward to about 1950, when we
didn't really know what pesticides did to people. Now we do. We are
absolutely right in voting against this bill, and the President ought
to veto it if it gets through. The Senate, as bad as they are, won't
even let this bill through.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). Members are
reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The problem here is that FIFRA doesn't require recordkeeping. It is a

[[Page H2454]]

label, and you are supposed to follow the label. There is an even more
recent problem in Oregon--we talked about the fish kill earlier--which
is the overflight spraying of an herbicide on forestlands, which was
applied, and then it drifted into occupied areas and streams.
Now, without the EPA's requirement that you record and report, we
wouldn't know that that had happened; but now we do, and the people who
are complaining about health effects have some recourse since they know
what was applied, when it was applied, and who applied it.
If we do away with that requirement and say, Oh, well, the States
might still require something, well, they might not. Therefore, it
would be: Are you going to follow the label or not? How are you going
to find out if they followed the label? How are you going to find out
whose plane that was? How are you going to find out what they sprayed?
You won't be able to. If you get an impaired body of water, we are
now mapping things.
The EPA says: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That body of water is
already impaired with this particular herbicide or pesticide. We should
limit more applications in that area.
No, we don't want to know about that. We don't want to know about
that.
That is the bottom line here. We are talking about recordkeeping and
reporting after the fact: What did you use? Where did you put it? So if
someone is injured or if we find out their water supply is impaired,
they can figure out how it happened, but not if we do away with this
requirement, with this Groundhog Day bill.
Again, it was pest management, it was forest health, then it was
reducing regulatory burdens; but now it has been reborn in the last
week as Zika control because it is, as the gentlewoman from Maryland
said, the cause du jour. It has nothing to do with Zika.
I was really pleased to see the majority whip say that they were
going to put $1.2 billion into Zika because, as of the publishing of
the appropriations bill, it was only $622 million, which is a third of
what the President asked for; so now they are up to 66 percent. That is
great. I hope that is right because we haven't seen that in writing
yet.
The bottom line is we need to partner with the States to deal with
the threat of Zika just like we did with West Nile--none of which is
going to be impaired by a little recordkeeping--so that we know where,
how, what was applied so that citizens of the United States, private
property owners, will have some recourse.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R.
897, the ``Zika Vector Control Act,'' because this bill was not written
with the intent to control Zika carrying mosquitoes, but rather to
allow higher amounts of rodenticides, fungicides, and insecticides in
water.
The title for H.R. 897, two days ago was the ``Reducing Regulatory
Burdens Act of 2015.''
I am very interested in doing everything I can to address the threat
of Zika Virus, but I am not supportive of tricks or misguided
strategies to get legislation to the House floor in the name of Zika
prevention that was conceived with no thought of the Zika Virus in
mind.
As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, which
has a core mission of emergency preparedness of state and local
governments to be equipped to react to emergencies make me acutely
aware of the potential for the Zika Virus to be a real challenge for
state and local governments during the coming months.
I thank President Obama for his leadership in requesting $1.9 billion
to address the threat of the Zika Virus.
The 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I represent has a
tropical climate and very likely of having to confront the challenge of
Zika Virus carrying mosquitoes before mosquito season ends in the Fall.
Houston, Texas, like many cities, towns, and parishes along the Gulf
Coast, has a tropical climate hospitable to mosquitoes that carry the
Zika Virus like parts of Central and South America, as well as the
Caribbean.
For this reason, I am sympathetic to those members who have districts
along the Gulf Coast.
These areas are known to have both types of the Zika Virus vectors:
the Aedes Aegypti [A-up-ti] and the Asian Tiger Mosquito, which is why
I held a meeting in Houston on March 10, 2016 about this evolving
health threat.
I convened a meeting with Houston, Harris County and State officials
at every level of responsibility to combat the Zika Virus to discuss
preparations that would mitigate its.
The participants included Dr. Peter Hotez, Dean of the National
School of Tropical Medicine and Professor of Pediatrics at Baylor
College of Medicine and Dr. Dubboun, Director of the Harris County
Public Health Environmental Services Mosquito Control Division who gave
strong input on the critical need to address the threat on a multi-
pronged approach.
Dr. Dubboun, Director of the Harris County Public Health
Environmental Services Mosquito Control Division stressed that we
cannot spray our way out of the Zika Virus threat.
He was particularly cautious about the over use of spraying because
of its collateral threat to the environment and people.
We should not forget that Flint, Michigan was an example of short
sighted thinking on the part of government decision makers, which
resulted in the contamination of the city's water supply.
The participants in the meeting represented the senior persons at
every, state and local agency with responsiblity for Zika Virus
response and they agreed we need plan to address the Zika Virus in the
Houston and Harris County area that will include every aspect of the
community.

[[Page H2455]]

The collective wisdom of these experts revealed that we should not
let the fear of the Zika Virus control public policy.
Instead we should get in front of the problem then we can control the
Zika Virus from its source--targeting mosquitoes.
The consequences of too much insecticide, rodenticides or fungicides
in water are known--to kill aquatic life and cause real damage to the
food chain upon which fish and larger sea life rely.
Along the Coast of the United States, many habitat restoration
efforts are centered on the reduction of chemical run off from urban
areas, not increasing insecticide pollutants in their waters.
The real fight against the Zika Virus will be bottled neighborhood by
neighborhood and will rely upon the resources and expertise of local
government working closely with State governments with supported of
federal government agencies.
The consensus of the experts related to H.R. 897, the Zika Vector
Control Act, is that we cannot rely heavily on spraying techniques to
control Zika Virus carrying mosquitoes.
Yes, spraying can reduce the population of mosquitoes, but it cannot
eliminate the threat and we can reach a point where the presence of
chemical insecticides is in fact more harmful than helpful.
The Aedes Aegypti mosquito is the greatest threat to people has
evolved to be near people.
These mosquitoes fly close to the ground, enter homes or stay nearby
places where people live.
The spraying that this bill permits is on an industrial scale using
products that are not found in a local grocery or home supply store.
The most important approach to control the spread of Zika Virus is
poverty and the conditions that may exist in poor communities can be of
greatest risk for the Zika Virus breeding habitats for vector
mosquitoes.
It is the illegal dumping of tires; open ditches, torn screens, or no
screens at all during the long hot days of summer that will
unfortunately create a perfect storm for the spread of the virus.
Zika Virus Prevention Kits like those being distributed in Puerto
Rico will be essential to the fight against Zika Virus along the Gulf
Coast.
These kits should include mosquito nets for beds.
Bed nets have proven to be essential in the battle to reduce malaria
by providing protection and reducing the ability of biting insects to
come in contact with people.
Mosquito netting has fine holes that are big enough to allow breezes
to easily pass through, but small enough to keep mosquitoes and other
biting insects out.
Bed nets that are not pre-treated with insecticide are effective and
they can be treated with DEET products after purchase.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to be alarmed, but we should be
preparing to do what we can to prevent and mitigate the Zika Virus in
communities around the nation.
We know that 33 states have one or both of the vector mosquitoes.
Dr. Peter Hotez said that we can anticipated that the Americas
including the United States can expect 4 million the Zika Virus cases
in the next four months and to date there are over a million cases in
Brazil.
The most serious outcome the Zika Virus exposure is birth defects
that can occur during pregnancy if the mother is exposed to the Zika
Virus.
Infections of pregnant women can result in: still births; the rate of
Microcephaly based on Zika Virus exposure far exceeds that number.
Microcephaly is brain underdevelopment either at birth or the brain
failing to develop properly after birth, which can cause: difficulty
walking; difficulty hearing; and difficulty with speech.
I call on my colleagues to pass the President's request for the $1.9
billion in emergency supplemental appropriations.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 897, and support the President's
request to fight the Zika Virus threat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 897, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________