[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3031-H3046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ZIKA VECTOR CONTROL ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 897.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brooks of Alabama). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 742, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 897) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides 
in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 742, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 114-53 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, 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. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It has been 1 year since the first alerts about the Zika virus were 
issued in Brazil. Since then, the virus has been spreading north.
  Many nations to our south have spent the better part of that year in 
fighting to stop the spread of Zika. It has already affected Puerto 
Rico and other U.S. Territories as the virus spreads by contact between 
people.
  So far, we have been fortunate to avoid any transmission of Zika by 
mosquitos inside the United States, but that might change soon. Last 
week the Director from the National Institutes of Health announced that 
mosquitos carrying the Zika virus could be arriving in the United 
States as soon as June.
  The World Health Organization has declared Zika to be a worldwide 
health

[[Page H3032]]

emergency, and burdensome Federal regulation should not get in the way 
of addressing a potential emergency in the United States, especially 
since we have the ability to prevent the spread of mosquitos carrying 
the virus before they mature.
  The Zika virus is a serious health threat to pregnant women. It can 
cause birth defects, like microcephaly and a paralyzing neurological 
condition. As of May 11, the CDC reported that there were 503 cases of 
Zika in the United States and 701 cases in U.S. Territories and 113 
pregnant women were reported to have Zika.
  Last week this body acted to send additional funds to the Department 
of Health and Human Services to fight the spread of Zika. We should be 
investing in research and development to find a treatment and a vaccine 
for Zika.
  We also have the ability to make it easier for States and local 
governments to stop the spread of this mosquito-borne disease.
  Unfortunately, a duplicative and unnecessary permitting regulation is 
making it more difficult for cities, municipalities, and mosquito 
control districts to spray for mosquitos.
  Because of a bad court decision, time and money that should be spent 
on eradicating mosquitos will be spent on bureaucratic paperwork 
instead.

                              {time}  1545

  In 2011, a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in The 
National Cotton Council of America v. United States Environmental 
Protection Agency reversed 60 years of commonsense regulation by the 
Environmental Protection Agency and imposed national pollutant 
discharge elimination system permitting on pesticide use. That case 
upended a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency rule that codified EPA's 
35-year-long interpretation of the law.
  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known 
as FIFRA, regulated pesticides for 60 years before the enactment of the 
Clean Water Act in 1972, and FIFRA regulated and improved pesticides 
for decades after the Clean Water Act.
  EPA had, for over 80 years, held that the application of a pesticide 
for its intended purpose and in compliance with the results of FIFRA is 
not a discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, and, 
therefore, no NPDES permit is required, but the court decided 
otherwise.
  In vacating the EPA's longstanding rule, the Sixth Circuit 
effectively legislated from the bench, negating reasonable agency 
interpretations of the law. The court undermined the traditional 
understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with other 
environmental statutes and expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act 
from the bench and pushed further regulation into areas and activities 
not originally intended by Congress or interpreted by the EPA.
  As a result, Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to 
initiate and maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing 
pesticide applications, and a wide range of public and private 
pesticide users face increased financial and administrative burdens in 
order to comply with the duplicative permitting process--but the NPDES 
permit and its cost comes with no additional environmental protection.
  My colleagues across the aisle like to call this Groundhog Day, and I 
agree. We have seen previous public health emergencies that could have 
been prevented by the removal of the unnecessary NPDES permit. Despite 
this, many on the other side of the aisle continue to support this 
regulatory burden.
  Last week, some of my colleagues circulated a letter that stated 
obtaining the NPDES permit was just a ``modest notification and 
monitoring requirements,'' but the organizations that must apply for it 
tell a different story. NPDES compliance costs and fears of potentially 
devastating litigation associated with complying with the new NPDES 
requirements are forcing States, counties, and mosquito control 
districts and other pest control programs to reduce operations and 
redirect resources in order to comply with the regulatory requirements.
  I include in the Record this statement from the American Mosquito 
Control Association on the NPDES burden. This statement discusses many 
examples of this burden across the country, including how the local 
vector control managers in Oregon have explained repeatedly the 
negative impacts the permit is having on mosquito control.

    American Mosquito Control Association Statement on NPDES Burden

       From the perspective of the agencies charged with 
     suppressing mosquitoes and other vectors of public health 
     consequence, the NPDES burden is directly related to 
     combatting Zika and other exotic viruses.
       For over forty years and through both Democratic and 
     Republican administrations, the EPA and states held that 
     these permits did not apply to public health pesticide 
     applications. However, activist lawsuits forced the EPA to 
     require such permits even for the application of EPA-
     registered pesticides including mosquito control.
       AMCA has testified numerous times to establish the burden 
     created by this court ruling. The threat to the public health 
     mission of America's mosquito control districts comes in two 
     costly parts:


                        Ongoing Compliance Costs

       Though the activists contend that the NDPES permit has 
     ``modest notification and monitoring requirements'' the 
     experience of mosquito control districts is much different.
       Initially obtaining and maintaining an NPDES comes at 
     considerable expense. California vector control districts 
     estimate that it has cost them $3 million to conduct the 
     necessary administration of these permits.
       The Gem County Mosquito Abatement District in Idaho has 
     testified that their staff spends three weeks per year 
     tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications 
     associated with permit oversight. Additionally, they have had 
     to invest in a geographic information software program that 
     cost 20% of the district's annual operating budget to 
     maintain this information. That software has no other 
     function than serving the unnecessary NPDES permit.
       In Congressman DeFazio's district in Oregon, the local 
     vector control managers have explained the negative impacts 
     the permit was having on their districts. The managers of 
     those districts have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly 
     in Washington D.C. over the past several years regarding the 
     burden NPDES is having on mosquito control in Oregon.
       The funds to operate districts like those in Oregon, 
     California, Idaho and across the country come from taxpayers 
     for the purpose of mosquito control, but are being diverted 
     into this bureaucratic oversight function.
       The fact that the existence of the permit has no additional 
     environmental benefit (since pesticide applications are 
     already governed by FIFRA) makes these taxpayer diversions 
     from vector control unconscionable.
       So why would the activist organizations be so adamant that 
     these permits be mandatory for public health pesticide 
     applications . . .?


                    Exposure to Activist Litigation

       . . . Because it leaves municipal mosquito control programs 
     vulnerable to CWA citizen lawsuits where fines to mosquito 
     control districts may exceed $37,500/day.
       Under FIFRA, the activists would need to demonstrate that 
     the pesticides caused harm or were misapplied (because our 
     pesticides are specific to mosquitoes and used in low doses 
     by qualified applicators that would be extremely difficult).
       However, the CWA 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision allows 
     for any third party to sue a government entity. Additionally, 
     the CWA does not require actual evidence of a misapplication 
     of a pesticide or harm to the environment, but rather simple 
     paperwork violations or merely allegations of errors in 
     permit oversight.
       Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was the subject of 
     one of these activist lawsuits utilizing the 3rd Party 
     Citizen Suit Provision. It took ten years and the grand total 
     of an entire year's annual operating budget ($450,000) to 
     resolve that litigation against that public health entity.
       These ongoing compliance costs and threat of crushing 
     litigation directly refute any activist statements that 
     ``Clean Water Act coverage in no way hinders, delays, or 
     prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control 
     operations.''
       The existence of this unnecessary requirement for mosquito 
     control activities is directly related to our ability to 
     combat the vectors related to Zika. It diverts precious 
     resources away from finding and suppressing mosquito 
     populations.
       The American Mosquito Control Association urges rapid 
     action to address this burden.

  Mr. GIBBS. Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District 
calculated their compliance with the NPDES permit cost them $37,334. 
They spent over $37,334 doing paperwork to secure the Federal and State 
permits. This money was used to update maps to secure the permit. They 
spent money on the permit fees; they spent this money on software to 
help with the reporting requirements for the permit; and they spent 
this money on countless requirements associated with the permit. None 
of that over $37,000 was spent on spraying for mosquitos.
  Benton County estimates they could have treated 2,593 acres of water 
where

[[Page H3033]]

mosquitos breed, or they could have paid for over 400 virus lab tests, 
or they could have hired three seasonal workers. But Benton County was 
forced to spend over $37,000 to comply with the redundant Federal 
permit.
  The Gem County Mosquito Abatement District in Idaho has testified 
that their staff spends 3 weeks per year tabulating and documenting 
seasonal pesticide applications associated with permit oversight. 
Additionally, they have had to invest in software that costs 20 percent 
of the district's annual operating budget to maintain this information. 
That software has no other function than serving the unnecessary NPDES 
permit.
  Mosquito control districts in California estimate that it has cost 
them $3 million to conduct the necessary administration for their NPDES 
permits.
  Millions of dollars have now been spent on permitting and compliance 
rather than eradicating mosquitos. On top of the cost of the permit, it 
also opens up permit holders to the threat of citizen lawsuits where 
fines may exceed $35,000 a day. Citizen lawsuits under the Clean Water 
Act have a much lower threshold, and the simple allegation of permit 
errors and paperwork violations can take mosquito control districts to 
court.
  Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was subjected to one of these 
lawsuits, which took 10 years and $450,000 to resolve the litigation. 
This is equal to their entire annual operating budget. We know that the 
NPDES permits are delaying, hindering, and preventing the use of 
lifesaving EPA-approved pesticides right now.
  In 2012, the first year that this duplicative permitting went into 
effect, the number of cases of West Nile virus jumped from 712 to 5,674 
cases in the United States. In response to those West Nile outbreaks, 
many States and communities were forced to declare public emergencies. 
This allowed them to use the lifesaving pesticides to control mosquitos 
without the delay caused by the NPDES permitting process. But they were 
only able to do this after they declared an emergency: West Nile had 
infected the community; they declared an emergency, and they could 
spray without having to get any permits. Congress should not be forcing 
States, cities, and mosquito control agencies to put their own 
residents, especially pregnant women, at risk of contracting Zika.
  H.R. 897 will enable communities to resume conducting routine 
preventive mosquito control programs by providing a limited and 
temporary exemption for pesticides that are authorized by FIFRA and 
used in compliance with its label under EPA guidance. The EPA already 
reviews, approves, and regulates the use of these pesticides under 
FIFRA. Exempting them from NPDES permitting is a simple fix to a very 
bad court decision that added unnecessary red tape.
  H.R. 897 was drafted very narrowly to address only the Sixth Circuit 
Court's decision and gives States and local entities that spray to 
control mosquito populations the certainty and the ability needed to 
protect public health. EPA even provided technical assistance in 
drafting this bill so it can achieve these objectives.
  Well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and 
private entities and thousands of stakeholders support a legislative 
resolution of this issue. Just to name a few, these organizations 
include the American Mosquito Control Association, the National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Water 
Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the 
National Farmers Union, Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, Responsible 
Industry for a Sound Environment, the Agricultural Retailers 
Association, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association.
  I thank Chairman Shuster for his leadership at the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee as well as Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member 
Peterson on the Agriculture Committee for their leadership on this 
issue.
  This is a responsible, commonsense bill that will help ensure public 
health officials aren't fighting Zika with their hands tied behind 
their back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 897. To be clear, H.R. 897 
was not created to respond to Zika.
  Now, I hear my colleague's information in regard to all that has 
happened with the EPA and all the budget items. I suggest that we start 
looking at increasing the budget for EPA so they can do a better job.
  Insofar as herbicides and pesticides, I have a lot of information 
from my own experience in California, where it has created a Superfund 
that has taken many years and will take many more to create.
  Up until 2 weeks ago, the so-called Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act 
was drafted to relax our laws protecting public health to reduce the 
paperwork burdens on commercial pesticide spraying operations. If you 
will notice, most of them were people in the spraying business, in the 
ag business, and it is to their advantage. What about the public 
interest? This will be the fourth time in 3 years that we will vote 
against the legislation.
  To be clear, a great number of waterbodies in the U.S. are already 
impaired or threatened by pesticides; yet for some reason, our 
Republican majority wants it to be easier for companies to add more of 
these pesticides to our waters, yet not report these additions nor 
monitor, for any reason, immediate health impacts that may result.
  I am very concerned about the effect these pesticides have on the 
health of our rivers, on our streams, and especially on the drinking 
water supply of all our citizens, including pregnant women.
  Last week, the majority argued that even though this bill would 
exempt pesticide applications from the Clean Water Act, public health 
would not be impacted because FIFRA labeling requirements would remain 
in place. However, FIFRA labeling does not address the volumes of 
pesticides being directly or indirectly applied to our rivers, lakes, 
and streams on an annual basis.
  In many cases, we simply do not know the quantities and location of 
the pesticides being added to our waters because this data is not 
tracked by Federal or State regulators. And if we don't know what is 
being added to our waters, we cannot accurately be looking for the 
potential human health or environmental impacts of these pesticides. In 
fact, the only way we often learn of a problem is in examples like the 
gentleman from Oregon cited on the floor: massive fish kills or other 
environmental catastrophes. It is reckless to rely on a system of 
catastrophes or massive die-offs to identify where problems may be 
lurking.
  Proponents of this legislation also argue that this legislation would 
protect the health of pregnant women and their children. How so? I 
think it is important to note that it could hurt both.
  However, this legislation does nothing demonstrable to prevent the 
spread of Zika in the United States. What I fear, however, is that this 
legislation will relax standards for pesticide application to the point 
where even more waterbodies become impaired or threatened by 
pesticides.
  Madam Speaker, we know there are significant health risks associated 
with exposing pregnant women and young children to pesticides. Let me 
name a few: birth defects, neurodevelopmental delays and cognitive 
impairments, childhood brain cancer, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, 
endocrine disruption. That is just to name a few.
  To be clear, the bill under consideration today will make it easier--
I will say it again, easier--to contaminate our drinking water supplies 
with pesticides known or suspected to pose health risks. The majority 
will say that FIFRA ensures these chemicals are safe. What the majority 
cannot say definitely, however, is that continued exposure to these 
chemicals over and over in the same watershed is also safe.
  Peer-reviewed science suggests that there are impacts, and that 
evidence should be enough for us to be cautious. If my choice is 
cautious use of pesticides to protect public health or the elimination 
of the paperwork requirement, I believe protection of health is more 
important.
  Furthermore, according to The Washington Post, of the 544 reported 
cases of Zika in the United States, nearly all of

[[Page H3034]]

them involve people who have contracted the disease when they traveled 
to a country where the disease is prevalent. While a handful of the 544 
cases of Zika may have involved sexual transmission of the virus, no 
one has acquired the disease from mosquitos in this country--I repeat, 
no one. Let me repeat that. No one has reported acquiring the Zika 
virus from a mosquito in this country.
  We cannot and should not eliminate the role of the Clean Water Act in 
the regulation of pesticides. Over the past 5 years, this regulatory 
process has been reasonable and has been workable for pest operations 
and ag interests alike. It needs to be retained.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides 
to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to reiterate, when I introduced this bill back in 2011, 5 
years ago, the Director of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs under 
this current administration said this:
  ``When used properly, pesticides provide significant benefits to 
society, such as controlling disease-causing organisms, protecting the 
environment from invasive species, and fostering a safe and abundant 
food supply. FIFRA's safety standard requires EPA to weigh these types 
of benefits against any potential harm to human health and the 
environment that might result from using a pesticide.''
  He went on to say:
  ``Under FIFRA, the Agency''--the EPA, in this case--``can impose a 
variety of risk mitigation measures--ranging, for example, from changes 
to how the pesticide is used to prohibition of specific uses or 
cancellation of all products containing a particular active 
ingredient--that ensure the use of the pesticide will not cause 
unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. When we are concerned 
about the risks arising from pesticides in water, we may require a 
reduction in application frequency or rates, a prohibition of certain 
application methods, the establishment of no-spray buffer zones around 
waterbodies, a requirement that limits use only to trained and 
certified applicators, or other restrictions.''

                              {time}  1600

  The important point to remember here, the EPA has full regulatory 
authority under FIFRA to ensure that the pesticide did not cause 
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or in the environment, 
including our Nation's waters.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good 
friend, Chairman Gibbs, for his effort in putting this commonsense 
legislation forward.
  Madam Speaker, we all come here to this House floor, and we work 
together in a bipartisan way to address many important issues that 
affect Americans. We have worked closely together with many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the floor today to help our veterans, 
to help rebuild our roads and our infrastructure, and I do believe we 
can work together to stop the spread of the Zika virus.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation that isn't asking to get 
rid of EPA rules and regulations. It is asking to simply suspend them 
during this crisis period. I want to tell you why. My colleague, Mr. 
Gibbs, mentioned earlier that this is the result of a court case that, 
in 2006, actually created a duplicative and costly regulatory process 
that many of our small communities and small businesses are still 
trying to fight when they are dealing with spraying for mosquitoes.
  Now, mosquito abatement has changed a lot since I was younger. I can 
remember my parents and my friends' parents sending us out to ride our 
bikes behind the fogger.
  We wouldn't do that anymore now, would we, Madam Speaker?
  Because we now see more rules and regulations. FIFRA, the policies 
that have been enacted by the EPA have shown that maybe that is not the 
smart thing to do.
  We have processes in place. The very same agency that tells us what 
is safe and what is not when looking at spraying for mosquitoes that 
may or may not carry diseases like West Nile and Zika, how to safely 
use them, but the same agency has put together a process for Illinois, 
a 35-page document showing us how to get a permit to spray for 
mosquitoes if you are a small business, if you are a small community, 
and these 35 pages, these regulatory requirements, we are asking to 
suspend so we can deal with the Zika virus that we now know is mosquito 
borne. This 35-page permit had 6 entire pages dedicated to definitions 
and acronyms. Section 7, the recordkeeping portion alone includes three 
separate levels of recordkeeping, depending on the size of the annual 
treatment area, and it does it in there as some permittees are also 
subject to annual reporting requirements as well.
  Madam Speaker, the farmers in my district are spending too much time 
to try to abate this disease on their own to help so many in our 
communities, and I am afraid they may say: Enough. Let's figure out how 
someone else is going to do it.
  That doesn't help us solve the problem of eradicating the Zika virus. 
That is the reason why this bill that will suspend this process is so 
necessary right now.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a 
look at this commonsense approach and do what Mr. Gibbs is doing. Let's 
work together. Let's ensure that we can stop a permit process like this 
to deal with something so important to so many families. Unfortunately, 
the longer we talk in this institution, Madam Speaker, the less is done 
to stop the spread of the Zika virus in this country, in our States, 
and in our districts.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Gibbs for this commonsense piece of 
legislation.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Oh, what I could tell you about the vector control. 
I served on the board for a few years, and what I know is something 
else, but, unfortunately, most of the proponents are people who benefit 
from the pesticide application. So I take exception, where is the 
public interest in this?
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  First off, we have to give the chairman a report card, and I am going 
to give him an A-plus for persistence. This is the fifth time this 
legislation will have been on the floor of this House. Of course, it is 
threatened by a veto should it ever pass the Senate, but it won't, so 
A-plus for persistence.
  I will give him an A for creativity because this is the same bill 
five times under four different guises. First it was for West Nile. 
Okay. Then it was the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility 
Act. So when we had West Nile, they called it a West Nile bill. When we 
were having a bad fire year, they called it a Fire Suppression 
Flexibility Act. Then they were honest, and they said it is the 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, the piece of paper, the report you 
have to file after you apply the pesticides. So at least that was, from 
their side, honest. But then now it is the Zika Vector Control Act, 
renamed 2 weeks ago.
  Zika is a serious problem. Of course, on their side, they are 
refusing to put forward an adequate budget to partner with communities 
who want to do mosquito reduction and control efforts, but that is a 
story for another day, and it is a different committee. But that would 
be a real thing we could do.
  Here are a couple of points. Zika is very bad for pregnant women and 
is also implicated in Guillain-Barre syndrome in both males and females 
and other potential links to other diseases. Really, really bad stuff. 
We have to get ahead of it. We also know that pesticides and herbicides 
are bad for pregnant women.
  So is the current state of affairs such that vector control districts 
can't go out right now today and apply pesticides to deal with a 
potential Zika with tiger mosquitoes and Aedes aegypti?
  No. Actually, they can. Under the law, they can go out and apply 
whatever they think would be effective. They just need, within 30 days, 
to send a form--a form, a piece of paper--available online to the EPA 
saying what they applied and where they applied it.
  Now, why would we care about that?

[[Page H3035]]

  Well, because we are worried about loading up drinking water with 
stuff that is harmful to pregnant women and to babies and to other 
living things, just like the 90,000 steelhead that were killed in my 
district. All we are saying is we would like to keep track, and then 
when we see certain concentrations in certain areas, we will actually 
test the water.
  Your local water authority does not routinely test--for the most 
part, very few--for pesticides and herbicides, but if they knew a bunch 
had been dumped upstream, they might want to do that, or the EPA might 
want to follow up and do some testing. So what we are saying is we 
don't want to know. We don't want to know what, where, how this stuff 
was applied.
  Now, the horrible burden of submitting an online form, this horrible, 
horrible, horrible burden has led to: No, well, we heard last time 
there may have been an aerial applicator who didn't apply something 
because of this regulatory burden, or maybe because they had misapplied 
it, or maybe the wind was blowing too hard.
  Who knows?
  We don't know. That was one anecdotal report. But from the 50 States 
assembled and the EPA, there are no documented instances of delays or 
prevention of necessary application of pesticides or herbicides because 
of the reporting requirement to EPA so we will know what, when, where, 
and how this stuff was applied.
  So the gentleman gets an A-plus for persistence, an A for creativity, 
but, unfortunately, a D for dangerous in terms of what this legislation 
would lead to.
  I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. I 
will put the whole thing in the Record, but the administration does not 
agree with that truncated quote talking about how important this is or 
something from someone at EPA. ``H.R. 897 would weaken environmental 
protections under the Clean Water Act by exempting pesticide spraying 
from the currently required pesticide general permit.'' General permit. 
``Creating a new statutory exemption to the permit is unnecessary'' 
because the permit itself ``was explicitly crafted to allow immediate 
responses to declared pest emergencies, thereby allowing vector control 
methods to be applied to the possible influx of disease-carrying 
mosquitoes.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 897--Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015--Rep. Gibbs, R-OH, 
                           and two cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 897, Reducing 
     Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015, recently rebranded as the 
     Zika Vector Control Act. H.R. 897 would weaken environmental 
     protections under the Clean Water Act by exempting pesticide 
     spraying from the currently required Pesticide General 
     Permit. Creating a new statutory exemption to the Permit is 
     unnecessary, as it was explicitly crafted to allow immediate 
     responses to declared pest emergencies, thereby allowing 
     vector control methods to be applied to the possible influx 
     of disease-carrying mosquitos.
       In fact, most mosquito control districts and Federal and 
     State agencies already have authority under the Pesticide 
     General Permit to apply mosquitocides as needed to respond to 
     Zika virus concerns and do not require any additional 
     authorization under the Permit. In rare circumstances where a 
     mosquito control district did not seek prior coverage under 
     the Permit, emergency provisions of the Permit are available 
     that allow instant authorization to spray without the need 
     for prior notification.
       The Administration is committed to taking necessary steps, 
     as quickly as possible, to protect the American people from 
     the Zika virus. Rebranding legislation that removes important 
     Clean Water Act protections for public health and water 
     quality is not an appropriate avenue for addressing the 
     serious threat to the Nation that the Zika virus poses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So the current state, there is nothing going on here 
except this sort of myth that this is a huge impediment to agricultural 
practices in this country. This is being pushed by the Farm Bureau.
  There is joint jurisdiction between the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Agriculture. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, despite this bill being on the floor 
five times, has held zero--zero; count them, zero--hearings on this 
issue. We wouldn't want to hear from experts.
  There was a joint hearing with the Committee on Agriculture. 
Unfortunately, we were not allowed to have a witness. Only the pro-
reform, so-called repeal pesticide-herbicide, witnesses were allowed to 
testify. There has been no deliberation on this issue. There is a great 
mythology around it.
  It is a very sad day to use a potential national health crisis to put 
through a lame bill that has gone through five times, which isn't going 
to pass the Senate. If it did, it will be vetoed.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I just want to address a few comments that 
were just made. I believe the witness that he was referring to was the 
head of the EPA under this administration. So that wasn't their 
witness, I guess. I don't know. It seems odd to me.
  Funding. We passed a funding bill out last week, over $600 million to 
go to the end of this fiscal year, September 30. My side of the aisle 
is committed to appropriating more money, if need be, during the 
regular appropriation process for the next fiscal year starting October 
1.
  Regarding the fish kill, we had a discussion on this last week. It is 
very unfortunate when there is a fish kill, but we looked into this and 
concluded that even if this fish kill had happened back--I don't know--
in 1996, I believe, the NPDES permit, if it was in place, would not 
have prevented the fish kill, would not have resolved it.
  What we found out from the EPA's own investigation from the Office of 
Pesticide Programs was that the fish incident was the result of misuse 
of the pesticide. The EPA goes on to report that with the various 
species of salmon and steelhead analyzed, if the pesticide had been 
applied in accordance with all the label requirements and under FIFRA 
and EPA requirements, they wouldn't have had the Oregon fish kill. So 
completing the NPDES permit paperwork and paying for permit fees 
doesn't prevent fish kills or improve water quality. It just adds cost 
and takes money away from fighting mosquitoes in this case.
  At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse).
  Mr. 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.

[[Page H3036]]

  


                              {time}  1615

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  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.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record several news 
editorials from coast to coast, including one from The New York Times 
that refers to this legislation as a ``pretext to weaken environmental 
regulations'' and ``a ruse to benefit pesticide manufacturers and 
farmers who find the regulation burdensome.''

                [From the New York Times, May 19, 2016]

                   Stealing From Ebola to Fight Zika

                        (By the Editorial Board)

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


                     [From HeraldNet, May 19, 2016]

                 Advance Senate's Zika Funding Package

                    (By the Herald Editorial Board)

       Even more annoying than the whine of a mosquito has been 
     the U.S. House Republicans response to the Zika virus.
       In February, President Barack Obama made an emergency 
     request for $1.9 billion to fund vaccine research, mosquito 
     control efforts and other work to timely address the growing 
     threat from Zika.
       Now prevalent in South and Central America and threatening 
     to move into some southern U.S. states, the mosquito-borne 
     virus is not typically fatal and in most cases results in 
     only mild symptoms. But its threat is much greater for 
     pregnant women and the children they carry. The virus can 
     cause birth defects when pregnant women are infected by 
     mosquitoes or through sexual contact with an infected person. 
     The most common birth defect is microcephaly, which results 
     in infants with abnormally small heads and reduced brain 
     development. But researchers also are investigating Zika's 
     possible association with neurological disorders in adults, 
     including Guillain-Barre syndrome.
       An estimated 500 people in the continental U.S. have 
     contracted the virus, almost all during travel abroad. But 
     another 700 in Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories have 
     been infected by mosquitoes, including more than 100 pregnant 
     women.
       When neither the Senate nor the House moved quickly enough 
     to provide funding, the White House instead diverted $510 
     million that had been allocated to research and fight the 
     Ebola virus, with the hope that Congress would eventually 
     approve the Zika request and allow the restoration of the 
     Ebola funding.
       This week, the Senate responded, first with a bipartisan 
     proposal by Florida's senators, including former Republican 
     presidential candidate Marco Rubio, to fund the president's 
     full $1.9 billion request. When that failed to attract enough 
     Republican votes, the Senate approved a compromise negotiated 
     by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-
     Missouri, that will allocate $1.1 billion.
       Murray would have preferred legislation to fund the 
     president's full $1.9 billion request, a spokeswoman said, 
     but as she has before, Washington's senior senator worked 
     across the aisle to find a solution that would win passage. 
     In answer to charges that the president had requested a 
     ``slush fund'' Blunt said in a New York Times story that the 
     package had been trimmed back to address the emergency and 
     will finance research and response through September 2017.
       Such responsible compromise is less certain in the House, 
     where Republicans are expected to vote soon on a package that 
     provides only $622 million, much of it again diverted from 
     Ebola work.
       That's too little and threatens further delay and a loss of 
     progress on Ebola. While the Ebola epidemic in West Africa is 
     no longer out of control, the disease continues to flare, 
     most recently in Guinea and Liberia.
       But adding a maddening itch to that mosquito bite of a 
     funding package is a bill that the House is expected to vote 
     on next week. The Zika Vector Control Act sounds promising, 
     as if the threat is being taken seriously. But House 
     Republicans, as reported by The Hill, have only renamed and 
     changed the effective date for legislation proposed last year 
     that seeks to weaken federal Clean Water Act standards that 
     have little to do with Zika.
       Formerly titled the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, the 
     rechristened legislation would prohibit the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from requiring permits to spray pesticides 
     near bodies of water, if the pesticide is federally approved 
     and the application has been approved by the state.
       Prior federal approval of a particular pesticide doesn't 
     guarantee that its use near a body of water is safe or even 
     effective. Lifting environmental protections--and risking a 
     threat to public health from a lack of oversight on toxic 
     chemicals--is not going to further the fight against Zika.
       The White House has threatened to veto the House proposal 
     on Zika funding but appears ready to accept the $1.1 billion 
     Senate package. The House should adopt the Senate package 
     quickly to advance work that is needed now on a potentially 
     devastating health threat.
                                  ____


                     [From the Hill, May 17, 2016]

               GOP Repurposes EPA Pesticide Bill for Zika

                           (By Timothy Cama)

       House Republicans are renaming a bill that fights 
     environmental regulations on pesticides and reframing it to 
     fight the Zika virus.
       The House is planning to vote Tuesday on the Zika Vector 
     Control Act, which up until late last week was known as the 
     Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.

[[Page H3037]]

       With the national spotlight on Zika, and the GOP under 
     harsh criticism for not taking bold action against the virus, 
     Republicans are using the anti-Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) regulation bill to show they care about the Zika 
     fight.
       ``EPA regulations under the Clean Water Act actually make 
     it harder for our local communities to get the permits they 
     need to go and kill the mosquitoes where they breed by 
     sources of water,'' House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) 
     told reporters Tuesday.
       ``So this is an important bill as part of a package to make 
     sure that we're combating Zika.''
       Along with an appropriations bill to redirect $622 million 
     toward fighting Zika and away from Ebola, Republicans say 
     they're taking the virus seriously.
       Zika can cause severe birth defects for newborns if the 
     mother gets infected while pregnant. Symptoms are more minor 
     for adults and other patients.
       The pesticide bill, introduced last year by Rep. Bob Gibbs 
     (R-Ohio), would prohibit the EPA from requiring permits to 
     spray pesticides near bodies of water as long as the 
     application has been approved by a state and the pesticides 
     themselves are federally approved.
       A spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-
     Calif.) blasted the renaming as ``dishonest.''
       ``In a brazenly political act, the Republican leadership is 
     trying to mask gutting the Clean Water Act as having 
     something to do with fighting Zika,'' Drew Hammill said in a 
     statement.
       ``This bill has nothing to do with Zika and everything to 
     do with Republicans'' relentless special interest attacks on 
     the Clean Water Act,'' he said. ``It will do nothing to stem 
     the growing threat of the Zika virus.''
       Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.), the top Democrat on the House 
     Transportation Committee, said in a letter to colleagues 
     Monday that the bill ``has absolutely nothing to do with 
     preventing the spread of Zika or protecting public health.''
       He further argued that the legislation is unnecessary, and 
     the Clean Water Act ``in no way hinders, delays, or prevents 
     the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations.'' 
     The Transportation Committee has jurisdiction over the bill 
     through its authority on the Clean Water Act.
       Democrats want the GOP to approve President Obama's request 
     for $1.9 billion in new funding to fight Zika.
       But Dallas Gerber, a spokesman for Gibbs, said the 
     reframing is entirely appropriate, since the bill would allow 
     more spraying to kill the mosquitoes that carry Zika.
       ``It's an appropriate addition to the fight against Zika,'' 
     Gerber said. ``When people are taking up a lot of their time 
     on [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permits, 
     that's money and time that's being spent on paperwork and 
     administration, not on spraying.''
       Gerber confirmed that other than the title and a new 
     expiration date, the bill has not changed since it was known 
     as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
       The House vote Tuesday will be under suspension of rules, 
     requiring a two-thirds majority to pass. The bill previously 
     passed the House in 2014 under a standard majority vote.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member DeFazio and Ranking 
Member Napolitano for bringing attention to this issue and for giving 
me time to speak.
  I rise today to oppose the so-called Zika Vector Control Act, 
otherwise known as the pesticide Trojan horse bill.
  Madam Speaker, I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, as this 
body fails to fully fund a meaningful effort to combat the spread of 
the Zika virus, the Republican majority is using the legitimate concern 
about Zika to advance its special interest agenda.
  This Trojan horse was first called the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act of 2015 and was only recently named the Zika Vector Control Act to 
play on fears over the Zika virus. The fact is the majority has been 
pushing the text of this legislation for years under whatever name 
happens to be convenient at the time. Each time they rename the bill, 
they merely find a different problem to manipulate to serve their same 
agenda.
  Let's be frank, this bill has nothing to do with combating Zika. 
Vector control agencies already have the authority to apply pesticides 
in emergency situations, like combating the Zika virus epidemic, to 
prevent the spread of infectious diseases without the need to apply for 
a permit.
  Instead of protecting the public's health, this bill actually does 
away with critical compliance oversight provisions that allow us to 
track when and where harmful pesticides are used. Without the ability 
to track where harmful pesticides are used, we are less able to prevent 
their negative impact or properly act when a mistake is made or when a 
harmful pesticide is inappropriately used.
  I know, as a physician and public health expert, that pesticides can 
have a serious and harmful impact on human health, particularly for 
women and children, and for vulnerable populations who live and work 
where pesticides are often sprayed. Harmful pesticides can cause 
infertility, cancer, birth defects, and lifelong developmental delays.
  This bill guts the oversight compliance that gives doctors like me 
the tools they need to track and identify the cluster of symptoms 
caused by harmful pesticides.
  Madam Speaker, the pesticide Trojan horse bill is a farce, a disguise 
that can only leave our communities, our farm workers, and our drinking 
water at risk of contamination from harmful pesticides.
  If passed, this legislation could harm the public's health. It will 
expose already vulnerable populations to greater risk, without 
providing a single dime in funding or scrap of authority that doctors 
and scientists actually need to combat the spread of Zika.
  The pesticide Trojan horse bill is just another instance of political 
gamesmanship in Congress that could have a disastrous impact on public 
health. Instead of actually working to control the spread of one public 
health crisis, this bill could make another public health problem even 
worse.
  Rather than spending our time on this bill that does nothing to 
strengthen Zika prevention efforts across the country, we should be 
working to pass legislation to fully fund efforts to contain and stop 
the virus before we adjourn.
  We need to put people above partisanship and solutions above 
ideology. I have said this time and time again: it is time for Congress 
to do its job.
  We must vote against this pesticide Trojan horse bill and for full 
funding that will fully combat the spread of Zika, not the partial 
funding bill that shortchanges American families, which Republicans 
have recently passed in the House, before it is too late.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we know that since this court decision, there has been 
mosquito control districts, municipalities, that have delayed the 
preventative mosquito control programs, and then they have waited until 
epidemic proportions, epidemic levels, especially of the West Nile 
virus, which is what happened with Zika.
  We just heard that you can have emergency provisions. It doesn't 
matter. You can still do it. Well, even with the emergency provisions, 
with this court decision in place, they have forgotten that the NPS 
permit emergency provisions have extensive compliance costs that go 
along with that provision.
  The emergency provisions do not ease the threat of third-party 
lawsuits in the event a State, Federal, or local government declares an 
emergency. Pesticide applicators are required to file notice of intent 
no later than 15 days after the beginning of the application that 
provides a detailed description of the application and includes the 
rationale supporting the determination.
  A user that fails to file the correct paperwork--this is key--can 
still be found in violation of the Clean Water Act and fined up to 
$37,000 a day. Now, you heard me say earlier we have got mosquito 
control districts where that is their entire annual budget.
  Timely paperwork does not protect the mosquito control districts from 
legal disputes from the third party that argues the appropriate 
measures that were not taken to avoid potential adverse effects and 
impacts.
  So it is just ridiculous to think that it is okay, delay your 
preventative programs, but then when you have epidemic proportions of 
mosquitoes with West Nile or Zika, declare an emergency. Go ahead and 
spray, but if you don't file your paperwork under the Clean Water Act, 
you will get fined $37,000 a day.
  So guess what happens?
  We don't control the mosquitoes and protect the public.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for H.R. 
897 from the American Mosquito Control Association--by the way, I think 
their interest is more than just their self-interest; I think it is the 
interest of the

[[Page H3038]]

general public--the Pesticide Policy Coalition, and the National 
Agricultural Aviation Association.
                                             The American Mosquito


                                          Control Association,

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


            [From the American Mosquito Control Association]

    American Mosquito Control Association Statement on NPDES Burden

       From the perspective of the agencies charged with 
     suppressing mosquitoes and other vectors of public health 
     consequence, the NPDES burden is directly related to 
     combatting Zika and other exotic viruses.
       For over forty years and through both Democratic and 
     Republican administrations, the EPA and states held that 
     these permits did not apply to public health pesticide 
     applications. However, activist lawsuits forced the EPA to 
     require such permits even for the application of EPA-
     registered pesticides including mosquito control.
       AMCA has testified numerous times to establish the burden 
     created by this court ruling. The threat to the public health 
     mission of America's mosquito control districts comes in two 
     costly parts:


                        Ongoing Compliance Costs

       Though the activists contend that the NDPES permit has 
     ``modest notification and monitoring requirements'' the 
     experience of mosquito control districts is much different.
       Initially obtaining and maintaining an NPDES comes at 
     considerable expense. California vector control districts 
     estimate that it has cost them $3 million to conduct the 
     necessary administration of these permits.
       The Gem County Mosquito Abatement District in Idaho has 
     testified that their staff spends three weeks per year 
     tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications 
     associated with permit oversight. Additionally, they have had 
     to invest in a geographic information software program that 
     cost 20% of the district's annual operating budget to 
     maintain this information. That software has no other 
     function than serving the unnecessary NPDES permit.
       In Congressman DeFazio's district in Oregon, the local 
     vector control managers have explained the negative impacts 
     the permit was having on their districts. The managers of 
     those districts have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly 
     in Washington D.C. over the past several years regarding the 
     burden NPDES is having on mosquito control in Oregon.
       The funds to operate districts like those in Oregon, 
     California, Idaho and across the country come from taxpayers 
     for the purpose of mosquito control, but are being diverted 
     into this bureaucratic oversight function.
       The fact that the existence of the permit has no additional 
     environmental benefit (since pesticide applications are 
     already governed by FIFRA) makes these taxpayer diversions 
     from vector control unconscionable.
       So why would the activist organizations be so adamant that 
     these permits be mandatory for public health pesticide 
     applications . . .?


                    Exposure to Activist Litigation

       . . . Because it leaves municipal mosquito control programs 
     vulnerable to CWA citizen lawsuits where fines to mosquito 
     control districts may exceed $37,500/day.
       Under FIFRA, the activists would need to demonstrate that 
     the pesticides caused harm or were misapplied (because our 
     pesticides are specific to mosquitoes and used in low doses 
     by qualified applicators that would be extremely difficult).
       However, the CWA 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision allows 
     for any third party to sue a government entity. Additionally, 
     the CWA does not require actual evidence of a misapplication 
     of a pesticide or harm to the environment, but rather simple 
     paperwork violations or merely allegations of errors in 
     permit oversight.
       Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was the subject of 
     one of these activist lawsuits utilizing the 3rd Party 
     Citizen Suit Provision. It took ten years and the grand total 
     of an entire year's annual operating budget ($450,000) to 
     resolve that litigation against that public health entity.
       These ongoing compliance costs and threat of crushing 
     litigation directly refute any activist statements that 
     ``Clean Water Act coverage in no way hinders, delays, or 
     prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control 
     operations.''
       The existence of this unnecessary requirement for mosquito 
     control activities is directly related to our ability to 
     combat the

[[Page H3039]]

     vectors related to Zika. It diverts precious resources away 
     from finding and suppressing mosquito populations.
       The American Mosquito Control Association urges rapid 
     action to address this burden.
                                  ____

                                        Pesticide Policy Coalition

                Setting the Record Straight on H.R. 897

       H.R. 897 is bi-partisan, would augment state and local 
     governments' ability to combat Zika-carrying mosquitoes, 
     eliminate costly and unnecessary duplicative permit 
     regulations and thereby increase the number of trained 
     applicators deployed each season to fight mosquitoes, and 
     would continue to ensure the nation's waterways are protected 
     against adverse impacts on human health, the environment, or 
     drinking water. The dual regulation of pesticide applications 
     under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
     (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant 
     Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is onerous and 
     does not create additional environmental benefits.
       It is our hope that we can make our case to you via this 
     letter and win your support should the issue come up again 
     under regular order. The burdens imposed by duplicative Clean 
     Water Act requirements will remain a costly impediment to 
     mosquito control, and therefore to Zika control, unless 
     Congress addresses them in this legislation.
       During last week's floor debate, a significant amount of 
     misleading and false information was used by those opposed to 
     H.R. 897. It's time to set the record straight:
       Extensive review of pesticides is required for approval/
     registration under FIFRA. All pesticides undergo a rigorous 
     review process before being approved for use by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Only those mosquito 
     control products (larvacides and adulticides) that are EPA-
     approved and registered are available for use to control 
     mosquitoes. EPA's registration process includes extensive 
     review of studies/data relating to possible health and 
     environmental effects of pesticides. EPA specifically 
     examines the possible risk of the intended use and potential 
     non-target organism impacts and effects on water quality. 
     FIFRA requires that when a pesticide is used according to the 
     label, use ``will perform its intended function without 
     unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and when 
     used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized 
     practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse 
     effects on the environment''. Any pesticides in use for 
     mosquito control have met this standard and when applied in 
     accordance with the FIFRA label should not harm the 
     environment/water quality.
       Previous bills were passed in the House. Contrary to 
     statements made during the May 17 floor discussion, there has 
     been consistent bi-partisan support for this legislation in 
     the House. The history of previous legislative activity is 
     summarized briefly here:
       H.R. 1749 (109th Congress): No votes were held during the 
     109th Congress. A House Agriculture Committee hearing took 
     place on 09/29/05. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Butch Otter 
     (R-Idaho), and had 77 co-sponsors, including over 20 House 
     Democrats.
       H.R. 872 (112th Congress): The bill had 137 co-sponsors, 
     including over 20 House Democrats, and passed the House by a 
     vote of 292 to 130. Yes votes include 57 House Democrats.
       H.R. 935 (113th Congress): The House Agriculture and 
     Transportation & Infrastructure Committees approved H.R. 935 
     by voice vote. The House passed H.R. 935 under regular order 
     by a vote of 267 to 161.
       The Oregon fish kill incident would not have been prevented 
     by a Clean Water Act NPDES Pesticide General Permit. 
     Statements made on the House floor in reference to a fish 
     kill involving 92,000 steelhead in Oregon's Talent Irrigation 
     District occurred several decades ago in 1996. This incident 
     was litigated in the Headwaters v. Talent Irrigation District 
     2001 Ninth Circuit decision that triggered debate over CWA 
     regulation of pesticide applications. Not only have 
     regulatory requirements under FIFRA evolved since that time, 
     the Talent incident, and others like it, were later 
     attributed to misuse of the pesticide acrolein, a herbicide 
     used to control aquatic weeds in irrigation canals. In a 2003 
     EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Report analyzing the 
     potential risks posed by acrolein use for several species of 
     Pacific salmon and steelhead, in reference to the fish kill 
     incidents, EPA states ``[w]here sufficient information has 
     been provided, it appears that the fish incidents are as a 
     result of misuse. The form of misuse is that water was 
     released from the irrigation canals too early. In some cases 
     this was because the gate valves were not properly closed or 
     that they leaked, in other cases the applicator opened them 
     intentionally, but too soon. In one case, boards that helped 
     contain the irrigation canal water may have been removed by 
     children playing.'' EPA goes on in the report to address each 
     of the various species of salmon and steelhead analyzed and 
     repeatedly states ``[i]t is very unlikely that acrolein would 
     affect the [steelhead or salmon species] if it is used in 
     accordance with all label requirements.'' Completing NPDES 
     Pesticide General Permit paperwork and paying a permit fee 
     does not prevent fish kills, nor does it improve water 
     quality. Pesticide applications in accordance with FIFRA 
     pesticide labels will avoid adverse environmental impacts, 
     including fish kill incidents.
       USGS reports on decades old pesticide data do not reflect 
     impacts of present day use in accordance with FIFRA. During 
     the House floor discussion, one Member referred to a ``2016 
     USGS Report'' that includes water quality impairment data 
     that states provide to EPA as showing ``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.'' Unfortunately, the 
     U.S. Geological Service (USGS) continues to use outdated 
     data analyzing pesticide occurrence in U.S. streams dating 
     back to 1992-2001. This does not accurately capture the 
     pesticides that are presently approved for use in the U.S. 
     Further, USGS acknowledges that it's ``analytical methods 
     were designed to measure concentrations as low as 
     economically and technically feasible. By this approach . 
     . . pesticides were commonly detected at concentrations 
     far below Federal or State standards and guidelines for 
     protecting water quality. Detections of pesticides do not 
     necessarily indicate that there are appreciable risks to 
     human health, aquatic life, or wildlife. Most of the 75 
     products actually studied were not detected or detected 
     very infrequently.
       In the Fact Sheet for recent draft 2016 PGP reissuance, EPA 
     points out that during the past four years of pesticide use 
     reporting under the PGP ``EPA found that of the 17 pesticide 
     active ingredients identified on the relevant [CWA] 303(d) 
     lists as causes of water quality impairment, 7 of these 
     pesticides have been cancelled, and others have significant 
     restrictions. Based on annual report data, none of the 
     impairments caused by pesticides in PGP states for the 303(d) 
     reported years were for pesticides applied under the PGP in 
     those respective states.'' This current information is a more 
     accurate representation of pesticides currently being used 
     across the country to combat mosquitos and aquatic weeds 
     etc., and strong evidence that none of these applications are 
     causing impairments to water quality.
       Irrespective of the Clean Water Act NPDES Pesticide General 
     Permit, applicators must comply with federal regulations 
     require record-keeping requirements; failure to comply can 
     result in civil and criminal penalties. Under the law, 
     applicators are required to keep detailed records of the type 
     of pesticide, location, time/date, target pests, amount 
     applied, and method/location of any pesticide disposal. Any 
     applicator who ``fails to comply with the provisions of this 
     rule may be subject to civil or criminal sanctions.''
       In addition, under FIFRA, pesticide registrants are 
     required to report any knowledge of incidents or problems 
     encountered as a result of the pesticide's use. Specifically, 
     ``if at any time after the registration of a pesticide the 
     registrant has additional factual information regarding 
     unreasonable adverse effects on the environment of the 
     pesticide, the registrant shall submit such information to 
     the Administrator.''
       H.R. 897 does not eliminate Clean Water Act protections for 
     the nation's waterways. This bill provides relief from 
     duplicative regulation of pesticide applications under FIFRA 
     and the Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Program. Nothing in 
     the legislation would inhibit EPA and states from the 
     continued implementation of the suite of Clean Water Act 
     programs that are governed by other portions of the Act, 
     including establishing and updating water quality standards/
     criteria and issuing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). H.R. 
     897 simply eliminates the need for obtaining a Clean Water 
     Act NPDES permit for pesticide applications that are already 
     regulated under FIFRA in a manner that protects against 
     adverse environmental impacts. In EPA testimony before the 
     House Transportation & Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water 
     Resources and Environment, Ben Grumbles, former EPA Assistant 
     Administrator for Water, stated ``there are other tools under 
     [the CWA] that we fully intend and continue to use in 
     coordination with State and local water quality officials 
     through the water quality standards programs, through 
     criteria, through pollution reduction and TMDL programs. 
     Those are still in place. If you are lawfully applying a 
     pesticide, and it is a direct application to waters of the 
     U.S., or if it is an application to control pests over or 
     near waters of the U.S., you don't need a Clean Water Act 
     permit.''
       NPDES Pesticide General Permits divert state and federal 
     resources away from other Clean Water Act program activities. 
     The federal and state resources required to administer the 
     Pesticide General Permit program detracts from other agency 
     priorities. In 2011 testimony before a joint hearing of the 
     House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition and 
     Horticulture and Transportation and Infrastructure, 
     Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Dr. Andrew 
     Fisk, then President of the Association of State and 
     Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (now known 
     as ACWA), stated, ``[t]he general permits being developed 
     must work for over 360,000 (estimated) new permittees brought 
     within the purview of the NPDES program by the National 
     Cotton Council court. Adding sources to the NPDES program 
     carries with it regulatory and administrative burdens for 
     states beyond merely developing and then issuing permits. It 
     goes without saying that a meaningful environmental 
     regulatory program is more than a paper exercise. It is not 
     just a permit. EPA and states must provide technical and 
     compliance assistance,

[[Page H3040]]

     monitoring, and as needed, enforcement. These 360,000 new 
     permittees do not bring with them additional federal or state 
     funding.''
       The threat of CWA liability depletes resources available to 
     combat mosquitos. NPDES permitting requirements bring with 
     them the vulnerability for CWA citizen suits. Mosquito 
     control authorities have to set aside resources to defend 
     against potential litigation that could otherwise be used to 
     combat mosquitos and protect public health. In comments on 
     the recent 2016 draft PGP reissuance, the Benton County 
     Mosquito Control District in Washington state commented: The 
     absence of lawsuits does not mean that Mosquito Control 
     Districts (MCD's) have not been affected by the additional 
     liability brought on by the NPDES permit requirement. Benton 
     County Mosquito Control sets aside 20 percent of our annual 
     budget in case we are party to a Clean Water Act related 
     lawsuit The federal facilities in my district are managed by 
     the Army Corps of Engineers, and due to the increased 
     liability that has been put on them, we (the applicator) have 
     been asked to report to their agency on a weekly basis. 
     This is an example of the unseen, ongoing administrative 
     costs of the permit.
       Similarly, according to the American Mosquito Control 
     Association (AMCA), ``California vector control districts 
     estimate that it has cost them $3 million'' to conduct 
     administration for NPDES PGPs. A few states away in Idaho, 
     the Gem County Mosquito Abatement District was forced to 
     spend ten years and $450,000 (which is the District's entire 
     annual budget) to resolve an activist lawsuit. The lawsuit 
     was brought under the CWA's 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision, 
     which doesn't even require evidence of a misapplication of a 
     pesticide or harm to the environment, but can still result in 
     tying up funds that would otherwise be used to fight 
     mosquitoes. AMCA estimates that the total diversion of 
     taxpayer funds nationwide to unnecessary NPDES-PGP compliance 
     is $3 million annually. This does not include additional 
     costs incurred by other commercial applicators performing 
     public health spraying services to municipalities, home 
     owners associations and the like.
       Each of these problems would be fixed with the passage of 
     H.R. 897, greatly increasing the funds available for 
     governments to fight public health-threatening mosquitoes.
       Municipal water works remove any harmful traces of 
     pesticides from drinking water. Studies by USGS, EPA and 
     states demonstrate that detectable traces of pesticides in 
     source waters rarely exceed human health benchmarks. Public 
     drinking water systems must meet Maximum Contaminant Levels 
     (MCL) set by EPA for dozens of chemicals that may be present 
     in source waters. This includes commonly used pesticides and 
     their breakdown products. These standards are legally 
     enforceable and another layer of regulation that mitigates 
     potential human health risks from pesticide products.
       NDPES PGP requirements limit the number of applicators able 
     to perform timely pesticide application services. As a 
     result, some applicators are shutting down their application 
     businesses due to risk of frivolous lawsuit or PGP paperwork 
     costs. Leonard Felix of Olathe Spray Service Inc. in 
     Colorado, who testified in front of the House Small Business 
     Committee, shut down his mosquito spraying operation because 
     of the paperwork costs and for fear of frivolous lawsuits. 
     Dean Mclain, owner and operator of AG Flyers in Torrington, 
     Wyoming, has similarly ceased mosquito control services.
       Making the same point, John Salazar, Commissioner of the 
     Colorado Department of Agriculture and former T&I member 
     testified in 2011 to the T&I committee that ``. . . the small 
     businesses and public health entities that represent the 
     majority of those required to obtain permits under this 
     decision will face significant financial difficulties.'' He 
     added ``If Congress does not act, I fear agricultural 
     producers and other pesticide users will be forced to defend 
     themselves against litigation. I might also add that this 
     uncertainty would likely increase the costs to state 
     regulators. . . . Depending on the increase in the cost of an 
     application service or the difficulty to comply with all 
     elements of the permit, there may be those who choose to not 
     make pesticide applications at all.''
                                  ____

                                             National Agricultural


                                         Aviation Association,

                                                     May 23, 2016.
     Hon. Bob Gibbs,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. 
         Senate.
       Dear Chairman Gibbs: I am writing in support of H.R. 897, 
     the Zika Vector Control Act. This legislation would eliminate 
     a major unfunded mandate and regulatory hurdle that decreases 
     our nation's ability to combat threatening mosquitoes that 
     carry Zika and other viruses.
       Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 
     case National Cotton Council, et at, v. EPA, et al., 
     pesticide users have been required to obtain a Clean Water 
     Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
     pesticide general permit (PGP) from the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated states before spraying 
     for mosquitoes.
       The development of the PGP, processing of permit 
     applications by the states, and application process to obtain 
     the permit is very costly for state and local governments and 
     pesticide applicators in the private sector.
       Additional paperwork costs required under the NPDES PGP and 
     the citizen action suit provision under the Clean Water Act 
     results in frivolous litigation and hinder businesses that 
     could otherwise perform necessary public health work. These 
     stewards of public health face increased legal costs that 
     require a reduction of valuable resources for mosquito 
     abatement needed by small towns and big cities. This 
     duplicative regulation has forced local governments to spend 
     extremely large percentages of their mosquito abatement 
     budgets on these NPDES permits. Costly federal red tape is 
     making it financially impossible for some entities to spray 
     for mosquitoes.
       In the private sector, our members like Leonard Felix of 
     Olathe Spray Service Inc. in Colorado, are being forced to 
     shut down their mosquito abatement operations because of the 
     costs of NPDES PGPs and potential associated lawsuits. Dean 
     Mclain, owner and operator of AG Flyers in Torrington, 
     Wyoming, has similarly ceased mosquito control services. In 
     other words, NPDES PGP requirements have reduced the number 
     of small applicators able to perform mosquito abatement. 
     Since small applicators make up 30 percent of America's 
     mosquito abatement businesses, these requirements 
     significantly reduce our nation's ability to fight Zika-
     carrying mosquitoes.
       The worst part about these requirements is that they don't 
     improve water quality. All pesticides that could be used 
     under an NPDES PGP are already currently being reviewed and 
     regulated by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This means each pesticide has 
     undergone hundreds of millions of dollars in testing for 
     impacts to aquatic species and water quality, including 
     drinking water. There is no environmental or public health 
     benefit from the PGP requirement, and there is no risk in 
     creating an exemption from this requirement.
       There is, however, a real public health threat with Zika-
     carrying mosquitoes in the U.S. and this threat could be 
     exacerbated if H.R. 897 is not enacted because the 
     unnecessary and duplicative NPDES-PGP requirements have 
     grounded small business applicators that are a vital 
     component of public health spraying. The mosquitoes that are 
     known to carry Zika thrive and are developing as far north as 
     Maine. With these unnecessary regulatory barriers, local 
     governments will have fewer funds and applicators to fight 
     these pests.
       By enacting H.R. 897, we can fight Zika and other dangerous 
     viruses without additional cost to the American taxpayers by 
     simply recognizing the duplicative permitting process for 
     pesticides. This legislation would permanently free up funds 
     for state and local governments to combat mosquitoes while 
     allowing mosquito abatement businesses to focus on hiring 
     employees instead of wrestling with regulatory red tape.
       Thank you for combatting the spread of Zika, and for 
     protecting public health and small businesses with the Zika 
     Vector Control Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Andrew Moore,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to H.R. 
897 from 13 national environmental organizations. They are 
Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, San 
Francisco Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water 
Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, Beyond Pesticides, Southern 
Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth.

     Re Oppose H.R. 897 (``Zika Vector Control Act'').

                                                     May 16, 2016.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 897 
     (``Zika Vector Control Act''), which would eliminate Clean 
     Water Act safeguards that protect our waterways and 
     communities from excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide 
     General Permit targeted in this legislation has been in place 
     for nearly five years now and alarmist predictions by 
     pesticide manufacturers and others about the impacts of this 
     permit have failed to bear any fruit.
       This bill is the same legislation that pesticide 
     manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing 
     for years. It will not improve nor impact spraying to combat 
     Zika virus, contrary to the new, last-minute title given to 
     the bill. The Pesticide General Permit at issue allows for 
     spraying to combat vector-borne diseases such as Zika and the 
     West Nile virus. According to the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the permit ``provides that pesticide 
     applications are

[[Page H3041]]

     covered automatically under the permit and may be performed 
     immediately for any declared emergency pest situations'' 
     (emphasis added).
       Further, repealing the Pesticide General Permit--as this 
     damaging legislation seeks to do--would allow pesticides to 
     be discharged into water bodies without any meaningful 
     oversight since the federal pesticide registration law (the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) 
     does not require tracking of such applications.
       Now that the Pesticide General Permit is in place, the 
     public is finally getting information that they couldn't 
     obtain before about the types of pesticides being sprayed or 
     discharged into local bodies of water. All across the 
     country, pesticide applicators are complying with the 
     Pesticide General Permit to protect water quality without 
     issue.
       Further, the Pesticide General Permit has no significant 
     effect on farming practices. The permit in no way affects 
     land applications of pesticides for the purpose of 
     controlling pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural 
     stormwater runoff do not require permits, even when they 
     contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the 
     Clean Water Act remain.
       Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other 
     organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 897 that would 
     undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide 
     applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups 
     for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with 
     more information on the issue.
       The Pesticide General Permit simply lays out commonsense 
     practices for applying pesticides directly to waters that 
     currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. 
     Efforts to block this permit are highly controversial, as 
     evidenced by the attached list of groups opposed.
       Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all 
     Americans by opposing H.R. 897.
           Sincerely,
         Earthjustice; League of Conservation Voters; Natural 
           Resources Defense Council; Pacific Coast Federation of 
           Fishermen's Associations; Sierra Club; San Francisco 
           Baykeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Southern 
           Environmental Law Center; Clean Water Action; Defenders 
           of Wildlife; Greenpeace; Beyond Pesticides; Friends of 
           the Earth.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, during the debate on H.R. 897 last 
week, it was suggested that the recordkeeping requirements of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, were 
equal to or exceeding those required under the Clean Water Act permit. 
We checked with EPA and found a very different story.
  First, contrary to suggestions otherwise, all private pesticide 
applicators are not required to keep any pesticide applications under 
FIFRA or its implementing regulations. Only commercial application of 
restricted-use pesticides are required to keep application records 
under FIFRA recordkeeping requirements.
  Second, pesticide application records do not have to be filed with 
the EPA, any State or tribal agency, or person. They are only required 
to keep and be maintained at a place where pesticides are used, and 
available for inspection upon request by an authorized regulatory 
representative.
  Yet, in contrast to the clean water requirements, the FIFRA 
application records are not publicly available. While in some States 
applicators can be required by State or regulation to lead to more 
robust recordkeeping requirements, it is not accurate to say those are 
required under FIFRA.
  So in sum, FIFRA requires far fewer pesticide applicators to keep any 
records, does not require that these records be filed with the Federal, 
State, or tribal regulatory agency, and does not make these records 
publicly available.
  In my view, then, it is not accurate to say that the recordkeeping 
requirements of FIFRA and the Clean Water Act are synonymous.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, just to respond a little bit, the EPA sets the label 
requirements. It sets all the requirements for the certified 
applicators. And to apply a restricted pesticide, you have to be a 
certified applicator.
  Now, ironically, here, the EPA is the agency, the regulator, that can 
set what is restricted. In most cases what we are talking about here is 
the pesticides being used to control mosquitoes and stuff are 
restricted pesticides, and the certified applicators have to keep 
records. The regulators can come in and check those records. Those 
records consist of the date you applied the pesticide, the time of day, 
the wind speed, the temperature, the humidity--all sorts of things--
and, obviously, the location. And so the EPA controls this under FIFRA, 
and they can come in and require to see those records if there is a 
problem, and they have absolute control of what is restricted and what 
is not restricted, and they can add to that list. They have full, broad 
ability to do that under FIFRA under the current law.
  So I want to make that known--that you don't go out and apply 
restricted pesticides haphazardly. You just open yourself up to all 
kinds of legal problems and regulatory problems. It is an erroneous 
argument that that is going to happen.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I listened to the arguments, and I hope that, for the 
fifth time, this measure is opposed and rejected.
  I think of California and its many rivers and streams that are 
heavily impacted by the pollution of pesticides and herbicides, and I 
urge my colleagues to consider that this could happen in their area, 
too.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 897.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

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

[[Page H3042]]

that we do everything we can and give the tools to communities to 
protect the environment, foster and protect public health, and not have 
to wait to do an emergency declaration and do aerial spraying and 
everything else.
  Let's get those preventive programs going, and then we will give them 
the resources to do that and head off this potential epidemic before it 
occurs and protect the safety of our citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 897.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I submit the following letters of support 
that we received for the bill last week:
  A letter from nearly 100 organizations supporting H.R. 897, 
including: the National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Ohio Professional 
Applicators for Responsible Regulation, the Pesticide Policy Coalition, 
and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
  The National Pest Management Association.
  Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation.

                                     House of Representatives,

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


                  National Pest Management Association

       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

[[Page H3043]]

     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.
                                  ____

                                          Responsible Industry for


                                              a Sound Economy,

                                     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) 
     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 (FIERA) 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.,
     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.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of full 
funding for the Zika Response Appropriations, because the House 
appropriations measure fell short of what is needed to aggressively 
address the enormity of the Zika Virus threat to the Americas and the 
United States, with particular concern for Puerto Rico the House needs 
to act.
  I thank President Obama for his leadership in requesting $1.9 billion 
to address the threat of the Zika Virus, and facing congressional delay 
he took funds from Ebola response to prepare the nation to face the 
Zika Virus threat.
  Let us not forget--Ebola was on our doorstep last year before 
Congress acted and there are still Ebola hot spots that are occurring, 
which have to be addressed, but we now lack the resources to deal with 
that ever present threat.
  I am committed to 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 will do too little; and funding that will abruptly end on 
September 30, 2016.
  As the founder and Chair of the Children's Caucus and a senior member 
of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely aware of how 
dangerous the Zika Virus is to women who may be pregnant or may become 
pregnant should they be exposed to the disease.
  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 Gulf Coast areas, which include Houston, the third largest city 
in the nation, are known to have both types of the Zika Virus carrying 
mosquitoes: the Aedes Aegypti 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 this meeting with Houston, Harris County and State 
officials at every level of responsibility to combat the Zika Virus and 
to discuss preparations that would mitigate it.
  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.
  The potential for the Zika Virus outbreaks in the United States if we 
do not act is real, and the people on the front lines are state and 
local governments who must prepare for mosquito season, establish 
community oriented education campaigns, provide Zika Virus prevention 
resources to women who live in areas where poverty is present, and 
environmental remediation of mosquito breeding near where people live.
  The assumption that everyone has air conditioning; window and door 
screens that are in good repair or present at all; does not take into 
consideration the pockets of poverty that are present in every major 
city including many towns, counties, parishes, and cities along the 
Gulf Coast.
  The 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I represent, has a 
tropical climate and is very likely to confront the challenge of Zika 
Virus carrying mosquitoes before mosquito season ends in the fall.
  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 that city's water supply.
  The participants in the meeting I held in Houston represented the 
senior persons at every state and local agency with responsibility for 
Zika Virus response.
  The expert view of those present was that we need a unity of effort 
plan to address the Zika Virus in the Houston and Harris County area 
that will include every aspect of the community.
  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 mosquito breeding 
environments.
  The real fight against the Zika Virus will be fought neighborhood by 
neighborhood and will rely upon the resources and expertise of local 
government working closely with State governments supported by federal 
government agencies.
  The consensus of Texas, Houston, and Harris County experts is that we 
make significant strides to stay ahead of the arrival of mosquito 
transmission of Zika Virus if we act now.
  The CDC said that for the period January 1, 2015 to May 11, 2016, the 
number of cases are as follows:


                           The United States

  Travel-associated cases reported: 503; Locally acquired through 
mosquito bites reported: 0; Total: 503.
  Pregnant: 48; Sexually transmitted: 10; Guillain-Barre syndrome: 1.


                            U.S. Territories

  Travel-associated cases reported: 3; Mosquito acquired cases 
reported: 698; Total: 701.
  Pregnant: 65; Guillain-Barre syndrome: 5.
  There are 49 countries and territories in our hemisphere where 
mosquito borne transmission of the Zika Virus is the primary way the 
virus is spread include:
  American Samoa; Aruba; Belize; Barbados; Bolivia; Brazil; Bonaire; 
Cape Verde; Central America; Colombia; Costa Rica; Cuba; Curacao; 
Dominica; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Ecuador; Fiji; French 
Guiana; Grenada; the Grenadines; Guatemala; Guadeloupe; Haiti; 
Honduras; Islands Guyana; Jamaica; Martinique; Kosrae (Federated States 
of Micronesia); Marshall Islands; Mexico; Nicaragua; New Caledonia; the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Panama; Papua New Guinea, Paraguay; Peru; 
Samoa, a U.S. territory; Saint Barthelemy; Saint Lucia; Saint Martin; 
Saint Vincent; Saint Maarten; Suriname; Tonga;

[[Page H3044]]

Trinidad and Tobago; U.S. Virgin Islands, Venezuela and particular note 
is made by the CDC by listing the 2016 Summer Olympics (Rio 2016) 
separately.

  As of May 11, 2016, there were more than 1,200 confirmed Zika cases 
in the continental United States and U.S. Territories, including over 
110 pregnant women with confirmed cases of the Zika virus.
  The Zika virus is spreading in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa and abroad, and there will likely be mosquito-borne 
transmission within the continental United States in the coming summer 
months.
  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.
  The spread of disease is opportunistic--Zika Virus is an 
opportunistic disease that is spread by 2 mosquitoes out of the 57 
verities.
  We should be planning to fight those 2 mosquitoes in a multi-pronged 
way with every resource we can bring to the battle.
  Poverty is where the mosquito will find places to breed in great 
numbers, but these mosquitoes will not be limited to low income areas 
nor does the disease care how much someone earns.
  The Aedes Aegypti or Yellow Fever mosquito has evolved to feed on 
people for the blood needed to lay its eggs.
  This mosquito can breed in as little as a cap of dirty water; it will 
breed in aquariums in homes; plant water catching dishes; the well of 
discarded tires; puddles or pools of water; ditches; and children's 
wading pools.
  Although water may evaporate mosquito eggs will remain viable and 
when it rains again or water is placed where they are in contact with 
eggs the process for mosquitos development resumes.
  The enablers of Zika Virus are those who illegally dump tires; open 
ditches, torn screens, or no screens; tropical climates that create 
heat and humidity that force people without air conditioning to open 
windows or face heat exhaustion.
  It might be hard for people who do not live in the tropical climates 
along the Gulf Coast to understand what a heat index is--it is a 
combination of temperature and humidity, which can mean that 
temperatures in summer are over 100 degrees.
  Zika Virus Prevention Kits like those being distributed in Puerto 
Rico, which are vital to the effort there to protect women, 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.
  The kits should also include DEET mosquito repellant products that 
can be sprayed on clothing to protect against mosquito bites.
  Madam Speaker, there is no need to be alarmed, but we should be 
preparing aggressively so that this nation does not have a reoccurrence 
of what happened during the Ebola crisis--when the Federal government 
seemed unprepared because this Congress was unmoved by the science, 
until domestic transmission of the disease were recorded.
  The Zika Virus is a neurogenic virus that can attack the brain tissue 
of children in their mother's womb.
  The Zika Virus will be difficult to detect and track in all cases 
because 4 in 5 people who get the disease will have no symptoms.
  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 Zika Virus cases in 
the next four months and to date there are over a million cases in 
Brazil.
  The virus has been transmitted through sexual contact.
  We know that the evidence of the Zika Virus in newborns in the United 
States may not become apparent until we are in the late fall or winter 
of next year.
  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.
  Researchers and scientists at the CDC; NIH and HHS do not know how 
the disease attacks the nervous system of developing babies.
  They cannot answer what the long term health prospects are for 
children born with such a severe brain birth defect.
  They have not discovered the right vaccine to fight the disease--
which requires care to be sure that it is safe and effective especially 
in pregnant women or women who may become pregnant.
  The do not know what plan will work and to what degree if a tight 
network of mosquito control is established in areas most likely to have 
the Zika Virus carrying mosquitoes.
  How the Zika Virus may evolve over time and what they may mean for 
human health.
  I urge my colleagues to reject anything less than full support of the 
President's request for $1.9 billion to fight the Zika Virus threat.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 742, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RUIZ. I am opposed in its current form, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ruiz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 897 to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 4. PROTECTING PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM 
                   PESTICIDES KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO CAUSE ADVERSE 
                   HEALTH IMPACTS ON PREGNANT WOMEN, FETAL GROWTH, 
                   OR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not 
     apply to the discharge of a pesticide if there is evidence, 
     based on peer-reviewed science, that the pesticide is known 
     or suspected to--
       (1) cause adverse health effects on pregnant women;
       (2) cause adverse impacts to fetal growth or development; 
     or
       (3) cause adverse impacts on early childhood development.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment because I recognize the 
critical need to protect women, infants, and developing children from 
the harmful impact of pesticides.
  The underlying bill, the so-called Zika Vector Control Act, is a 
farce designed to play on public fears over Zika. It has nothing to do 
with combating Zika.
  In fact, Republicans have been pushing the text of the underlying 
legislation for years under whatever name happens to be convenient at 
the time.
  Otherwise known as the pesticide Trojan horse bill, this legislation 
attempts to gut our ability to track and report when and where harmful 
pesticides are sprayed.
  Without oversight compliance, physicians and scientists are less able 
to track and identify the cluster of symptoms caused by pesticides 
which, in turn, reduces their ability to protect the public's health.
  I know, as a physician and public health expert, that pesticides can 
have serious toxic impacts on human health particularly for women and 
children.
  Pesticides can endanger women and unborn children, cause malformation 
in infants, hinder early childhood development, endanger reproductive 
health, and cause cancer.
  Madam Speaker, I speak as a physician, but I also speak as the son of 
farm workers. The underlying bill could expose already vulnerable 
populations to greater risks of contamination from pesticides. Farm 
workers would be harmed by the unmonitored use of these harmful 
pesticides.
  No oversight of compliance can harm the public's health. That is why 
I am offering this commonsense amendment to protect the health safety 
of our communities and our women and children.

[[Page H3045]]

  Instead of actually working to control the spread of one public 
health crisis, the Zika virus, this bill could make another public 
health problem even worse.
  Rather than spending our time on this bill that does nothing to 
strengthen Zika prevention efforts across the country, we should be 
working to pass legislation to fully fund efforts to contain and stop 
the virus before we adjourn.
  Madam Speaker, last week we voted on an inadequate and unconscionable 
Zika funding bill that I opposed. That bill funded only one-third of 
the request from public health experts.
  In medicine, you don't just partially treat a patient. That is called 
malpractice. You don't take out just a third of the cancer. You don't 
just give a third of the antibiotic dose for severe pneumonia.
  Time is running out. It is past due, Madam Speaker, for you to do 
your job, protect American families, and fully address the Zika virus 
threat.
  This underlying bill does not contain a dime in funding and no 
authority to protect public health from the spread of the Zika virus. 
It is an unnecessary bill because vector control agencies already have 
the authority to use pesticides under a public health emergency like 
the spread of the Zika virus epidemic.
  So instead of pushing this Trojan horse, which could actually expose 
vulnerable communities to serious health risks, let's fully fund 
efforts to protect American families from Zika.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' to protect the health and safety of women 
and children in this country and to demand that we fully fund efforts 
to combat the spread of the Zika virus before it is too late.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary. The 
underlying bill, H.R. 897, eliminates the duplicative, expensive, and 
unnecessary permit process and helps free up resources for States, 
counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of Zika. 
But this motion, in effect, aims to undermine those efforts.
  There are already adequate protections built in the FIFRA law. The 
FIFRA review process can restrict or deny. The process is rigorous and 
requires the EPA to evaluate the human health and environmental effects 
of pesticides prior to allowing their use.
  EPA goes through their process. If there is any risk to the 
environment or human health, a pesticide will not get registered with 
an approved label. There won't be a label. It is that simple. It will 
be a restricted pesticide and won't be approved for use.
  There are already enough protections in the current FIFRA law. So all 
this redundancy is just plain unnecessary. So we need to move ahead and 
stop creating unnecessary roadblocks and use the products that we have 
to protect the public.
  The argument about harming farm workers is just unbelievable, too, 
because EPA controls the label. If it is restricted pesticides--which 
EPA can make all pesticides restricted. It has to be a certified 
applicator.
  So any farm worker has to be under the supervision of a certified 
applicator, and we have that in effect. So farm workers are not harmed 
from this. The FIFRA law is adequate.
  H.R. 897 is a good bill that will help protect pregnant women and 
stop mosquitos before they spread the Zika virus to vulnerable 
populations.
  I strongly oppose the motion to recommit, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  May 24, 2016, on page H3045, the following appeared: There was 
no objection. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: There was no 
objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion 
to recommit.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, and the order of the House of today, this 15-minute vote on the 
motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of 
H.R. 897, if ordered, and the motion to concur in the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 2576 with an amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182, 
nays 232, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 236]

                               YEAS--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster

[[Page H3046]]


     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Allen
     Bass
     Castro (TX)
     Collins (GA)
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Loudermilk
     Massie
     Miller (MI)
     O'Rourke
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, Austin
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1703

  Messrs. RATCLIFFE, FITZPATRICK, HURD of Texas, Mmes. BLACKBURN, LOVE, 
Messrs. CALVERT, McHENRY, FORBES, TIBERI, DENT, and GOSAR changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut and Ms. MOORE changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 156, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 237]

                               AYES--258

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--156

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Allen
     Bass
     Castro (TX)
     Collins (GA)
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Granger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Loudermilk
     McGovern
     Miller (MI)
     O'Rourke
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, Austin
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine

                              {time}  1709

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________