Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)

[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

Ongoing Compliance Costs

Exposure to Activist Litigation

[[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.

____________________