[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4535-H4553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoho). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 348 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 953.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1500


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 953) 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, with Mr. Duncan of 
South Carolina in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.


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

  
  May 24, 2017, on page H4535, the following appeared: The 
gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs)
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs)


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

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Today we are considering H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act of 2017, introduced to clarify congressional intent regarding 
pesticide use in or near navigable waters.
  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, otherwise 
known as FIFRA, is the appropriate Federal statute to govern safety and 
the use of pesticides.
  FIFRA first passed in 1910, 62 years before the Clean Water Act was 
passed. In 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court decision, the National Cotton 
Council v. EPA, changed how this all works. For years before the Clean 
Water Act, pesticide use was regulated by the EPA under FIFRA. Under 
FIFRA, the EPA regulates and approves pesticides for safe use under the 
label, and they have full jurisdiction under FIFRA.
  The EPA previously ruled that using pesticides under FIFRA-approved 
use does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 
otherwise known as NPDES, permit under the Clean Water Act.
  Because of this court decision in 2009, those who have been safely 
applying products to control pest populations now must comply with 
additional NPDES permitting.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have called this Groundhog Day 
in the past. I agree. Time after time, they have supported increasing 
the regulations just for regulation's sake. They are even willing to 
risk public health and outbreaks of Zika and West Nile virus.
  The Sixth Circuit Court decision ignored the congressional intent 
when the FIFRA and the Clean Water Act were passed. The court ignored 
sensible agency interpretation, it ignored years of regulatory 
precedent, it expanded the clean water jurisdiction beyond the scope 
set by Congress and over areas already appropriately regulated. The 
court decision placed burden on the

[[Page H4536]]

EPA, requiring a new and expanded NPDES permitting process for products 
already regulated.
  The EPA says there are about 365,000 pesticide applicators affected 
by this ruling. They would include State agencies, cities and counties, 
mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, 
farmers and ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday 
citizens or homeowners.
  The EPA estimates $50 million in paperwork to comply alone every year 
with this new regulation. Federal, State, and local agencies are forced 
to spend taxpayer dollars in permitting, paperwork, and compliance. 
Private applicators, like farmers and ranchers, also face increased 
costs. This adds compliance costs, adds permitting costs, and it adds 
time and hurts productivity and efficiency. It does not add any new 
environmental protections.
  This bad court decision affecting the budgetary decisions from local 
agencies, I will give you some examples here: the Benton County, 
Washington, Mosquito Control District preserves 20 percent of its 
annual budget in case it is sued under the Clean Water Act. I think it 
is important to mention when the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, it 
was set up with severe penalties to go after the polluters we had--I 
like to say the polluters of the 1960s--to clean up our waters, that we 
had severe problems. And when it did that, it also opened it up for 
citizens' lawsuits and opens up the door for more litigation.
  The Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District, $37,000 in 
permit costs and paperwork they have spent. Benton County could have 
treated almost 2,600 acres for mosquito abatement or 400 lab tests for 
West Nile virus, or paid for three seasonal workers.
  In Gem County, Idaho, the Mosquito Abatement District's staff spends 
3 weeks a year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide 
applications related to permit oversight.
  California vector control districts have estimated that it costs them 
$3 million to conduct administration of the NPDES permits. They also 
have to spend 20 percent of their annual operating budget just to 
maintain the computer software related to the unnecessary NPDES permit.
  As a result of this court ruling, mosquito districts, State and local 
agencies, are now vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits for things like 
simple paperwork violations under the Clean Water Act. Fines for these 
paperwork violations, which obviously don't have any affect on the 
environment, can be as much as $50,000 a day.
  For example, the Gem County, Idaho, Mosquito Abatement District was 
forced to spend $450,000 to resolve a lawsuit.
  In my home State of Ohio, the Mosquito Control District for Toledo is 
currently embroiled in a citizen's lawsuit from a simple paperwork 
violation.
  The 2012 West Nile outbreak is proof NPDES permits and association 
costs are hindering the ability to protect the public.
  In 2012, the first year of the permitting requirement from the court 
case, West Nile cases jumped from 712 cases to almost to over 5,600 
cases. That is nearly an 800 percent increase because of the 
unnecessary permit requirements.
  The States and communities affected by West Nile had to wait until 
after a public health emergency was declared. Only then could relief 
from the NPDES permit be approved. Only after the West Nile had spread 
could local agencies use lifesaving pesticides to kill mosquitoes 
carrying the virus. Keep in mind, when the local entity, municipality, 
declares an emergency, they don't need to get a permit. They can spray. 
I like to say it is after the fact when the mosquitoes are out of 
control, then we do aerial spraying. Maybe we could have prevented it 
with surface spraying and be less harm to the environment. We shouldn't 
have to wait until it becomes an emergency.
  H.R. 953 gets rid of the unnecessary red tape so communities can 
prevent outbreaks of diseases like Zika and West Nile.
  Cities that need to conduct the routine preventative mosquito 
abatement should not have to do it with one hand tied behind their 
back. H.R. 953 provides a narrow, limited exception from NPDES permit 
requirements for those pesticides already approved under FIFRA law and 
used in compliance under the label which is approved by the EPA.
  I think this is an important point to keep in mind: EPA already 
regulates these pesticides and approves them under FIFRA. It goes 
through rigorous testing and reporting requirements, and they set the 
label and make the determination. They approve how it is going to be 
used. If it is a restricted pesticide, they can also put more 
restrictions on the applicators and who the applicators are.
  Therefore, removing this redundant NPDES permit is appropriate 
because the EPA already has full control and can handle the situation 
like they did for over 60 years before this court case.
  The EPA has assisted in drafting H.R. 953, which does not roll back 
any environmental protections. It fixes the regulatory problem caused 
by the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and maintains the EPA's 
jurisdiction through FIFRA.
  Similar legislation has passed the House every Congress since the 
court's decision, and I look forward to passing it again today, and 
then passing it in the Senate and have the President sign it into law.
  A list of organizations--this is a snapshot of the many organizations 
because I don't have enough time to list all the organizations, but the 
American Mosquito Control Association supports it; the American Farm 
Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; the National Association 
of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Association of Wheat 
Growers; National Corn Growers Association; and United Fresh Produce 
Association. Those are just a few groups representing thousands of 
Americans who depend on commonsense EPA regulations for their 
livelihood.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record--and I want to talk about it here 
for a minute--I have a letter from former Secretary of Agriculture 
Vilsack. In 2009, he was Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama 
administration. When this court case happened, he sent out a letter to 
Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency. In his letter, he urges the EPA to consider the 
significant adverse effect of the Sixth Circuit Court's 2009 decision, 
the National Cotton Council and EPA will have on American farmers and 
USDA agencies. He said in the letter:
  ``By broadening the Act's reach, the court burdens American 
agriculture with a newly minted NPDES permit requirement. . . .''
  ``The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American farmers' and 
the agencies' ability to do business, while reaping little or no 
environmental benefit in exchange.''
  I want to repeat that. The Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama 
administration said that this court case has little environmental 
benefit, and it hampers American farmers to do their job to produce the 
most wholesome, safe, affordable food in the world.
  ``Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional regulatory 
regime''--he goes on to say--``of the CWA is duplicative and will not 
help protect the environment.''
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this letter, dated March 6, 2009, 
from Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and his opposition to the court 
case and, in his opinion, what this bill does.

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
     Hon. Lisa P. Jackson,
     Administrator, U.S. Environment Protection Agency,
     Washington, DC.
     Subject: The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v. 
         United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 06-
         4630; 07-3180/3181/3182/3183/3184/3185/3186/3187/3191/
         3236 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009).

       Dear Ms. Jackson: The United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Sixth Circuit recently invalidated the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Rule entitled, 
     ``Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in 
     Compliance With FIFRA.'' 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006) 
     (Final Rule). A petition for rehearing or for rehearing en 
     bane before the Sixth Circuit is due on April 9, 2009. I 
     would very much appreciate your taking into consideration the 
     significant adverse effect that the court's decision will 
     have on American farmers, as well as on U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA) agencies, and therefore request that you 
     seek further review of this decision by the Sixth Circuit.

[[Page H4537]]

       In its Final Rule, the EPA reasonably interpreted the term 
     ``pollutant'' in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as generally 
     excluding pesticides that are applied in compliance with the 
     relevant requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Final Rule established that 
     the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA would 
     not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
     (NPDES) permit when they are applied directly into waters of 
     the United States in order to control pests, or when they are 
     applied to control pests that are present over waters of the 
     United States, including near those waters, when a portion of 
     the pesticides unavoidably will be deposited into the water 
     in order to target the pests effectively. The EPA 
     specifically concluded that the terms ``chemical wastes'' and 
     ``biological materials'' in the CWA's definition of 
     pollutants do not encompass the types of pesticide 
     applications addressed in the Final Rule. 71 Fed. Reg. 
     68,486.
       The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that 
     the Final Rule was contrary to the plain language of the CWA. 
     Although the court agreed with the EPA that chemical 
     pesticides applied directly to water to perform a useful 
     purpose are not chemical wastes, it held that excess 
     pesticides and pesticide residue meet the common definition 
     of waste, and therefore are pollutants under the CWA. The 
     court held that the EPA is required to regulate the residue 
     of chemical pesticides when the pesticide is applied to land 
     or air, and the residue finds its way into the navigable 
     waters of the. United States, and when the pesticide is 
     applied directly to the water and the residue has a lasting 
     effect beyond its intended purpose. The court also found that 
     Congress intended for ``biological materials'' to encompass 
     more than ``biological wastes.'' The court held that all 
     biological pesticides are biological materials, and therefore 
     pollutants under the CWA.
       The court's adverse decision will have profound 
     implications for American farmers. The panel's ruling 
     effectively broadens the potential application of the CWA to 
     reach agricultural activities that the EPA has never 
     regulated under the provisions of the CWA. By broadening the 
     Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a 
     newly minted NPDES permit requirement for the application of 
     all FIFRA-compliant biological pesticides whenever those 
     pesticides might find their way into waters of the United 
     States, and for all FIFRA-compliant chemical pesticides 
     whenever the residues of those pesticides find their way into 
     waters of the United States. The permit requirement could 
     reach almost any pesticide application, requiring farmers to 
     navigate a permitting system that is ill-suited to the 
     demands of agricultural production. Failure to obtain a 
     timely permit for pesticide application could cripple 
     American farmers' emergency pest management efforts and 
     hamper their ability to respond quickly to new pest 
     infestations or threats of infestations, thus increasing the 
     risk of crop losses.
       Additionally, several USDA agencies engage in the ground 
     and aerial application of pesticides, and would be adversely 
     affected by the panel's decision. The Forest Service (FS) and 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) now 
     will be required to obtain NPDES permits, which could 
     compromise the agencies' ability to respond with efficiency 
     and flexibility to emerging threats and emergency situations. 
     The delay and expense associated with complying with the 
     NPDES permitting requirement could substantially curtail the 
     agencies' use of pesticides. For the FS, this could result in 
     diminished efforts to protect the National Forests from pest 
     infestation and could potentially increase the risk and 
     severity of wildfires. It could also significantly hamper 
     aerial spraying programs such as APHIS's Mormon Cricket and 
     Grasshopper Program, undertaken in cooperation with western 
     states. Additionally, research programs involving both the 
     conventional and the experimental applications of pesticides 
     undertaken by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) also 
     will be detrimentally affected by the panel's decision. The 
     time-consuming and costly process of negotiating the NPDES 
     permit application process will diminish the efficiency with 
     which the ARS will be able to undertake its initiatives, and 
     may, in some instances, curtail the agency's projects 
     entirely.
       The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American 
     farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while 
     reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange. 
     Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional 
     regulatory regime of the CWA is duplicative and will not help 
     protect the environment. FIFRA mandates that the EPA approve 
     and issue a registration for a pesticide product only after 
     the EPA has determined that the product will not cause 
     ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' The 
     pesticide registration and re-registration process under 
     FIFRA considers the effects of pesticides on both human 
     health and aquatic resources. If the EPA has concluded that a 
     pesticide satisfies FIFRA and will not have an ``unreasonable 
     adverse effect on the environment,'' then it is reasonable to 
     exclude the application of that pesticide from the permitting 
     requirements of the CWA.
       In short, I am concerned that the court's decision will 
     compromise American farmers' and USDA agencies' ability to 
     respond efficiently and effectively to emergency threats, 
     while providing little or no additional environmental 
     protection in return. Thank you for taking these issues into 
     account as you consider seeking further review of this case.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas J. Vilsack,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I have nearly 120 organizations that support 
H.R. 953, representing a wide variety of public and private entities 
and thousands of stakeholders. I have a letter from the nearly 120. I 
listed some of those. Some of the additional names are Agricultural 
Retailers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American 
Mosquito Control Association; the Association of Equipment 
Manufacturers; CropLife America; Family Farm Alliance; National 
Agricultural Aviation Association; the National Alliance of Forest 
Owners; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; 
National Farmers Union; National Pest Management Association; and the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. I include that letter 
in the Record.

                                                      May 3, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the over one hundred 
     undersigned organizations, we urge you to vote in favor of 
     H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.
       For almost forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) and pesticide applicators including public health 
     agencies charged with mosquito control operated exclusively 
     under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
     (FIFRA). In fact, EPA has testified to the adequacy of 
     FIFRA's comprehensive regulatory requirements including 
     substantial enforcement mechanisms in pursuit of that goal.
       However, a 2009 activist-inspired lawsuit resulted in a 
     federal court decision identifying a technicality in the law 
     that Congress had not properly clarified its intent that 
     FIFRA should have preeminence over the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
     This decision resulted in pesticide users being required to 
     obtain a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
     (NPDES) permit. These permits were originally created to 
     address the discharge of waste by major industrial polluters, 
     but now are mandated for mosquito control districts and 
     others who are applying pesticides approved by EPA for use in 
     the environment for their beneficial purposes of trying to 
     prevent or control the spread of public health disease in the 
     U.S.
       Though the NPDES permit burden lacks any additional 
     environmental benefit under these circumstances, it does 
     force substantial costs on thousands of small application 
     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 a number of instances, applicators--that once conducted 
     mosquito abatement applications for local governments and 
     homeowner associations--can't afford the costs or risk of 
     frivolous litigation that accompanies NPDES PGPs and have 
     refrained from conducting public health applications.
       H.R. 953 would clarify Congressional intent that federal 
     law does not require this redundant permit for already 
     regulated pesticide applications.
       In the 112th Congress, similar legislation (H.R. 872) 
     passed the House Committee on Agriculture and went on to pass 
     the House of Representatives on suspension. In the 113th 
     Congress, the legislation (H.R. 935) passed both the House 
     Committees on Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure 
     by voice vote, and again, the House of Representatives. In 
     the 114th Congress, the Zika Vector Control Act (H.R. 897) 
     passed the House of Representatives yet again. With your help 
     and support, H.R. 953 will also pass the House and hopefully 
     become law.
       Since H.R. 897 passed the House last year, there has been 
     yet another costly lawsuit against a mosquito control 
     district, forcing the district to spend its funds fighting in 
     court instead of protecting public health.
       Under these circumstances, NPDES permit requirements impact 
     the use of critical pesticides in protecting human health and 
     the food supply from destructive and disease-carrying pests, 
     and in managing invasive weeds to keep open waterways and 
     shipping lanes, to maintain rights of way for transportation 
     and power generation, and in preventing damage to forests and 
     recreation areas. The time and funds expended on redundant 
     permit compliance drains public and private resources. All 
     this for no measurable benefit to the environment. We urge 
     you to eliminate this unnecessary, expensive, and duplicative 
     regulation by ensuring the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 
     2017 passes the House on Wednesday.
           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; Association of Equipment

[[Page H4538]]

     Manufacturers; Biopesticide Industry Alliance; California 
     Agricultural Aircraft Association; California Association of 
     Winegrape Growers; California Specialty Crops Council; Cape 
     Cod Cranberry Growers Association.
       Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association; The Cranberry 
     Institute; Crop Protection Association of North Carolina; 
     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; Iowa Agricultural Aviation 
     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 
     AgriGrowth Council; 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 
     Landscape Professionals; 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 Onion Association; 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 Association of Nurseries; Oregon Farm Bureau; Oregon 
     Forest and Industries Council; Oregon Potato Commission; 
     Oregon Seed Council; Oregon Water Resources Congress; Oregon 
     Wheat Growers League; Oregonians for Food & Shelter; 
     Pesticide Policy Coalition; Plains Cotton Growers, Inc.; 
     Professional Landcare Network; 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.

    American Mosquito Control Association Statement on NPDES Burden


   The American Mosquito Control Association Urges Congress To Vote 
    ``YES'' on H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017

       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 mosquito-transmitted diseases.
       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 NPDES permit has 
     ``modest notification and monitoring requirements'' the 
     actual experience of mosquito control districts is much 
     different.
       Initially obtaining and maintaining an NPDES permit comes 
     at considerable expense. California mosquito control 
     districts estimate the NPDES compliance costs for their 64 
     districts to be approximately $4 million dollars over six 
     years. These costs include;
       Initial amount spent by Districts determining waters 
     subject to reporting.
       Total amount spent by Districts tracking treatments to 
     Waters of the US
       Water Testing Consultants
       NPDES Administration/Regulatory Consultants
       Legal fees related to NPDES
       Physical monitoring of larvicides--not completed by 
     consultants
       Completing annual reports
       In Wyoming, there are several issues that have impacted the 
     mosquito districts;
       Record keeping requirements has redirected 2-5 % of 
     District funds annually to permit fees and administrative 
     costs.
       The cost for acre applications of both adulticide and 
     larvicides has increased 5 to 10-fold for some Districts. 
     This is due primarily to the fear that local aerial 
     applicators have regarding the citizen lawsuits. The local ag 
     pilots have declined to fly for some of the mosquito 
     districts in Wyoming, requiring them to go out of state to 
     professional application companies. The City of Laramie which 
     was able to treat for an estimated $1 per acre now pays an 
     estimated $5-$10 per acre. This has greatly reduced the acres 
     that can be treated with larvicide and adulticides.
       In Durango, CO, the Animas Mosquito Control District 
     reported spending over $50,000 in GPS/GIS system, maintenance 
     and upgrades purchased to comply with an unknown annual 
     report requirement. They spent numerous hours conducting 
     meetings, phone calls and on the computer to clarify the 
     annual reporting requirements, the detail necessary in annual 
     reports, and even where to send the information.
       The fact that the existence of the permit over the last 6 
     years has no additional environmental benefit (since 
     pesticide applications are already governed by FIFRA) makes 
     these taxpayer diversions from vector control unconscionable.
       In a survey of mosquito control programs, 71 reported (out 
     of 734 nationwide) that their multiyear period expenses 
     incurred due to the NPDES permitting including operational, 
     permitting, reporting, monitoring and other administrative 
     costs totaled over $4 million. (This survey does not include 
     all of the 6-year California estimate mentioned previously).


          How Could $4 Million in NPDES Costs be Better Spent

       Seasonal field workers ($11,000 for starter), 377 
     employees.
       Bti larvicide ($1.44/lb), 2,879,738 pounds.
       Acres of water larvicided aerially (10 lbs/acre + $5.25 
     applicator cost = $19.65), 211,034 acres.
       Acres of water treated by ground crews (10 lbs./acre), 
     287,973 acres.
       West Nile virus--in house testing of adult mosquitoes 
     (RAMP) $19.36, 214,195 tests.
       30 second radio ads for public education ($40-$200), 
     103,671-20,734.
       Acres of aerial adult mosquito control ($.89 applicator fee 
     + $.95 chemical), 2,253,708 acres.
       Evening ground spraying hours ($396/hr. for vehicle, 
     employee, adulticide), 10,472 hrs.
       Every dollar spent on duplicative regulations is a dollar 
     that could have been used towards Integrated Pest Management 
     (IPM) activities that control mosquitoes and prevent 
     mosquito-borne illness.
       Resources must not be diverted from these mosquito control 
     activities in order to protect public health:
       Disease surveillance--trapping and testing adult 
     mosquitoes, monitoring dead birds.
       Larvicides and adult mosquito control--reduce mosquito 
     populations through targeted applications
       Habitat modification/source reduction--ditching/dredgers to 
     permanently reduce mosquito oviposition habitats to reduce 
     the need for chemical control measures.
       Monitoring invasive species of mosquitoes.
       Public education--publications on reducing backyard sources 
     of mosquitoes, information on repellent and personal 
     protective measures.
       Employees, training, and certifications.
       Programs that are most affected:
       Poorer, rural mosquito control districts
       Programs associated with small municipalities
       In the Western US, those associated with private aerial 
     contractors concerned with taking on the added liability.
       Municipalities in the south looking to start Zika virus 
     control efforts. Why would Congress approve $1.1 Billion to 
     fight and explore Zika virus and then burden us with 
     regulations that hinder our ability to control the vector of 
     the disease?
       So, why would the activist organizations be so adamant that 
     these permits be mandatory for public health pesticide 
     applications . . . ?


                    Exposure to Activist Litigation

       Municipal mosquito control programs are 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 were misapplied, that the 
     product labels were not followed. Additionally, this is not a 
     question of the applications causing harm to public health. 
     The pesticides we use are specific to mosquitoes and are 
     generally used in very low doses by qualified applicators).
       However, the CWA 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision allows 
     for any third party to sue for alleged violations of NPDES 
     program requirements. Additionally, the CWA does not require 
     actual evidence of a misapplication of a pesticide or harm to 
     the environment,

[[Page H4539]]

     but rather simple paperwork violations or merely allegations 
     in permit oversight.
       The Toledo Area Sanitary District is currently involved in 
     a lawsuit that has already initially cost the mosquito 
     control program more than $40,000 in legal fees, and the case 
     has yet to go to court. This could lead to an injunction on 
     the spray program and end up costing taxpayers $100,000+ 
     dollars, even though the case has nothing to do with 
     substantive water quality issues, but rather focuses on 
     alleged administrative paperwork violations.
       Gem County Mosquito Abatement District (ID) 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 impact mosquito control districts. 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 Congress to 
     vote ``YES'' on H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act 
     of 2017.
                                  ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2017.
     Hon. Bill Shuster,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Gibbs,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael Conaway,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Garret Graves,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Reps. Shuster, Gibbs, Conaway and Graves: Later this 
     week, the House is expected to vote on H.R. 953, ``The 
     Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.'' This legislation 
     has previously passed the House of Representatives with 
     strong bipartisan support, and the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation (AFBF) urges all members of Congress to vote in 
     favor of the bill.
       H.R. 953 is narrowly crafted to clarify that lawful use of 
     pesticides in or near navigable waters is not excessively 
     covered under two statutes, the Clean Water Act and the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In doing 
     so, the measure simply codifies EPA's longstanding 
     interpretation of the law before it was thrown into confusion 
     by a 2009 court ruling, which imposed an additional layer of 
     needless red tape on pesticide applicators. H.R. 953 corrects 
     the duplicative requirements associated with EPA's National 
     Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide 
     permit by specifying that NPDES permits are not needed for 
     the lawful application of EPA-labeled pesticides. This is an 
     important fix that will reduce red tape and legal liabilities 
     associated with the lawful use of pesticides in protecting 
     public health and food security.
       We urge all members to vote in favor of the ``Reducing 
     Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.''
       Thank you very much for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Zippy Duvall,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the 
National Association of Counties. NACo recommends that Congress address 
some of challenges posed by the EPA's Clean Water Act permit for 
pesticides to allow counties to more quickly respond to the mosquito-
based public health threats. Counties have reported either 
significantly scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs 
due to the additional, duplicative, and expensive paperwork and 
monitoring obligations required by the program.

                             National Association of Counties,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As the U.S. 
     House of Representatives moves forward with the ``Reducing 
     Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017'' (H.R. 953), we would like to 
     highlight the impact that U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
     System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) program has on 
     county governments' ability to respond promptly and 
     effectively to emerging public health threats.
       As the summer months approach and we enter mosquito season, 
     counties are concerned about the health and safety impacts of 
     mosquito-borne illnesses such as Zika. The Zika virus is an 
     emerging mosquito-borne illness, primarily stemming from the 
     bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes, and there is no vaccine. 
     Since mosquitos and their breeding habitats pose the largest 
     threat to public safety, counties can play a major role in 
     minimizing the potential spread of the virus and other 
     mosquito-borne illnesses through public education and 
     mosquito eradication.
       However, since EPA's PGP program was instituted in 2011, 
     counties have reported that they have either significantly 
     scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due 
     to additional, duplicative and expensive paperwork and 
     monitoring obligations required under the permit. We 
     recommend that Congress address some of the challenges posed 
     by EPA's PGP permit to allow counties to more quickly respond 
     to mosquito-based public health threats.
       We thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look 
     forward to continuing to work with you on issues important to 
     counties.
           Sincerely,

                                             Matthew D. Chase,

                                               Executive Director,
                                 National Association of Counties.

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the Agriculture Committee chairman, 
Mike Conaway; and the Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, Bill 
Shuster, who are the leadership on this issue. I want to thank the 
Agriculture Committee ranking member, Collin Peterson, as well.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense effort to 
reform this duplicative EPA regulation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 953, Reducing the 
Regulatory Burdens Act. As I have noted before on similar bills in the 
past, I remain concerned that this bill would mean that no Clean Water 
Act protections would be required for pesticide application to water 
bodies that are already impaired by pesticides.
  The Clean Water Act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of 
approved pesticides for pest control operations. In fact, the Clean 
Water Act permit provides a specific emergency provision to prevent 
outbreaks of diseases such as Zika virus.
  Under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are covered 
automatically under the permit and any spraying may be performed 
immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. In most 
instances, sprayers are only required to notify EPA of their spraying 
operations 30 days after the beginning of a spraying operation.
  Most pesticide applications in the United States are done in 
accordance with FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act which only requires proper labeling on pesticide 
products regarding usage.
  However, FIFRA labeling is no substitute for ensuring that we 
understand the volumes of pesticide we seem to apply to our rivers, our 
lakes, our streams on an annual basis.

                              {time}  1515

  According to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides, commonly used 
pesticides frequently are present in streams and groundwater at levels 
that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at levels 
that may affect aquatic or fish-eating wildlife and also human life.
  In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles 
of rivers and streams, 1,380 of bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres 
of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by 
pesticides.
  The EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many of 
these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides 
that are currently being used. I am very concerned of the effect these 
pesticides have on the health of our rivers, our streams, and 
especially the drinking water supplies for all our citizens, especially 
the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and the poor and 
disenfranchised people who have no representation. We have much cancer 
appearing, and we have no idea what it is. Adding pesticides is not 
helping.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Federal report on how pesticides 
in California are the leading cause of impairments to water quality.

         U.S. EPA Report on California Water Quality Assessment


        California Causes of Impairment for reporting year 2012

       Pesticides are the Cause of water impairment in California 
     for 4,534 miles of rivers and streams, 235,765 acres of 
     lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 829 square miles of bays and 
     estuaries, 35 miles of coastal shoreline, 42 square miles of 
     ocean and near coastal waters, and 43 acres of wetlands.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Currently in California there are over 4,500 miles 
of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 829 
square

[[Page H4540]]

miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by 
pesticides. This is a significant concern in my home State, where every 
drop of water has to be cleaned and needs to be conserved, reused, and 
cherished.
  We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA 
and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the 
concerns about the duplication of effort and the need to minimize the 
impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large. 
All the supporters are mostly farmers and other business entities.
  However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a 
very significant impact on water quality and that, with this bill, we 
are creating the exemption from water quality protection requirements 
without considering the impacts to the waters that are already impacted 
by pesticides, as they are in California.
  This, in turn, costs our water users, our ratepayers hundreds of 
millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of water before it 
is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 
We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use 
of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on 
the 20-plus-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area 
that has pesticides as one of the contaminants.
  We cannot, and should not, take away one of the only tools available 
to monitor for adverse impacts of pesticides in our rivers, our 
streams, and our reservoirs. Over the past 6 years, this tool has been 
reasonable, has been workable to pest control operators and 
agricultural interests alike, and needs to be retained. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today also in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The House Committee on Agriculture, 
which I serve on, as does Chairman Gibbs, passed this bill out of 
committee every Congress since the 112th Congress. The bill language 
was likewise included in the 2012 farm bill, reported out of the 
committee, as well as in the 2013 farm bill the House sent to 
conference. It was also included in the committee-reported text of the 
FY 2012 Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill. But it has never reached the President's desk.
  For more than 100 years, the Federal Government has administered its 
responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to review and register pesticides in a 
responsible way that protects human health and the environment.
  Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA or a State authority issues a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, NPDES permit, 
and that regulates the discharge of pollutants. NPDES permits specify 
limits on what pollutants may be discharged from point sources and in 
what amounts. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA 
has interpreted its responsibilities related to pesticide use such that 
compliance with FIFRA would mitigate the need for duplicative 
permitting under the Clean Water Act.
  As litigation in the early part of this decade began to challenge 
this interpretation, the EPA ultimately responded with the promulgation 
of a regulation on November 27, 2006, to clarify how these two laws 
operated. Under the EPA's final rule, the Agency codified its earlier 
interpretation that permits for pesticide application under the Clean 
Water Act were unnecessary where pesticides were used in accordance 
with their regulation under FIFRA.
  Following the finalization of this regulation, the rule was 
challenged in numerous jurisdictions. The case was ultimately heard in 
the Sixth Circuit wherein the government's interpretation of the 
interaction of these two laws was not given the deference we would 
normally expect. The final court order nullified the EPA's regulation 
and imposed what is viewed as a burdensome, costly, and duplicative 
permitting process under the Clean Water Act for literally millions of 
pesticide applications.
  This order has imposed a burden on the EPA, State regulatory 
agencies, and pesticide applicators, costing our economy in terms of 
jobs as well as severely threatening the already critical budgetary 
situation facing governments at all levels. It is particularly 
unfortunate that this court order imposed a new requirement that has 
imperiled our water resource boards, our mosquito control boards, and 
our forestry and agricultural sectors, yet has provided no additional 
environmental or public health protection. On the contrary, by imposing 
this costly burden on public health pesticide users, it has jeopardized 
public health as it relates to protection against insect-borne diseases 
such as the Zika virus, West Nile virus, various forms of encephalitis, 
and Lyme disease.
  I recently heard from the Macon County Mosquito Abatement District in 
my district based in and around Decatur, Illinois. They can attest that 
the price of complying with NPDES permitting is very high. Though they 
had in place a reliable system of tracking chemical usage and treatment 
areas for years, the added burden of the NPDES requirements have caused 
them to spend a large portion of the district's annual budget on 
software strictly just for compliance and reporting processes. The 
recurring yearly fees associated with the software are a never-ending 
burden needlessly placed on abatement districts. The fear of litigation 
dictates the detailed tracking of EPA-approved products and diverts 
those funds from their actual purpose of controlling mosquitoes.
  The EPA has provided technical assistance to draft this very narrow 
legislation. The goal of this legislation has been to address only 
those problems created by the decision of the Sixth Circuit and to be 
entirely consistent with the policy of the EPA, as stated in their 
November 27, 2006, final rule governing application of pesticides to 
waters of the United States in compliance with FIFRA.

  I urge all Members to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 953, 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. This legislation eliminates 
the requirement to acquire two permits for the same pesticide 
application under two separate laws and, I might add, if you live in 
California, there is a separate requirement under the California Clean 
Water Act that requires an additional permit. That would still apply 
regardless if this legislation is passed.
  In order to be permitted to use a pesticide, that pesticide must be 
approved under FIFRA, which includes an analysis that must be performed 
that finds it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects to 
the environment or to the health. However, current law requires another 
permit to be acquired for the same action under the Clean Water Act if 
you happen to be close to a water body, and that is where the 
duplication occurs.
  Not only are these requirements redundant, they are expensive, and 
the cost of the individual Clean Water Act permit ranges from $150,000 
to $270,000 and can take up to 2 years. No one wants to risk human 
health, not I, not anyone, but in my opinion this would not do so. We 
have Zika, we have West Nile, and we have a host of spreading of these 
diseases by mosquitoes in which this, in fact, can address those 
issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to 
remove this unnecessary, unneeded regulatory burden and expense.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we agree that no one 
thinks this bill is going to harm anyone. We are trying to look for 
commonsense provisions, and I am thankful to my colleague for making 
this a bipartisan solution.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me just a 
moment to speak on the absolute necessity of passing the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act. The Sixth Circuit Court blatantly overstepped 
its authority in directing the EPA to establish a

[[Page H4541]]

duplicative permitting process for pesticide use. The Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, already 
requires the EPA to review the data and evaluate risks and exposures 
associated with the use of certain insecticides, herbicides, 
fungicides, and rodenticides.
  After the EPA evaluates the risk associated with the use of a given 
pesticide, FIFRA prohibits its use for any purpose not already approved 
by the EPA. Approved uses are clearly labeled. Requiring additional 
reviews under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is 
simply unnecessary and burdensome.
  Furthermore, unless the body sets the record straight and overturns 
the Sixth Circuit decision, we will be opening a tried-and-true 
permitting process to numerous citizen lawsuits that will be bad for 
agriculture and, as all such bad decisions, result in increased costs 
paid for by the American consumers.
  I urge my colleagues to stand behind Mr. Gibbs and this bill, stand 
behind the science, and help him pass this. When he came, he started to 
work on this in 2010, his hair was brown. Now it is gray. So let's help 
him get this bill passed.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. This bill would restore congressional 
intent regarding the relationship between FIFRA and the Clean Water 
Act.
  Historically, Congress has viewed FIFRA as sufficient to protect 
human health and the environment. Until the early part of the past 
decade, even the EPA interpreted its responsibilities related to 
pesticide use as compliance with FIFRA would reduce the need for 
duplicative permitting under the Clean Water Act. If pesticides were 
used according to their regulation under FIFRA, then permits for 
pesticide application under the Clean Water Act were unnecessary.
  Unfortunately, this historic interpretation has been overturned by 
activist litigation. In 2009, a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals upended the historic interpretation of the space between these 
two laws. The Sixth Circuit order created a new permitting requirement 
that provides no additional environmental or public health protection.
  The goal of this legislation has been to address only those problems 
created by the Sixth Circuit decision and to be consistent with 
congressional intent and the EPA's long-held interpretation. It is a 
commonsense solution to a court-imposed regulatory burden that Congress 
never intended to be applied. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague and friend from 
Minnesota for his bipartisan support of H.R. 953.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank my colleague from 
Ohio for his leadership on bringing forth this important legislation to 
actually help us focus more resources on killing mosquitoes, especially 
as the mosquito season starts, as we see so many threats with Zika, 
with West Nile, just the damage that we see happening around our 
country from mosquitoes. We have decided we are going to put resources 
into killing mosquitoes, and then we come about and find out about 
these regulations that were imposed by the courts in a way that 
actually makes it harder for us to kill mosquitoes.

                              {time}  1530

  What you hear so often from people around the country is: Why is it 
that you have got things happening out of Washington that make no 
sense?
  Congressman Gibbs identified one of those areas and said it really 
doesn't make sense. We tried to work through a different remedy to try 
to get the administration to fix it, and they pointed to a court case 
that keeps them from fixing it.
  It is one of the big frustrations you have that it actually takes an 
act of Congress to bring common sense into the process of killing 
mosquitoes, for goodness sake. But here we are doing it. At least we 
are spending the people's business doing something that actually 
injects common sense back into the things that people do in their daily 
lives.
  All across our community and across this country, you have local 
governments that are really the ones that focus on killing mosquitoes, 
and we started hearing about this problem. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we 
asked the EPA to identify just how much this is actually costing.
  So as everybody scrambles and fights and you hear agencies saying ``I 
need more money to do this,'' ``I need more money to do that,'' we need 
to be more responsible with the taxpayers' money, and people are 
saying, ``Live within your means.''
  And we have asked the EPA. The EPA, Mr. Chairman, told us that the 
cost of implementing these EPA regulations is an extra $50 million a 
year. Think of how ludicrous that is. Because of the way the EPA is 
implementing the law, as we are trying to kill more mosquitoes, it is 
costing $50 million a year to comply with burdensome, duplicative 
regulations--rather than killing mosquitoes. We should be spending that 
money, $50 million, killing more mosquitoes, not killing trees to 
comply with ridiculous regulations.
  So I want to commend my colleague from Ohio for bringing this back. 
The House passed this in a very bipartisan way last Congress. We didn't 
get it all the way to the President's desk. So this year, hopefully, we 
will get this bill not only passed through the House, but through the 
Senate and to President Trump's desk, where he will sign a bill that 
injects common sense back into the process of killing mosquitoes.
  Let's spend our money killing mosquitoes, not killing trees and 
having to comply with ridiculous regulations that come out of 
Washington and make no sense. Let's pass this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time the United States House of 
Representatives has considered this bill.
  Now, we have heard a lot of alternative facts today. Let's have some 
real facts.
  Killing trees, well, first off, here is the extensive application. It 
is slightly over three pages long and it can be filed electronically, 
so we don't need to kill any trees.
  Allegations that somehow this slows down control of mosquito 
abatement or Zika virus are absolutely false. Anybody can apply a 
pesticide in a public health situation. They have 30 days to file the 
paperwork online afterwards. It takes about 5 minutes. It has such 
technical things as your name and address, your pesticide applicator 
license verified with a certain State, where you are going to use the 
pesticide or herbicide.
  Now, why would we want to know that? Or maybe, why wouldn't we want 
not to know that? Because that is what they are saying on that side of 
the aisle.
  There is nothing registered with the Department of Agriculture. Yes, 
we have FIFRA. These pesticides and herbicides have been registered. 
They have labels--it can't be applied over water; it can't be applied 
here; it can't be applied there--and we trust the applicators to follow 
those rules. But when they actually use the herbicides and pesticides 
absent this form, this burdensome 3\1/2\-page form, we won't know.
  Now, why would we care? Well, this is essentially the 20th 
anniversary of a massive fish kill in Jackson County, Oregon. In that 
incident, an operator applied an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation 
canal that, when it leaked into the nearby creek, killed 92,000 
steelhead. Now, we kind of care about our steelhead in the Northwest, 
so that was a problem.
  So then the Federal agency said, Well, this is kind of a problem when 
someone does that, 92,000 steelhead. Plus, anybody who drank the water 
was poisoned, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't want to know about 
that on that side of the aisle because Dow Chemical doesn't like it 
because maybe it inhibits sales of some of these chemicals that cause 
these sorts of problems.
  Now, we have data now because of these forms, and we know about areas

[[Page H4542]]

that are impaired. In my State, which is like the clean, green State, 
825 miles of rivers and streams and 10,000 acres of lakes and ponds in 
the State of Oregon are impaired by pesticide contamination. That is 
something we should do something about. People are drinking that water; 
they are swimming in that water; their kids are bathing in that water. 
I think that is a problem.
  But we don't want to know about that. This is just a horrible 
restraint on pesticide applications.
  Now, we heard a lot of other hooey here. It is like: This is so 
difficult; it is so difficult to do. I was talking to the ranking 
member of the Agriculture Committee. He said, well, farmers don't want 
to file those forms. If they hired a pesticide applicator, that person 
could file the form for them.
  Or, yeah, maybe they are going to have to file the 3-page form if it 
involves the waters of the United States of America. If it doesn't 
involve the waters, you don't have to file it. So this is really an 
incredible thing.
  Now, we have taken this up numerous times. It was the Pest Management 
and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act in the 109th Congress--the same 
bill, exactly the same bill.

  Then in the 112th and the 113th Congresses, it was the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act. It still didn't work. It didn't become law 
then.
  Well, wait a minute. Let's pass it on to public fears. Last Congress, 
it was called the Zika Vector Control Act in the 114th Congress. We 
just heard a lot of hooey about how this will inhibit killing 
mosquitoes, which, of course, is absolutely not true.
  But now we are back to here. So the Zika Control Act and the Pest 
Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act are now back to the 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
  Now, in the past 6 years, since this paperwork was required, or 
electronic work, do you know how many pesticide applicators have faced 
significant impacts because of these protections? None. Zero.
  Do you know how many applicators have raised problems with the Clean 
Water Act pesticide general permit to EPA? None. Zero.
  In fact, I specifically asked this question of the EPA's head of 
water at a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing. No 
specific instances where the clean water permit was causing problems or 
impacts on pesticide application. Yet here we are again, one more time, 
under the guise of reducing this horrible regulatory burden: name, 
address, phone number, what did you apply? Where are you registered to 
apply these sorts of permits? That is useful information.
  I had a couple more instances in Oregon.
  Tiller, Oregon, again, right in the same area where the steelhead 
were killed. That same creek was contaminated with atrazine in 2014. 
Local residents who drank the water complained, and they also 
complained of the overspray. Then, in 2013, a helicopter in Curry 
County, Oregon, oversprayed residents.
  Now, if they didn't have to file these forms, we wouldn't know who 
did it, when they did it, and what the chemical was. I guess that is 
kind of what the Republicans want. If someone oversprays your property 
and sprays stuff on you: ``Geez, I don't know. That was one of those 
black helicopters. We don't know where it came from, or who that was. 
We don't know what they dumped on you. Sorry.'' That is burdensome 
paperwork. We wouldn't want to require that kind of burdensome 
paperwork.
  So that is why we are here again today for the fifth time with the 
fifth remaining rationale for what we are doing here today, and it 
still fails the smell test.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side 
has remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentlewoman from California has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to make a few remarks on what my friend, my colleague 
from Oregon said. I call it the rest of the story.
  We talked about the fish kill in 1996 of the steelhead. I inquired of 
this tragic incident and came to the conclusion that NPDES permitting 
under the Clean Water Act would not have prevented the fish kill.
  In 2003, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs published a report 
which looked at this potential risk posed by the herbicide that was 
used in the 1996 fish kill. The report stated:

       Where 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.

  The EPA goes on in the report to address each of the various species 
of salmon and steelhead analyzed and repeatedly states:

       It is very unlikely the pesticide suspected to cause the 
     Oregon fish kill would have affected the steelhead or salmon 
     if it was used in accordance with the label requirements. 
     Completing NPDES 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 kills.

  If a pesticide is improperly applied, there are enforcement 
mechanisms in place to address this violation. In the case of the 1996 
Oregon fish kill, I understand the party was subject to more than 
$400,000 in fines and reimbursements for the incident.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work 
on this important legislation.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act. This legislation will bring much-needed relief to our American 
farmers. They put in a great deal of time and money to deal with 
duplicative regulations like the one we are addressing here today. This 
bill will take away needless provisions regarding pesticide regulations 
under the Clean Water Act.
  Pesticide applications are already federally regulated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This permitting was unnecessary and 
duplicative, punishing American farmers due to a misguided court 
decision.
  In my district in Georgia, farmers have to deal with a variety of 
environmental difficulties, like the devastating freeze just this last 
March. The Federal Government should not be adding redundant mandates 
to already overburdened farmers.
  The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act has been passed out of the House 
Agriculture Committee five times. It is time for Congress to correct 
this mistake and give farmers and pesticide applicators much-needed 
relief once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following letters to be 
made part of today's record: A letter from 46 national and State 
conservation and public health interest groups opposed to H.R. 953, 
and, secondly, a list of over 150 different organizations who oppose 
efforts to undermine the Clean Water Act protections for direct 
pesticide applications, including the Alabama Rivers, San Francisco, 
and the list goes on.
  And the organizations: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; 
from Alaska, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics; From Arkansas, the 
Earth Cause Organization; from California, Audubon and many others; 
from Alabama, Alabama Rivers; from Colorado, Colorado Riverkeeper; from 
the District of Columbia, Potomac Riverkeeper; from Florida, Emerald 
Coastkeeper; from Georgia, Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha 
Coastkeeper; from Idaho, the Idaho Conservation League; from Illinois, 
the Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; and from Iowa, Quad Cities 
Riverkeeper. And the list goes on, Mr. Chairman.

                                                     May 22, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 953 (Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017).

       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 953 
     (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017''). A

[[Page H4543]]

     more apt title for this damaging legislation is the ``Poison 
     Our Waters Act'' because it would eliminate Clean Water Act 
     safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from 
     excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide General Permit 
     targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly six 
     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 has been opposed not only by the Obama 
     Administration. but also more than 150 public health, 
     fishing, and conservation organizations (see attached list). 
     Contrary to earlier claims made by its proponents, this bill 
     will not improve nor impact spraying to combat Zika virus and 
     other human health threats. The Pesticide General Permit at 
     issue already allows for spraying to combat vector-borne 
     diseases such as Zika and the West Nile virus. According to 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the permit 
     ``provides that pesticide applications are covered 
     automatically under the permit and may be performed 
     immediately for any declared emergency pest situations'' 
     (emphasis added).
       Further, the Clean Water Act has no significant effect on 
     farming practices. The Pesticide General Permit in no way 
     affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of 
     controlling pests (that is, spraying that doesn't discharge 
     into water bodies). 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.
       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,
       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. 953.
           Sincerely,
     Earthjustice
     League of Conservation Voters
     Natural Resources Defense Council
     Center for Biological Diversity
     Sierra Club
     Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
     American Sustainable Business Council
     National Family Farm Coalition
     Waterkeeper Alliance
     Clean Water Action
     Environment America
     Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
     American Rivers
     Southern Environmental Law Center
     Defenders of Wildlife
     Friends of the Earth U.S.
     Environmental Working Group
     Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides
     Alabama Rivers Alliance
     Beyond Pesticides
     Beyond Toxics
     Cahaba River Society
     Center for Food Safety
     Defend H2O
     Endangered Habitats League
     Endangered Species Coalition
     Environmental Protection Information Center
     Gulf Restoration Network
     Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited Kentucky
     Waterways Alliance
     Klamath Forest Alliance
     Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, Program 
         in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University
     Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
     Oregon Environmental Council
     Prairie Rivers Network
     Pesticide Action Network North America
     PolicyLink
     San Francisco Baykeeper
     Save The River / Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
     The Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change
     The Good Food Institute
     Toxic Free NC
     Turtle Island Restoration Network
     WE ACT for Environmental Justice
     WildEarth Guardians.
                                  ____


Who Opposes Efforts To Undermine Clean Water Act Permitting for Direct 
                        Pesticide Applications?

       The below organizations have signed letters opposing 
     legislation that guts Clean Water Act safeguards protecting 
     communities from toxic pesticide.


                               national-

       Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Bird 
     Conservancy, American Rivers, American Sustainable Business 
     Council, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, 
     Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health, 
     Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Clean Water 
     Action, Clean Water Network, Defend H2O, Defenders of 
     Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League, 
     Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, 
     Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Friends of 
     the Earth, Geos Institute, League of Conservation Voters, 
     National Environmental Law Center, National Family Farm 
     Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide 
     Action Network North America, Public Employees for 
     Environmental Responsibility, Sierra Club, The Good Food 
     Institute, WildEarth Guardians.


                                alabama

       Alabama Rivers Alliance, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Cahaba 
     River Society, Hurricane Creekkeeper/Friends of Hurricane 
     Creek.


                                 alaska

       Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, Inc.


                                arkansas

       The Earth Cause Organization.


                               california

       Audubon California, Better Urban Green Strategies, Butte 
     Environmental Council, California Sportfishing Protection 
     Alliance, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, 
     Californians for Pesticide Reform, Coast Action Group, 
     Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, Environment California, 
     Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of Five 
     Creeks, Friends of Gualala River, Friends of the Petaluma 
     River, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Humboldt Baykeeper, 
     Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath 
     Riverkeeper, L.A. Waterkeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water, 
     Madrone Audubon Society, Northern California River Watch, 
     Orange County Coastkeeper, Pesticide Watch, Pesticide-Free 
     Sacramento, Pesticide-Free Zone, Planning and Conservation 
     League, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, Russian 
     Riverkeeper, Sacramento Audubon Society, Inc., Safe 
     Alternatives for Our Forest Environment, Safety Without Added 
     Toxins, San Diego Coastkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, San 
     Francisco League of Conservation Voters, San Francisco 
     Tomorrow, Stop the Spray East Bay, The Bay Institute, Turtle 
     Island Restoration Network.


                                colorado

       Colorado Riverkeeper.


                          district of columbia

       Potomac Riverkeeper.


                                florida

       Emerald Coastkeeper, Indian Riverkeeper, Miami Waterkeeper, 
     St. Johns Riverkeeper, Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper, 
     Apalachicola Riverkeeper.


                                georgia

       Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha Coastkeeper, Ogeechee 
     Riverkeeper, Satilla Riverkeeper, Savannah Riverkeeper.


                                 idaho

       Idaho Conservation League, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, 
     Saint John's Organic Farm, Silver Valley Waterkeeper.


                                illinois

       Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited, Prairie Rivers 
     Network.


                                  iowa

       Quad Cities Riverkeeper.


                                 kansas

       Kansas Riverkeeper.


                                kentucky

       Kentucky Waterways Alliance.


                               louisiana

       Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Bayoukeeper, Ouachita 
     Riverkeeper.


                                 maine

       Casoco Baykeeper.


                                maryland

       Gunpowder Riverkeeper, Patuxent Riverkeeper, West/Rhode 
     Riverkeeper, Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust.


                                michigan

       Detroit Riverkeeper, Flint Riverkeeper, Grand Traverse 
     Baykeeper.


                                missouri

       Saint Louis Confluence Riverkeeper.


                                montana

       Big Blackfoot Riverkeeper.


                                nebraska

       Western Nebraska Resources Council.


                               new Jersey

       Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc., Raritan Riverkeeper.


                                new York

       Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Environmental Advocates, 
     Hudson Riverkeeper, Lake George Waterkeeper, Long Island 
     Soundkeeper, Peconic Baykeeper, Save The River/Upper St. 
     Lawrence Riverkeeper.


                             north carolina

       Toxic Free NC, Watauga Riverkeeper.


                                oklahoma

       Grand Riverkeeper.


                                 oregon

       Beyond Toxics, Forestland Dwellers, Northwest Environmental 
     Defense Center, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Wild, 
     Rogue Riverkeeper, Tualatin Riverkeepers.

[[Page H4544]]

  



                              pennsylvania

       Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper.


                             south carolina

       Charleston Waterkeeper, Santee Riverkeeper.


                               tennessee

       Tennessee Riverkeeper.


                                 texas

       Galveston Baykeeper.


                                virginia

       Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program, Shenandoah 
     Riverkeeper.


                               washington

       Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Spokane Riverkeeper.


                             west virginia

       Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.


                             international

       Waterkeeper Alliance, Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
     Conservation.


                           pacific northwest

       Northcoast Environmental Center, Pacific Coast Federation 
     of Fishermen's Associations, Northwest Center for 
     Alternatives for Pesticides, Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition.


                                 south

       Southern Environmental Law Center, Catawba Riverkeeper 
     Foundation, Gulf Restoration Network.


                               northeast

       Housatonic River Initiative, Toxics Action Center, New 
     York/New Jersey Baykeeper.


                              mid-atlantic

       Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that I want 
to bring to the attention of this committee. One of the potential human 
health applications related to unregulated discharges to water is 
drinking water.
  In May of 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a 
report entitled, ``Threats on Tap,'' that documented potentially 
harmful contaminants in tap water in every State of the Union. This 
report, based on information obtained from State and local public 
drinking water utilities, documented tens of thousands of drinking 
water violations related to chemicals and other contaminants currently 
found in our domestic water supply.
  The report included a focus on synthetic organic compounds commonly 
found in a wide variety of products, from household cleaners to 
industrial, commercial, and agricultural products, including pesticides 
and herbicides regulated under FIFRA.

                              {time}  1545

  According to this report, human exposure to these contaminants can 
lead to cancers--I repeat, lead to cancers--developmental effects, 
central nervous system, and reproductive difficulties, endocrine 
issues, or liver and kidney problems.
  According to an appendix of this report, which I include in today's 
Record, in 2015, there were 6,864 drinking water violations associated 
with synthetic organic compounds, potentially affecting as many as 2.6 
million drinking water users. Of these, a number were for direct, 
health-related violations affecting more than 300,000 individuals. This 
report documented ongoing drinking water violations for the worst of 
the worst pesticides in terms of human health effects, including, 
atrazine, chlordane, endrin, and glyphosate.
  Mr. Chairman, thanks to this report, we have more information on 
exactly where these drinking water violations are occurring and how 
increased use of pesticides on or near water increases the risk that 
humans will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals when they turn on 
the tap; which begs the question: Why the proponents of this bill want 
to reduce the public disclosure and monitoring requirements of the 
Clean Water Act relating to pesticide applications?
  Do these proponents want to let these pesticide applications and 
chemical companies go back in the shadows where information on the 
release of pesticides is no longer known?
  I include in the Record a list of chemicals and their potential 
health impact.

    Synthetic Organic Chemicals Regulated by the U.S. Environmental 
                           Protection Agency

       Chemical, Source, Potential Health Impact, MCL (PPB), MCLG 
     (PPB), Number of Violations in 2015 are as follows: 2,3,7,8-
     TCDD (dioxin), Emissions from waste incineration and other 
     combustion; discharge from chemical factories, Reproductive 
     difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 0.00003, 0, 124; 
     2,4,5-TP, Residue of banned herbicide, Liver problems, 50, 
     50, 214; 2,4-D, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, 
     Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems; possible cancer 
     risk, 70, 70, 232; Alachlor, Runoff from herbicide used on 
     row crops, Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia; 
     increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 0; Aldicarb, Runoff/leaching 
     from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor 
     neurological symptoms, 3, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfone, Runoff/
     leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively 
     minor neurological symptoms, 2, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfoxide, 
     Runoff/leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and 
     relatively minor neurological symptoms, 4, 1, 32; Atrazine, 
     Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Cardiovascular 
     system or reproductive problems; possible cancer risk, 3, 3, 
     263; Benzo(a)pyrene, Leaching from linings of water storage 
     tanks and distribution lines, Reproductive difficulties; 
     increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 246; Carbofuran, Leaching 
     of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa, Problems with 
     blood, nervous system, or reproductive system, 40, =40, 255.
       Chlordane, Residue of banned termiticide, Liver or nervous 
     system problems; increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 255; DBCP 
     (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane), Runoff/leaching from soil 
     fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards, 
     Reproductive difficulties, increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 
     166; Dalapon, Runoff from herbicide used on rights-of-way, 
     Minor kidney changes, 200, 200, 213; Di(ethylhexyl)-adipate, 
     Discharge from chemical factories, Weight loss, liver 
     problems, possible reproductive difficulties, 400, 400, 253; 
     Di(ethylhexyl)-phthalate, Discharge from rubber and chemical 
     factories, Reproductive difficulties; liver problems; 
     increased risk of cancer, 6, 0, 286; Dinoseb, Runoff from 
     herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables, Reproductive 
     difficulties, 7, 7, 215; Diquat, Runoff from herbicide use, 
     Cataracts, 20, 20, 147; EDB (ethylene dibromide), Discharge 
     from petroleum refineries, Problems with liver, stomach, 
     reproductive system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer, 
     0.05, 0, 177; Endothall, Runoff from herbicide use, Stomach 
     and intestinal problems, 100, 100, 150; Endrin, Residue of 
     banned insecticide, Liver problems, 2, 2, 230.
       Glyphosate, Runoff from herbicide use, Kidney problems; 
     reproductive difficulties, 700, 700, 150; Heptachlor, Residue 
     of banned termiticide, Liver damage, increased risk of 
     cancer, 0.4, 0, 258; Heptachlor epoxide, Breakdown of 
     heptachlor, Liver damage; increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 
     258; Hexachlorobenzene, Discharge from metal refineries and 
     agricultural chemical factories, Liver or kidney problems; 
     reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 1, 0, 
     224; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Discharge from chemical 
     factories, Kidney or stomach problems, 50, 50, 269; Lindane, 
     Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cattle, lumber, 
     gardens, Liver or kidney problems, 0.2, 0.2, 0; Methoxychlor, 
     Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on fruits, vegetables, 
     alfalfa, livestock, Reproductive difficulties, 40, 40, 257; 
     Oxamyl, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on apples, 
     potatoes, and tomatoes, Slight nervous system effects, 200, 
     200, 255; PCBs, Runoff from landfills; discharge of waste 
     chemicals, Skin changes; thymus gland problems; immune 
     deficiencies; reproductive or nervous system difficulties, 
     increased risk of cancer, 0.5, 0, 214; Pentachlorophenol, 
     Discharge from wood preserving factories, Liver or kidney 
     problems; increased cancer risk, 1, 0, 220; Simazine, 
     Herbicide runoff, Blood problems, 4, 4, 255; Toxaphene, 
     Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton and cattle, 
     Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems, increased risk of cancer, 
     3, 0, 222.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I just implore all our colleagues to 
take a good look at what this can have an effect on our general 
populace, I mean, the human impact, and I trust that they will vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In my closing, I just want to really reemphasize the importance to 
pass this bill and get it signed into law because the environment is at 
risk, human safety is at risk, human health is at risk. We have over 
100 Zika outbreaks currently in the United States. We have hundreds of 
West Nile outbreaks. And what this bill does is it puts a tool in the 
toolbox for our mosquito control districts, an additional tool to help 
eradicate or control the mosquito population to prevent and protect 
human health around our citizens.
  There has been a lot of talk about pesticide chemicals in the water, 
and some of these chemicals that have been mentioned are what we call 
legacy chemicals that were used years ago. As a farmer, I can tell you 
some of the chemicals we used when I started farming in 1975 didn't 
break down. They weren't biodegradable.
  The industry has changed a lot. We have new chemicals, better 
chemicals, safer chemicals. Many of them are biodegradable. So these 
legacy issues are not--the contaminants in a lot of the

[[Page H4545]]

water today isn't from chemicals being used in today's agricultural 
environment, but it is from past years because those chemicals last in 
the environment for many years.
  I think it is also important that the former Secretary of 
Agriculture--I stated earlier--Tom Vilsack, was very concerned about 
this, and he sent a letter to the EPA Administrator at the time, Lisa 
Jackson, that this court case doesn't do anything to help protect the 
environment or protect water quality in the United States, and it adds 
additional costs and burdens to our agricultural producers in their 
efforts to produce the wholesome, safe, affordable food supply to feed 
the world.
  This is commonsense legislation, and I urge people to vote for H.R. 
953. As has been said earlier, this bill has been up several other 
times in previous Congresses; it has had strong bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, the Senate did not move on it and take action. Hopefully 
this time we will see that, especially with the outbreaks of Zika and 
West Nile and seeing the cost.
  It was mentioned earlier, too, about the cost of getting the permit. 
Obviously, doing the permit, actually applying it probably isn't much 
costly, but to get all the stuff lined up, the consultants and all the 
paperwork they have to do to get the information there is quite costly.
  We had in previous committee hearings mosquito control districts 
coming in and talking about the cost. The thousands of dollars they are 
spending has blown their budget where they could be using that to spend 
on mosquito eradication.
  So, obviously, we have hundreds of groups around the country that 
support this legislation. It is needed, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it so we can move on and protect the environment, enhance the 
environment, and also human health and safety.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 115-21. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 953

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
     Act of 2017''.

     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.--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.''.

     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.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
145. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-145.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following (and redesignate 
     subsequent subparagraphs of the quoted matter accordingly):
       ``(B) A discharge that contains any active or inactive 
     ingredient identified on the list of toxic pollutants 
     established pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of this Act, the 
     list of extremely hazardous substances established pursuant 
     to section 302(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11002(a)), the list of 
     toxic chemicals established pursuant to section 313(c) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 11023(c)), or the list of hazardous 
     substances established pursuant to section 102 of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 348, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment to H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The 
underlying bill is overly broad, and not only risks public health, but 
also endangers our agricultural lands by needlessly contaminating our 
water.
  Let me be clear: I support eliminating unnecessary regulatory 
burdens. In fact, if you ask every Representative whether they support 
getting rid of duplicative or unnecessary regulations, you would 
probably get 435 yeas. However, the regulations here are far from 
unwarranted.
  There is a compelling reason why the Environmental Protection Agency 
stepped in to protect the American public and our water from 
unnecessary harms from pesticides. Under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, the EPA is charged with 
registering all pesticides that are made and sold in the United States. 
But FIFRA does not take into account when, where, and how pesticides 
are applied.
  Applying a pesticide to crop land has a dramatically different 
consequence to the environment than when it is sprayed directly into or 
over or on bodies of water. So that is why, under the Clean Water Act, 
pesticide general permits are now required for pesticide applications 
in, over, or on water.
  Folks are only required to apply for a pesticide general permit when 
they want to release biological or chemical pesticides into, over, or 
on waters of the United States. A PGP is often required for control of 
the following pests: mosquitoes, vegetation and algae, animal pests, 
areawide pests, and forest-canopy pests.
  Now, I would like to clarify some misconceptions that we have heard 
discussed here this afternoon. Claims that the pesticide general 
permits recklessly harms American agriculture are simply not true. For 
6 years now, the pesticide general permit has been in place. Farmers 
and forestry operators have had successful growing seasons and have 
provided important products to the United States around the world.
  Congressional testimony has revealed no report of a pesticide 
applicator being unable to apply pesticide in a timely manner. 
Assertions that the pesticide general permit prevents us from combating 
the Zika virus are also untrue.
  When special circumstances arise, public health outbreaks like the 
Zika virus or West Nile, special exemptions allow applicators to spray 
pesticides

[[Page H4546]]

and apply for permits after the fact. The post-pesticide application 
process is simple, and it works.
  The bottom line is that limiting the amount of pesticides that are 
sprayed into our lakes, rivers, and streams, into our drinking water 
supplies, is common sense.
  In my home State of Connecticut, pesticide contamination in 
residential drinking water has been a Statewide problem for a long 
time. Some of my constituents have gone for years living with stomach 
pain, hair loss, body numbness, skin rashes, not knowing the cause of 
their ailments. Test results have revealed pesticides were the cause.
  That is why I stand here today to offer an amendment that would 
ensure that we keep existing clean water protections in place so that 
we can protect our waters and agricultural lands in the long run.
  My amendment would retain existing Clean Water Act accountability for 
the most toxic chemicals and hazardous substances commonly used in 
pesticides today.
  Should we would try to find a way to streamline the application 
process for a pesticide general permit?
  Of course. But a blanket exemption with complete disregard for clean 
water, the ecosystem, and public health makes this underlying bill 
unwarranted and unwise.
  We must work together in this Congress to protect our waterways, 
ensure a healthy food and water supply, while also protecting our 
public health.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, a couple of points I would like to make. When 
my colleague from Connecticut talked about spraying chemicals, 
pesticides over water, the EPA has full authority, full jurisdiction to 
restrict those pesticides, how they are used, when they are used, and 
also who is using them; and they can restrict it to a manner where the 
applicator has to have specific training. And there is nothing to stop 
the EPA to say that if you are going to spray over a body of water, you 
have to notify the EPA. The EPA has that authority. They have the 
jurisdiction to do that.
  I think it is also interesting to mention when talking about spraying 
and getting a permit after the fact, yeah, that if the local entity 
declares an emergency, then they can go in. But my argument is that 
since this additional permitting requirement, this additional red tape 
bureaucracy is stopping the preventive programs, so we shouldn't have 
to get to an emergency situation where we just spray and do the permit 
after the fact.
  But her amendment, H.R. 953 eliminates the duplicative, expansive, 
and unnecessary permit process, and helps free up resources for States, 
counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of diseases 
like Zika and West Nile virus. This amendment, in effect, undermines 
these efforts.
  The amendment intends to make the bill's exemption from the Clean 
Water Act permitting ineffective by carving out from the bill those 
waters that may receive a discharge containing any one of several 
hundred listed chemical substances. The vast majority of substances 
referenced in this amendment are not even a pesticide and have nothing 
to do with the regulation of a pesticide.

  Additionally, a discharge covered under this amendment does not have 
to be related in any way to the use or application of a pesticide. The 
net effect of this amendment is to undermine the bill based on 
circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the use of a 
pesticide.
  Further, the amendment would require a pesticide user to conduct 
extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. This defeats the 
bill's purpose of reducing the regulatory burdens. I urge Members to 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the subcommittee 
ranking member.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty). The amendment 
would help ensure the protection of public health from discharges of 
toxic chemicals such as benzene, chlordane, and vinyl chloride.
  In my view, the protection of our families and children from 
seemingly limitless exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and our 
water and our neighborhoods should be paramount, yet here we are today 
considering legislation to waive the simple requirement that a chemical 
pesticide sprayer fill out an application providing notice of where he 
intends to spray known toxic chemicals, such as the ones I mentioned, 
all known to have toxic effects on humans.
  The amendment under consideration says that we should, at a minimum, 
disclose and monitor the dangerous chemicals for potential toxic 
effects. These are chemicals that Congress has already designated as 
``toxic,'' ``hazardous substances,'' or ``extreme hazardous 
substances'' in Federal statute.
  As Congress, we should want to make sure that these dangerous 
chemicals do not wind up in our rivers and streams, potentially 
contaminating our local drinking water sources and leading to greater 
toxic exposure by our families and children.

                              {time}  1600

  The level of protection is worth 10 minutes of time by a commercial 
pesticide applicator.
  Mr. Chair, I approve Ms. Esty's amendment.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I just urge the Members to oppose this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-145.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, after line 13, add the following:

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF FISHERIES.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall prevent the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or a State from requiring a permit under 
     section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for 
     any discharge (as defined in such Act) that would have a 
     negative effect on commercial, recreational, or subsistence 
     fisheries, or on fisheries protected by Tribal treaty rights, 
     as determined by the Administrator or the State, as 
     applicable, based on the best available science.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 348, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this 
amendment and to speak against the underlying bill.
  Unfortunately, I wasn't serving the House in 2011 when this bill was 
first brought to the floor. I was here in 2014, when the bill was 
brought up again, twice. I was here, also, in 2016, when it was brought 
up twice.
  This bill has gone through a number of name changes, but its intent 
remains the same, and that is, to allow the irresponsible application 
of pesticides into our Nation's waterways. Undermining the Clean Water 
Act, as this bill does, means taking the EPA out of the picture, 
blocking them from weighing in on pesticides that are

[[Page H4547]]

dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams, without regard to the impacts 
of human health, or to those who rely on recreational, commercial, and 
Tribal fisheries.
  We know, unfortunately, that despite efforts to regulate pesticides 
for public health and safety, these dangerous chemicals continue to be 
detected in surface and groundwater bodies at dangerous levels. Impacts 
to fish and wildlife have been significant, and have already been 
devastating in some instances. Oysters, shrimp, sea trout, and 
redfish--four of the most important species to food webs, fishermen, 
and the economy along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts--have shown effects 
ranging from impaired survival skills, to damaged DNA, to death as a 
result of exposure to pesticides that have been approved for 
agricultural use.
  In 2006, USGS released its review on pesticide occurrence and 
concentrations in streams and groundwater. According to this report, at 
least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams tested 
throughout the Nation. In addition, chemicals such as DDT, which has 
been banned in the U.S. for decades, were still showing up, found in 
fish tissues sampled across watersheds nationwide.
  We see a similar situation at the State level. In my State of 
California, pesticides are among the top sources of water quality 
impairments in the State. 437 waterbodies are impaired by 40 different 
categories of pesticides. That is why commercial fishing groups oppose 
the underlying bill.
  My amendment will ensure that we don't deny either the EPA or a State 
their ability to require permits for pesticide use that could have 
negative effects on fisheries. Let's make sure that streams and rivers 
that support fish are clean. Let's make sure that the fish we catch, 
eat, and sell are free from toxic chemicals. America's fisheries are a 
backbone of both sport fishing and commercial fishing industries.
  The recreational sector alone accounts for more than $115 billion of 
our country's economy, and it employs more than 828,000 people. My 
amendment would protect these recreational activities, not only for 
current generations but for future generations of anglers to come.
  By accidentally contaminating our waterways, pesticides also 
exacerbate the precarious status of endangered and threatened species. 
In 1996, the death of over 90,000 steelhead fish, 100 coho salmon, and 
thousands of nongame fish resulted from an herbicide called acrolein 
that entered the waterways in Bear Creek, Oregon. Many wild salmon 
stocks are now on the brink of extinction on the West Coast, and losses 
in such sensitive populations make recovery efforts increasingly 
difficult.
  Pesticides can pose a dangerous threat to commercial fisheries. In 
1999, a massive lobster die-off devastated the lives and livelihoods of 
Connecticut and New York lobstermen along the Long Island Sound, 
producing a multimillion-dollar settlement with pesticide manufacturers 
mishandling the chemical malathion.
  Similar concern has brought forth proposals to regulate methoprene 
and resmethrin in Maine in order to protect their commercial fishery, 
which is worth over $700 million.
  Mr. Chair, I have letters of support here for my amendment from the 
American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Columbia River 
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Karuk Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu 
Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, 
Seafood Harvesters of America, and other organizations who are very 
interested in this amendment, and support it.

                                                     May 24, 2017.
       Dear Representative: As the House considers H.R. 953, the 
     Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, we the undersigned 
     groups representing millions of hunters and anglers across 
     the nation, urge you to ensure that H.R. 953 does not 
     negatively impact water quality, fish health and the 
     recreational fishing industry by supporting Amendment #3, 
     sponsored by Representative Jared Huffman.
       The Huffman Amendment protects fisheries and water quality 
     by ensuring any pesticide spraying into or over waterways 
     that would negatively impact our nation's fisheries is 
     properly monitored and permitted. The 47 million sportsmen 
     and women that hunt and fish each year depend on strong Clean 
     Water Act protections to ensure thriving fish populations 
     that are safe to eat and the Huffman amendment would ensure 
     it continues to do so.
       America's hunters and anglers contribute more than $200 
     billion to America's economy each year and this robust 
     outdoor economy depends on healthy rivers, lakes, and 
     streams. Nearly 2,000 waterways in the United States are 
     known to be impaired because of pesticides, and, even at low 
     levels, pesticides pose a particularly concerning threat to 
     fish and wildlife populations. Without protective federal 
     safeguards in place to regulate pesticides applied to our 
     waterways, sportsmen and women will have access to fewer 
     quality hunting and fishing opportunities.
       On behalf of our millions of members and conservation-
     minded hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts, we urge 
     you to support this common-sense measure to safeguard our 
     water resources and outdoor heritage and support the Huffman 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin Bulis,
       AFFTA President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association.
     John W. Gale,
       Conservation Director, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.
     Adam Kolton,
       Vice President, National Advocacy, National Wildlife 
     Federation.
     Steve Moyer,
       Vice President, Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited.
                                  ____

     House of Representatives, May 23, 2017.
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of thousands of tribal, 
     commercial, and recreational fishermen who depend on healthy 
     fisheries for their subsistence, traditional cultural 
     practices, businesses, and recreational enjoyment, we write 
     to urge you to vote YES on the Huffman amendment to H.R. 953. 
     The amendment would ensure that existing Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) permitting requirements for 
     point source polluters remain in place when science clearly 
     indicates they are needed to protect fisheries.
       Under Sec. 402 of the FWPCA, the Administrator of the EPA 
     may issue permits for point source discharges of approved 
     pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into navigable waters, 
     which are also inhabited by many important and valuable fish 
     species that are worth billions of dollars to fishermen and 
     anglers each year. H.R. 953 would eliminate the EPA's 
     permitting authority for approved pesticides, herbicides, and 
     fungicides discharged into navigable waters. Many of these 
     chemicals, despite their approval for agricultural use, are 
     known to be seriously harmful to iconic fish species 
     including salmon and trout, jeopardizing their survival and 
     posing a risk to the food supply.
       Congressman Huffman's amendment to H.R. 953 would simply 
     leave EPA permitting requirements in place for the dumping of 
     pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into our streams and 
     rivers when they are known to pose a significant risk to 
     fisheries. We ask that you support this amendment in order to 
     keep America's fisheries and strong fishing traditions alive, 
     safe, and prosperous. If you have any questions, please call 
     Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast 
     Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
           Sincerely,
         Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director, Pacific Coast 
           Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Leaf Hillman, 
           Director, Department of Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe; 
           Caleen Sisk, Chief, Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Robert 
           Vandermark, Executive Director, Marine Fish 
           Conservation Network; Kevin Wheeler, Executive 
           Director, Seafood Harvesters of America; Roger Thomas, 
           President, Golden Gate Salmon Association; Bob Rees, 
           Executive Director, Association of Northwest 
           Steelheaders; Linda Behnken, Executive Director, Alaska 
           Longline Fishermen's Association; Grant Putnam, 
           President, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association; 
           Benjamin Bulis, President, American Fly Fishing Trade 
           Association; Lyf Gildersleeve, Owner, Flying Fish 
           Company; Kevin Scribner, Chief Executive Officer, 
           Forever Wild Seafood; Cynthia Sarthou, Executive 
           Director, Gulf Restoration Network.
                                  ____

                                       Columbia River Inter-Tribal


                                              Fish Commission,

                                       Portland, OR, May 23, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On behalf 
     of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 
     and our member tribes--the Confederated Tribes of the 
     Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the 
     Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes 
     and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, I

[[Page H4548]]

     would like to share our support for the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Huffman to H.R. 953--Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 
     2017. The amendment specifically preserves the ability of the 
     EPA Administrator or a State to require permits necessary to 
     protect fisheries including Tribal treaty fisheries from 
     harmful discharges of FIFRA approved pesticides.
       Tribal members are justifiably concerned about the impact 
     of water quality on the natural resources of the Columbia 
     River system. Our member tribes' right to abundant, healthful 
     fish is guaranteed by the 1855 treaties with the United 
     States. A century's worth of federal court decisions has 
     established beyond dispute that these treaty fishing rights 
     are permanent in nature, and that they secure for the tribes 
     the right to take all species of fish found throughout their 
     reserved fishing areas for subsistence, ceremonial and 
     commercial purposes. Tribal treaties are the supreme law of 
     the land, and federal agencies and States must interpret 
     designated uses to include subsistence fishing and must 
     protect fishable waters. Pesticides can wreak havoc on the 
     health of the habitat and associated food webs that support 
     our fisheries. They can disrupt water quality conditions and 
     the availability of natural riparian and aquatic vegetation 
     cover as well as the abundance of aquatic invertebrates and 
     fishes that support the growth and maturation of salmonid 
     species. Our tribes recognize that the health and future of 
     our tribal fisheries require clean, cold water that is free 
     of contaminants.
       Regulations should be efficient, just, and effective, and 
     necessarily must provide the EPA and States with the 
     authority to protect the unique habitat and food web system 
     that is essential to the health of our tribal fisheries. 
     Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you 
     have any further questions please contact me or Dianne 
     Barton, PhD.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jaime A. Pinkham,
     CRITFC Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                             American Sportfishing


                                                  Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 23, 2017.
     Hon. Jared Huffman,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Huffman: On behalf of the nation's 
     recreational fishing industry, the American Sportfishing 
     Association (ASA) would like to be on record as supporting 
     your amendment to H.R. 953. This amendment leaves EPA 
     permitting requirements in place for the dumping of 
     pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into our streams and 
     rivers when they are known to pose a significant risk to 
     fisheries.
       America's fisheries are an economic powerhouse and the 
     backbone of the sportfishing and commercial fishing 
     industries. America's recreational anglers generate more than 
     $48 billion in retail sales with a $115 billion impact on the 
     nation's economy; creating employment for more than 828,000 
     people.
       Our industry depends on clean water for continued healthy 
     and abundant fisheries. There are certain chemicals used for 
     various on-land industry operations that are known to be 
     incredibly harmful to fish development and survival when 
     released into waterways. The Administrator of the EPA 
     currently enforces permitting requirements for the disposal 
     of these chemicals into our streams and rivers. Your 
     amendment would ensure that existing Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act permitting requirements for point-source 
     polluters (Sec. 402) remain in place when science indicates 
     they are needed to conserve fisheries.
       ``The Huffman amendment'' is needed because the original 
     legislation, H.R. 953, would eliminate this permitting 
     authority for all approved pesticides, herbicides, and 
     fungicides discharged into streams and rivers; even when they 
     are known to pose a significant risk to fisheries.
       We appreciate your leadership and understanding of the 
     importance of clean water to fishing and the outdoor 
     recreational economy.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Scott Gudes,
                             Vice President of Government Affairs.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I prefer butter on my lobster rolls, not 
toxic pesticides. Let's make sure that States maintain their authority 
to prudently protect their economies and public health from pesticide 
impacts.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, well, that was a lot of drama. Let's not lose 
sight that what we are trying to do in H.R. 953 is to free up the 
resources so States, counties, local governments can fight the mosquito 
population, fight Zika, fight the West Nile virus, and let our 
agricultural producers have the most efficient way to protect the 
environment, and also produce a safe, wholesome food supply.
  This amendment undermines the base bill. The amendment intends to 
carve out from the bill those waters that have a discharge of any type. 
That means the way this amendment is written, any type of discharge--
even if it is not a pesticide--any type of discharge, a nutrient 
discharge, anything would fall under this and undermines the bill. This 
amendment covers all types of discharges. I think that is important to 
mention.
  In addition, most waterbodies in this country are fishable, and, 
therefore, subject to this amendment's carve-out. As a result, the 
types of discharges and waterbodies in question under this amendment do 
not need to be related at all to the actual regulation of a pesticide.
  Further, the amendment would require that a pesticide user conduct 
extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. Moreover, the 
amendment's standard of any negative effect is vague and subjective and 
could include an effect that has nothing to do with a pesticide.
  Registered pesticides already take into account aquatic species' and 
fisheries' health into consideration during the registration process. I 
think it is important that they go through a rigorous testing process, 
and more testing, and the EPA has full control. They can reject that. 
If they determine that a pesticide is environmentally harmful, or 
potentially harmful, they can pull that product off.
  They can also restrict the product even more so, and restrict who the 
applicators are, and there is nothing to stop the EPA or the State EPAs 
to say: Before you apply a pesticide over a waterbody, you need to tell 
us first before you do it.
  There is nothing to stop the EPA from doing that.
  So all this amendment does, it defeats the bill's purpose, reducing 
the regulatory burdens, and I urge my Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that some States may 
want to put their efforts into protecting water quality and the health 
of their fisheries and their ecosystems, rather than just carpet-
bombing waterways with pesticides.
  This amendment says, those States have the authority to do that if 
they choose to.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I totally support the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman). If this amendment is adopted, 
it would maintain the existing Clean Water Act general permit 
requirements to protect commercial, recreational, and subsistence 
fisheries, and Tribal treaty obligations. I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I will just say that the comment about this 
amendment would allow States to do it, I don't think there is anything 
to stop the States from doing it now. If States want to do more to 
protect water quality in their States, I think they have the right to 
do that.
  Under the Clean Water Act, what it says is: The States will implement 
and enforce the Clean Water Act under the guidance of the Federal 
Government, but they have to be, at the least, a standard of the 
Federal Government. They can exceed that standard if they want, so I 
don't think there is anything stopping that.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.

[[Page H4549]]

  



                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-145 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Esty of Connecticut.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Huffman of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 229, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Black
     Cummings
     Graves (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kihuen
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     McSally
     Newhouse
     Perlmutter
     Swalwell (CA)

                              {time}  1637

  Messrs. WEBSTER of Florida, CHAFFETZ, WITTMAN, BANKS of Indiana, 
ESTES of Kansas, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Mr. O'HALLERAN, Mrs. McMORRIS 
RODGERS, and Messrs. CURBELO of Florida and WOODALL changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CLAY, Ms. MOORE, Messrs. LANCE, MEEHAN, and Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Castor of Florida was allowed to speak out 
of order.)


                  Fifth Annual Capital Soccer Classic

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the co-chair of the 
bipartisan Congressional Soccer Caucus, along with my co-chairs, 
Representative Don Bacon, Darin LaHood, and Eric Swalwell, I am pleased 
to inform the House that last night a group of bipartisan Members came 
together to play in the fifth annual Capital Soccer Classic, a charity 
benefit for the U.S. Soccer Foundation and children in underserved 
areas across the country.
  The U.S. Soccer Foundation transforms abandoned fields and vacant 
lots into state-of-the-art soccer fields to create safe places where 
kids can play. The U.S. Soccer Foundation also partners with our local 
communities back home for free afterschool programs to help kids 
establish healthy habits: put the cellphones aside, turn off the TV, 
get outside, and learn good sportsmanship.
  The Republican team was very tough: Congressmen Don Bacon, Darin 
LaHood, Gus Bilirakis, Steve Knight, Erik Paulsen, and David Valadao, 
who scored for the Republican team. We had a number of outstanding 
congressional staff and former professional soccer stars as well, but 
they were not enough for the Democratic team. The Democratic team 
notched a 5-3 victory to deliver this trophy for America's blue team.
  Great fun was had by all. We would like to invite you to join us next 
year because the real winners are the kids across the country and the 
opportunity to be healthy and well.
  Mr. BACON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, it was an honor to be able to have a 
bipartisan game out there and have a good time.
  Soccer keeps children in shape. Thousands and thousands of our kids 
get to play this every year. We also stay in shape. It also teaches 
them teamwork and how to follow the rules, and they become better 
citizens.
  I had to do an ibuprofen this morning.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

[[Page H4550]]

  



                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Huffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 230, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Black
     Brady (TX)
     Cummings
     Graves (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kihuen
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     McSally
     Newhouse
     Swalwell (CA)
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. O'HALLERAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Iowa, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 953) 
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, pursuant to House Resolution 348, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current 
form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McGovern moves to recommit the bill H.R. 953 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 AMERICAN FAMILIES FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS 
                   SEEKING TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH 
                   POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall 
     not apply to the discharge of a pesticide if the manufacturer 
     or distributor of the pesticide has made a political 
     contribution to the President or to any Federal official 
     charged with registration, regulation, or approval of the use 
     of the pesticide.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the Republicans are again bending over 
backwards to help corporations and the wealthiest among us while 
ignoring science and leaving hardworking American families to suffer 
the consequences. This administration's decisions have placed special 
interests and their financial contributions ahead of

[[Page H4551]]

the health and the safety of our citizens, and this Republican-led 
House has been complicit.
  Earlier this year, a toxic chemical manufacturer convinced the Trump 
administration to discard decades of scientific research just so they 
could continue to profit off of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that has been 
proven to be harmful to human beings, especially infants and children. 
The pesticide was well on its way to being banned by the EPA, which 
said, in 2015, that it could not be declared safe for human health and 
for the environment; but the pesticide manufacturer wrote a check for 
$1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee, and just weeks 
later, the proposed ban on the pesticide was magically reversed. It is 
amazing how that worked out.
  What I am wondering is: Did President Trump and the Republicans in 
Congress think we wouldn't notice? Did they think the American people 
would be okay with them knowingly allowing a dangerous pesticide to be 
used on farms and affect our food supply? Republicans should be ashamed 
of this blatant disregard for the health of the families they were 
elected to represent.
  In 2000, the EPA banned most home uses of the chemical, citing risks 
to children, yet it continues to be used in agriculture production 
across this country. Does this really sound like something that should 
be used on the food we feed our kids?
  On the campaign trail into the White House, President Trump has made 
clear that he will always side with deep-pocketed polluters and 
corporations over the health and safety of families.
  In January 2017, Dow Chemical was reported to have contributed $1 
million to President Trump's inaugural committee. The CEO of Dow 
Chemical was a frequent guest of President-elect Trump, including at an 
appearance at a postelection rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In March 
2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban 
on the pesticide.
  Also in March 2017, Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on 
this pesticide suggesting, in a statement, that ``by reversing the 
previous administration's step to ban one of the most widely used 
pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science and 
decisionmaking rather than predetermined results.'' Public health 
advocacy groups strongly disagreed, not to mention conservation 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, you know what? I think I trust public health experts 
when it comes to protecting our families over Administrator Pruitt, who 
sued the EPA at least 14 times as Oklahoma's attorney general opposing 
important protections for our air and our water. Talk about the fox 
guarding the henhouse.
  Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to auction off the health and 
safety of millions of Americans to the highest bidder. Every day the 
Trump administration gets more brazen with their giveaways to special 
interests, raising serious questions about corruption and conflicts of 
interest.
  Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp. He has created a cesspool. 
We are talking about people's lives here, Mr. Speaker. This pesticide 
has been shown to harm women, children, and families. It has no place 
on our farms or in our food system. Our health should not be for sale.
  It isn't hard to connect the dots here. The EPA abruptly reversed its 
efforts to ban a toxic chemical just weeks after the chemical's 
manufacturer made a political contribution to the newly elected 
President. And we know their decision wasn't based on science. The 
former head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention suggested that the Trump EPA is ``ignoring the science that 
is pretty solid'' and putting farmworkers and exposed children at 
unnecessary risk.
  Now, I can see how people might start to wonder whether this 
administration is on the side of special interests or the American 
people. This amendment fights back against the corrupting influence of 
political contributions from pesticide companies. It would ensure that 
existing science-based protections for our families and our environment 
cannot be overturned by a well-timed contribution to President Trump or 
to those in his administration charged with implementing the law.
  The American people deserve to know that their leaders will stand up 
to protect their health and their safety rather than protecting the 
bottom line of wealthy special interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to do the right thing and adopt this amendment and show the 
American people that our government is not for sale.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary and 
aims to undermine the purpose of the bill.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 953, eliminates the duplicative, expensive, 
and unnecessary permit process that helps free up the resources for our 
States, counties, and local governments to better combat the Zika, West 
Nile virus, and other diseases; but this motion, in effect, aims to 
undermine the bill.
  In this motion, the bill says it will not apply to anybody who makes 
a discharge of a pesticide if they made a political contribution to the 
President or to any Federal official charged with registration, 
regulation, or approval of the use of a pesticide. That is utterly 
absurd. You can't make political contributions to regulators at the 
EPA.
  Let's keep in mind that the EPA has full authority to regulate these 
pesticides, pull pesticides off the market, and regulate who applies 
them, and they have full authority to protect our water and our human 
health.
  This amendment simply aims to gut the bill. It is unclear how it ever 
would work. We need to stop creating unnecessary roadblocks to the use 
of products that stand to protect public health and feed the Nation.
  H.R. 953 is a good bill that will help protect public health and the 
environment and stop mosquitoes from spreading Zika and the West Nile 
virus and other diseases to our vulnerable populations.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. 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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 230, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               AYES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal

[[Page H4552]]


     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Black
     Costa
     Cummings
     Davidson
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Gene
     Johnson, Sam
     Kihuen
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     McSally
     Nadler
     Newhouse
     Sherman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1703

  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. Mr. 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 256, 
noes 165, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               AYES--256

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blunt Rochester
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--165

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Black
     Cummings
     Graves (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kihuen
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     McSally
     Newhouse
     Swalwell (CA)

[[Page H4553]]


  


                              {time}  1710

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


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes today 
on account of traveling with the Vice President on official business to 
Louisiana. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 279, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 280, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 281, and 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House 
chamber for votes Wednesday, May 24. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 277, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 278, and 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Speaker, the man who has served as a father figure 
to me for the past twenty years has taken a turn for the worse in his 
battle against cancer and his health is rapidly deteriorating. As such, 
I will be returning home and will miss votes today, Wednesday, May 24, 
and for the balance of the week. Had I been present, I would have 
voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 274, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 275, 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 276, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 277, ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 278, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 279, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 
280, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 281, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.

                          ____________________