Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 316 and No. 317 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2842. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 396--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2842--Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 318 and No. 319 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Lowenthal Amendment. I would have voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 1654--Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during Roll Call vote No. 309 and No. 310 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on H.R. 2847--Improving Services for Older Youth in Foster Care Act, and yea

on H.R. 2866--Reducing Barriers for Relative Foster Parents Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during roll call votes No. 311, No. 312, and No. 313 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 1873 and H.R. 1654. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 392--Rule providing for both H.R. 1873--Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act and H.R. 1654--Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 314 and 315 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Carbajal Amendment. I would also have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 1873--Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during Roll Call Vote No. 308 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on H.R. 2579, Broader Options for Americans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during Roll Call votes No. 300, and No. 301 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on H.R. 2292--To extend a project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Cannonsville Dam. I would have also voted Yea on H.R. 2457--J. Bennett Johnston Waterway Hydropower Extension Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 302 and No. 303 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2581 and S. 1094. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 378-- Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2581--Verify First Act and S. 1094--Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 305, No. 306, and No. 307 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 2581. I would have voted ``nay'' on the Passage of H.R. 2581--Verify First Act. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Passage of S. 1094--Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 295, No. 296, No. 297, No. 298, and No. 299 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Hensarling Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Hollingsworth Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Faso Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Buck Amendment. I would have also voted ``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 10-- Financial CHOICE Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 288, No. 289, No. 290, and No. 291 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule--Providing for consideration of H.R. 2213. I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 374-- Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2213--Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017. I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 10. I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 375-- Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 10--Financial CHOICE Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 292, No. 293, and No. 294 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair. I also would have voted ``yea'' on the Lujan Grisham Amendment. I also would have voted ``nay'' on Final Passage of H.R. 2213--Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 286 and No. 287 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 354--Condemning the violence against peaceful protesters outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence on May 16, 2017, and calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and measures to be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future, as amended. I would have also voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 355--Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Manchester, United Kingdom, on May 22, 2017, expressing heartfelt condolences, and reaffirming unwavering support for the special relationship between our peoples and nations in the wake of these attacks, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, we rise to honor the long career of public service provided to the Congress of the United States by Betsy A. Cody of the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that Members of Congress disagree on more than western water policy. The very complicated details of western water policy have the ability to not only divide us by party, but they divide us by state and even by regions within a state.

One of the few things that all Western Members do agree on is our deep gratitude for the invaluable expertise we have received from Ms. Cody over the past 30 years. We are happy that she is moving on to a much deserved retirement this month, but we will greatly miss the reservoir of knowledge that she has provided to our offices.

Betsy's non-partisan research, analysis, and policy advice has been the foundation for the water debates and legislation that the Congress has produced over the past 30 years. Betsy's talent is that she is able to break down these very complex issues involving historic water rights, agriculture, endangered species, infrastructure, precipitation patterns, interstate disagreements, federal programs, and many more intricate subjects quickly and concisely. Betsy is famous for her western water briefings for new Members and staff, her ``In-Focus'' fact sheets that simplify complex pieces of legislation, and the hundreds of in-depth research memos and reports that she has produced over the years.

Betsy's best trait, which is something she shares with her colleagues at the Congressional Research Service, is that her research and advice is not political or biased. Betsy is trusted by both sides of the aisle for being fair and impartial, which has been demonstrated in her five times testifying before committees in both houses.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Cody exemplifies what Adams, Jefferson, and later La Follette had envisioned when they created the Library of Congress and the Legislative Reference Service in order to provide Members with expert research and analysis to inform our legislative work. Betsy has been an invaluable resource to us, our staff, and those of numerous other Members. We will not only miss her knowledge, but we will also miss her kindness.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mr. Calvert of California and myself, we ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating Betsy A. Cody on her retirement, and thanking her for her long career of public service to the Congress and to our country.

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.

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.

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

miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by pesticides. 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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

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.

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.

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

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. 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.

The level of protection is worth 10 minutes of time by a commercial pesticide applicator.

Mr. Chair, I approve Ms. Esty's amendment.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.