tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN May 17, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
spread of the zika virus. will be debating instructions for negotiating with the senate over a bill to respond to opioid addiction. and also late they are afternoon, debate starting on defense department programs and policies for 2017. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, rabbi jay winestein, young israel of east brunswick, east brunswick, new jersey. the chaplain: o god in heaven, please grant your blessing upon our nation's leaders, our president, vice president, members of congress, and all our officers of government. grant them courage and wisdom, sensitivity and compassn as they respond to the needs of our diverse population. allow them to bring to fruition the hopes and visions, dreams and goals, upon which this country was founded. merciful g, we express our dee gratitude for this home built un the values of peace, religious tolerance, and
espect. protect our courageous military forces who are spad throughout the wld, quickly return them to their families' warm embrace. guard and shield the members of our country's police force, fire departments, emergency personnel, anall those who risk their ves to protect us from harm. almighty god, who makes peace in heaven from this glorious hoe of representatives, our seats of democracy, we ask thee bless ouworld with safety and prosperity o we may fulfill our sacred responsibility of making it better place. and let us say, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedin and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, th journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn: pleasjoin me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman florida, ms. graham, is recognized for one minute. thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to thank rabbi jay winestein for delivering this morning's invocation. rabbi winestein is a native of miami beach, florida. he received his orderin nation from yashiva university and he's now rabbi in east brunswick, new jersey, which serves more than 220 families. also want to recognize rabbi weinstein's parents, stanley and lenore, his wife, sharon, and his four wonderful children. one of whom is here with me on the floor today.
mr. speaker, i am proud to live in a nation where we open our doors and our hearts to invite leaders of all different faiths to offer a blessing. and i'm very thankful to rabbi weinstein for offering such an incredibly meaningful prayer this morning. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the chair will now jintjenttain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, in my district in the north contry of new york, brave law enforcement officers dedicate their careers and risk their lives each and every day to keep our community safe. ms. stefanik: we are grateful for the outstanding service from men and women like sergeant jay cook of the new york state police whose courageous actions put an end to the manhunt for the killers who escaped clinton correctional facility just last
year. sadly, far too many of these brave men and women have lost their lives in the line of duty. each year communities across our nation gather to honor in recognition of these heroes and tens of thousands of law enforcement officers descended our nation's capital to honor the fallen. mr. speaker, in commemoration of national police week, i rise today to thank our brave law enforcement officers for their service and to honor the brave men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of the hardworking men and women at the nabisco bakery on the southwest side of chicago. once touted as the world's largest bakery. these workers face daunting
challenges in the past year as their plant was down sized -- downsized and hundreds lost their jobs. mr. lipinski: they are working without a prospect to face the prospect of losing their current pension plan. for more than half a century, workers at this bakery have proudly made oreos, chips ahigh, ritz crackers, and other iconic products. generations of families have been employed here and contributed to the local economy. what's happening now is even more disappointing because chirps had previously provided $90 million to nabisco in return for a commitment to expand and hire locally. the continued lack of negotiated agreement reflects the plight of middle class americans across the country. with workers facing eroding wages and benefits along with job and security. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to do right by its employees, use its profits to
reinvest in the american work force, and grow go-paying jobs in chicago and across the nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, over the weekend iran held another government sponsored holocaust cartoon contest in the capital of at this rain. their denial of the mass slaughter endured by millions of men, women, and children is yet another example of this theocratic regime's irrational and counterproductive conduct that hurts the citizens of iran. as he announced the dangerous iran deal, the president claimed it would help iran become a more moderate regime, one that respects our allies. the president was not correct. this is a nation that continually denies the genocide of the holocaust as a state sponsor of terrorism, test missile development, and chants
death to america and israel. sadly, the president continues to put faith in this dangerous regime. i'm grateful under the leadership of chairman ed royce of the house committee on foreign affairs, we are putting forth legislation to deny iran access to the u.s. dollar as they continue to promote terrorism to threaten american families with mass murder. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i'd like to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. you, mr. thank speaker. i rise today to recognize nala, she is the founder and the executive director of access california services. access as we call it, is a nonprofit organization in my hometown of anaheim, california, that serves the arab american community, refugees, and immigrant
communities which -- with culturally appropriate services including english as a sec language, health and human service, employment assistance, and citizenship resources. in 1998 she opened a small office and had two clients the first month. and she initially helped people to sign up for the california healthy families program. with only a high school diploma, nala has now expanded california access to serve over 11,000 arab american refugee, and other underserved community members in 16 different languages. she works to foster a better understanding of the cultural needs of the arab american community and quite honestly she is a living example of what is the american dream. as we celebrated last month arab american heritage month, i wanted to honor and recognize
her accomplishments, the accomplishments of nala and her continued work in supporting the arab american community and helping, in particular, in helping refugees resettle and become contributing citizens and leaders in my orange county. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. love: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in honor of law enforcement week in this nation. we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women who serve our communities by putting their lives on the line every day. utah lost 139 police officers since 1853, most recently officer doug barney of salt lake city county unified police department. officer barney died in the line of duty on january 17. officer barney was a dedicated
18-year veteran police officer and loved every moment of his distinguished career. his kindness deeply touched the families and the community and sometimes even the people he arrested. he was known for his humor and compassion as well as his toughness. 10,000 people attended his funeral. the state of utah is truly a kinder, service oriented place because of police officers like doug barney. i'm honored to recognize all of them here in the house of representatives. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, recently a u.s. district judge ruled that the administration's subsidy funding scheme for obamacare was unconstitutional. this marked a major victory in citizens' efforts to stopt president's failed health care law. however, the ruling was ignored
by all three major news networks, leaving many americans in the dark on the latest development involving obamacare. last year it was revealed that obamacare created or hiked at least 13 different taxes. however all three major networks also largely ignored this increased burden on taxpayers. it's no wonder that only 6% of americans trust the media to give them balanced news. americans deserve all the facts about the president's failed health care law. the delibbral national media should not ignore -- liberal national media should not ignore important information just because it conflicts with their political agenda. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the chamber for one minute and rend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. brooks: mr. speaker, this week is national police week. a time to thank and remember
those law enforcement officers who have paid the ultimate price. officers like deputy carl koonz of the howard county sheriff's department. he was killed in march twile while serving a warrant well after his shift had ended. he, like so many members of our law enforcement community, showed dedication and commitment to his duties despite the risks. as a former deputy mayor of indianapolis and former u.s. attorney, i have witnessed firsthand the challenges faced by our law enforcement officers and their remarkable families. but even more importantly, i saw again and again men and women in law enforcement display courage in the face of adversity, compassion in the face of hardship, and an unending commitment to serve the communities in which they live. today i salute the men and women in uniform who every day unfailingly honor the call to serve and protect. this week we must also renew our daily commitment to support our heroic men and women in blue. our thanks and prayers are with them and their families this
week and every week. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. national sovereignty is one of the most basic and fundamental principles of international law. countries differ in their history, culture, aims, locations, and challenges. these factors work to shape the laws that govern that nation. without understanding and respecting these fundamental principles of sovereignty, nation states would have their territorial integrity infringed upon, be subordinated to outside imposed actions, or come under threat from other hostile forces. that is why i co-founded the house sovereignty caucus here in congress. we must never forget the supreme law of the land is the u.s. constitution, federal laws made pursuant to the constitution, and treaties made under the constitution's authority.
upholding this supreme law is what makes america great. threats to u.s. sovereignty are being attempted every day. we must stand on guard against them, both from without and from within. we must uphold the supreme law of the land if we divert from this law, we will lose our sovereignty and our freedom. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize 43 years of service to young men in garland county, arkansas, by coach jerry clay, whose 269 wins as head coach of fountain lake and lake hamilton high schools are sixth all time on the list of most wins in arkansas high school football. mr. westerman: good coaches have the ability to teach their players to win consistently on the field. great coaches teach their
players to be winners in life. jerry clay is a great coach. not only has he coached 14 conference championships and had teams compete in six state championships, winning two, many young men he coached have gone on to excel in virtually all areas of society from doctors to businessmen to true merican heroes like adam brown, whose life story was chronicled in the bestseller "fearless." i will forever be grateful for the investment jerry clay made in my life as my coach and wish him many happy years in retirement. i yie back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we pause and reflect and honor the brave men and women who have lost their lives in the line of duty while serving
to protect us. we also pay our respects to all who continue to serve us today. all lives matter. these men and women risk their lives for the safety and security of communities all throughout our country. mr. zeldin: with the terrorist acts in paris, belgium and around the world, we're constantly reminded how dangerous this world can be. when these attacks occur, they are the ones who run head-on into the mayhem and chaos without fear. to do everything in their power to save as many people as they can. unfortunately today, we are witnessing shameful targeting of our first responders and police officers. their authority is constantly being questioned, making an already difficult job even more dangerous. it seems we cannot go a day without hearing on the news that police officers have been shot or even killed trying to do their jobs. we must unite around our police officers and first responders and support them just as they support us each and every day.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: mr. speaker, my friends, the time for immigration reform is now. to increase our economic growth, creating good jobs for americans, to reduce our budget deficit by over $200 billion, to improve our national security so we know who's here and what they're doing and make sure that people who are here legally have the ability to get jobs and that we have the ability to screen out people who are violating our laws. to restore the rule of law, to secure our border, to unite families so we don't tear american children from their immigrant parents. for all these reasons and more, it's time for this body to act. only congress can pass comprehensive immigration reform. only congress can enforce our
laws. only congress can ensure that we grow our economy, meet the needs of our labor force, grow jobs for american families, increase wages all through comprehensive immigration reform. i call upon my republican and democratic friends to stop waiting and to act and to take up comprehensive immigration reform now, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of cheryl johnson, a resident of center county in pennsylvania's fifth congressional district who was recently named center county volunteer of the year by the chamber of business and industry. for more than 20 year cheryl has been the executive director of the private industry council of the central corridors, a
nonprofit organization which focused on improving work force effectiveness and preparing people for either first-time employment, making career changes or returning to the work force. it is estimated that they impact more than 15,000 people annually in bedford, blair and center county. cheryl has dealt with challenges including the county's transition from a manufacturing economy to one that is more service-driven. as evidence to their success and the good work of other organizations, the county has the lowest unemployment rate in pennsylvania. cheryl's good work in center county extends beyond pick to volunteer efforts with united way, leadership center county and she's an essential part of our community and i congratulate her on her earning this recognition that all came as a result of her hard work. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an
enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1523, an act to amend the federal water pollution control act to re-authorize the national estuary program and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. byrne: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 732 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 114. house resolution 732, resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 4909, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on armed services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-51, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
section 2, a, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. b, each further amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as 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 in the house or in the committee of the whole. c, all points of order against the further amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 3, it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. section 4, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment pursuant to this resolution, the committee of the whole shall rise without motion. no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hour. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, house resolution 732 provides for consideration of h.r. 4909, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2017. mr. speaker, this is the most important thing this house will do this year as has beethe most important thing this house done for 54 straight years, setting the policy for defending the american people. the resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 61 amendments. this is the first of the two rules the house will consider on the ndaa. the rules committee is continuing to work through the over 375 submitted amendments and will be making more amendments in order at this everyone's meeting. as a member of the house armed services committee, the
jurisdictional committee for this bill, i, like many others, have spent substantial time working through this year's ndaa. a lot of work has gone into the bill to get us to this point, and i want to recognize the work of mac thornberry, ranking member adam smith. we should recognize the very capable armed services committee staff who have devoted so much time to this legislation. this process, as in years past, has been truly bipartisan. the bill passed out of the committee by a vote of 60-2. it is my sincere hope that this bipartisan nature will continue here on the house floor as we consider the most important thing we will do all year. providing for the common defense is the most important function of the federal government, and it's one we all take very seriously. there are many different threats and challenges around the globe, and we and the
service men and women who protect us need to be ready for each of those threats. so you will be hearing a lot about readiness over the next couple of days as we consider this bill because just having a soldier or airman or sailor is not enough. they have to be ready to do the job that we assign to them, and readiness means they have been trained appropriately, that they have the equipment they need, and that they have the support they need to carry out their vital role. look around the world as we sit here today. north korea's threatening us with nuclear weapons. they say they've miniaturized nuclear weapon. they have the missile technology not only to shoot it from land but to launch them from submarines. china every day is pushing out further and further with these artificial islands in the south china sea, claiming virtually entire south china sea as theirs that they can control and against the claims of other countries in the regions. a part of the world where over $5 trillion in trade moves to
and fro, something that has direct impact on the well-being of the american people. look what's happening in europe. russia has take the crimea. they're involved in actions in the eastern part of ukraine today. they threaten nato allies, countries with which we have an article 5 obligation to defend them if any country attacks them. and russia is threatening those countries today. and then in the middle east, as many of us know, we have a resurgent iran after the deal that president struck with iran last year, iran has access to tens of billions of dollars as the major state supporter of terrorism in the world. they're using that money to fund terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas that cause so much havoc and destruction and death. we have this terrible situation
in syria, failed states in yemen and libya. and our military, our defense forces are called upon to address all of those. to protect us, to protect the american people, and that's why getting this bill right is so important. that's why taking it seriously is so important. so whether it's fighting terrorism in yirke or afghanistan, deterring russian a-- iraq or afghanistan, deterring russian aggression in europe, our military has their ands full and this bill lets them make sure they're ready for what is coming to them and us. experts far beyond my background have said that the united states has never faced this level, this complexity of threat to our national security since the end of world war ii. this bill is also an important oversight tool for congress as
we work to ensure accountability, efficiency and effectiveness from our nation's military. the ndaa authorizes the spending at a level of $574 billion for national defense base requirements and an additional $36 billion for overseas contingency operations. this matches the total funding level of $610 billion requested by president obama. these spending levels are needed to make critical investments that will begin to restore our military readiness. it seems like every day a new and alarming report comes out about the dre situation our military is in. planes can't fly due to deferred repairs. troops aren't adequately trained. there's a lack of naval vessels in critical theaters. the stories have begun the sad reality of our military in recent years, and we're putting the lives of our service members at risk. to be clear, none of these are the fault of our service members who continue to rise to
the challenge and do more with less. but we as a congress have to fix this problem. the ndaa will put us back on track by strengthening our commitment to our milary men and women. it fully funds the 2.1% pay raise for our troops and restores funding for trning and mntenance programs while also helping rebuild crumbling facilities. the bill is also reform-oriented. you'll hear about reform over these next two days. it includes long-needed reforms to the acquisition process and uniform code of military stice as well as boosting health care programs to ensure high quality and access to care. all told, there are five components of reform in this bill. . i want to touch on a few issues up front tha i know my colleagues will likely bring up. first, thisrule self-executes an amendment by chairman sessions of the rules committee that would strike a provision in the bill relating to women
and selective service. this is an issue that the armed services committee has not debated. no hearings have been held. it was added to the ndaa by an amendment in the dead of night. this rule removes that provision, allows congress to properly study the issue. wherever yostand on the issue of including women in the aft, the american people should have the befit of a fu hearing, a full consideration of that issue. and jamming this thing int this billnd considering without going through that is not right for the american people, which ever de they stand on. making that, theay this bill stands today,s e right thick to -- thing to do before we make a substantial change. i also know the president has concerns about the way this year's ndaa funds our milita. the bill funds the overseas contingency operation until april, 2017, when a new president will have time to assess the security situation and then ey can submit a
supplemental budget request based on their priorities. this is common for the first year of a new administration. indee in 2008, thesenator barack obama, then senator john kerry, then senator joe biden all supported a similar strategy. so i find it very odd that they oppose that same strategy now. the bottom line is that this bill adequately funds our military while meeting critica needs for military readiness and supporting overseas operations. let's not let politics get in the way here. there's another political theater taking place in the presidential election on this issue, this critical issue of national securi, let's come together as democrats and republicans, and show the american people that we can work togher on behalf of our military and our national defense. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 732 and
unrlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro temporethe gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized mr. pis: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself su time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in opsition to the rule providing for general debate on h.r. 4909, the ndaa, or national defense authorization act, for fiscal year 2017. for 54 straight years the united states congress has come together in a bipartisan fashion to craft policies and ecommendations for the united states armed forces and put these into law. as has been indicated, of cours this is one of the mt consequential and substantial items that we haves one of our responsibilities here in the united states congrs. personly, i find objections to some of the policies in the bill. of course i commend the work of the men and women on the arm serves committee on this legislation. i'm going to highlight some of the problems that exist and why many of us on both sides of the
aisle will likely be opposing the legislation. many of myolleags on the armed services committee currently serve or have served in the armed force they are dedicated public servants, and worked hard on this bill. of course the bill includes the res of us as well, over 375 amendments have been offered to improve this bill. rules committee will be meetin this afternooto detmine how many of those we make in order. i hope that the rules committee makes in order great number these amendmen. of course th first step under this rule is to make a few dozen ameents in order and 'll ctinue that work in the rules committee shortly mr. speaker, for all the hard work that the armed services committee has done, what we have bore us this week is, unfortunately, an argument that eds to be resolved in t budget committee. what we have isffectively an accounting trick that drives us deeper into debt and increases the dget deficit to pay for one yearf increased defense spending. to this point, i object to havg this budget debate even in t context of a defense bill, by disregarding the
proper use o the what's lled the overseas contingency operations account and flouting the budget contl act reed upon by republicans and democra, unfortunately this med services bill has been overtaken by debate on e federaudget. what we have before us is a bill that will irease the deficit and increase the debt above and beyond the spending levels the democrats and republicans agreed . to the free spending republican party continues to throw axpayer dollar after taxpayer dollar. do they just intend to drive up the debt or increase your taxs? when we increase our deficit, it means increased taxes. effectively, this republica ill is a tax increase on future american families like my kids. so this week we see a debate about thinability of the republicans pass a budget or adhere to a budget when they do gree to e. i would say that this was a very clever ebote budt scheme and it is clever. far too cler. more so than the traditional budget gimmicks we have been
presented w i'm going to explain to you what tax nd spend republican plan is. it includes $523 billion for the d.o.d., and $19.5 billion for the department of energy's defensework. sie the united states has been emploiled in conict aboasince 2001, severa administratnsequested and congress has always granted another pot of money known as the overseasontgey fund. this year, the bill provides $59 billion for what wcall overses conngency. together with the $543 billion base plus the $59 million in overseas contingencs, that equals the president's budget request. reminder the republicans haven't produced a budget this year so it's hard to make a comparison. all we can dis compare to the prident's budget because there is no house budget. there is no republican budget. we haven't seen one to act on or have the date.
traditionally we brinbefore this body several budgets and whichever one gets the most votes is the budget of the house. there are usually several budgets from the democratic side, sevral from the republan side. in years past there's bee bipartisan budgets which i have been honored to suppor this year, however, republicans are not ev allowing the house of representatives to consider no lesspass a budget. so what the ndaa does is it takes this overseas continncy account which many consider to be a slu fund for pentagon petions and it takes $18 billion of that to pay for pe operations. so of tt $18 billion goes to fund the ptagon's unfunded prioriti, or their wish list or ims they couldn't fit into the agreed upon buet control number of $543 billio is bust through the deficit increasethe debt, republican pl to t and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend likehey alwaydo through accounting tricks they are doing right here in the defense budget. so the pentagon gets more of
the particular items they wt, taxpayers are left paying the bill to the detrimt of our economy, job creation, and so that our own kids have to pay future taxes. putting our naon deeper and deeper into debt which i should point out toy friends is a national security issue when we are economically behold to other nions like china or saudi abia, th is asreat if n greater a national security threat than the one we combat with with the tanks and armed forces that this bill seeks to autrize. it's very important to keep that into account. ife look at one the reasons that feeted th soviet unionuring the cold war,hey overinvested in their defense relative to their g.d.p., which effectively hurt their economy and made heir economimodel unsustainable because they were allocating too much to defense to try t ep up with where we were. if we mortga our future the chinese and saudi arabians, how are we inceasing our security, mr. eaker? in fact, we e decreasing our secuty to fund current consumption for onyear at the
price mortgaging our futre tfoeign adrsaries. stealing $18 llion from the overseas contingency account, the ndaa guarantees th we run out of money f overseasperation sometime in pril, 2017. ofourse this coness would never le money n out for operations against isis and afghanistan and eewhere, so of course when it comes down to it, this bill will come before congress inpril and congress will make sure tt we have the money we need to ght isis becausethey alluded in this bill the money it was digned to fight isisto pay for items on the pentagon's wi list. that's what's haening he. raer than appropriating money toombat isis infghanian and other countries for the full year, they are just doing itor a fewonths. they are taking me of that money, put it into t base, mortging our future, puttin burdens on tapaye, and making us enomically arisk of being dominated by the countries we continue to rrow from. los, that why the secretary of dense, that's why the president of the united states,
commander inhief are completely against this w of budgeting. it's fiscally irresponsible. as a ranking member the d services committee testified sterday, this whole gimmk probably viates the bipartisan budget control act and when you do that, that's where the budget debates going. ngress has set mits on how much wn spend on defense versus nondefense. so when we run out of money next year, under is naa plan, we are going to be fd to spend more. who be us is no going to spd e mone we eto combat isis? f cose congress will spend more. this is a plano set up congre to spend more. of course it is congress will spe moreegardless of who controls conress. th's whyhis arcane gym knick this bill matts, that's why we should have these debates, and why the congress should pass a bud this is y we should let the national defense bill be about
defen rather than mortgaging our fute. look,f it wn't enough t have this budget smoke and mirrors debate, inhe defense bill, this year's ndaa also is a date will wshoul have taxpayer dolrs subsidizend whether we should encourage corporate miscduct. i would li to suspend f a few minutes if the share will allow. the speaker pro tempore: t chair will ceive aessage. the mesnger: mr. ser, a message fr thesete. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam second. the secretary: i have been directed by senate to inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 4957, an enact to designate the federal building located at 99 n.y. avenue northeast in the district of columbia as aira rio federal building. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado may resume. mr. polis: i'm not going to dwell long on the subsidization
of discrimination and encouraging corporate misconduct, but i can't fathom why there would be a place in this bill for national defense for to allow federal contracts to deteriorate against lgbt employees. that's unacceptable, bizarre, also included in this bill is an exemption from the president's fair pay and safe work exerive orders. the place to debate that is in another committee i serve on, the education and work force committee, not the national defense bill. those need to be removed. of course this bill also strikes the selective service registration for women. the committee mark included women in its selective service. personally i co-sponsored a bill with representative coffman to eliminate selective service that. would save money. in my entire lifetime there has not been a draft. if we are going to have a system it needs to include women. women serve in every combat role. it includes everybody so we can mobilize manpower and woman
power effectively. that's been stripped out of this bill. i believe we should take a hard look at doing away with selective service entirely. of course at the very least we should include both men and women at the age of 18. to move forward without any real debate and strike that section is bad policy, bad he procedure, it's an offense to the committee which put it into the bill. yet another reason i plan to oppose the bill. there's other pieces of this bill which i and many gems democrats and republicans object to. there is a lot of time to go into those. which i will do depending on how many speakers we have and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i was listening very carefully to my colleague, and i heard him talk about what's being proposed. this bill is being accounting tricks and clever. i'm going to repeat again, what this bill is doing is exactly what then senator obama, then senator kerry, then senator biden voted for in 2008. there is nothing new here. we are going into another
president and we are giving that president an opportunity to take a look at the situation and come back to us and tell us what they want. he said that this will drive up the deficit. it only drives up the deficit if we aren't willing to work together to cut in other places. because national defense is more important than anything else we do. if we don't want to drive up the deficit, i sure don't want to drive up the deficit, let's talk about serious cuts to other parts of the budget that aren't nearly as important as national defense. he called the overseas contingency account a slush fund. it is a fund directly requested by president obama. it was requested by the president before him. it's something we have done for a while. it's adequately accounted for. there's plenty of oversight over t it's not a slush fund at all. he said that we should be careful about overinvesting as the russians did relative to g.d.p. if you look at what the defense spending is as a percentage of the american g.d.p. for the last several years, it's gone
down. it's so much lower than it was even just a few years ago. -- we now know it's dangerously low because of what our adversaries, russia, china, etc. are doing. he talked about that this bill somehow encourages corporate misconduct. this bill has more reforms in it than we have seen in years that's going to require more and more people to toe the line as they should when we are spending the taxpayers' money. he said there is something in this bill that might have something to do with lgbt discrimination. no, sir. mr. speaker, what's in this bill, what's going to be proposed for this bill is something that gets to people's religious freedom. . and we don't treat religious freedom seriously in this country. it's a primary right. it's always been a primary right and we should always stand up for this in this body. mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, to my colleague from alabama, for his good work on this rule and on this bill. and i want to talk about a critical part of the bill, an amendment that was proposed and then withdrawn. that has to do with iran's heavy water production. and the reason this amendment was withdrawn and won't be under consideration in the rules committee for discussion later today is because it deserves to have stand-alone treatment. it's that important. heavy water is used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. its distinctive properties make it a critical component in the production of nuclear weapons. now, the nuclear deal that the senate -- some of the senators voted for, not by 2/3, by any means, it's used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. and iran has been stockpiling
more than 130 tons of heavy water during the initial years of the deal. they will be allowed to produce 90 tons later. but they are required in the deal to redesign and rebuild their iraq facility to support its, quote, peaceful needs and research. so iran did agree to keep pace with international technological advancement trends and rely only on light water, not heavy water, for future nuclear power. yet, they have been producing heavy water nevertheless. "the wall street journal" has posed the purchase of iran's overproduced heavy water staying saith, quote, the administration is urging them to stick to the agreement reached last year. so apparently the administration is seeking to entice others to purchase iran's overproduced heavy water
by making the first purchase. u.s. energy secretary earnest moniz said, quote, this will be a statement to the world. you want to buy heavy water om iran, you can buy heavy water from iran. even the united states did it, unquote. so we are enabling iran to violate the terms of the deal, and we're going out and buying this using taxpayer dollars, nevertheless. now, if the iranians will not or simply cannot keep the deal, we have to come one a better deal, not bail them out of aspects of the deal that they don't want to comply with. so this proposed purchase by the administration violates the intention of the deal and the will of the american people. we can't let this administration or the speech writer ben rhodes or their fabricated ecochamber deceive us any longer. and by the way, this speech writer, ben rhodes, admitted in a "new york times" article published just the other day
that they took things they knew not to be true and misled the american people on purpose to get the deal passed. we must not authorize funds to purchase heavy water from iran, and because this issue is so important, i will work with leadership to make sure we consider this as stand-alone legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back to -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak against this rule that repeals a provision that was added to the ndaa, the national defense authorization act, after a bipartisan recorded vote in committee which expands the selective service system to include women. that provision was in line with the secretary of defense's decision to eliminate the ban on women serving in direct ground combat positions and the recognition that women are much
needed across all aspects of military capability. this rule precludes congress from having an open and transparent debate about this very important issue that impacts women's equality. if we want a full hearing, is there no better place than on the floor of this house? and this rule would prevent that. gender equality is achieved when men and women enjoy the same rights, opportunities and responsibilities across all sectors of society, including military service, and when the abilities, aspirations and talents of women and men are equally valued. including women in the draft is a step toward that equality. this position is shared by both army chief of staff mark millie and marine commandant robert neller. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. ms. tsongas: this position is shared by army chief of staff mark millie and marine
commandant robert neller. i ask my colleagues to deny this rule that limits women's equality, ignores a bipartisan vote and does not allow for an open and transparent debate on the floor of the house. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i completely agree with my colleague that just spoke that if we're going to do this we should have a full debate on it. but we should also let the american people be heard, and because of the way this happened in committee, there was no public hearing beforehand. there was no notice to the american people that this was going to be considered. so the most important people we need to hear from on this haven't been heard from, and they need to be heard from. the way to do that is for us to announce that we're considering this, have full public hearings in committee and then after having full public hearings, the committee makes a decision and brings something to this floor for us to debate. but for us to bring up that
issue of that magnitude without having gone through the process of letting the american people be truly heard here, that's not appropriate. so while i understand exactly what my colleague just said, i was there for the committee meeting. i know there was a vote on it. it was a vote after we had no debate in committee, no hearings, no opportunity for the american people tosh heard. if we're -- to be heard. if we're going to take an issue like this and bring it to the floor of the house, we need to do all of that or we wouldn't be doing our job. so i respectfully disagree with her. i think the self-executing amendment by chairman sessions is appropriate, and i would urge my colleagues to support that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: well, i would say in response to my friend that the committee did a lot of work through the night and voted on a number of issues that members raised. many of the items that they voted on were not subject to their own hearings. what we're seeing here is a failure of speaker ryan to
follow through on his pledge for regular order. what's regular order? there's a committee markup of the bill. for good or bad. sometimes the chairman has things in that bill he or she doesn't want. other times it's exactly like they wanted. that gets reported out to rules committee and other members have a chance to change it. if any member of this body wanted to remove women from the selective service, which was in the markup, they would simply offer an amendment to do that. that's a normal process. there would be a debate and a vote. instead of that process, there's a mysterious self-executing amendment in the rule itself. so the rule itself contraverts the actual bill that the dask committee reported out. it actually changes the very bill that the committee worked on without a vote, without debate. and that is the opposite of regular order, the opposite of the process that allows members to fully debate and vet these issues. this bill stiffles the debate on this very issue that the committee weighed in on. it's my understanding it's in
the senate bill to include women in selective service as well. i think it will likely be any conference report that couments. for any -- that comes out. for whatever reason it's being hidden behind a procedural trick in a self-executing rule. to discuss the bill and the rule, i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mowledin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is ecognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. moulton:ry -- i said that too much attention has been given to the fight against isil. i worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to include an amendment now contained in the bill that requires the administration to develop an integrated, political and military strategy to defeat isis. without this strategy, we risk repeating mistakes of the past. we largely defeated al qaeda in iraq militarily in 2009, but
failed to follow through on the root causes and ensure the success of iraqi politics going forward. it created a political vacuum that isis grew into and we cannot afford to make that mistake again. second, we should all be able to agree that our military personnel and veterans deserve the best health care in the world. that's why i am proud to report the bill also contains provisions i worked on with several members to address increased rates of suicide in our military. since 2012, suicide has been the leading cause of death in our military. in the past three years alone, the suicide rate has been nearly 50% greater than in the civilian population. the department of defense needs to take an aggressive approach in solving this crisis. my amendment included in the bill will identify trends and incidents of suicide and requires better proactive and reactive mental health care for active personnel. finally, i want to call attention to the urgent need to continue the special immigrant
visa program for afghans that worked for u.s. forces. a bipartisan amendment before the rules committee now would remove the unfortunate narrowing of eligibility requirements included in the mark which would prevent hundreds of afghans whose lives are at risk because of their work for our country from even being considered for resettlement in the united states. the narrowing of eligibility intentionally excludes hundreds of afghans who worked for the state department, usaid and u.s. security contractors in a number of capacities. many of whom face well-documented death threats due to their work with our government. regardless of whether that was with front line troops or on an american base. by narrowing eligibility, the program would erode the expectations of hundreds of afghan staff whose lives remain in danger because of their work for the u.s. mission and also make it more difficult to hire and retain qualified afghan staff who are essential to us achieving our diplomatic and assistance goals. for that risk and sacrifice, the very least we can do is
offer them a chance to stay alive, to keep living rather than abandoning them to the same enemies that united with us to destroy. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i appreciate my colleague from massachusetts and all the points that he's made. indeed, there were a number of bipartisan amendments that were added to the bill during that very long day and night that we spent considering it which just points out the bipartisan nature of what we're doing here. on the committee we try to work together to find the right way forward for the defense of america. when colleagues on either side of the aisle offer something that's common sense and we think will work, we work together to make sure it gets in the bill and that's what he just alluded to. he also alluded to an amendment that he hopes will be added as a result of the rules committee meeting this afternoon. we're going to be considering an awful lot of amendments this afternoon. there are over 60 minutes that we made in order in this rule, bipartisan amendments.
so this is a very strong effort on our part to make sure that this is a bipartisan bill and as a bipartisan bill it deserves bipartisan support and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: well, it's particularly ironic that the gentleman just had a bipartisan amendment that adds women in the selective service that is tripped out of the bill, the committee's bill right in this rule through a self-executing amendment. this rule, if it passes, and i hope it doesn't, this rule undoes one of those very bipartisan amendments that the gentleman is touting. i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. i thank the armed services committee for the hard work they did to produce this bill. i'm not going to support it.
the most important function that we have is to make certain that america's secure, our defense authorization bill is a major component of that. but i believe this bill fails in some fundamental respects. number one, the budget is very large. we're approaching $700 billion, but throwing money at a problem does not solve a problem, and what we're doing as we throw more money at a problem without making hard decisions is we generate and accept as inevitable an immense amount of inefficiency. number two, there is an overreliance on the o.c.o. funding. first of all, o.c.o. off budget should be debated and it should be appropriated. it should be subject to all budget caps. but to then begin using it not just for overseas contingency
operations but to actually invest in major weapon systems is a gross mistake that is just going to lead to a weaker budgeting system that is essential, in my view, to our national security. of that o.c.o. funding, money would be used for weapons systems like the fa-18-e superhornet and the f-35. $35 billion in o.c.o. authorization is for war requirements, including dollar amounts in the millions. . the other issue and another failure in this bill is we are once again continuing to have military operations, this country is at war, without having any debate on an authorization for the use of military force. that should be part of it. third, we have got significant issues in nato. as the speaker knows, and my colleague, the ranking member
knows, chairman knows, nato is absolutely essential to our defense, but the time for the united states to be bearing as big a burden as -- for that defense has come to a conclusion. we will bear the majority of the expense, but the commitment on our nato allies is to reach 2% of their gross domestic product in defense spending. if our nato allies are not doing that, we are asking the american taxpayer to do it, and these are mature democracies. they have stable economies. it's about time that we asked for this to absolutely happen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. welch: thank you. the real fundamental question for us is whether or not in this defense budget we are going to ask what are the
fundamental strategic necessities of the united states to be in a strong posture to defend itself. the approach of just throwing more money and maintaining weapons systems that our military is not even asking for , blinking on the question of personnel review, all of these things are just postponed for another day and they need to be faced today. mr. chairman, i thank the committee for its work, but will i not be supporting this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman from vermont. he and i and a group of members of this body met recently with members of the german bundestag and russian duma to talk about some of these very issues, and it was a most enlightening trip for all of us. by the way, mr. speaker, all of us that went on that trip went as american citizens, as members of the united states congress, not as democrats or republicans. one of the most troubling things we learned from that
trip is that the russians continue to invest at a significantly higher level than we are in terms of their increases every year, and their military activities. and that's why they have been so successful in the ukraine. why they have been so successful recently in syria. so this bill begins to turn back around so that we are investing properly. if i thought that we were throwing money at the problem, if my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the armed services committee thought we were just throwing money at the problem, this bill would not receive the vote in committee, i can tell you that. the inefficiencies he talked about. we are very concerned about that. that's why there is so much reform in this bill. five different components that deal with reform. because we can't expect american taxpayers to pay for any part of the government that's inefficient, including our military. he brought up the authorization of the use of military force. we had a big debate about this
in committee and i asked my staff, why can't econsider an authorization for the use of military force in our committee? because i think we should. and i was told, and we found out by reading the war powers act, a law passed by congress in 1973, that under that law jurisdiction for the authorization of use of military force is vested in the foreign affairs committee not in the armed services committee. so we could not consider that when it came before the committee. and then finally his comments about nato. i share a lot of his concerns. i think many of us do. there is nothing wrong and everything right with expecting our nato allies to meet their 2% obligation. and most of them are not doing that. i do believe the administration is working with them to get them to that point. but i don't think we should ever miss an opportunity to keep the heat on them to do that because ultimately the defense that we provide over in europe through nato is a defense of those countries.
so i think it's appropriate the gentleman brought up that point and i hope the administration will continue to do that and i hope we'll continue to back any effort taken by this administration or the next to do that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olis: mr. speaker, i want to take some -- mr. polis: mr. speaker, i want to take some time to highlight some of the provisions that run counter to our national security imperative to create a more sustainable society, that are in this bill or that have been submitted as amendments to this bill. for instance, there's been an amendment that would block implementation of the collaborative federal land use plans and prevent listing of the sage grouse under the endangered species act for the next decade. we have had extensive hearings in other committees this. has nothing to do with defense and we hold up the collaborative federal land use plan as an example of how to avoid listing a species and yet make sure we can maintain
viable habitat. i think it was a great success. i think it's ridiculous that we are talking about amending a national defense bill to undo something we have had extensive hearings on and natural resources committee and has held up by all parties involved as a huge success. in addition, there is going to be an amendment offered to sell off the desert national wildlife refuge, over 800,000 acres of the desert national wildlife refuge in nevada, which will be transferred to the air force which has not requested a transfer. the air force has not requested this transfer for military use, yet fls a bill to impose the management of these lands on the air force. it would represent a harmful public land sell off precedent. it's an important habitat for big horn sheep, mountain lions, and other wildlife. as we mentioned the air force has not requested the stewardship of these lands. of course would put a costly new burden on the air force to the detriment of our national security. in addition, there's two provisions already in the ndaa
that would remove or block federal endangered species protections for the american marine beetle and others. what do they have to do with national defense? section 2866 would lock e.s.a. protections for the lesser prairie chicken for six years there is -- even if only a handful nearing extinction. section 28676 would also immediately and permanently remove the burring beetle from protection and prevent it from receiving any protections in the future. our biodiversity is a source of strength. and to somehow have a backdoor attempt, if you can't get these things through the proper regular order of natural resources committee, to somehow say that the burroing beetle has something to do with national defense is a great stretch of our rules of germaneness that we have here in this body of the house.
more perilously, more dangerously there is language in the house ndaa bill that's repeal of the section 526 of he energy independence and security act of 2007. the purpose of this law is to reduce the department of defense's dependence on oil from hostile regimes of the world. lower carbon fuels, to promote energy security, repealing this provision is something the department of defense does not want t would be unwise for our clean energy future. this distracts, this bill with the current language in the repeal of section 526, reduces our energy security as a more , renders us to be reliant on foreign powers, foreign oil, just as the budgetary tricks in this bill will for us -- force us to
borrow more. finally there is damaging language about aquatic invasive species which costs billions of dollars annually to deal with the zebra muscle in lakes in colorado, damaging shipping, damage to industrial and government facilities, an invasive species caused great irreversible damage to coastal and inland waters, including some in my district. once a nonnative species invades a lake or river, it's basically impossible to eliminate as we know. s. 373, the vessel incidental discharge act would discard the clean waters act goal of stopping further invasive species and replace it with a law that would put ineffective standards for removing invasive species from ships' ballast water discharges that bear no relation to protection of water quality. this bill will strip out very important measures that would prevent the dissemination of species even in the lakes in my district in including in grand county we have had a
devastating impact of the zebra muscle -- mussel both on local habitat and recreational ships and boaters. not direct military asecretary to where we are, but again this applies both to military and civilian shipping and great cost to the american economy when these invasive species threat. these are issues that people may differ on. i'm happy to have that debate. in fact a little bit of deja vu, i feel like i have had that debate on the natural resources committee. we have debated many of these thifpblgts instead a bill is being reported out of this committee and coming to the floor apparently the ndaa seen by some as a catch all to attack our environmental safeguards. that's wrong. that actually detracts from our national security. makes us more eliant on foreign oil. the wrong direction for the bill. wrong direction for national defefpblets i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i wish we didn't have to deal with environmental issues on the armed services committee.
but unfortunately we have military bases all across the united states where they are being limited in what they want to do, what they potentially could do by other federal agencies using their powers to tell our defense folks that they can't do things that are important to carrying out their military mission. so i heard my colleague and i know of his service on the natural resources committee and the good work of that committee, but when you have those agencies beginning to impinge upon our ability to deliver on national defense, i think that is under the jurisdiction of our committee and we have gotten waivers to be able to take these issues up from those committees, including the natural resources committee. look, i'm not saying the sage grouse or beetle is not important, but they are not more important than the defense of the united states of america. and we have dealt with these issues in a responsible way and i hope and pray that the time will come we won't ever have to talk about that in armed services committee again. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is
recognized. mr. polis: may i inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers? i'm prepared to close. i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i still remain hard-pressed to see how the burroing beetle or lesser prairie chicken are somehow a national security issue that needs to be addressed in the national defense authorization bill. look, there is a number of other flaws with the bill. it greatly overfunds our nuclear weapons activities which will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. i have offered an amendment to reduce that. this is for a stockpile of weapons that could be greatly reduced and still maintain the capability of destroying the world many times over. however useful that capability may be. i think it should be good enough that we have enough capability to destroy the world three or four times instead of seven. god forbid we don't have enough capabilities to destroy the entire world and wipe out life. this bill does not include as has been mentioned an authorization for use of military force for ongoing
operations in iraq, syria, and elsewhere. despite repeated calls to write an updated authorization, despite the belief of many members on both sides of the aisle, the current war is illegal, this congress has taken zero meaningful action to date. we should change that. you know what? at least debate changing that this week. as i said before, when you have a national security bill that mortgaging our -- mortgages our future, makes us more reliant on foreign oil, you wonder at what point you don't call it a national security bill and start calling it a national insecurity bill. the vision i have is not one with bloated budget deficits and borrowing from china and saudi arabia. it's not one where we cut off our own renewable energy program so we can rely more on foreign oil. not one where we borrow more from our kids' fuhr. that's not the secure america we should seek as a nuns congress. these are the questions we should be debating in the defense bill. instead of foe us -- focusing
on these real questions, the general debate we'll see under this rule will dedicate a large portion to debate on the budget and the looting of this overseas contingency fund which congress will have to come back and backfill in april, therefore mortgaging our future and anne increasing our national debt to fund the next several months of defefpblets instead of passing a budget, instead this congress is having a backdoor budget debate. debating it now. and it's the wrong way to do things. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to shed light on the secret money in politics. it would require outside groups to disclose source of contributions. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the is a request for recorded vote on along with extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule with a self-executing language which undoes the committee language in violation of regular order.
vote no on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: i appreciate and respect the gentleman from colorado and his earnestness and all of what he has said today, and do i agree with him there are many things that we need to debate on this floor and we will be debating on this floor over the next two days. . but let's make sure we don't lose sight of the central thing wear here to do. and that is to protect and defend the people of the united states. yes, there are going to be some extraneous issues, issues that we wish we didn't have to talk about. but at the end of the day, we're going to come back to that central function, that most important function that we have, and that is defending the people of the united states. because of things that have happened before today, the readiness of our armed forces, the people we charge with the direct responsibility of
defnding us, the readiness has come down steadily. planes can't fly. armed vehicles can't drive. weapons don't function. we don't have enough training for our troops. and so we've listened to all of the uniformed commands that are have come before our committee and heard the dire circumstances we face all across the national defense of this country. and this bill begins to turn that around. it's not a big enough turnaround. we've got a lot of work to do to get back where we need to be. but this begins that process of getting our armed forces ready in a way that is meaningful and responsible for them, but also will create the actual affect of protecting the american people. and we have put into this bill very important reforms. reforms that we've been needing to look at for a long time.
that will require our military to be more efficient, save taxpayer dollars, but also make them more effective in their jobs. this bill does what we as a house are charged with doing. and that is setting responsible policy for defending the united states of america. hope that everyone as we debate the amendments and the underlying bill over the next two days will keep central in their mind that that's what this is all about. and that we will strive to do this in a bipartisan fashion. as we have done on the national -- on the armed services committee, and as we have done on the rules committee. this needs to be a bipartisan bill. this needs to be a bipartisan vote. if we really care about this country, if we really care about those men and women in uniform, thens important for us to -- then it's important for us to understand that we have a bipartisan responsibility to make sure that we provide for them to provide for the defense of the american people.
mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.res. 732 and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act, 50 united states code 1622-d, provides for the automatic termination
of a national emergency within 90 days prior to the date of its declaration. the president transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, visanthe to the federal register for publication the inclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to burma that was declared on may 0, 1997, is to continue in effect beyond may 20, 2016. the government of burma has made significant progress across a number of important areas since 2011. including the release of over 1,300 pli political prisoners, a peaceful and competitive election, the signing of a nation-wide ceasefire agreement with eight ethnic armed groups, the discharge of hundreds of child soldiers from the military, steps to improve labor standards, and expanding political space for civil society to have a greater voice in shaping issues critical to burma's future. in addition, burma has a
signatory of the international -- has become a signatory of the international atomic energy agency's additional protocol and ratified the biological weapons convention. significant steps toward supporting global nonproliferation, despite these strides, the situation of the country continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. concerns persist regarding continued obstacles to full civilian control of the government, the ongoing conflict in human rights abuses in the country, particularly an ethnic minority areas and military trade with north korea. in addition, burma's security forces operating with little oversight from the civilian government often act with impunity. we are further concerns that prisoners remain detained and that police continue to arrest critics of the government for peacefully expressing their views. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to burma. despite this action, the united
states remains committed to working with both the new government and the people of burma to ensure that the democratic transition is irreversible. signed, barack obama, the white house. may 17, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 897 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 97, a bill to amend the federal insecticide, funkside and rodenticide act to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs,
and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include ex trainious materials -- extraneous materials on h.r. 897. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gibbs: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 897, the zika vector control act. this summer is evident that the nation will have to contend with the outbreak of the known zika virus, like west nile virus, as it spreads to people primarily through the bite of an infected mosquito. it's been the year since the first alerts of the zika virus spreading to brazil were issued. since then, the virus has been spreading north and with warmer months approaching, communities in the united states should be given the tools necessary to stop zika. many states, counties and municipalities rely on mosquito
spraying programs to protect public health, especially with the threats like zika, which is particularly harmful to pregnant women. but protecting communities for zika and other mosquito-born diseases has become difficult thanks to a burdensome and duplicative federal regulation that requires more time and money spent on compliance rather than protecting the health and safety of the american people. congress cannot let this bureaucratic nonsense stand in the way of potentially preventing a public health crisis like the spread of the zika virus. for 60 years, before the clean water act was passed, the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act, regulated the use of pesticides in the united states. even after the clean water act was impled, the environmental protection agency believed that it was the appropriate regulatory authority for pesticides. it was also -- it was only after the decision by the sixth court of appeals in the case where permanence under the clean water act -- permits
unthe clean water act were -- under the clean water act were required for use. the applications of a pestside for its intended purposes and in compliance with the requirements of fifra is not a discharge of a pollutant under the clean water act, and therefore a permit is not required. to put this in simple terms, the court ruling cast aside congress' intent in pesticide permits and added another layer of bureaucracy. in vacating the rule, the sixth circuit court simply reversed sensibly agency interpretation and instituted a new federal policy by judicial decision. in the process, the court undermines the traditional understanding of how the clean water act interacts with other environmental statue uths and expanded the cope of the clean water act regulation further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by congress and against long standing e.p.a.
interpretation. as a result of the court decision, e.p.a. has been required to develop and impose a new and expanded permitting process under the clean water act to cover pesticide use. e.p.a. has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, including state agencies, cities, counties and mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists and even everyday citizens, that perform some of the 5.6 million pesticide applications annually are affected by the court's ruling. this substantially increases the number of entities subject to permitting. with all of this ill-advised court decisions, federal and state agencies are ex penledsing vital funds to initiate and maintain clean water act permitting programs governing pesticide applications and a wide range of public and private pesticide users are now facing increasing financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new unnecessary permitting
process. despite what the fear mongers suggest, all this expense comes with no additional environmental protection. the compliance costs and fears of expensive litigation associated with the requirements are forcing states, counties, mosquito control districts and other pest control programs to reduce their operations and redirect resources in order to comply with the regulatory requirements. we know that routine mosquito prevention programs have been reduced due to m.p.d.s. requirements -- mpds requirements. in colorado, the city council decided to abandon their aerial mosquito spraying due to the new mpds permits. the colorado aerial applicator discontinued all aquatic services due to compliance of either the colorado e.p.a. permits. in utah, for the last three years, an idaho-based n.n.a. operator has been contracted with a homeowners association north of salt lake city for
treatment of mosquitos. it was not uncommon for him to treat acres in one night. the permit makes it impossible for him to continue the service as he will be liable for noncompliance because the client decision maker did not require any sort of paperwork other than a -- to substantiate that his equipment was calibrated, thereby constituting noncompliance under that federal permit system. the most n 2012 likely increase in the impact of outbreak was the west nile virus around the nation. in response to those west nile outbreaks, many states and communities were forced to declare public health emergencies but this was only after the outbreak of the west nile virus. so what happens here, when they had an outbreak, an epidemic of west nile in their community, they can declare an emergency and they don't have to get any permits. they can go out and spray to attack the epidemic. so let's do this right and do it under the permitting process, but let's have a
process that works. it is absolutely irresponsible to allow a public health crisis to get to this emergency stage and then we have the ability to prevent it. h.r. 897 will enable communities to resume conducting routine, preventive mosquito control programs without additional bureaucracy getting in the way. . it provides a limited exemption for pesticides regulated by fifra and used under the product label which is by way approved by the e.p.a. keep in mind the pesticides necessary to combat zika and stop the spread of mosquitos are already appropriately regulated under fifra. the red type and compliance cost makes it more difficult for our applicator sprayers to stop the zika virus. fifra regulation includes human health, environmental safeguards when pesticides are approved, including the rules of label use of a pesticide,
adding the requirement is redundant. h.r. 897 was drafted very narrowly to address only the sixth circuit court's decision and give state and local entities who spray to control mosquito populations the ability to protect public health. this commonsense legislation even received technical assistance from the e.p.a. to achieve that goal safely and effectively. while over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of public eafer private entities and thousands of stakeholders support a legislative resolution of this issue. just to name a few, these organizations include the american mosquito control association, the national association of state departments of agriculture, the national water resources organization, the american farm bureau federation, family farm alliance, national rural electric coptive association, the biopest at thissides industry alliance and responsible industry for a sound environment, agriculture retailer association, and
national agriculture aviation association. i want to thank chairman shuster for his leadership on the transportation infrastructure committee as well as chairman conaway and ranking member of the ag committee and ranking member peterson for their leadership on this important public health issues. this is a responsible commonsense bill that will help insure public health officials aren't fighting zika with their hands tied behind their back. i urge all members to support h.r. 8967. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. groundhog day came a month earlier in this congress. that's how i describe this bill two years ago, july. because this is the third time that we have considered this bill. now, we must admit the rationale changed. last week it was named the zika control act. before that it was the regulatory burden removal act. so the first time it was considered it was h.r. 1749,
that was 109th congress defeated. that was for wes nile. whoops. then h.r. 872, last congress, reducing the regulation burdens act, at the request of the american farm bureau because of the huge burden. and now just renamed last week we are going to try and game a very serious thing which is the potential spread of zika which the republicans thus far have appropriated zero dollars to help the states. zero. we are going to pretend we are doing something here today about zika. it's not about zika. this is pretty damn personal for me. because the reasonable we have this rule is because of a huge massive fishkill in oregon. a misapplication of pesticide, and aquatic pesticide, into an irrigation canal. applications in or near water.
people drink water, fish swim in water. other things are dependent upon water. we are talking about -- no, we don't want to have the e.p.a. watch the pesticide operators who are putting pesticides in or around water. they should not be allowed to do that. now, 92,000 steelhead died in oregon. and that was essentially the beginning of this rule. now, they are saying this is horribly burdensome. first off, in my state, my one little isolated state, we have 825 miles of rivers that are showing a significant levels of pesticides, 10,000 acres of lakes, nationwide it's hundreds of thousands of miles, tens of thousands of miles, and hundreds of thousands of acres. we haven't been testing for pesticide residues in the water, in drinking water, until recently. now, we don't want to do that anymore. we don't want people to know.
let's just stop, because this is a horrible burden. well, actually, not so much. this is controlled at two levels. the e.p.a. and the states. we just heard one anecdote about one aerial applicator in one state that just came up yesterday, unnamed, anecdotal, they suspended operations. why? who knows. we don't know why. there is no facts behind it. but we should end the whole program nationwide because of one anecdote regarding one applicator who may have been misapplicating in colorado. we don't know. there as -- the committee asked, asked the e.p.a. and the states, how many people have complained and have had their operations interrupted? interesting answer. zero and zero. the 50 states say zero except we now hear about one in
colorado. and the e.p.a. says zero. so now we are going to pretend this has something to do with zika. this has nothing to do with zika. it has to do with whether or not someone is going to misapply a pesticide that will get in your drinking water. we should be kind of sensitive about drinking water after what happened in michigan, but, nah, we don't care. get rid of those stinking regulators. don't worry. no one would ever misapply a pest at this sude. won't kill fish. even though it clearly did that. in oregon. kind of ally a transparent renaming and opportunistic approach to zika. how about considering a real bill to put some real money to partner with the states to deal with this. by the way, they can spray wherever they want because of a declared emergency. it's automatically covered.
but we are going to pretend that somehow we are going to facilitate the spread of zika if we don't wipe out the e.p.a.'s authority to keep pesticides out of our water. this has been defeated twice before. even though it's creatively renamed in the last week, i would recommend that my colleagues oppose it yet again. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. gibbs: i yield as much time as he may consume to the majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the zika investigator control act. want to commend congressman gibbs for his leadership in bringing this forward as we work here in the house to combat zika. the house is doing a number of things this week. number one, we are moving legislation to reprioritize money so that there will be a ote a.f.l. $1.2 billion -- total of $1.2 billion to combat
zika. in addition, while we are fighting zika and giving not only federal but local agencies the resources they need to combat this disease, we know and c.d.c. has told us it's spread by mosquitos. they are the agents that spread zika. so here we have congressman gibbs identifying a problem where the e.p.a. is making it harder to actually kill mosquitos. i come from south louisiana. we have a loft mosquitos in south louisiana. we don't like them. we actually spray using federally approved pesticides to kill mosquitos where they breed. where do they breed? by water, sources of water. so you have federally approved sprays and pesticides that are used to kill the mosquito so they can't spread zika. yet the e.p.a. comes in and has a rule to make it harder and expensive to kill mosquitos.
call congressman gibbs is saying let's block that rule because local governments still control this. it's our local governments, oiler parishes and counties, that are doing the spraying. and they understand how to comply with their own local laws. they are not going to do anything to jeopardize ground water. what they want to do is kill mosquitos so they don't spread zika to our constituents. if you look, this legislation actually was passed. it actually was passed in 2011 when we were responding to wes nile. the house did -- west nile. the house did pass this legislation already and it was good legislation then. got a wide bipartisan vote. all of a sudden some people want to politicize it. this isn't a political issue. this is about common sense. mr. speaker, the e.p.a. is just putting additional hurdles in place. it's not like they are saying don't spray these pesticides. they are jacking up the cost. it's a e.p.a. money grab that makes it more expensive and more difficult to actually go kill mosquitos.
while we are debating whether or not to prioritize more money for zika, which we are doing, $1.2 billion worth, shouldn't we make sure that the combloin -- money could be used to kill the moss cootos that spread zika. if the e.p.a. has a rule that makes no sense and harder to kill mosquitos, shouldn't we remove that rule and barrier and allow and trust our local governments. there are some people up here who think washington knows best. if your local parish or county knows what they need to do to control the population, shouldn't they be able to do it or you just don't trust thefment you don't want to give them that ability. i do trust our local governments. and i want to give them the tools that they need to actually go and kill the mosquitos at the source where they breed. that's near sources of water. it's not in the way that contaminates ground water. the e.p.a. still gives these permits out. but it just costs more money to go and kill the mosquitos. let's remove that burden so we
can kill more mosquitos and stop zika from spreading. it's a good commonsense piece of legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: yield myself such time as i may consume. the horrible burden the gentleman is talking about is a notice of intent, which says where and how something was applied. virtually cost free. you can use a standardized form. it's just good to know where we are putting the pesticides and what pesticides are being used in case there are problems like the massive fishkill -- fish kill in oregon which we were able to trace back by one misapplication by one private company. not a public enemy. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i do rise in strong opposition to h.r. 897, the zika
investigator control act. the clean water act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations. the clean water act permits, provides a specific emergency provision to prevent outbreaks of the disease such as zika under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are automatically covered under the permit and spraying may be performed immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. in most instances, sprayers are only required to notify e.p.a. of the spraying operations 30 days after the beginning of the spraying operation. as i have notes nothed before in similar bills, i have remained concerned that this bill would mean that no clean water act provision -- protections would be required for pesticides application to water bodies already impaired by he pesticides. most pesticide applications in
in accordance ne with a federal insecticide, fungi side, and rodentcide, fifra, which requires proper labeling regarding usage. however fifra labeling is no substitute for ensuring we understand pesticides we apply to our rivers, lakes, streams, and on an annual bay sifments according to a 2006 usgs report, pesticides commonly used frequently are present in streams, ground water, at levels that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at level that may affect the aquatic life of fish eating wildlife. in the datea, the states provided -- data, the states provided the e.p.a. more than 1,600 miles of rivers and 370,000 ,380 basins, acres of lakes in the united states currently impaired or threatened by pesticides.
e.p.a. suggests that these estimates may be low because many of the states do not test or monitor all the different pesticides currently being used. i'm very concerned on the effect these pesticides have on the health of the rivers, our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies of all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, which are the young, elderly, the poor, and disenfranchised who have no other protection. i would also add that if our true concern is protecting the health of pregnant women in t. we should focus on preventing pesticide application directly or indirectly to drinking water sources. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a federal report on how fess at thissides in california are leading cause of -- to the water quality. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. napolitano: currently in california there are over 4,500 miles of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and rest
829 square miles of base and estuaries in my state impaired by pesticides. this is a significant concern in my home state where every drop of water needs to be conserved, reused, and cherished. we hear that pesticide is an application -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. napoleon harris the clean water review is not -- mrs. napolitano: the clean ater review is not needed. i am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a very significant impact on water quality and we're creating this exemption for water quality protection requirement without considering the impacts to the water that is already impaired with pesticides in california. this in turn costs rate payers, taxpayers, water users millions of -- to filter the pollutants
out of the water before it is portable. this is something i deal with on an ongoing basis. 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 15 year-long cleanup efforts of a site in my area. we cannot, should not, take away one of the tools available to monitor the adverse impacts of pesticide on rivers, streams and reservoirs. over the past five years this tool -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. napolitano: i oppose this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. gibbs: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to respond a little bit to the gentlelady from california's concerns about usgs studies. a lot of these studies are more than 10 years old. they do not reflect the current status of pesticide conditions and regulations today. many of the detections were what we call legacy pollution stemming from many years ago.
many of the detections where pesticides have not been used in the united states for many years and the vast majority of low have found a very concentration with levels well below what they consider human health benchmark. for example, approximately 99% of the monitored wells, water wells, and greater than 90% of the monitored stream sites were below health benchmark -- human health benchmark levels. between 2002 and 2011, so before this court decision took effect, was in place, the usgs only found one stream where human health benchmarks exceeded levels of danger. that's just one stream in the entire united states. because of this, the data does not reflect the improvements made by the e.p.a. under fifra over the past 10 years. this program has back more rigorous than it was a decade
or more ago. the committee -- the committee has also received testimony on how the e.p.a. uses its full regulatory authority under fifra to ensure that pesticides do not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. including our nation's water resources. in fact, the e.p.a.'s pesticide and water programs both used the same risk assessment data which helps to ensure that both programs are providing the same level of protection against risk. pesticide usage passages -- patterns have changed. technologies have become more sophisticated and pesticides are more carefully applied, in part driven by more elaborate instructions and the high cost of peffed sides. consequently, to argue that the usgs report shows that regulating the use of pesticides on the clean water act is needed is nothing more than a red herring. to address the issue about -- that my good friend from oregon raises about the fish kill, you know, the permitting is really a permit to discharge.
if an applicator misuses that pesticide under the label, under fifra, that's illegal, they broke the law. not fixing this court decision doesn't have any effect on the unfortunate situation that happened in oregon with the fish kill. nothing in this clean water act will stop the misapplication. it's already illegal under fifra. and this person should be held accountable and prosecuted and responsible for damages. the costs, there's more evidence out of there -- out there of what's going on, the california control districts, it's estimated the cost is $3 million to conduct the necessary administration for these permits. just to conduct the administration, $3 million in california. that money could be used in other ways to fight and control mosquitoes. also another example, benton county, washington, mosquito controls, they calculate
compliance with the permit costs them $37,334. they spent over $37,340 doing paperwork to secure the federal and state permits, they spent this money updating maps to secure the permit, they spent this money on permit fees, on software to help with the reporting requirements for the permit, they penalty is the money on lots of things associated with the permit but they did not spend that money spraying for mosquitoes. benton county estimates that with $37,334 they could have treated 2,593 acres of water where mosquitoes breed, or they could have paid for over 400 west nile lab tests. or they could have hired three seasonal workers. but benton county got to spend their $37,000-plus to comply with the redun contaminant federal permit -- redundant federal permit. an association estimates that for one of their members with two planes and five employees,
compliance to the permit requires one full-time employee, $40,000 annually. for one full-time employee to comply with this additional permitting. this permit is not simply the modest notification of monitoring requirements providing valuable safeguards against overuse of application of pesticides that my colleague is claiming. it is incredibly heavy-handed, expensive, time-consuming process that takes dollars away from public health protection and putting up more paperwork and more people at risk and the health of our communities at risk. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: may i inquire as to the chair how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from ohio has four minutes. mr. defazio: ok. with that i would yield three minutes to the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for three minutes. edwards edwards edwards thank you very much, -- ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the house consideration of the
reducing regulatory burdens act, that the house republicans have incorrectly and misleadingly renamed the zika vector control act. in the 113th congress, this exact legislation was -- with a bill number of h.r. 935 failed under suspension of the rules, 253-148. at the time, republicans subsequently rescheduled it two days later and you closed rule to allow pass and. i was the democratic manager of that bill under consideration in 2014. and in fact since my statement laid out a real substantive concern with the legislation, i ask unanimous sconet that a copy of my remarks at the time be made a part of today's record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. edwards: in this congress, this legislation was marked up early last year in the agriculture committee as the reducing regulatory burdens act. the committee of primary jurisdiction, the house transportation and infrastructure committee, has taken no action on the bill this time around. and yet here we are again on
the house floor. the republican leadership has now changed the name of the bill to the zika vector control act. a new name and the inclusion of a sunset date in 2018 are the only differences from the previous iterations of this bill. h.r. 97 is the exact same legislation that pesticide manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing for the past several years. it would eliminate clean water act safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution. the pesticide general permit targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly five years and now an alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers then and others about the impact of this permit have failed to bear any fruit. and in fact, in march, 2014, before the house transportation and infrastructure committee, the deputy assistant administrator of the office of water at the virme protection agency, -- environment protection agency tested, and i quote, we have not been made
aware of any issues associated with the pesticide general permit. nobody has bratt an instance to our attention where somebody has not been able to apply a pesticide in a timely manner. there have been no instances. and yet here we are. so since then, all across the country, pesticide applicators, usually utilities managing their rights of way, are complying with the clean water act permits to protect water quality. the public is getting the information they need, that we couldn't get before about what pesticides are being sprayed into what bodies of water. congress should not and must not respond to outdated skies falling problems that history has shown have never occurs and weaken protections for the water our children drink. in past congresses, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a public health emergency de jure as a rationale to pass and enact legislation into law. at one time they citeda, as they have again today, west nile virus. the next time it was the
western wildland fire suppression. and last congress it was the drought. and now nothing less than a purely political move, republicans are considering this bill on suspension, but this time under the guise of ombating the spread of zika. mr. defazio: i yield the gentlelady one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: let us be clear. this bill has absolutely nothing to do with zika or trying to stop the threat of the zpick virus. and despite -- zika virus. despite claims made on the contrary, the permit already allows spraying for zika or other mosquito control programs. this is simply another attack on the clean water act as part of the republicans' anti-environmental deregulatory agenda. and i would urge my colleagues to vote this legislation down and let's do something real to combat zika. the president has asked for $1.9 billion in emergency funding because it is an emergency. it's a public health threat.
if we did that now, then we'd be fulfilling our duties and our responsibilities. but this legislation today fulfills no responsibility, gets in the way of -- way of protecting clean water and does absolutely nothing to combat the zika virus that if you look at the map is quickly spreading across this country. thank you and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. gibbs: i ask the following letters of support be included. a letter from nearly 100 organizations supporting h.r. 897, including the national association of state department of agriculture, national farmers union, professional applicators for responsible regulation, the pesticide policy coalition and the national council of farmer cooperatives, the national pest management association, responsible industry for a sound environment, and the american farm bureau and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington state, dr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is
ecognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. i come down here to oppose this bill. i'm not on the committee. but i was sitting in my office and it made me angry to hear people down here talking about h.r. 897. you put out a title that says zika control act. that sounds like a good thing. people ought to be happy. we're going to control this vector that's out there. but it's a lie. this does nothing about zika. it doesn't do anything with the research that the president has asked the money for. what it does simply is turn the applicators and the pesticide manufacturers lose on this country again. i've been here long enough to remember all the problems with the bird eggs that had soft shells and the birds were dying and we couldn't have all these
-- all these animals were dying all over the place because of d.d.t. and all the things that happened with that kind of application freely in the society. one of the things you have to think about, and what i would caution my congressional friends in the republican caucus, is you ought to learn from history. philadelphia was once full of malaria. philadelphia was a malaria city. you kept the windows closed at night. because you didn't want to get malaria. now, what we're seeing today because of global warming is that moving north from the equater are the organisms that create disease. i hear somebody from louisiana say, oh, my god, we got malaria. we have all kinds of problems in louisiana. you are going to have them.
you can find evidence everywhere that these organisms are there. but the answer is not to let there be unrestricted and ncontrolled application of pesticides. that doesn't solve the problem. because what it does is creates another set of illnesses related to the effects of pesticide on human beings. and on animals. and on reproduction. and so what you're doing is saying, well, let's spread this stuff out on the ground and all over the water, and people are going to get in contact with that water. there's no question about it. directly or indirectly. and you are going to have the other diseases that come from this. i won't give a whole long lecture on the effects of pesticides on people. but i will remind you about something called agent orange. guys like me who were around the vietnam war saw that stuff
sprayed all over the trees. people said, oh, that doesn't do anything. just the leaves drop off. and then we had an epidemic of physical illnesses secondary to agent orange. we told veterans for years, it's not a problem, it's not a problem, it wasn't that agent orange that got you. well, then we decided -- mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: then we found out that in fact it was, and we have been paying and paying and paying, so this is one of those issues where you put it on cheap but you're going to pay for it in the long term. some of you over there clearly don't care. . the guy in michigan that decided to use the dirty river water and inflict that on the children of flint and the lead poisoning and the lead effects on their