Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2083-H2091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 872) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides
in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 872

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided in
section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under
such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable
waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or
use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide,
resulting from the application of such pesticide.''.

SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.

Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the
Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from
a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue
of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such
pesticide.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a
pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant
to protecting water quality, if--
``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the
violation; or
``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the
discharge is greater than would have occurred without the
violation.
``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under
subsection (p).
``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under
this section:
``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting
operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.

General Leave

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on H.R. 872.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act in a timely
manner on H.R. 872 to ensure that our small businesses, farmers,
communities, counties, and State and Federal agencies will not be
burdened with a costly, duplicative permit requirement that offers no
environmental or health benefits. It is important to note that
pesticides play an important role in protecting our Nation's food
supply, public health, natural resources, infrastructure, and green
spaces. They are used not only to protect crops from destructive pests,
but also to manage mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests,
invasive weeds, and animals that can choke our waterways, impede our
power generation, and damage our forests and recreational areas.
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 amends FIFRA and the
Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement of a permit for
applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. This Act is
being passed in response to National Cotton Council v. EPA, which found
NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of biological
pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not intended to exempt waste-
streams or discharges from regulation simply because they may contain
pesticides or pesticide residues. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes
clear that the NPDES exemption only addresses discharges of pesticide
or pesticide residue resulting from applications consistent with FIFRA.
The legislation does not exempt applications of pesticides that violate
the relevant requirements of FIFRA.
There have been accusations that this bill would cause contamination
of our waterways. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge those accusations.
Today, some will argue in defending the Sixth Circuit Court decision
that pesticide applications were a violation of FIFRA. The case in
question is the Talent Water District in Jackson County, Oregon, where
it is claimed that the application of pesticides in violation of the
FIFRA label resulted in a fish kill of more than 92,000 juvenile
steelhead. I point out that these pesticide applications were in
violation of FIFRA and the requirements of FIFRA, and therefore would
be addressed under that law. Requiring a duplicative permit under the
Clean Water Act would not offer any additional environmental safety
standard.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 872 is a simple fix. The legislation before us
passed unanimously through the House Agriculture Committee and with an
overwhelming 46-8 vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. This proves that this is not a partisan issue but an issue
of such importance that Republicans and Democrats and even the EPA have
worked together to provide a solution.
H.R. 872 makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to
require this redundant layer of bureaucracy, especially since the EPA
already comprehensively regulates the distribution, sale, and use of
pesticides. Although the court did extend the effective date of its
order to October 31, it did not fix the underlying problem. The impact
on all pesticide users required to obtain this extra permit will be the
same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the
burdensome cost or real impact on their livelihoods. The only things
this extension provides is more months of regulatory uncertainty.
I ask my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation
and to ensure that FIFRA remains the standard for pesticide regulation.
Let us help protect our mutual constituency from duplicative
obligations that provide no qualified benefit to human health or
environmental concerns.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the

[[Page H2084]]

gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) be permitted to control 10 minutes
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nugent). Without objection, the
gentleman from California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BACA. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Tim Bishop, our third
baseman--an excellent third baseman--for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. I want to thank Nutrition and
Horticulture Subcommittee Chair Jean Schmidt and I also want to thank
Water Resources Subcommittee Chair Bob Gibbs for their leadership on
this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to jointly resolve an
important issue and to build a relationship across jurisdictions and
across the aisle.
H.R. 872 is a straightforward bipartisan bill that creates a
necessary fix to the flawed National Cotton Council v. EPA Sixth
Circuit Court decision. If the decision is implemented, pesticide
applicators will be forced into a duplicative regulatory process that
would require permitting under both FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. We
don't need to duplicate. We don't need additional costs and burdens on
many of the individuals. We need one agency that can handle it, not two
agencies.
While the new regulation will provide no environmental benefit, it
will add millions in new costs to State regulating agencies,
agricultural producers, mosquito control districts, and small
businesses. The EPA understands this. That's why they have helped us
write this bill. The EPA estimates that the permit process would add
$1.7 million in annual costs to our cash-strapped States. But during a
hearing on this issue last month, former Congressman John Salazar
testified that the cost of implementation for the State of Colorado
would be even greater--upwards of $20 million.

{time} 1720

In addition, the permitting process is estimated to add another $50
million to the cost of pesticide applicators, and most of them are
small businesses.
In my home State of California, we face a 12.2 percent unemployment
rate and a $25 billion to $31 billion deficit. We simply can't afford
this regulatory burden on them or on anyone else throughout the State.
Likewise, the negative impact on agricultural, irrigation--and I state
on agricultural, irrigation--and pest control professionals is a cause
for serious public concern.
My congressional district, located in California's Inland Empire, has
long had problems with the West Nile virus. The ability of mosquito and
pest control to respond quickly to any situation must not be
jeopardized. If we have one agency, it can act quickly. If we have two,
it's not only costly, but can you imagine what would happen if we
didn't act quickly?
For over 30 years, FIFRA has ensured that when a pesticide is used in
accordance with label requirements, it will not bring unnecessary risk
to our communities or to the environment. Let's work together to pass
this simple fix to protect the public health--and I state to protect
the public health--of our communities and to prevent costly duplicative
regulatory burdens on us.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter that I would like to submit.
It is from the National Association of Conservation Districts, which is
a nonprofit organization that represents the Nation's 3,000
conservation districts. For more than 70 years, the NACD has worked
with the landowners and managers of private working lands to help them
apply effective conservation practices. They understand that the EPA
already conducts a rigorous analysis of the health and environmental
effects of any proposed usage of a pesticide under FIFRA.
I also have another letter to submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker,
that has been signed by 138 different agricultural, irrigation, and
pest control organizations from across the Nation.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
legislation. It's good bipartisan legislation. It deals with
duplicative efforts, and consolidates some of them. It is also cost-
effective. We don't need to put the burden on anyone else.

National Association of

Conservation Districts,

Washington, DC, March 30, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: On behalf of the National Association
of Conservation Districts (NACD) and America's 3,000
conservation districts, I write to voice our support for H.R.
872 to allow farmers, ranchers, and foresters to continue
pesticide use in compliance with the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). We appreciate your
recognition of this important issue and encourage bipartisan
congressional action to address the significant regulatory
concerns arising from a 2009 court ruling.
In 2009, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for pesticide
applications made ``in, over, or near'' water. Prior to this
ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not
required CWA permits for pesticides applied according to the
FIFRA label. This ruling creates confusion, uncertainty and
increased regulatory burdens.
EPA conducts a rigorous analysis of the health and
environmental effects of a proposed use of a pesticide; when
used in compliance with the EPA-approved label, FIFRA-
registered pesticides have already been proven safe. Rather
than spending precious time and resources on duplicative
permitting efforts, EPA should instead be focused on working
with landowners to support on-the-ground conservation
solutions with true environmental value. Forcing producers to
go through an additional burdensome permitting process will
only increase production costs and add stress on already
overburdened state resources, without providing any
additional environmental benefits.
H.R. 872 would continue to ensure the protection of water
during routine, FIFRA-label pesticide use, while clarifying
that applicators abiding by these strict standards do not
need to go through the unnecessary and burdensome process of
obtaining CWA permits.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. We
look forward to working with you as we continue to provide
the benefits of locally-led natural resource conservation
across the country.
Sincerely,
Gene Schmidt,
President.
____

March 29, 2011.
Hon. Joe Baca,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Baca: The undersigned organizations
urge you to support H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act, which will be considered on the House floor on the
suspension calendar later this week. Based on a court ruling
in the National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) case,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delegated
states are required to establish permit programs under the
Federal Clean Water Act for aquatic pesticide applications.
H.R. 872 is a bipartisan bill aimed at reducing the
regulatory burden and duplication posed by this court
mandate.
Pesticides play an important role in protecting the
nation's food supply, public health, natural resources,
infrastructure and green spaces. They are used not only to
protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage
mosquitoes and other disease carrying pests, invasive weeds
and animals that can choke our waterways, impede power
generation and damage our forests and recreation areas.
Since the inception of the Clean Water Act in 1972, water
quality concerns from pesticide applications have been
addressed during the registration and labeling process under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Imposing a national pollutant discharge elimination
system (NPDES) permit in addition to FIFRA regulation will
not provide any identifiable additional environmental
benefits.
The proposed permit means further unfunded mandates on
already struggling governments, and it creates additional red
tape, squeezing existing resources and threatening added
legal liabilities. The permit's complex compliance
requirements will impose tremendous new burdens on thousands
of small businesses, farms, communities, counties and state
and federal agencies legally responsible for pest control,
and expose them to legal jeopardy through citizen suits over
paperwork violations. It could jeopardize jobs, the economy
and human health protections across America as regulators and
permittees struggle to implement and comply with these
permits.
This week's court decision to grant a 6-month extension to
comply with permit requirements from April 9 to October 31,
2011 is welcome news. However, it does not change the
urgency, to pass H.R. 872 and fix the underlying problem of
regulatory redundancy and bureaucratic burden. We urge
Congress to pass H.R. 872 into law before the permit becomes
final this year.
We respectfully ask that you join Transportation &
Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-FL) and Subcommittee
Chair Bob

[[Page H2085]]

Gibbs (R-OH), as well as Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank
Lucas (R-OK), Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN),
Subcommittee Chair Jean Schmidt (R-OH), and Ranking Member
Joe Baca (D-CA) in supporting this bipartisan bill.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Alliance of North Carolina, Agribusiness
Association of Iowa, Agribusiness Association of
Kentucky, Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural
Retailers Association, American Chemistry Council--
Biocides Panel, American Farm Bureau Federation,
American Mosquito Control Association, American Nursery
and Landscape Association, American Soybean
Association, Alabama Agribusiness Council, Alabama
Vegetation Management Society Inc., Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Foundation, Aquatic Plant Management
Society, Arizona Crop Protection Association,
California Dried Plum Board, California Grape & Tree
Fruit League, Chemical Producers & Distributors
Association, Colorado Corn Growers Association,
Commercial Flowers Growers of Wisconsin, Consumer
Specialty Products Association, Cranberry Institute,
CropLife America, Crop Protection Association of North
Carolina, Delta Council (MS), DuPont Crop Protection,
DuPont Professional Products, Far West Agribusiness
Association, Florida Aquatic Plant Management Society,
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Florida
Vegetation Management Association, Gardens Beautiful
Centers (WI), Georgia Agribusiness Council, Georgia
Urban Agriculture Council, Golf Course Superintendents
Assoc of America, Gowan Group, Growmark, Hop Growers of
America, Hop Growers of Washington, Illinois Fertilizer
& Chemical Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association,
Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association, Kentucky
Corn Growers Association, Land O'Lakes, Lawns of
Wisconsin Network, Maryland Grain Producers
Association, Michigan Agri-Buisness Association,
Michigan Aquatic Managers Association, Midwest Aquatic
Plant Management Society.
Midsouth Aquatic Plant Management Society, Minnnesota
Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Agri-
Growth Council, Minnesota Corn Growers Association,
Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, Minnesota Pest
Information & Education, Mississippi Vegetation
Management Association, Missouri Agribusiness
Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association,
Mosquito & Vector Control Assoc of California, National
Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of
Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop
Consultants, National Assoc of State Departments of
Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers,
National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton
Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
National Farmers Union, National Grange, National Pest
Management Association, National Potato Council,
National Roadside Vegetation Management Assoc Inc, New
Jersey Green Industry Council, New Jersey Mosquito
Control Association, North Carolina Agribusiness
Council Inc., North Carolina Growers Association, North
Carolina State Grange, North Central Weed Science
Society, Northeast Aquatic Plant Management Society,
Northeastern Weed Science Society, Ohio Professional
Applicators for Responsible Regulations, Oklahoma
Agribusiness Retailers Association, Oregon Association
of Nurseries, Oregonians for Food & Shelter,
Professional Landcare Network, RISE (Responsible
Industry for a Sound Environment), Rocky Mountain
Agribusiness Association, Schertz Aerial Services,
Society of American Florists, South Carolina Aquatic
Plant Management Society, South Carolina Fertilizer &
Agrichemical Assoc, South Dakota Agri-Business
Association.
Southern Crop Production Association, Southern Weed
Science Society, Syngenta, Texas Agricultural
Industries Association, Texas Aquatic Plant Management
Society, Texas Mosquito Control Association, Texas
Vegetation Management Association, USA Rice Federation,
US Apple Association, US Hop Industry Plant Protection
Committee, Valent U.S.A., Vegetation Management
Association of Kentucky, Virginia Agribusiness Council,
Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, Washington Hop
Commission, Washington State Potato Commission, Weed
Science Society of America, Western Aquatic Plant
Management Society, Western Growers Association,
Western Plant Health Association, Western Society of
Weed Science, Wild Blueberry Commission, Wisconsin
Agribusiness Council, Wisconsin Christmas Tree
Producers Association, Wisconsin Crop Protection
Association, Wisconsin Landscape Contractors
Association, Wisconsin Nursery Association, Wisconsin
Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc, Wisconsin Sod
Producers Association, Wyoming Ag-Business Association,
Wyoming Crop Improvement Association, Wyoming Wheat
Marketing Commission, Wyoming Wheat Growers
Association.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Bishop).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011.
I recently introduced H.R. 872 to clarify congressional intent
regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should
be regulated. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
also known as FIFRA, has long been the Federal regulatory statute that
governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. However,
more recently, as a result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act
has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over
the use of pesticides. As a result, an additional set of permits will
be required for the use of pesticides.
H.R. 872 is aimed at reversing a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals in National Cotton Council vs. EPA. In this ruling, the
Sixth Circuit substituted judge-made policy choices for reasonable
agency interpretations of the law. In the process, the court undermined
the traditional understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with
other environmental statutes, and it judicially expanded the scope of
Clean Water Act regulation further into areas and activities not
originally envisioned or intended by Congress.
EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users,
including State agencies, cities, counties, mosquito control districts,
water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest
managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens who perform some 5.6
million pesticide applications annually, will be affected by the
court's ruling. This will virtually double the number of entities
currently subject to NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act.
With this ill-advised court decision, the States and a wide range of
public and private pesticide users will face increased financial and
administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting
process, and all of this expense comes with no additional environmental
protection.
This new permitting process was meant to take effect on April 9 of
this year. However, just 2 days ago, the Sixth Circuit granted an
extension through October 31, 2011. The court's extension only
temporarily postpones the need for an NPDES permit for pesticide use,
and does not completely eliminate the need for this legislation.
H.R. 872 fixes the problem. It exempts from the NPDES permitting
process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the
pesticide is used for its intended purpose and where the use is in
compliance with FIFRA pesticide label requirements.
H.R. 872 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit's
holding the National Cotton Council case and return the state of
pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved.
This bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee and
passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a strong
bipartisan vote of 46-8.
Many organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private
entities, support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name
a few, these organizations include:
The National Association of Counties; the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture; the National Water Resources
Association; the American Mosquito Control Association; the American
Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; CropLife America;
and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Chairman Schmidt for her
leadership on this bill in both the Agriculture and the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committees.
I also want to thank the ranking members of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment and

[[Page H2086]]

of Transportation and Infrastructure for their support of the bill.
In addition, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall
for their leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, as well as Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson of the
Agriculture Committee for their leadership.
I urge all Members to support H.R. 872.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr.
Baca yielded the balance of his time to me, may I inquire as to how
much time we have left on this side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We're here, and we're pretending we're doing something about a real
problem. We are amending the wrong statute at the wrong time under the
guise that this is a crisis, and we're bringing up a bill that will
never see the light of day in the Senate.
So what could we really do?
Well, we could work with the Environmental Protection Agency. I've
already written to the Environmental Protection Agency, and I would
encourage others to as well who recently got an extension until October
31 from the court. So there is no immediate threat of these new
regulations going into place. Particularly, the biggest problem with
what they're proposing is the small size of general permitting. It's
640 acres. My State has 6,400 acres. That's a pretty big piece of
property. I don't know many small farms or other folks who operate on
more than 6,400 acres. Even at 6,400 acres, it's a three-page form that
you fill out in my State.
Oregon is the State where this problem started because 90,000
juvenile salmon were killed by the improper application of a pesticide,
so we would be particularly sensitive to that. We're pretty sensitive
about our water. I think all of your constituents are sensitive about
their water. So, to amend the Clean Water Act here, you're going at the
wrong place. People don't want pesticides or herbicides in what they
drink or in what their kids drink--plain and simple.
FIFRA is meaningless in terms of really regulating what goes into the
water. The EPA doesn't test pesticides for their water quality
standards, and FIFRA does not regulate how much of a pesticide is safe
to apply to water. So we should be amending FIFRA, but that would have
been a little more work, and that would have been real legislation, and
that might have been something that the Senate would have taken up, and
that might really have gotten something done.
But we don't want to do that. We want to play to the crowd here.
Let's rage here and say it's going to cost $50,000 for every small
business. That's a bunch of hooey.
In my State, like I say, we have a three-page application. So the
point is that we can do something real. We can influence the EPA, get
reasonable regulations, and protect the drinking water of this
country--or you can do what you're doing here today, which is
meaningless.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, the good gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the piece of legislation before us today must be passed
and placed on the President's desk as soon as possible if we want to
prevent a possible blitz of regulatory burdens on our farmers and
ranchers.

{time} 1730

The 6-month delay that the EPA was granted by the court this past
Monday evening may have bought us more time, but the delay does not fix
the underlying problem.
The impact on those pesticide users who will be required to obtain a
duplicative permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is
no difference in the burden, the cost, or the real impact on their
livelihoods. The only thing this extension provides farmers is 6 more
months of regulatory uncertainty. We must act now to give our farmers
the certainty they need to continue to produce the safest, most
affordable, and abundant food supply in the history of the world.
If Congress does not act, more than 40 States will face increased
financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new
permitting requirement process during a time when many States are
already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. This would be
a crushing blow to an already fragile economy. Giving EPA and the
States more time to develop a permit system does nothing to minimize
the unnecessary expense this uninformed court decision has imposed.
Governments at all levels are facing a fiscal emergency. This
exercise represents a tremendous waste of valuable time and resources.
There is no need to send our States down a path of fiscal disaster when
we have the opportunity to put a stop to it all today.
It was always the intent of Congress to exempt pesticide use from the
Clean Water Act. The decision of the court represents a fundamental
ignorance of congressional intent that will not be rectified by a
delay. Congress has no choice but to act now.
I would like to serve note that on the Ag Committee as chairman, I'm
very pleased with our point person's efforts on this behalf,
Subcommittee Chairwoman Jean Schmidt. I'd like to thank our ranking
member, Mr. Peterson, of the full committee, and subcommittee ranking
member, Mr. Baca, for working with us in a very bipartisan way to
address this issue. We all agree something has to be done, something
needs to be done, and we have an opportunity to do it.
With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this
legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 872.
Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an awkward position here today being
asked to urgently vote on a bill where there is no real sense of
urgency and where questions of its potential impact on human health and
the environment far outweigh the answers.
I am also concerned that, in our effort to address concerns on
implementation of two Federal statutes, we are neglecting a rational
analysis of the best way to protect human health and the environment
from the potential adverse effects of pesticides.
Finally, I stand in opposition to this legislation because it appears
that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it has
stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to
resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to all
of us.
Mr. Speaker, let me state from the outset that I agree pesticides
provide a valuable tool in controlling unwanted pests, whether they be
mosquitoes in my home county of Suffolk County, New York, or corn
borers in the Midwest. This bill is not about whether pesticides should
or should not be used. However, what this bill does call into question
is the best way to balance the use of pesticides with the protection of
water quality, human health, and the environment, and the economic
benefits associated with them.
On this point, I am not convinced that the current efforts to protect
human health and the environment, which this bill seeks to maintain,
are sufficient. If they were, pesticides would not continually show up
in the urban and rural water bodies throughout the Nation. As States
and the U.S. Geological Survey have told us, pesticides are frequently
detected in streams and groundwater throughout the Nation, and
literally thousands of streams and bays and lakes are currently
impaired or threatened by pesticides. In the State of California alone,
pesticides are listed as the number one source of water quality
impairment in the State.
It is also telling that many States continue to find waters impaired
by pesticides that have been banned in the United States for decades.
In my view, this shows how the decisions we make today will have long-
term impacts on human health, on our environment, and create long-
lasting implications

[[Page H2087]]

and potential increased costs for generations to come.
According to the EPA, the potential human health implications of
pesticide exposure depend on the type of pesticide and the pathway,
concentration, and duration of exposure, and can range from minor skin
irritations to developmental concerns to being linked to cancer. One
potentially significant source of exposure comes from consuming
pesticide-contaminated drinking water. Both the USGS and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture have verified the presence of pesticides and
pesticide byproducts in drinking water sources throughout the Nation.
While in the majority of these cases pesticide protection levels were
below existing human health benchmarks for those pesticides that have
standards, USGS found a number of instances where pesticide detection
levels were above acceptable levels. Similarly, even in those instances
where detection levels are below acceptable levels, there is still
legitimate concern on long-term, low-level exposure to pesticides,
especially to the health of children, pregnant women, and the elderly.
In my view, the combination of these factors, plus the uncertainty
created by increased detection of pesticide-chemical mixtures and the
fact that modern drinking water treatment technologies are not designed
to detect or remove pesticides, compels me to move cautiously on any
proposal that would permanently eliminate options for controlling the
amount of pesticides being released into the Nation's waters.
In light of these concerns, and in light of the fact that the
legislation before us provides for a permanent Clean Water Act
exemption for pesticide use, during the markup of this bill in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I offered a simple,
commonsense amendment to require Congress to revisit this issue in 5
years when we have a clearer picture on whether FIFRA is sufficiently
protective of human health and water quality from pesticide
contamination. If, in 5 years' time, we were to see progress in
reducing pesticide contamination in surface and groundwaters, then we
would have more information to justify a permanent Clean Water Act
exemption for pesticide use. In my view, we simply do not have this
critical information before us today.
This simple concept was echoed by a former Bush administration
official who was recently quoted as saying that, when it comes to
enacting statutory exemptions from environmental regulatory
requirements, it is appropriate to periodically review whether the
exemption continues to be supported by data and science.
Based on a commitment from the chairman of the full committee to work
with me on this issue before this bill was to come to the floor, I
withdrew my amendment and voted ``yes'' in the markup. Unfortunately,
to date, my concerns remain unaddressed, and yet here we are today
considering this bill under the suspension of the rules, where there is
no opportunity to debate the issues I and several of my colleagues
raised at the committee markup.
It seems that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it
has stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to
resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to us
all, especially related to the protection of human health and the
environment.
I am aware that many of my colleagues and several constituencies have
pushed for immediate consideration of this bill to respond to the
looming court-ordered deadline for Clean Water Act permitting on April
9. I agree that concerns expressed by States and pesticide applicators
on how they could be expected to comply with a yet-unreleased pesticide
general permit by the April deadline were legitimate. However, that
deadline has now been extended by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
until October 31, 2011. It appears, therefore, that we have additional
time to work on this issue and to resolve some of the concerns
expressed by several members of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I believe a more prudent course would be to take the
time necessary and work together to address the concerns of both sides
in a manner that minimizes regulatory duplication, makes sense for
pesticide applicators and the States, and addresses the concerns
related to public health and water quality.
I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 872 under suspension of the
rules so that I may continue to work with my colleagues on improving
this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 872
because the last thing the agriculture industry needs is another
regulation.
Pesticides are an integral part to ensuring that our Nation continues
to produce the world's most abundant, safe, and affordable food supply.
As it stands today, pesticides must already go through a minimum of 125
safety tests before being registered for use. On top of that, they are
subject to strict labeling and usage requirements.
If we do not pass this bill, our farmers will be required to obtain
permits that require them to state the amount of pesticides they will
use for a 5-year period. That's not only next to impossible, it will be
an expensive and time-consuming process that will harm American
agricultural, as well as cost jobs.
Thank you very much.

{time} 1740

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, in its current form. At
issue, the exemption in the bill means that no Clean Water Act permit
would be required for pesticide application to water bodies that are
already impaired by pesticides.
Now, most pesticide applications in the United States are done in
accordance with FIFRA, according to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides,
and frequently are present in streams and groundwater, as you have just
heard, at levels that exceed the human health benchmark and occur in
many streams at levels that may affect aquatic life or fish-eating
wildlife.
In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles
of rivers and streams, 1,380 of bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres
of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by
pesticides. EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many
of these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides
that are currently being used. I am very concerned of the effect these
pesticides have on the health of our rivers, on our streams, and
especially the drinking water supplies of all our citizens, especially
the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and the poor and
disenfranchised people who have no other representation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to place into the Record two EPA reports on
how pesticides in California are the number one cause of impairments to
water quality, which means there are 1,787 causes in 162 water entities
in California alone. This means that in all the waters in the States
that are found through testing and monitoring to be impaired or
polluted under the Clean Water Act, pesticides are the most significant
cause of those problems.
We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA
and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the
concerns about duplication of effort and the need to minimize the
impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large.
However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a
very significant impact on water quality and that we are creating this
exemption from water quality protection requirements without
considering the impacts to the waters that are already impaired with
pesticides, as they are in California.
This, in turn, costs our ratepayers, our water users, hundreds of
millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of the water before
it is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis, as
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use
of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on
the 15-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site

[[Page H2088]]

in my area that has pesticides as one of its contaminants.
I do oppose this bill. I do need further study on this issue before
taking this very drastic step to reregulate pesticides that affect our
Nation's water.
Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this
bill.

CALIFORNIA 2006 CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT FOR CALIFORNIA WATERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
causes of
Cause of impairment group name impairment
reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticides.............................................. 312
Pathogens............................................... 245
Metals (other than Mercury)............................. 228
Nutrients............................................... 140
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)........................ 103
Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates...... 103
Mercury................................................. 101
Sediment................................................ 87
Total Toxics............................................ 77
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion..................... 47
Toxic Organics.......................................... 45
Temperature............................................. 37
Trash................................................... 37
Ammonia................................................. 33
Dioxins................................................. 27
pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions........................... 27
Toxic Inorganics........................................ 24
Nuisance Exotic Species................................. 24
Other Cause............................................. 20
Algal Growth............................................ 17
Taste, Color and Odor................................... 15
Cause Unknown--Impaired Biota........................... 12
Turbidity............................................... 8
Flow Alteration(s)...................................... 6
Habitat Alterations..................................... 5
Fish Consumption Advisory............................... 3
Oil and Grease.......................................... 2
Noxious Aquatic Plants.................................. 1
Cause Unknown--Fish Kills............................... 1
---------------
Total............................................... 1,787
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALIFORNIA IMPAIRED WATERS, CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT GROUP: PESTICIDES, REPORTING YEAR 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Waterbody name State basin name Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA..................................... Abalone Cove Beach............. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Alamo River.................... Colorado River Basin..... ...........
CA..................................... Amarillo Beach................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Anaheim Bay.................... Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... Balboa Beach................... Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... Bear River, Lower (Below Camp Central Valley........... ...........
Far West Reservoir).
CA..................................... Big Rock Beach................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Blanco Drain................... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Bluff Cove Beach............... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Buena Creek.................... San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Butte Slough................... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Cabrillo Beach (Outer)......... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Calaveras River, Lower......... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 1 (Was Los Angeles.............. ...........
Mugu Lagoon On 1998 303(D)
List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 2 Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Estuary To Potrero Rd-Was
Calleguas Creek Reaches 1 And
2 On 1998 303d List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 4 (Was Los Angeles.............. ...........
Revolon Slough Main Branch:
Mugu Lagoon To Central Avenue
On 1998 303d List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 5 (Was Los Angeles.............. ...........
Beardsley Channel On 1998 303d
List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 9a (Was Los Angeles.............. ...........
Lower Part Of Conejo Creek
Reach 1 On 1998 303d List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 9b (Was Los Angeles.............. ...........
Part Of Conejo Creek Reaches 1
And 2 On 1998 303d List)..
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 10 Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Conejo Creek (Hill Canyon)-
Was Part of Conejo Crk Reaches
2 & 3, and Lower Conejo Crk/
Arroyo Conejo N Fk On 1998
303d List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 11 Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Arroyo Santa Rosa, Was Part
Of Conejo Creek Reach 3 On
1998 303d List).
CA..................................... Calleguas Creek Reach 13 Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Conejo Creek South Fork, Was
Conejo Cr Reach 4 And Part Of
Reach 3 On 1998 303d List).
CA..................................... Carbon Beach................... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Carquinez Strait............... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Castlerock Beach............... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Castro Cove, Richmond (San San Francisco Bay........ ...........
Pablo Basin).
CA..................................... Central Basin, San Francisco San Francisco Bay........ ...........
(Part of Sf Bay, Central).
CA..................................... Coachella Valley Storm Water Colorado River Basin..... ...........
Channel.
CA..................................... Colorado Lagoon................ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Colusa Basin Drain............. Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Cottonwood Creek (San Marcos San Diego................ ...........
Creek Watershed).
CA..................................... Coyote Creek................... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Del Puerto Creek............... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Central Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Eastern Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Export Area).. Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Northern Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Northwestern Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Southern Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Stockton Ship Central Valley........... ...........
Channel).
CA..................................... Delta Waterways (Western Central Valley........... ...........
Portion).
CA..................................... Dominquez Channel (Lined Los Angeles.............. ...........
Portion Above Vermont Ave).
CA..................................... Dominquez Channel Estuary Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Unlined Portion Below Vermont
Ave).
CA..................................... Elkhorn Slough................. Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... English Canyon................. San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Escondido Beach................ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Escondido Creek................ San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Espinosa Slough................ Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Feather River, Lower (Lake Central Valley........... ...........
Oroville Dam To Confluence
With Sacramento River).
CA..................................... Five Mile Slough (Alexandria Central Valley........... ...........
Place To Fourteen Mile
Slough)..
CA..................................... Flat Rock Point Beach Area..... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Harding Drain (Turlock Central Valley........... ...........
Irrigation District Lateral
#5).
CA..................................... Huntington Harbour............. Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... Imperial Valley Drains......... Colorado River Basin..... ...........
CA..................................... Ingram Creek (From Confluence Central Valley........... ...........
With Hospital Creek To Hwy 33
Crossing).
CA..................................... Ingram Creek (From Confluence Central Valley........... ...........
With San Joaquin River To
Confluence With Hospital
Creek).
CA..................................... Inspiration Point Beach........ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Islais Creek................... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Jack Slough.................... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Kings River, Lower (Island Weir Central Valley........... ...........
To Stinson And Empire Weirs)..
CA..................................... La Costa Beach................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Lake Calabasas................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Lake Chabot (Alameda Co)....... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Las Flores Beach............... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Las Tunas Beach................ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Long Point Beach............... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Los Angeles Harbor-Cabrillo Los Angeles.............. ...........
Marina.
CA..................................... Los Angeles Harbor-Consolidated Los Angeles.............. ...........
Slip.
CA..................................... Los Angeles Harbor-Fish Harbor. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Los Angeles Harbor-Inner Los Angeles.............. ...........
Cabrillo Beach Area.
CA..................................... Los Angeles River Estuary Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Queensway Bay).
CA..................................... Los Angeles River Reach 1 Los Angeles.............. ...........
(Estuary To Carson Street).
CA..................................... Los Angeles/Long Beach Inner Los Angeles.............. ...........
Harbor.
CA..................................... Los Angeles/Long Beach Outer Los Angeles.............. ...........
Harbor (Inside Breakwater).
CA..................................... Los Cerritos Channel........... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Machado Lake (Harbor Park Lake) Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Main Drainage Canal............ Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Malaga Cove Beach.............. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Malibu Beach................... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Malibu Lagoon Beach (Surfrider) Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Marina Del Rey Harbor-Back Los Angeles.............. ...........
Basins.
CA..................................... Mcgrath Lake................... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Merced River, Lower (Mcswain Central Valley........... ...........
Reservoir To San Joaquin
River).
CA..................................... Mission Creek.................. San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Moro Cojo Slough............... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Mosher Slough (Downstream Of I- Central Valley........... ...........
5).

[[Page H2089]]

CA..................................... Moss Landing Harbor............ Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Mud Slough..................... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Natomas East Main Drainage Central Valley........... ...........
Canal (Aka Steelhead Creek,
Downstream Of Confluence With
Arcade Creek)..
CA..................................... New River (Imperial County).... Colorado River Basin..... ...........
CA..................................... Newman Wasteway................ Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Newport Bay, Lower............. Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... Newport Bay, Upper (Ecological Santa Ana................ ...........
Reserve).
CA..................................... Nicholas Canyon Beach.......... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Oakland Inner Harbor (Fruitvale San Francisco Bay........ ...........
Site, Part Of Sf Bay, Central).
CA..................................... Oakland Inner Harbor (Pacific San Francisco Bay........ ...........
Dry-Dock Yard 1 Site, Part of
Sf Bay, Central).
CA..................................... Old Salinas River Estuary...... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Orcutt Creek................... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Orestimba Creek (Above Kilburn Central Valley........... ...........
Road).
CA..................................... Orestimba Creek (Below Kilburn Central Valley........... ...........
Road).
CA..................................... Oso Flaco Lake................. Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Palo Verde Outfall Drain And Colorado River Basin..... ...........
Lagoon.
CA..................................... Palo Verde Shoreline Park Beach Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Paradise Cove Beach............ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Peck Road Park Lake............ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Petaluma River................. San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Petaluma River (Tidal Portion). San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Peters Canyon Channel.......... Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... Pogi Canyon Creek.............. San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Point Dume Beach............... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Point Fermin Park Beach........ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Port Hueneme Harbor (Back Los Angeles.............. ...........
Basins).
CA..................................... Portuguese Bend Beach.......... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Puddingstone Reservoir......... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Puerco Beach................... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Redondo Beach.................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Richardson Bay................. San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Rio De Santa Clara/Oxnard Drain Los Angeles.............. ...........
No. 3.
CA..................................... Robert H. Meyer Memorial Beach. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Royal Palms Beach.............. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Sacramento San Joaquin Delta... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Salinas Reclamation Canal...... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Salinas River (Lower, Estuary Central Coast............ ...........
To Near Gonzales Rd Crossing,
Watersheds 30910 And 30920).
CA..................................... Salinas River (Middle, Near Central Coast............ ...........
Gonzales Rd Crossing To
Confluence With Nacimiento
River).
CA..................................... Salinas River Lagoon (North)... Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Salt Slough (Upstream From Central Valley........... ...........
Confluence With San Joaquin
River)..
CA..................................... San Diego Bay Shoreline, Near San Diego................ ...........
Switzer Creek.
CA..................................... San Diego Creek................ Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... San Diego Creek Reach 1........ Santa Ana................ ...........
CA..................................... San Francisco Bay, Central..... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... San Francisco Bay, Lower....... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... San Francisco Bay, South....... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Mendota Pool Central Valley........... ...........
To Bear Creek.
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Bear Creek Central Valley........... ...........
To Mud Slough).
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Mud Slough Central Valley........... ...........
To Merced River).
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Merced River Central Valley........... ...........
To Tuolumne River).
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Tuolumne Central Valley........... ...........
River To Stanislaus River).
CA..................................... San Joaquin River (Stanislaus Central Valley........... ...........
River To Delta Boundary).
CA..................................... San Juan Creek................. San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... San Leandro Bay (Part Of Sf San Francisco Bay........ ...........
Bay, Central).
CA..................................... San Marcos Creek............... San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... San Pablo Bay.................. San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... San Pablo Reservoir............ San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Los Angeles.............. ...........
Zones.
CA..................................... Santa Clara River Estuary...... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Los Angeles.............. ...........
Pier Hwy 99 To Bouquet Cyn Rd)
(Was Named Santa Clara River
Reach 8 On 2002 303(D) List).
CA..................................... Santa Maria River.............. Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Santa Monica Bay Offshore/ Los Angeles.............. ...........
Nearshore.
CA..................................... Sea Level Beach................ Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Smith Canal.................... Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Stanislaus River, Lower........ Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Stevens Creek Reservoir........ San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Suisun Bay..................... San Francisco Bay........ ...........
CA..................................... Tembladero Slough.............. Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Tijuana River.................. San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Tijuana River Estuary.......... San Diego................ ...........
CA..................................... Topanga Beach.................. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Trancas Beach (Broad Beach).... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Tuolumne River, Lower (Don Central Valley........... ...........
Pedro Reservoir To San Joaquin
River).
CA..................................... Ventura Marina Jetties......... Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Wadsworth Canal................ Central Valley........... ...........
CA..................................... Watsonville Slough............. Central Coast............ ...........
CA..................................... Whites Point Beach............. Los Angeles.............. ...........
CA..................................... Zuma Beach (Westward Beach).... Los Angeles.............. ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2011. This bill is a much-needed legislative fix that clarifies
how pesticide application should be regulated. Congress never intended
for pesticide applications that are already regulated under FIFRA to
also require permits under the Clean Water Act. Yet because a Federal
court did not interpret congressional intent correctly in a 2009
ruling, Congress must act to ensure that farmers, ranchers, forest
managers, and other water users, as well as mosquito abatement
districts and local governments, won't face unnecessary and duplicative
regulations that would make it more difficult to do their jobs.
Everyone here supports protecting our water supplies from polluters
acting in violation of our Nation's environmental laws and regulations;
but it is also clear that pesticides used around streams to spray for
mosquitoes and other pests are already adequately regulated under
statute. Adding another layer of regulation by requiring NPDES permits
for application of these pesticides doesn't make them safer. It only
piles unnecessary paperwork on top of day-to-day operations for small
businesses, farmers, and local governments.
My good friend from Oregon mentioned that in Oregon the application
is only three pages long. So why should it be a problem? It misses the
point. It doesn't matter if it's one page long or 100 pages long. The
question is unnecessary dual regulation.
The legislation before us today would clarify Congress' intent that
existing FIFRA regulations are adequate for aquatic pesticide use and
provide needed certainty for farmers and ranchers who provide our
Nation's food supply. I urge our colleagues to support this important
legislative fix.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2090]]

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of the
time for both myself and Mr. Gibbs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1\1/2\
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio has 5\1/4\ minutes.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Berg).
(Mr. BERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERG. I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to pass this
legislation to protect American farmers from overreaching EPA rules and
unnecessary regulations. If this ruling were to stand, the EPA would
have full discretion over controlling a buffer zone for chemicals on
crops near water sources.
Now, I have talked with farmers in North Dakota who rely on
herbicides like Roundup to produce a good crop and to prevent weeds
from growing. Most of central North Dakota sits in a water-rich region
called the Prairie Pot Hole, and many of these farmers plant on land
that is well within the EPA's buffer zone. This ruling could prevent
these farmers from raising a good crop in this land.
If this ruling goes into effect, it will require over 6 million
pesticide applications will have to be issued each year to tens or even
hundreds of thousands of farmers. If they don't comply, they will be
forced with a fine of up to $37,000 per day per incident. We know
overregulation hurts American business. Overregulation hurts family
farms. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points. There does
appear to be strong bipartisan agreement. I know it passed out of the
Ag Committee on unanimous vote. There was a very heavy vote in the T&I
Committee. My reservations are rooted in the fact that I believe that
we are rushing to a judgment in terms of making this statute permanent.
I believe we have ample evidence to suggest that we don't know enough
about pesticide impairment of water bodies, both surface and
groundwater, to determine whether or not it is prudent for us to make a
permanent exemption to the Clean Water Act.
So when I offered the amendment, which I then withdrew, for a 5-year
sunset so we could assess whether or not this action is the correct
one, I believe that I was acting in a very prudent and defensible way.
And I am very disappointed, again, that this was an issue that we
rushed to the floor in a form that we were unable to amend so that we
could get this bill passed.
Now, the urgency of time has become much less pronounced because of
the court ruling that was just announced this past Monday with respect
to delaying the implementation of the court ruling until the end of
October.

{time} 1750

Second point. I know it's very popular to talk about the
Environmental Protection Agency as if they are in some ways the source
of all evil in this world. This is an issue--it's important to
clarify--this is not an issue that the EPA saw. We are here today
because of a court ruling. And, in fact, for years, decades, FIFRA has
been the controlling legislation with respect to pesticide application,
and the Clean Water Act has not been invoked.
And, in fact, the EPA, in 2006, took a position that they would not
engage in a process that would supersede FIFRA. It was that decision
that was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court.
We all want to come up with a way to handle this. We all recognize
that pesticide application is something that is very important. I
represent the largest agricultural county in the State of New York, and
this is an issue that's very important to my farmers. But my farmers
also recognize that they want to see to it that Federal policy is, in
fact, consistent with their best interest.
There are no better environmentalists in this country than our
farmers. They need clean air. They need clean water in order for them
to do their jobs.
So as I say, I am opposed, reluctantly so, and I very much hope that
as this goes forward and is considered by the Senate, if it, in fact,
is considered by the Senate, that we will take our time, we will craft
legislation that we can all support, and that we will particularly have
legislation that has a sunset period so that we can evaluate whether or
not we are right in taking this action today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the concerns raised by
my colleague, the ranking member of my committee. Sunset provision,
it's not really necessary because this Congress can take it up anytime
they want. They don't have to wait 5 years. They can take it up next
week, next year. So I think that's just making a kind of a statement.
A couple of things I want to address. There was a reference to the
geological survey. That reference was a report done over 10 years ago;
and, really, with the detections we're finding in pesticides in our
water bodies there are a lot of those pollutants from what we call
legacy pollutants from years ago. Some of those detections are
pesticides that haven't been used in the United States for many years.
And, also, a majority of these detections are very, very low
concentrations. We do have the technology to detect parts per trillion
where not too many years it was parts per million, which are well below
human health benchmarks.
As I said, the data is old. EPA, in the last 10 years or so, does
regulate the pesticides. They certify pesticides coming on the market
and the amounts that can be used under FIFRA. So that is working. The
EPA can pull a product off the market if they deem necessary, if
there's a problem.
The pesticides we're using today, and I'm speaking now as a farmer,
are more biodegradable. They don't have the residue impact legacy. They
don't stay around. They don't stick around in the soil. They break down
in the soil. As a matter of fact, so many of our pesticides now break
down so fast that farmers have to time the application to make sure
they kill the weeds and there's enough--it's not too soon that the
crop, what we call cover crop, shades out the sun for the weeds to come
up underneath the canopy. And so that's important.
We're using less pesticides. The numbers will show that American
agriculture is using less pesticides in lesser amounts and safer
pesticides with the biodegradable aspect that we're seeing.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that this bill, it will
help bring certainty. Agriculture producers, municipalities have to
spray for mosquitos this summer; they know what the rules are. They
have certainty to move forward by passing this legislation.
This legislation does not stop the EPA's having control over the
regulation of pesticides and the certification of pesticides. And,
again, many States also have pesticide applicator certification,
depending on the pesticide, make a lot of applicators go through the
same process. So there's some stringent rules and regulations in place.
And I would contend that FIFRA is working. If it's not, if my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that's not working, then
we need to address FIFRA and have a bill to work on that, debate that
issue.
But I think you'll find out that agriculture's moving in a safer
manner to protect the environment; and this bill will keep the FIFRA in
place and the EPA under their authority and their control to protect
the environment and public safety when it comes especially to mosquito
control districts.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011.
This bi-partisan bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor, will prevent
farmers all across Eastern Washington and our nation from being subject
to a burdensome duplicative permitting requirement for already
regulated pesticides. If we do not pass this bill today, on April 9,
2011, farmers and ranchers will be susceptible to fines and may be
forced to stop producing.
American ingenuity has enabled farmers to produce healthier higher
crop yields--that capability is regulated and monitored by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure public and
environmental safety. The delicate balance of responsible regulation of
pesticides and innovation was subverted by the Sixth Circuit Court's
decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA. That Court's decision
mandates an unprecedented

[[Page H2091]]

expansion of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) clearly limited regulatory
prerogative by ordering pesticides that are already regulated and
permitted under FIFRA to apply for additional permits not authorized
under the Clean Water Act.
Time after time, we have seen special interests abuse the court
system to try to side-step Congress in order to get a ``pro-
environmental'' agenda implemented. If left unchecked, this judicially
created rule would impose a substantial regulatory burden on our
farmers and ranchers--starting with requiring an extra permit for
pesticide applications, thousands of dollars in fines for non-
compliance, and an increased risk of lawsuits down the road. This is
not what the authors of the CWA or FIFRA intended. The CWA is intended
to protect our navigable waters--not prevent economic development.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense bill and
urge the Senate to immediately take up H.R. 872 and send it to the
President for his signature so that farmers and ranchers in Eastern
Washington can focus on feeding and powering America--not filing out
duplicative permit applications.
Mr. GIBBS. I urge passage of 872, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 872, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________