[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 46 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E597-E598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JEFF DENHAM

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 30, 2011

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 872, 
the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. This legislation amends 
the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act ``FIFRA'', to clarify Congressional intent regarding 
the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters.
  In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, promulgated a rule 
that codified EPA's longstanding interpretation that the application of 
pesticides for their intended purpose and in compliance with Pesticide 
label restrictions is not a discharge of a ``pollutant'' under the 
Clean Water Act, and therefore, a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System permit would not be required. However, the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this rule in National Cotton Council 
v. EPA. In this case the Court required the EPA to develop a new NPDES 
permitting process under the Clean Water Act for the purposes of 
pesticide use. The Court-ordered deadline for EPA to promulgate the new 
permitting process for pesticides is April 9, 2011.
  As a result of this court decision, EPA estimates that approximately 
365,000 pesticide users, including state agencies, cities, counties, 
mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, 
farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and everyday citizens 
that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually will be 
affected, doubling the number of entities currently subject to NPDES 
permitting under the Clean Water Act.
  Once the court order goes into effect, pesticide users not covered by 
an NPDES permit will be subject to a fine of up to $37,500 per day per 
violation. In addition to the cost of compliance, pesticide users will 
be subject to an increased risk of litigation under the citizen suit 
provision of the Clean Water Act. The court ruling does not change any 
standards for pesticide regulation and provides no additional 
environmental or public health protection. It simply adds a layer of 
unnecessary and costly bureaucracy.
  This bill recognizes that pesticides are already regulated by the EPA 
under FIFRA and that any additional regulation would be burdensome and 
duplicative. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and 
support its passage through the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. Unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained during the 
floor vote on this bill and was unable to cast my official vote in 
support of the measure. If I were present at the time of the vote, I 
would have proudly cast an ``Aye'' vote because we cannot continue to 
subject the agricultural community to increasingly burdensome 
regulations. I am pleased that Congress was able to act on this bill 
and

[[Page E598]]

I look to the Senate for its expedited review and hope that the 
President will subsequently sign the measure into law. Our countries 
farmers deserve nothing less.

                          ____________________