[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 119 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6870-H6874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 935) 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 935

       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 2013''.

     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 (Mr. Womack). 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.


                             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. 935.
  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 myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013. I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify the 
congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near 
navigable waters should be regulated.
  It is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also 
known as FIFRA, and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the 
Federal regulatory statute that governs the safety and use of 
pesticides in the United States. In fact, FIFRA has regulated 
pesticides long before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, 
more recently, as the 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.
  H.R. 935 is aimed at reversing a decision in the Sixth Circuit Court 
of Appeals in National Cotton Council v. EPA, which imposed Clean Water 
Act permitting on pesticide use. That case vacated a 2006 Environmental 
Protection Agency rule that codified EPA's longstanding interpretation 
that the application of a pesticide for its intended purpose and in 
compliance with the requirements of FIFRA is not a discharge of a 
pollutant under the Clean Water Act, and, therefore, an NPDES permit is 
not required.
  In vacating the rule, 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 
judicially expanded the scope of Clean Water Act regulation further 
into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by 
Congress. As a result of that court decision, EPA has been required to 
develop and impose a new and expanded NPDES permitting process under 
the Clean Water Act to cover pesticide use.
  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 that perform some 5.6 
million pesticide applications annually would be affected by the 
court's ruling. This substantially increases the number of entities 
subject to NPDES permitting.

[[Page H6871]]

  With this ill-advised court decision, Federal and State agencies are 
expending 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 increased 
financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new 
permitting process.
  Despite what the fearmongers suggest, all of this expense comes with 
no additional environmental protection. NPDES compliance costs and 
fears of potentially ruinous litigation associated with complying with 
the new NPDES requirements for the use of pesticides are forcing 
mosquito control other pest control programs to reduce operations and 
redirect resources to comply with the regulatory requirements.
  In many States, routine preventive programs have been reduced due to 
the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted and increased the 
record-breaking outbreaks of West Nile virus around the Nation in 2012. 
In response to West Nile outbreaks, many States and communities had to 
declare public health emergencies, resulting in pesticide use to 
control mosquitoes with the delay caused by the NPDES permitting 
process. It remains to be seen how the control of mosquitoes will be 
affected this year, although recent press reports are noting an 
increase this summer in West Nile virus and the spread of a newly 
introduced tropical disease spread by mosquitoes.
  H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine 
preventive mosquito control programs in the future. H.R. 935 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 
the use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements.
  Exempting pesticides from the NPDES permitting is appropriate because 
EPA already protects human health and the environment under FIFRA. When 
it reviews the safety of pesticides, it determines whether to approve 
or not approve a pesticide for use and sets the rules for each 
pesticide's uses under the product label.

  H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit 
Court's holding in National Cotton Council and return the state of 
pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved.
  EPA provided technical assistance in drafting this bill so that it 
would achieve these objectives. Well over 150 organizations 
representing a wide variety of public and 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 Association, 
the American Farm Bureau Federation, Family Farm Alliance, National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and 
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
  I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their 
leadership at 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. 935.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, it is Groundhog Day again here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Much of the speech we just heard actually was read 3 
years ago on the floor. Three years ago, we were in a different place. 
There was a new pending rule. There was tremendous uncertainty whether 
this would be an undue burden on individuals--no, in the end, it isn't 
at all--on individual farmers--no, except for the largest farms over 
6,000 acres--or on forestry. And no, it has not been a problem, and I 
have a heavily forested State. So there was tremendous uncertainty, and 
the House Republicans moved this legislation. Of course, it went 
nowhere in the Senate.
  Here we are 3 years later. We have been living under the permit and 
general permit process, and I am going to look forward to hearing some 
very specific problems, denials, or litigation from the other side--not 
maybe, there should have, could have, would have, might be stuff, 
because I am not aware of any. And we have asked.
  Now, sure, my Farm Bureau supports this. Hey, whatever. That is 
great. Others say sure, but it is not anything that we really have on 
our priority list.
  But, you know, here we are.
  Fires are burning in the West. We don't have time for a hearing or a 
bill to get money to the Forest Service and the Interior Department, 
but we do have time to do pretend legislation that isn't going anywhere 
in the Senate again to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.
  Why doesn't it exist? Well, first of all, all individuals and 
applications by farmers are exempt under a permit. You follow the 
label, you are fine. No one can sue you.
  Then you have, if you are a bigger applicator, if you are like 
someone who is paid to apply pesticides and herbicides, you have to 
give notice under a general permit. That is all you have to do. You 
file it online. Not too burdensome. Most applicators, I think, have 
access to a computer.
  Is there an approval process? No. Is there a waiting period? No. You 
just file it, and then you are exempt from litigation if you follow the 
label.
  So why would we have this? Well, there have been a few instances of 
problems, and we want to be able to track where those problems 
originated. So if you have a general permit out there for an industrial 
application or a commercial application of a certain herbicide and it 
starts showing up downstream with dead fish, you know probably where it 
came from and you can trace it back and you will probably find out that 
they violated the label.
  Now, why did this come about? Well, for a real reason: 92,000 
steelhead were killed in southern Oregon because an irrigation district 
chose to use a powerful herbicide in its irrigation canals and they 
didn't follow the label in terms of the waiting period for it to 
degrade. They ran the water through and killed 92,000 fish. That is 
where this all started.
  So we are not saying they can't use it, they can't apply it--you 
know, they can--but we want to know where it is coming from. In that 
case, it was pretty easy to track back. The trail of dead fish led 
right back to the irrigation canal.
  In other cases of impaired waters--and I have a long list in my 
State, and I am sure there are other States--we are not quite sure how 
they got impaired or where they are being impaired, and we would have a 
better indication if we merely have this notice requirement.
  Now, there will be a lot of fear-mongering here today: ``You won't be 
able to use stuff on your lawn.'' ``You will be liable.'' ``It won't be 
available.''
  No, not true.
  ``Farmers won't be able to apply their own herbicides and 
pesticides.''
  No, not true.
  ``Very large farms, commercial applicators will not be able to use 
it.''
  No, not true, but they will need to put a notice online they are 
using it, and they are supposed to follow the label.
  I really find it unfortunate that we are spending time on this 
instead of getting some additional allocation of funds to fight fires 
in the West. My State is burning up. Washington State is burning up. 
California is burning up. Other intermountain States are burning up. 
The Forest Service and BLM are going to run out of money this week or 
next.

                              {time}  1445

  They have got all their other budgets to pay for fighting fires 
because they can't stop fighting the fires. They can't stop.
  But Congress has a bipartisan, bicameral bill agreed to by the 
President. There is nothing else like that in Washington, D.C., with 
the partisan activity around here, the conflict always between the 
House and the Senate.
  Here is a bill agreed to by Democrats and Republicans--52 Rs, 52 Ds 
on the bill. Here is a bill that is pending in the House and the 
Senate, bicameral--it is also bipartisan on that side--and it is 
supported by the President.
  But we can't find time to take action on that and get the Forest 
Service and BLM money this week because we are

[[Page H6872]]

doing stuff like this about pretend problems that don't exist and 
scaring people who use these products legitimately. It is a very sad 
waste of our time.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of Agriculture.
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  This piece of legislation before us today is very familiar to many of 
us. As many of you will remember, we stood here 3 years ago voting on 
this same bill text. That bill, H.R. 872, was passed by this body with 
an overwhelming demonstration of bipartisan support. The legislation 
was the product of collaborative work done between two House 
committees, along with the technical assistance of the Obama 
administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way 
legislation should be handled, and I was proud of our efforts in the 
House.
  To refresh your memory, this problem stems from an uninformed court 
decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision 
invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticide applications that 
are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and 
duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
  The effect to have these same products doubly regulated through the 
Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and 
ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of 
regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and 
doubles their legal jeopardy.
  Additionally, more than 40 States have endured 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. Should vector control 
agencies cease operations due to these costs, it will expose a vast new 
unprotected population cohort to mosquitoes potentially carrying a 
number of dangerous exotic diseases such as West Nile.
  Some will argue the costs associated with this permit requirement 
have been small. As it stands, some people may believe millions of 
dollars to be a small amount, but I think most of our constituents 
would disagree. What nobody can document--and let's think about this 
again--what no one can document is a single benefit this burden has 
offered. In a time when our economy is struggling, regulatory burdens 
that add cost while providing no quantitative benefit need to be 
eliminated. This is an unnecessary, costly, duplicative permitting 
requirement. It is a poster child for regulatory reform.
  Now, my friends, if you can only look at one thought, simply bear 
this in mind: by this misguided court ruling requiring the double 
permitting process, you are causing States to waste money. They don't 
have the money to waste.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  (Ms. ESTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 935.
  When the House considered this bill in the 112th Congress, before I 
was elected to serve here, proponents like my good friend, Mr. Gibbs, 
argued that unless Congress acted, the process for getting a pesticide 
general permit under the Clean Water Act would cause agriculture, 
forestry, and public health-related activities to grind to a halt.
  However, after almost 3 years of implementation, I am confused about 
the need for this bill. The sky has not fallen, farmers and forestry 
operators have had several successful growing seasons, and public 
health officials have successfully addressed multiple threats of 
mosquito-borne illness while at the same time complying with the 
sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA.
  I say sensible because, as we should clearly understand, the intended 
focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different.
  FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of 
pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects 
on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating 
approved uses and restrictions.
  However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining 
the integrity of the Nation's waters, with a primary focus on the 
protection of local water quality.
  It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved 
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate 
for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with 
FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its 
label. Farmers do not need to look at the localized impact of that 
pesticide on local water quality.
  If, as my colleagues suggest, FIFRA is an adequate substitute for the 
Clean Water Act permitting requirements, then why is it that pesticides 
keep showing up in water quality samples from both ground and surface 
waters?
  If applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide according to its label is 
protective of human health and the environment, then why is it that so 
many States continue to report significant numbers of pesticide-
impaired waters?
  I urge my colleagues to note that, according to a 2006 study by the 
U.S. Geological Survey, at least one pesticide was detected in waters 
from all streams tested throughout the Nation. Let me repeat that. 
Pesticides were detected in every single stream tested by the USGS.
  State water pollution control agencies have similarly identified a 
number of surface waters that are currently contaminated by pesticides. 
States have identified over 16,800 miles of rivers and streams, 1,700 
square miles of bays and estuaries, and 372,000 acres of lakes that are 
currently impaired or threatened by pesticides, meaning that that 
particular water body cannot or should not be used as a source of 
drinking water and be appropriate for fish or shellfish propagation or 
recreation.
  It is also telling that States continue to identify waters that 
remain impaired by pesticides, pesticides which have been banned by 
this country for decades.
  Some have questioned the environmental and public health benefits of 
the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of 
the benefits are so obvious that perhaps we have simply overlooked 
them.
  First, let us look, the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, requires 
pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharge through the use 
of pesticide management measures.
  Second, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires 
pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents 
that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish 
kills or wildlife kills, as my colleague from Oregon has noted, would 
be a mutually-agreed upon benefit.
  Also, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires 
pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides 
are being applied throughout the Nation.
  Again, if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by 
pesticides, I would think that the public, our constituents, would want 
to quickly identify the likely source of the pesticide that is causing 
the impairment.
  Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware of any specific 
example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a 
pesticide applicator from performing his or her services.
  Despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act is not being used 
to ban the use of pesticides.
  So, again, let's summarize a few points.
  First, the Clean Water Act provides a valuable service by ensuring 
that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at 
appropriate times, and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact 
on human health or the environment.
  Second, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has 
not impeded pesticide applicators from

[[Page H6873]]

servicing both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, 
most pesticide applications are automatically covered under the 
pesticide general permit, either by no action or by the filing of the 
simple electronic notice of intent.
  Third, Federal and State data make it very clear that the application 
of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many 
years, was insufficient to protect bodies of water throughout the 
United States from being contaminated by pesticides.
  If we care about water quality, we need to do more.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I have to question what this legislation is really 
trying to accomplish. Is it really about the so-called regulatory 
burden of applying for a Clean Water Act permit? As we noted earlier, 
in the majority of cases, a small-scale user of pesticides is 
automatically covered by the Clean Water Act under the general permit, 
provided they apply pesticides in a commonsense manner.
  Again, is it about the so-called threat of lawsuits? Again, if the 
pesticide applicator is applying the pesticide in compliance with the 
permit, they are statutorily immune from lawsuits under the Clean Water 
Act.
  Is it about compliance costs? Yet, again, there is no evidence at the 
hearing, in the record, to demonstrate that the Clean Water Act is 
significantly increasing the costs of compliance to the average 
pesticide applicator.
  The reality is there is no substantive reason why this legislation is 
necessary, except to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act protections 
from pesticide pollution that is impairing water quality across the 
Nation.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oregon has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond a little bit to some of the questions that were raised by my 
good friend from Connecticut.
  Back in 2012, the American Mosquito Control Association polled their 
members, and the feeling from the poll was that a lot of the public 
entities in the control districts for mosquitoes were kind of holding 
off on the preventive mosquito control programs. Of course, we had a 
record number of West Nile outbreaks in 2012. I think the season we 
probably didn't have quite the mosquito pressure was in 2013. We will 
see what happens in 2014.
  My point is that because of the additional permitting and the costs 
and the time, a lot of districts did not do their preventive control, 
and they caused an outbreak of mosquitoes more severe than what it 
would have been--and that was from the American Mosquito Control 
Association.
  With regard to pesticide application in the agriculture sector, if 
not in all States, in most States, these applications have to be done 
by certified applicators that have a lot of training. They know they 
have to abide by the label, because if they don't they could risk 
losing their applicator's license.
  I would also raise the question that if you are a certified 
applicator, you might not follow the permit requirements under the 
Clean Water Act either. It all comes down to additional costs and 
delays, and we all know that you don't get a NPDES permit just 
overnight, so the cost factor is a major issue.
  Another issue I think that needs to be talked a little bit about is, 
why do we find in some water bodies pesticide residue? The main reason 
we do is because we have something we call ``legacy'' from pesticides 
used long ago, years ago, that in a lot of cases aren't even on the 
market anymore, or if they are they are not being used by the industry 
because the industry, the agriculture industry and the industry, has 
done such a wonderful job of research and development in developing new 
pesticides that are actually more biodegradable and safer and less 
quantities used. We have come a long way in that technology.
  As a farmer, I know that because I experienced that every growing 
season, the new technologies, the new applications and pesticides that 
we have available to us. So we really need to address that legacy issue 
and separate that out, what is really happening in these water bodies.
  Then lots of times, too, in some of the data, the data is old from 
the United States Geological Service and things have changed. Also, 
some of the testing that has been done, some of the levels are well 
below what the human health benchmark standards are. So I think there 
is a scare tactic out there.
  But we have got to make sure that we are applying these pesticides 
under label, which I think the industry is working well at. Because as 
a farmer, we drink the water first. It comes through our aquifers, our 
wells, and then also the streams through our property where we live 
around it, so we want to make sure that that water is clean.

                              {time}  1500

  So we need to assess this data--and use sophisticated methods to do 
that--but not have more government red tape and bureaucracy. All this 
does is just add time and costs and more headaches for our mosquito 
control districts, farmers, and others.
  I just want to make the point clear that we have got to have these 
pesticides, and we can do it in a safe way. The technology is improving 
pesticide use. So that is why I think this bill is necessary to 
overturn a very ill-advised court decision.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, I think we have heard arguments on both sides. I am 
convinced more by the arguments I have heard on our side. I don't 
believe it is an undue burden on States. I live in a mosquito control 
district, and 3 years ago, they had tremendous concerns.
  Last year, they went ahead with their regular program, and this year, 
they are going ahead with their regular permit, under a general permit 
which they filed online. They said it wasn't a big deal.
  So I don't know where the millions of dollars comes in, unless we 
have States or applicators or other who don't own computers or 
whatever. I can't figure out where that number comes from.
  So I don't believe we have created an egregious problem. Given some 
of the past problems and the number of impaired waterways in my State, 
we just want to know where the stuff is being applied. We certainly 
want to be certain it is applied according to the label, but if it is 
not, then we have some capability of tracing it back and finding the 
responsible party and preventing future problems and potentially 
penalizing those people.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, that raises a question. If it has been going so good for 
the last 3 years and there is no need to pass this bill, why in the 
world would organizations like the American Mosquito Control 
Association think this bill is needed?
  The American Farm Bureau, the National Water Resources Association, 
Farmers Union, and especially CropLife America are all experts out 
there that want to make sure that the pesticide use is under label and 
we are protecting the environment and not endangering it.
  So I guess I would take issue with the comment that this legislation 
isn't needed because it has gone so great in the last 3 years. Well, we 
are finding out maybe it isn't going so great. I think that is the 
rhetoric from the other side.
  We know that, in 2012, by a poll from the American Mosquito Control 
Association, a lot of our mosquito control districts did not initiate 
their preventative programs in the early spring. I know some of them 
had to declare an emergency.
  The irony of this is when you declare an emergency, you do aerial 
spraying and everything else and not have to get a permit at all, so 
the environment is even more at risk. If they had done the preventative 
treatment, they might not have had to do aerial spraying.
  I know at least one instance of a major metropolitan area in the 
Southern part of the country that had to do that. These organizations 
think this is important. Things aren't going so well. We are having a 
duplication with more permitting, more red tape, more headaches, and 
adding to cost.

[[Page H6874]]

  So I strongly support this bill. Last Congress, I think this bill had 
294 ``yea'' votes. It went over to the Senate. Unfortunately, the 
majority leader would not take it up. It was put in the farm bill, and 
there was pressure from one or two Senators to take it out. I think it 
would have passed strongly in the Senate, if we would have been able to 
have a vote on this very bipartisan initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 935, 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. 935.
  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. DeFAZIO. 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, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________