[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7100-H7108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013
General Leave
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 935.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up
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, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
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. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms.
Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2013.
The reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure
politics. In the last Congress, this bill then was H.R. 872. It was
introduced on a bipartisan basis, with overwhelming bipartisan support,
and it passed on the suspension calendar with two-thirds of this body
in support of it. In this Congress, H.R. 935--the exact same bill--was
again introduced on a bipartisan basis, with bipartisan support, and it
was voice-voted out of the Transportation and Agriculture Committees.
However, earlier this week, partisanship reared its ugly head, and
Members who were on record as voting in support of this legislation or
in having agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes
from ``yes'' to ``no'' in order for it not to be agreed on by two-
thirds of this body. This is partisanship at its ugliest. The
principles and policy of this legislation have not changed over the
last few years. Instead, the politics of it did.
I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify 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
know as FIFRA--and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the
Federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides
in the United States. In fact, FIFRA regulated pesticide use 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.
I will not repeat the history I gave in Monday's debate of how the
EPA came to impose this unnecessary second layer of Federal regulation,
but I think it is important for everyone to realize that this
regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties,
and homeowners.
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. This is adding another layer
to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates
being imposed on the regulated community. Despite what some would have
you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental
protection.
The cost of complying with the NPDES permit regulations and the fears
of potential liability are forcing mosquito control and other pest
control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply
with the regulatory requirements. This may be having an adverse effect
on public health. In many States, routine preventative programs have
been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted
and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of the West Nile virus
around the Nation in 2012. H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume
conducting routine preventative mosquito and other pest 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. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and
enforcement programs under FIFRA take into account environmental and
human health risks just like the Clean Water Act does.
H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the
United States EPA to return pesticide regulation to where it was before
the court got involved. It leaves FIFRA as the appropriate and adequate
regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations, representing a wide
variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders,
have signed a letter supporting a legislative resolution of this issue.
I will insert the letter in the Record. Just to name a few of these
organizations, they include the American Mosquito Control Association,
the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the
National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Farmers Union, Farm Family Alliance, the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
In addition, I will submit for the Record a letter from the National
Alliance of Forest Owners, who expressed support for H.R. 935. NAFO
represents private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres
of private forestland in 47 States, supporting 2.4 million jobs.
Finally, I will submit for the Record a letter of support, plus a
rebuttal paper, prepared by the American Mosquito Control Association,
which rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several
Members on the House floor Monday evening.
July 28, 2014.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations ask for
your vote in support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory
Burdens Act, today. The bill will be on the floor of the
House of Representatives on suspension this evening.
[[Page H7101]]
Pesticide users must now comply with the added requirement
that certain pesticide applications--already stringently
regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
delegated states. The legislation would clarify that federal
law does not require water permits for FIFRA-compliant
pesticide applications.
The new water permit for pesticides provides virtually no
environmental benefit because all pesticide applications are
already stringently regulated through FIFRA, including
applications to and near water. Compliance requirements under
the permit impose significant resource and liability burdens
on thousands of small businesses, farms, municipalities,
counties, and the state and federal agencies legally
responsible for protecting public health. Most notably, the
permit potentially exposes all pesticide users to citizen law
suits under the CWA.
In the 112th Congress, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act--then, H.R. 872--passed the House of Representatives on
suspension.
Now, in the 113th Congress, the Act has been reintroduced
as H.R. 935. Strong bipartisan support was again demonstrated
by the bill's recent passage out of both the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee
on Agriculture.
Pesticides play a critical role in protecting crops from
destructive pests, controlling mosquitoes and other disease-
carrying pests, and managing invasive weeds that choke our
waterways and shipping lanes, impede power generation, and
damage our forests and recreation areas. We believe that the
water permit for pesticides jeopardizes these protections and
the economy as regulators and businesses expend time and
resources on implementation and compliance all for no
additional environmental benefits. We urge you to vote in
support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
Sincerely,
Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Alliance of
North Carolina, Agricultural Council of Arkansas,
Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama Agribusiness
Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alabama Farmers
Federation, American Mosquito Control Association, American
Soybean Association, Aquatic Plant Management Society,
Arkansas Forestry Association, Biopesticide Industry
Alliance, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Cape
Cod Cranberry Growers Association, The Cranberry Institute,
CropLife America, Council of Producers & Distributors of
Agrotechnology, Edison Electric Institute, Family Farm
Alliance, Far West Agribusiness Association.
Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Fruit & Vegetable
Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Golf Course
Superintendents Association of America, Hawaii Cattlemen's
Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Potato
Commission, Idaho Water Users Association, Illinois Farm
Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Kansas
Agribusiness Retailers Association, Louisiana Cotton and
Grain Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Maine
Potato Board, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Minnesota
Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Pesticide
Information & Education, Minor Crops Farmer Alliance,
Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau
Federation.
Montana Agricultural Business Association, National
Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of
Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop
Consultants, National Association 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 Pest Management Association, National Potato
Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,
National Water Resources Association, Nebraska Agri-Business
Association, North Carolina Agricultural Consultants
Association, North Carolina Cotton Producers Association,
North Central Weed Science Society, North Dakota Agricultural
Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.
Northeastern Weed Science Society, Northern Plains Potato
Growers Association, Ohio Professional Applicators for
Responsible Regulation, Oregon Potato Commission, Oregonians
for Food & Shelter, Pesticide Policy Coalition, Plains Cotton
Growers, Inc., Professional Landcare Network, RISE
(Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), South Dakota
Agri-Business Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain
Association, Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern Crop
Production Association, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton
Growers, Southern Weed Science Society, Texas Ag Industries
Association, Texas Vegetation Management Association, United
Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Apple Association, USA Rice
Federation.
Virginia Agribusiness Council, Virginia Forestry
Association, Washington Friends of Farm & Forests, Washington
State Potato Commission, Weed Science Society of America,
Western Growers Association, Western Plant Health
Association, Western Society of Weed Science, Wild Blueberry
Commission of Maine, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,
Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin
State Cranberry Growers Association.
____
National Alliance of Forest Owners,
July 30, 2014.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representative, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gibbs: On behalf of the National Alliance of
Forest Owners (NAFO), I write to express NAFO's support for
your bill, H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
NAFO represents private forest owners and managers committed
to promoting economic and environmental benefits of
privately-owned working forests. NAFO membership encompasses
more than 80 million acres of private forestland in 47
states, support 2.4 million U.S. jobs. NAFO seeks to sustain
the ecological, economic and social values of forests and to
assure an abundance of healthy and productive forest
resources.
In many parts of the country, wetland areas form an
integral part of working forests. Congress has recognized in
section 404 of the Clean Water Act that forest management
maintains the wetlands function and has provided a permit
exemption for normal silviculture activities. Judicious use
of herbicides once or twice over 30 years helps ensure a
healthy and vigorous forest stand is regenerated after a
harvest.
Herbicide use must now comply with the added requirement
that certain pesticides obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
delegated states. This NPDES permit for herbicides provides
virtually no additional environmental benefit because
applications are already stringently regulated by EPA under
the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). The permit must be renewed every five years and
exposes all pesticide users to citizen law suits under the
CWA.
Your legislation would clarify that federal law does not
require water permits for FIFRA-compliant herbicide
applications. We believe this clarification will provide
certainty to forest managers and others who rely on these
products. We appreciate your leadership to pass this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Daniel Sakura,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
____
AMCA,
July 30, 2014.
Dear Member of Congress, I am writing on behalf of the
American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) to request your
support for H.R. 935, which is of vital importance to the
public health mission of the nation's mosquito control
agencies.
Threats to the public from existing and new and emerging
mosquito-borne diseases persist and have amplified. West Nile
virus (WNv) is now endemic throughout the United States and
annually causes local epidemics and fatalities. Eastern
equine encephalitis (EEE) continues as a significant health
risk, especially to children. Now, a new mosquito-borne
virus, chikungunya virus (CHK), has emerged in the Western
Hemisphere, causing hundreds of thousands of human cases in
the Caribbean and Central America. Recently, locally
transmitted cases of CHK have occurred in Florida, and this
disease now threatens numerous other states as well.
Effective, local mosquito control programs are the best
line of defense against these mosquito-borne diseases. Yet
these programs face challenges, not the least of which is the
financial burden caused by the imposition of permit
requirements under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This NPDES permit
requirement mandates that mosquito control agencies' limited
financial resources be shifted away from actual mosquito
surveillance and control activities to administrative and
compliance monitoring activities.
Mosquito control products are already very well regulated
under FIFRA. NPDES compliance by public health agencies does
not, in fact, add any additional environmental benefit, but
does add unnecessary costs. The impact of those added costs
will be felt by people at most risk to mosquito-borne
diseases.
The solution is the elimination of this duplicative
regulatory burden by supporting and passing H.R. 935, the
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. This legislation clarifies
that no additional federal NPDES permits are required when
pesticide applicators are using those products in accordance
with the federal mandates established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs that are
already specified on the product label.
We respectfully request your support of H.R. 935.
Sincerely,
Steve Mulligan,
AMCA President.
____
AMCA,
July 30, 2014.
On the House floor this week, Representative DeFazio said
that his local mosquito control district applied for their
permit online and has been able to operate just fine before
and after the NPDES permits went into effect. It is our
understanding that Rep. DeFazio does not live in a mosquito
control district.
However, he has contacted the 4 Rivers Vector Control
District in Bend, Oregon to
[[Page H7102]]
spray his vacation home. 4 Rivers VCD told him the permit
would be a financial burden on their operation and they we
were already regulated under FIFRA.
Rep. DeFazio's staff has called the North Morrow Vector
Control and the Baker Valley Vector Control managers in
Oregon who explained the negative impacts the permit was
having on their districts. The managers of those districts
have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly in Washington
D.C. over the past several years regarding the burden NPDES
is having on mosquito control and provided written
information (AMCA briefing papers) during those meetings.
It is our understanding that many Oregon Mosquito and
Vector Control Districts have similarly written him about
NPDES impacts on their districts at various times when there
has been a push for legislation.
Rep DeFazio stated on the floor that anyone with a computer
can easily get a NPDES permit online, with no fee, and no
waiting period. This is not an accurate statement in the
State of Oregon and most other states in the country.
Instead, operators seeking to register under the Oregon
permit must take the following steps so that uninterrupted
coverage continues:
Write a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.
Obtain a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
application form through the mail or in person from a DEQ
regional office, or download the application from the DEQ
website.
Submit the application and maps of the treatment area, by
mail, no less than 45 days before a planned pesticide
application. There is no online application system.
Pay the permit fee is $903, and you must continue to pay an
annual fee.
Failure to pay applicable fees may result in denial of an
application or termination of coverage under this permit.
Submit an Annual Report. This cannot be submitted online,
and there is no acknowledgement from the state that your
Annual Report has been received.
The free, online permit only applies to the EPA's pesticide
general permit that covers discharges in areas where EPA is
the NPDES permitting authority. This only includes four
states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico),
Washington, D.C., all U.S. territories except the Virgin
Islands, most Indian Country lands, and federal facilities in
four additional states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and
Washington).
NPDES permits do not reduce the amount of pesticides being
used, or bring about additional water monitoring. Integrated
Mosquito Management strategies used by mosquito control
programs for over a century, new technology, safer products,
and our dedication to a healthy environment is what reduces
adverse effects to Waters of the U.S.
The California NPDES permit is the strictest in the nation
requiring post-treatment water testing, but after the initial
samples showed that mosquito control did not adversely affect
water quality, that provision of the California permit has
been eliminated.
Our pesticides are vigorously tested by the Environmental
Protection Agency to be used over, near, and in water without
causing adverse affects to the environment. When used
according to the label, the EPA has built in a significant
margin of safety.
Pesticides are detected in many of our nation's waters, but
the technology used today can detect pesticides at miniscule
amounts; this does not mean that pesticides are present at
levels toxic to people, aquatic plants or animals.
Why would environmental groups want pesticide applicators
regulated under the CWA? Because it leaves municipal mosquito
control programs vulnerable to lawsuits where fines may
exceed $35,000/day. Under FIFRA they would need to
demonstrate that the pesticides caused harm or were
misapplied; because our pesticides are specific to mosquitoes
and used in low doses by qualified applicators that would be
extremely difficult. However, under the CWA, all they have to
prove is a paperwork violation.
Communities without established Mosquito Control Districts
are being deprived of the economic and health benefits of
mosquito control. Historically, a local contractor could be
hired to provide spraying services with the understanding
that if he/she follows the FIFRA label he/she will be in
compliance with the law.
Now, these local applicators must apply for a NPDES permit,
create a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, publish a
Notice of Intent to apply pesticides, and wait for approval
from the State or EPA. In most states the permits are not
free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the
cumbersome administrative process have caused local
applicators to discontinue mosquito control services.
Mr. GIBBS. This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations
without rolling back any environmental safeguards.
Don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to
comply with the current duplicative Clean Water Act regulation of
pesticides. Ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your
cities and your counties. Then look at your States' Web sites to see
what it takes to apply for the NPDES permit for pesticide applications.
We did that. It costs over $200 in my State of Ohio, and in Oregon, it
is over $900. That does not count the time of an applicant to complete
the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application--all
to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under
FIFRA.
I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 935.
In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar
legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process
for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to
a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities.
Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the
impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide general
permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before
the Agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent
level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you
would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully
drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the
last 2\1/2\ years that adopted several commonsense precautionary
measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They
do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital
public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-
effective manner.
This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two
successful growing seasons, and public health officials 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, 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. Very sensible. 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--
two very distinct purposes.
It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements 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 to the localized impact of the
pesticide on local water quality.
So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation
to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation?
Let's explore that.
One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of
the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to
discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown
mixtures, and at unknown locations.
I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for
decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially
harmful materials almost completely below the radar.
In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the
only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a
voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were
purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive
information was available or required on the quantities, types, or
locations of pesticides applied in this country.
Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for
decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation's
surface and groundwater, which leads me to
[[Page H7103]]
question how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of
pesticides is protective of human health and the environment. All this
would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide
contamination in our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams, and it would
make the accountability for these discharges even more difficult. If
this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of
those who manufacture pesticides than those who actually release these
dangerous chemicals into the real world.
During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the
environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the
application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so
obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone
overlooked.
First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide
applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of
pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I
find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of
pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.
Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide
applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result
from spraying.
{time} 1845
I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would
actually 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 the public
would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is
causing the impairment.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite
repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example
where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a
pesticide applicator from performing their services.
So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not
significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual
pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or
the EPA to ban the use of pesticides.
So let me summarize just a few points.
One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring
that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the
appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact
on human health or the environment.
Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit
has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to
provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health
communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically
covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by
filing of an electronic notice of intent.
Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of
pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many
years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation
from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care about water
quality, more needed to be done.
I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of
potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that
existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general
permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or
significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly
across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this
legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does
not exist.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Well, as a farmer, I take a little bit of offense to some of the
remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.
Pesticides cost money and, as farmers, we do not control what we get
for our products, our commodities. We are raising corn and soybeans. We
are at the mercy of the commodities market, so we have to do everything
we can do on the cost side. And we certainly aren't going to waste a
valuable input cost: pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide. So that is
just an erroneous statement. That is just not true. Farmers of today
are professionals, high capital cost operations, and it just makes no
sense that we would waste those inputs.
On the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there
is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning that there was
pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the
environment, weren't biodegradable, and there is essentially a bank of
residue left, and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are
using today are much safer. The industry, the technology has improved
drastically, and a lot of these pesticides, if not all, are more
biodegradable.
Also, keep in mind, under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label. That is
the approval of the process and the application and the amount that can
be used. In most States, if not all States, most of these pesticides
are being applied, have to be applied by certified applicators, and
they are licensed. So they are filling out some paperwork and have to
do due diligence.
This bill really does add a lot of duplication, because we went to a
couple of States, and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body
or a wetland--and that is open for definition how close that may be--
you have to go online and apply for the permit. In some States, you
have to apply for, you have to submit a management plan. You have to
list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location.
So, basically, let's take this down to a homeowner level. A homeowner
maybe wants to spray their yard for dandelions. If they are maybe
reasonably close to a water body, or maybe not--that is open for
discussion--they have to go online and, like I said, in Oregon, they
have got to apply for a permit and submit a management plan and pay
over a $900 fee. In my State of Ohio, it is over $200.
I think that is a little bizarre, as long as they are applying it to
the label under EPA approval.
So let's also talk about mosquito control districts. We had a huge
outbreak of West Nile virus in 2012. That was a big mosquito year. I
guess last year wasn't as much. This year, the debate is going to be
out on that.
But we were hearing evidence that, because of the permitting
requirements, that some of our mosquito control districts--and the
American Mosquito Control Association actually surveyed their members.
Some of them were actually kind of holding back and doing the
preventative programs.
I know of one large metropolitan area in the southern part of this
country that had to declare an emergency. And the irony of this, when
they declare an emergency, they don't have to get any permits. It was
so bad, they had to do aerial spraying, so that was putting the
environment even at more risk. When you go from land application up to
aerial, you can imagine the possible results that could happen of
contamination--and with no permit requirement.
So we do have evidence, there was some talk on Monday night in this
debate that the one gentleman on the other side of the aisle was
talking about: My mosquito control district, there is no issue--no
issue, no problem.
Well, we talked to his mosquito control district and it is a problem,
and they have been talking to them for the last several years that this
is a problem.
I would also contend, I did some research, checked around with some
of our local spraying outfits, the grain elevators that do spraying.
They don't know about this new rule yet because the EPA, in a lot of
States, hasn't notified, they haven't implemented it. I think maybe
because they know there is legislation hanging out there. So a lot of
our entities don't know about it yet. Some of the larger, obviously,
mosquito control districts and larger operations might know.
But the reason, when you talk about it has been nearly 3 years, which
is more like 2 years, and there hasn't been a problem as we might think
[[Page H7104]]
there should be a problem is because a lot of them aren't doing the
NPDES permits because they are not aware of that fact yet.
So at some point, if we don't fix this, the hammer is going to come
down and you are going to hear about it from farmers, mosquito control
districts, and individual homeowners.
So I just want to make that clear that this bill is duplicative, and
they are under a lot of regulation, and the EPA approves the label. If
you are not applying a pesticide under the label requirements, then you
have got a problem.
But we don't need to open this up to farmers and landowners and
mosquito control districts to lawsuits and other problems. So what this
is really boiling down to today is, now I am starting to see this is a
revenue stream into the EPA for these outrageous costs of the NPDES
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 935, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act, which will relieve farmers, foresters, and
other pesticide applicators from a potentially costly regulatory burden
that would do little, if anything, to protect the environment. The
legislation simply makes clear congressional intent by amending both
the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to prohibit permits for pesticide application
when pesticides are applied consistent with FIFRA.
This legislation is necessary following a 2006 decision by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned an EPA rule which specifically
exempted permitting of certain pesticide applications under the Clean
Water Act. The Court's decision preempts FIFRA by the Clean Water Act
for the first time in the history of either statute.
Clean Water Act permitting requirements place a significant burden
and responsibilities on the States and the EPA. These National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits do not reduce the amount
of pesticides being used or bring about additional water monitoring.
I know many of my colleagues share my concern about the regulations
coming from the EPA, and frankly, the last thing we need to do, we need
the EPA to do, or the lawyers or the judges who don't understand
agriculture, is to have them tell farmers how to farm or add another
meaningless paperwork exercise to their workload. The courts are not
the place to make agriculture policy, and this legislation takes a step
to address that.
Additionally, this bill is identical to legislation passed by the
House last Congress with broad and strong bipartisan support. So I urge
my colleagues to show that same support today.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 18\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
(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 legislation was the product of collaborative work done by two
House committees, along with technical assistance from the Obama
administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way
legislation should be handled, and I am proud of our efforts in the
House.
To refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court
decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision
invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticides regulations 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.
I want to be clear, our pesticides are vigorously tested by the EPA
to be used over, near, and in water without causing adverse effects to
the environment. When used according to the label, the EPA has built in
a significant margin of safety. Communities without established
mosquito control districts are being deprived of the economic and
health benefits of mosquito control.
Historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying
services with the understanding that, if they followed the FIFRA label,
they would be in compliance with the law. Now these local applicators
must apply for an NPDES permit, create a Pesticide Discharge Management
Plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides, and wait for
approval from the State or EPA. In most States, the permits are not
free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the cumbersome
administrative process have caused local applicators to discontinue
mosquito control services.
The effort to have these same products today 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. Think about that--doubles their legal
jeopardy.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Crawford) for debate purposes.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and
I certainly appreciate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Waterways
for his leadership.
I rise today in support of H.R. 935.
Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need in agriculture right now is more
regulation. Pesticides are and have been an integral part of insuring
that our Nation continues to produce the world's most abundant, safe,
and affordable food supply. As it stands today, pesticides 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, as the Agriculture Committee chairman alluded to in his
remarks.
Passage of H.R. 935 will clarify congressional intent that Clean
Water Act permits are not required for lawful pesticide applications
and protect pesticide users from abusive lawsuits.
{time} 1900
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 935, which prevents wasteful and duplicative regulations that
could ultimately expand the EPA's reach further into every part of our
country.
Federal law already requires the EPA to ensure that pesticides cause
``no unreasonable adverse effect'' to humans or the environment. Labels
attached to pesticides that are related to its use are crafted to
minimize such impacts. The label, in effect, is the law today. When a
person does not follow the label, regardless of additional permits,
they are violating the law.
Yet activists believe requiring water permits, even when a user
abides by the pesticide label, will somehow strengthen our water
quality. States continue to spend more and more money and man hours
implementing and enforcing a water permit process that most regulators
do not believe does anything to further protect the water quality. That
is why H.R. 935 is so important.
This bill removes a pointless paperwork exercise and burden through
NPDES permits that do nothing but create additional hurdles between
consumers and the benefits of products like pesticides provide.
Registration and labeling of a pesticide already does as much as any
additional NPDES permit would require. In fact, EPA's own analysis
suggests that the NPDES permits program for pesticides is the single
greatest expansion in the program's history, covering over 5.5 million
pesticide applications per year by 365,000 applicators.
If H.R. 935 is not implemented, the effects of the EPA's
overregulation would be felt across the State of Georgia. For example,
county officials will
[[Page H7105]]
have one more hurdle to overcome when trying to control the mosquito
population and the outbreak of West Nile virus. These counties are
forced to address an additional bureaucratic hurdle before they are
able to address a serious health threat to our citizens, a hurdle that
provides no additional benefits.
With this unprecedented expansion, all stakeholders are affected,
including State agencies, cities, counties, municipalities, research
scientists, forest managers--and every American will pay for this. Last
Congress, we passed this same legislation, 292-130, and I ask Congress
to, again, do the same thing.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points
here.
For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide
programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or
the EPA.
In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker,
small applicators are already covered. They don't need to do anything.
They are covered already under the permitting process.
And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45
States--a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active
permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from
the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of
States.
Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations
would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no
drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and
the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what
brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And,
in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and
controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't
absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water
bodies are clean.
There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that
we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would
subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits.
In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms
of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit--which applies in
accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide
and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts--they are, by the
terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party.
Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting
process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act,
are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and
effectiveness on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse
impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling
requirements. In contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring
and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies, with direct
considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to
specific waters. So measuring the human health and environment with
uniform labeling and protecting the waters are two separate purposes.
Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides
that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that
are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide
contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false.
Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that
documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the
USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were
previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several
research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and
insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn
and soybean regions of the United States.
So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for
Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for
the record.
And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests
for time because I am prepared to close.
Mr. LUCAS. I do, indeed, have one further request, and then I will
yield back to my friend from Ohio, who will close.
Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
(Mr. YOHO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. This evening, we
are, once again, considering H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act. Many of you will remember that the House voted in support of this
legislation 3 years ago. That bill, H.R. 872, passed the House floor on
suspension with a vote of 292-130.
This same language was included in the 2012 farm bill that was
reported out of the Agricultural Committee, as well as the 2013 farm
bill, which the House sent to the farm bill conference. It was included
in the committee-reported text of the fiscal year 2012 Interior and
Environment Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, due to the opposition
from a couple of our friends in the Senate, we have been unable to get
this bill to the President's desk, which we know, once done, will
guarantee his signature.
As many of you may recall, this language was drafted at our request
for technical assistance by the EPA general counsel. The problem we
asked the EPA to help resolve stems from an uninformed court decision
in the Sixth Circuit. This decision nullified a 2006 EPA regulation
that exempted certain pesticides from having to comply with a costly
and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
My colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, gave a very nice speech.
And she mentioned several times the potential problem of contaminating
creeks, the potential problems of this pesticide causing all of these
problems that we haven't seen. We don't have the facts on that, and to
regulate something that is already regulated--and I must caution
everybody how these drugs and how these pesticides come out. They go
through extensive testing. Millions of dollars are spent by these
industries. And the intent by those pressing to have federally
registered pesticides regulated through the Clean Water Act is
unnecessary, it is costly, and it ultimately undermines public health.
It amounts to a duplication of compliance costs for a variety of public
agencies, adding to their legal jeopardy and threatening pesticide
applicators, including mosquito control districts, with fines set at
$37,500 per day per violation. All I can say is, welcome to going out
of business if you are in the private sector.
Across the country, several mosquito control districts may have to
cease operations due to these costs. If this occurs, it would expose
large portions of the population to mosquitoes carrying a number of
dangerous and exotic diseases, such as West Nile virus. Hospitalization
and rehab costs ranging from the tens of thousands into the millions of
dollars, lost productivity, a decrease in tourism, and negative impacts
on horses and livestock production are but a few of the costs that will
further strain public health resources.
Being a veterinarian for the last 30 years, I have seen effects of
mosquito-borne diseases. In addition, the West Nile virus causes
deaths, from alligators to humans. Also, diseases such as Eastern
encephalitis are transmittable to people, along with dengue fever,
which is moving its way up from the Caribbean through the peninsula of
Florida, and it will, no doubt, get up further to the mainland of the
United States of America, in addition to the heartworm disease in our
pets.
This unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and State
interests but also to Federal agency lands located in States directly
regulated by the EPA. For example, Federal agencies, such as the Army
Corps of Engineers, authorize the use of some of their lands for many
purposes, including recreation and agriculture. These uses often
require pesticide applications to prevent mosquito-borne transmitted
diseases and for other purposes.
Although the local mosquito control district may be the entity
actually applying the pesticide, the Army Corps District is required to
obtain the permit and sign off on related reports, thereby pointlessly
driving up costs to
[[Page H7106]]
the Federal Government. We have agencies suing government agencies.
Further, experience has shown that the Corps is unwilling to assume
permit responsibility for activities that it is not actually
performing. This is a regulatory burden that Congress never intended,
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a
letter from 144 environmental organizations, community-based
organizations around the country that oppose H. Res. 935.
Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, CATA--The Farmworker
Support Committee, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species
Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida,
Greenpeace, Louisiana Environmental Action Network,
League of Conservation Voters, Lower Mississippi
Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides,
Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest
Environmental Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network,
San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, Surfrider
Foundation, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers
Carolina,
July 25, 2014.
Re Oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of
2013'')
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 935
(``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''), which would
prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting
water supplies from direct applications of pesticides.
Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other
organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 935 that would
undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide
applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups
for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with
more information on the issue.
Regulating pesticide discharges to waterways under the
Clean Water Act is critical. Despite current regulation under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
pesticides continue to impair our waterways in significant
quantities and have caused real harm to public health and
ecosystems. H.R. 935 would render ineffective the Clean Water
Act pesticide general permit that took effect in 2011
(``pesticide general permit''). This permit is necessary to
protect our waterways, public health, and fish and wildlife.
There have been mischaracterizations of the existing permit
that we must correct:
The pesticide general permit has no significant effect on
farming practices. The permit in no way affects land
applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling
pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater
runoff will not require permits, even when they contain
pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean
Water Act remain.
The pesticide general permit allows for spraying to combat
vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus. According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides
that pesticide applications are covered automatically under
the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared
emergency pest situations.''
The pesticide general permit--which has been in place for
more than two and a half years now--simply lays out
commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to
waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly
controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups
opposed.
Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all
Americans by opposing H.R. 935.
Sincerely,
Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy & Legislation,
Earthjustice; Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council; Sara Chieffo,
Legislative Director, League of Conservation Voters;
Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative,
Sierra Club; Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety &
Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker
Association of Florida; Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive
Director, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee; Mary
Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs,
Defenders of Wildlife; Jay Feldman, Executive Director,
Beyond Pesticides; Brett Hartl, Endangered Species
Policy Director, Center for Biological Diversity; Nina
Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental
Advocates; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace.
Pete Nichols, National Director, Waterkeeper Alliance;
Heather Ward, Executive Director, Waterkeepers,
Carolina; Mark Riskedahl, Executive Director, Northwest
Environmental Defense Center; Tara Thornton, Program
Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Marylee Orr,
Executive Director, Louisiana Environmental Action
Network; Paul Orr, Riverkeeper, Lower Mississippi
Riverkeeper; Jason Flanders, Program Director, San
Francisco Baykeeper; Kristin S. Schafer, Policy
Director, Pesticide Action Network; Lisa Arkin,
Executive Director, Beyond Toxics; Gus Gates, Oregon
Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation; Kim Leval,
Executive Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives
to Pesticides.
____
Who Opposes Efforts To Undermine Clean Water Act Permitting for Direct
Pesticide Applications?
The below organizations have signed letters opposing
legislation that guts Clean Water Act safeguards protecting
communities from toxic pesticides:
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Altamaha Riverkeeper and
Altamaha Coastkeeper, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Apalachicola
Riverkeeper, Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust,
American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Audubon
California, Better Urban Green Strategies, Beyond Pesticides,
Big Black Foot Riverkeeper, Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper, Black
Warrior Riverkeeper, Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program,
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Butte Environmental Council,
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Californians for
Pesticide Reform, California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, Cape Fear River Watch, Cascobay Baykeeper, Catawba
Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Center for Biological
Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center on Race,
Poverty & the Environment, Charleston Waterkeeper,
Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper, Clean Water Action, Clean Water
Network, Coast Action Group, Colorado Riverkeeper, Cook
Inletkeeper, Inc., Defenders of Wildlife, Detroit
Riverkeeper, Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, The Earth
Cause Organization, Earthjustice, Emerald Coastkeeper,
Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environment California, Environmental Protection Information
Center, Environmental Advocates, Flint Riverkeeper, Food &
Water Watch, Forestland Dwellers, French Broad Riverkeeper,
Friends of the Earth, Friends of Five Creeks, Friends of
Gualala River, Friends of the Petaluma River, Galveston
Baykeeper, Geos Institute, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Grand
Riverkeeper, Grand Traverse Baykeeper, Gunpowder Riverkeeper,
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc., Haw Riverkeeper/Haw River
Assembly, Housatonic River Initiative, Hurricane Creekkepper/
Friends of Hurricane Creek, Hudson Riverkeeper, Humboldt
Baykeeper, Idaho Conservation League, Indian Riverkeeper,
Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Kansas Riverkeeper, Klamath Forest
Alliance, Klamath Riverkeeper, Lake George Waterkeeper, Lake
Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water, League of
Conservation Voters, Long Island Soundkeeper, Louisiana
Bayoukeeper, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Lower
Mississippi Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, Lower
Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Madrone Audubon Society, Milwaukee
Riverkeeper, Mothers of Marin Against The Spray, Narragansett
Baykeeper, National Audubon Society, National Environmental
Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Neuse
Riverkeeper Foundation, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper,
Northcoast Environmental Center, Northern California River
Watch, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Northwest
Center for Alternatives for Pesticides, Ogeechee Riverkeeper,
Orange County Coastkeeper, Oregon Wild, Oregon Toxics
Alliance, Ouachita Riverkeeper, Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Patuxent
Riverkeeper, Peconic Baykeeper, Pesticide Action Network,
Pesticide-Free Sacramento, Pesticide-Free Zone, Pesticide
Watch, Planning and Conservation League, Potomac Riverkeeper,
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Puget
Soundkeeper Alliance, Quad Cities Riverkeeper, Raritan
Riverkeeper, Riverkeeper, Rogue Riverkeeper, Russian River
Watershed Protection Committee, Russian Riverkeeper,
Sacramento Audubon Society, Inc., Safe Alternatives for Our
Forest Environment, Safety Without Added Toxins, Saint John's
Organic Farm, Saint Louis Confluence Riverkeeper, San Diego
Coastkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Francisco League of
Conservation Voters, San Francisco Tomorrow, Santa Monica
Baykeeper, Santee Riverkeeper, Satilla Riverkeeper, Save Our
Wild Salmon Coalition, Savannah Riverkeeper, Shenandoah
Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Silver Valley Waterkeeper, Spokane
Riverkeeper, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Stop the Spray East Bay,
Tennessee Riverkeeper, The Bay Institute, Toxics Action
Center, Tualatin Riverkeepers, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Upper
Watauga Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, West/Rhode
Riverkeeper, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Yadkin Riverkeeper.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I think it is important for us to deal in facts and not in
mythology. And a couple of the facts are these:
In 2008, States reported to the EPA--that is, State reporting
agencies--that 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles
of bays and estuaries, and
[[Page H7107]]
260,342 acres of lakes are impaired or threatened by pesticides. So it
is simply not the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no identified
pesticide contamination in our water bodies. It is simply not true.
I just want to note also for the record, Mr. Speaker, that, again,
there has been no evidence at all that, again, despite the repeated
request of the EPA and State-run permit programs, that there are
specific examples where the application of the Clean Water Act
requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing
their services. So if there was a problem and a burden, then identify
it. And there simply has been no identification of such a problem.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to review our recent history. Just on
Monday of this past week, the House of Representatives actually
defeated the bill that we are considering tonight, H.R. 935, under
suspension of the rules. So having gone through that defeat, tonight we
have debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a
rule that does not allow any amendments to improve the bill to be
offered, debated, or voted on. Tomorrow, the House will, once again,
vote on passage of H.R. 935, the bill that failed under a suspension of
the rules on Monday.
This legislation will undermine one of our Nation's most successful
environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential
contamination of our Nation's waters by pesticides.
Contrary to some of the rhetoric--some of which we have heard
tonight, Mr. Speaker--the Environmental Protection Agency has
successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for
the last 2\1/2\ years.
{time} 1915
That regulation has several commonsense precautionary measures that
limit contamination of local waters by pesticides--we have heard from
the States even since 2008 that pesticide contamination in thousands of
miles of streams, rivers, and estuaries are in fact contaminated by
pesticide--while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their
vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a
cost-effective manner.
Now, last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House narrowly approved a
similar bill, H.R. 872, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 292-
130, under the guise of regulatory uncertainty under a yet-unseen Clean
Water Act permit program.
However, since that time, the EPA has issued a reasonable and
protective Clean Water Act permit program that preserves vital farming,
forestry, and mosquito control activities at the same time as
protecting our Nation's waters. So a year passed, and we have
implemented a program that is underway now.
Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act is a key to those of us who value
clean drinking water and fishable, swimmable waters or who represent
States that depend on tourism, like my home State of Maryland, since we
have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States, the
Chesapeake Bay--which is the largest estuary in the United States--and
several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac,
and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District.
The shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries stretch for
over 2,000 miles, and thousands of streams, rivers, and acres of
wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the bay.
Thanks to the Clean Water Act, over the past 40-plus years, billions
of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number
of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled, with
direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation and
wildlife.
The act represents a huge step forward by requiring States to set
clean water standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing, and
drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharges.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire
policy that provided no accountability to who was using what
pesticides, where they were using those pesticides, and in what amounts
and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being
contaminated by pesticides.
I would urge my colleagues to take the commonsense approach that the
EPA has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle, vote ``no'' on H.R.
935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a
problem, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not exist.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deregulate pesticides as
has been suggested by some speakers. Pesticides have been regulated
under FIFRA for decades, and this bill does not change that.
This bill makes it clear that if you are a mosquito control agency, a
farmer, or a citizen that is applying a pesticide and you are complying
with FIFRA, you do not need an NPDES permit.
Now, there are a couple facts that came out here tonight that the
other side said that, without this bill, it is not necessary because
you don't have to get a permit to go out and apply pesticides. Well, if
you are applying near a water body or a wetland, you do have to get an
NPDES permit from the court decision.
This was not an EPA decision. This was a court decision that looked
at it in a narrow vision, and it was a very ill-advised court decision,
and I would say when you look at proposed rules out there about waters
in the United States, it is up to debate what is near or close to a
water body, so that is a fact that we would have that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal experience. Several years
ago, my soybean crop--it was a Friday, late Friday afternoon, working
with my certified pesticide applicator, we discovered that my soybean
crop had just been attacked by spider mites, an insect, and we had to
make application, insecticide application, to take care of it.
That application was made on a Friday night. If I had to apply for an
NPDES permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit it
to the State, it comes back--I don't know if we would have got it until
Tuesday. I would have lost--the damage to my soybean crop would have
been substantial.
So the issue out here that there is no cost happening, there will
when this thing gets fully implemented because, in practice, this court
decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country,
but that will be coming if we fail to enact H.R. 935.
This bill removes the needless and duplicative regulation that
threatens public health and imposes an expensive burden on public and
private entities trying to safely approve pesticides.
This is a bipartisan bill. It has passed out of this House last
Congress by a two-thirds majority. We had partisan antics going on
Monday night. We had people switch their votes under pressure for
partisan reasons, and that is not good government.
This bill will help protect the environment and human safety when you
especially look at West Nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases
we are finding that are coming about.
We have to allow our certified pesticide applicators, our mosquito
control districts to do their job, and if the private sector wants to
go in here and have to do all this extra permitting--we are not
talking--when you hear about general permit, you think, oh, I just get
a permit for the season, and I am good to go.
That is not what the general permit means. What it means is you have
to go every time you do an application, if it is near or close to a
wetland or water body, apply for a permit, put in that permit where the
location is going to be, probably the date.
Well, say it is raining that day or it is too windy. Do you have to
reapply for your permit? That is kind of up in the air still, so there
are a whole bunch of issues out there, plus the costs, the time to do
it, the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the costs.
Mr. Speaker, I think the one that is really bizarre is if you are a
homeowner and you want to apply a pesticide to your yard and if you are
near a water body or a wetland, whatever,
[[Page H7108]]
you have to apply for a permit because of this court decision.
This will bog down the NPDES permit process, and it will delay and
add costs, and it puts farmers in jeopardy to get their crops to
maintain and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food
supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our
mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from West
Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.
So this is critical that these bills pass because we are getting
close to the time when we are going to see very much damage being done.
We saw a little bit of it in 2012, in at least one large metropolitan
area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially when they declared
an emergency when it got so far out of hand because they didn't do the
preventative measures.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pass this bill, send it to the
Senate, and hopefully, the Senate takes it up and passes it to protect
the environment and health and human safety of the citizens of this
country.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 935 is postponed.
____________________