[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 123 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1313-E1314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 30, 2014

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 935.
  This debate is not one about the usefulness of pesticide use in 
modern society--which, clearly, pesticides have found such a role. 
Whether to control nuisance species, such as mosquitoes or aquatic 
invasive species, or to assist in the production of reliable 
agricultural harvests, pesticides have proven useful in sustaining the 
American livelihood.
  At the same time, we must remember that modern pesticides can be 
highly toxic chemicals that need to be thoroughly studied and used with 
great care to limit the potential impacts to human health and the 
environment. It was only a few decades ago that we learned the lessons 
of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and the devastation to the natural 
environment caused by the use of DDT.
  Yet, even today, the U.S. Geological Survey has consistently found 
the presence of pesticides and pesticide residues in our nation's 
lakes, rivers, and streams, including many that serve as drinking water 
sources for local communities. Contrary to statements made on Monday, 
these are not simply the legacy contaminants of decades-old pesticides, 
but also modern pesticides, such as those linked to bee-colony 
collapse.
  So, common-sense should dictate that we approach the issue of 
pesticide use in or near our rivers, lakes, and streams with great 
caution, and with an even greater understanding of the cumulative and 
lasting impacts of pesticides on human health and water quality.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 935 would abandon any caution related to 
pesticide use in or near our nation's waters, and allow potential 
polluters to return to the regulatory shadows.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 argue that the protections of the 
Clean Water Act are simply duplicative of the requirements of FIFRA, 
and are unnecessary to protect local waters from pesticide 
contamination.
  These statements are simply not supported by the facts.
  As many of my colleagues noted during Monday's debate on this bill, 
these two statutes, although complimentary with one another, have 
entirely different focuses.
  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.
  Similarly, contrary to statements made during Monday's debate, 
FIFRA's risk assessment process for individual pesticides is no 
substitute for the Clean Water Act's focus on local water quality.
  First, the FIFRA labeling process for a vast majority of pesticides 
do not address off-site, non-target, and sub-lethal effects of 
pesticide drift that can grow stronger over time.
  Second, the EPA risk registration process only considers the effect 
of the active ingredients in a pesticide, and does not consider the 
synergy of multiple ingredients in a pesticide formulation, or between 
multiple pesticides in the environment. Yet, many of the unregulated, 
inactive ingredients in pesticides have significant toxic effects in 
their own right.
  Third, the FIFRA re-registration process is a lengthy and ongoing 
process with outstanding and missing health and environmental data 
associated with pesticide reviews. As a result, EPA's assessment 
process has been routinely criticized as failing to fully assess the 
short- and long-term impacts of pesticides on human health, 
particularly on children, and on the environment.
  Fourth, under FIFRA, EPA does not track pesticide poisonings, 
including short-term and long-term adverse effects, as pointed out 
recently by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
  Finally, EPA presumes, under FIFRA, that if a pesticide is applied 
according to its label, there will not be any unintentional pesticide 
exposure to water--therefore, the risk assessment process does not 
evaluate the impact of terrestrial pesticides on water quality, despite 
the fact that these pesticides often are detected in waters--presumably 
through drift or contaminated runoff.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 also argue that the costs of 
implementing the Clean Water Act permitting requirements have been 
excessive. However, I have yet to see one documented case where a 
state, a mosquito control district, or a pesticide applicator has 
incurred significant increased costs from complying with the Clean 
Water Act for pesticide applications.
  This administration worked hand-in-hand with these groups to ensure 
that implementation of the Clean Water Act was consistent with current 
practices, and was not going to be costly or burdensome. If we are 
going to have a debate on the merits of this issue, it is incumbent 
upon the proponents of H.R. 935 to show proof of any perceived burden--
but as of yet, no such proof has been provided.
  As noted by my colleagues on Monday, there is no substantive reason 
why this legislation is necessary, other than to limit the scope of 
Clean Water Act protections over a source of known pollutants that are 
causing water quality impairment in this nation.
  There is no evidence of an emergency. There is no evidence of any 
significant regulatory burden. And there is no evidence of any 
substantial increase in compliance costs.
  In my view, the proponents have made no argument why this legislation 
is necessary, other than that the groups who want to restore their 
regulatory anonymity have asked for it.
  We need to ensure that potential sources of water pollution continue 
to be brought out of the shadows, which would be accomplished by 
defeating H.R. 935.
  Mr Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.

[[Page E1314]]



                          ____________________