[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4535-H4553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2017
General Leave
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoho). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 348 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 953.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1500
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 953) 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, with Mr. Duncan of
South Carolina in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 24, 2017, on page H4535, the following appeared: The
gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs)
The online version has been corrected to read: The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs)
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Today we are considering H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2017, introduced to clarify congressional intent regarding
pesticide use in or near navigable waters.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, otherwise
known as FIFRA, is the appropriate Federal statute to govern safety and
the use of pesticides.
FIFRA first passed in 1910, 62 years before the Clean Water Act was
passed. In 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court decision, the National Cotton
Council v. EPA, changed how this all works. For years before the Clean
Water Act, pesticide use was regulated by the EPA under FIFRA. Under
FIFRA, the EPA regulates and approves pesticides for safe use under the
label, and they have full jurisdiction under FIFRA.
The EPA previously ruled that using pesticides under FIFRA-approved
use does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
otherwise known as NPDES, permit under the Clean Water Act.
Because of this court decision in 2009, those who have been safely
applying products to control pest populations now must comply with
additional NPDES permitting.
Some of my colleagues across the aisle have called this Groundhog Day
in the past. I agree. Time after time, they have supported increasing
the regulations just for regulation's sake. They are even willing to
risk public health and outbreaks of Zika and West Nile virus.
The Sixth Circuit Court decision ignored the congressional intent
when the FIFRA and the Clean Water Act were passed. The court ignored
sensible agency interpretation, it ignored years of regulatory
precedent, it expanded the clean water jurisdiction beyond the scope
set by Congress and over areas already appropriately regulated. The
court decision placed burden on the
[[Page H4536]]
EPA, requiring a new and expanded NPDES permitting process for products
already regulated.
The EPA says there are about 365,000 pesticide applicators affected
by this ruling. They would include State agencies, cities and counties,
mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators,
farmers and ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday
citizens or homeowners.
The EPA estimates $50 million in paperwork to comply alone every year
with this new regulation. Federal, State, and local agencies are forced
to spend taxpayer dollars in permitting, paperwork, and compliance.
Private applicators, like farmers and ranchers, also face increased
costs. This adds compliance costs, adds permitting costs, and it adds
time and hurts productivity and efficiency. It does not add any new
environmental protections.
This bad court decision affecting the budgetary decisions from local
agencies, I will give you some examples here: the Benton County,
Washington, Mosquito Control District preserves 20 percent of its
annual budget in case it is sued under the Clean Water Act. I think it
is important to mention when the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, it
was set up with severe penalties to go after the polluters we had--I
like to say the polluters of the 1960s--to clean up our waters, that we
had severe problems. And when it did that, it also opened it up for
citizens' lawsuits and opens up the door for more litigation.
The Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District, $37,000 in
permit costs and paperwork they have spent. Benton County could have
treated almost 2,600 acres for mosquito abatement or 400 lab tests for
West Nile virus, or paid for three seasonal workers.
In Gem County, Idaho, the Mosquito Abatement District's staff spends
3 weeks a year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide
applications related to permit oversight.
California vector control districts have estimated that it costs them
$3 million to conduct administration of the NPDES permits. They also
have to spend 20 percent of their annual operating budget just to
maintain the computer software related to the unnecessary NPDES permit.
As a result of this court ruling, mosquito districts, State and local
agencies, are now vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits for things like
simple paperwork violations under the Clean Water Act. Fines for these
paperwork violations, which obviously don't have any affect on the
environment, can be as much as $50,000 a day.
For example, the Gem County, Idaho, Mosquito Abatement District was
forced to spend $450,000 to resolve a lawsuit.
In my home State of Ohio, the Mosquito Control District for Toledo is
currently embroiled in a citizen's lawsuit from a simple paperwork
violation.
The 2012 West Nile outbreak is proof NPDES permits and association
costs are hindering the ability to protect the public.
In 2012, the first year of the permitting requirement from the court
case, West Nile cases jumped from 712 cases to almost to over 5,600
cases. That is nearly an 800 percent increase because of the
unnecessary permit requirements.
The States and communities affected by West Nile had to wait until
after a public health emergency was declared. Only then could relief
from the NPDES permit be approved. Only after the West Nile had spread
could local agencies use lifesaving pesticides to kill mosquitoes
carrying the virus. Keep in mind, when the local entity, municipality,
declares an emergency, they don't need to get a permit. They can spray.
I like to say it is after the fact when the mosquitoes are out of
control, then we do aerial spraying. Maybe we could have prevented it
with surface spraying and be less harm to the environment. We shouldn't
have to wait until it becomes an emergency.
H.R. 953 gets rid of the unnecessary red tape so communities can
prevent outbreaks of diseases like Zika and West Nile.
Cities that need to conduct the routine preventative mosquito
abatement should not have to do it with one hand tied behind their
back. H.R. 953 provides a narrow, limited exception from NPDES permit
requirements for those pesticides already approved under FIFRA law and
used in compliance under the label which is approved by the EPA.
I think this is an important point to keep in mind: EPA already
regulates these pesticides and approves them under FIFRA. It goes
through rigorous testing and reporting requirements, and they set the
label and make the determination. They approve how it is going to be
used. If it is a restricted pesticide, they can also put more
restrictions on the applicators and who the applicators are.
Therefore, removing this redundant NPDES permit is appropriate
because the EPA already has full control and can handle the situation
like they did for over 60 years before this court case.
The EPA has assisted in drafting H.R. 953, which does not roll back
any environmental protections. It fixes the regulatory problem caused
by the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and maintains the EPA's
jurisdiction through FIFRA.
Similar legislation has passed the House every Congress since the
court's decision, and I look forward to passing it again today, and
then passing it in the Senate and have the President sign it into law.
A list of organizations--this is a snapshot of the many organizations
because I don't have enough time to list all the organizations, but the
American Mosquito Control Association supports it; the American Farm
Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; the National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Association of Wheat
Growers; National Corn Growers Association; and United Fresh Produce
Association. Those are just a few groups representing thousands of
Americans who depend on commonsense EPA regulations for their
livelihood.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record--and I want to talk about it here
for a minute--I have a letter from former Secretary of Agriculture
Vilsack. In 2009, he was Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama
administration. When this court case happened, he sent out a letter to
Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. In his letter, he urges the EPA to consider the
significant adverse effect of the Sixth Circuit Court's 2009 decision,
the National Cotton Council and EPA will have on American farmers and
USDA agencies. He said in the letter:
``By broadening the Act's reach, the court burdens American
agriculture with a newly minted NPDES permit requirement. . . .''
``The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American farmers' and
the agencies' ability to do business, while reaping little or no
environmental benefit in exchange.''
I want to repeat that. The Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama
administration said that this court case has little environmental
benefit, and it hampers American farmers to do their job to produce the
most wholesome, safe, affordable food in the world.
``Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional regulatory
regime''--he goes on to say--``of the CWA is duplicative and will not
help protect the environment.''
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this letter, dated March 6, 2009,
from Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and his opposition to the court
case and, in his opinion, what this bill does.
Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.
Hon. Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. Environment Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Subject: The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 06-
4630; 07-3180/3181/3182/3183/3184/3185/3186/3187/3191/
3236 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009).
Dear Ms. Jackson: The United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit recently invalidated the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Rule entitled,
``Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in
Compliance With FIFRA.'' 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006)
(Final Rule). A petition for rehearing or for rehearing en
bane before the Sixth Circuit is due on April 9, 2009. I
would very much appreciate your taking into consideration the
significant adverse effect that the court's decision will
have on American farmers, as well as on U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) agencies, and therefore request that you
seek further review of this decision by the Sixth Circuit.
[[Page H4537]]
In its Final Rule, the EPA reasonably interpreted the term
``pollutant'' in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as generally
excluding pesticides that are applied in compliance with the
relevant requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Final Rule established that
the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA would
not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit when they are applied directly into waters of
the United States in order to control pests, or when they are
applied to control pests that are present over waters of the
United States, including near those waters, when a portion of
the pesticides unavoidably will be deposited into the water
in order to target the pests effectively. The EPA
specifically concluded that the terms ``chemical wastes'' and
``biological materials'' in the CWA's definition of
pollutants do not encompass the types of pesticide
applications addressed in the Final Rule. 71 Fed. Reg.
68,486.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that
the Final Rule was contrary to the plain language of the CWA.
Although the court agreed with the EPA that chemical
pesticides applied directly to water to perform a useful
purpose are not chemical wastes, it held that excess
pesticides and pesticide residue meet the common definition
of waste, and therefore are pollutants under the CWA. The
court held that the EPA is required to regulate the residue
of chemical pesticides when the pesticide is applied to land
or air, and the residue finds its way into the navigable
waters of the. United States, and when the pesticide is
applied directly to the water and the residue has a lasting
effect beyond its intended purpose. The court also found that
Congress intended for ``biological materials'' to encompass
more than ``biological wastes.'' The court held that all
biological pesticides are biological materials, and therefore
pollutants under the CWA.
The court's adverse decision will have profound
implications for American farmers. The panel's ruling
effectively broadens the potential application of the CWA to
reach agricultural activities that the EPA has never
regulated under the provisions of the CWA. By broadening the
Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a
newly minted NPDES permit requirement for the application of
all FIFRA-compliant biological pesticides whenever those
pesticides might find their way into waters of the United
States, and for all FIFRA-compliant chemical pesticides
whenever the residues of those pesticides find their way into
waters of the United States. The permit requirement could
reach almost any pesticide application, requiring farmers to
navigate a permitting system that is ill-suited to the
demands of agricultural production. Failure to obtain a
timely permit for pesticide application could cripple
American farmers' emergency pest management efforts and
hamper their ability to respond quickly to new pest
infestations or threats of infestations, thus increasing the
risk of crop losses.
Additionally, several USDA agencies engage in the ground
and aerial application of pesticides, and would be adversely
affected by the panel's decision. The Forest Service (FS) and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) now
will be required to obtain NPDES permits, which could
compromise the agencies' ability to respond with efficiency
and flexibility to emerging threats and emergency situations.
The delay and expense associated with complying with the
NPDES permitting requirement could substantially curtail the
agencies' use of pesticides. For the FS, this could result in
diminished efforts to protect the National Forests from pest
infestation and could potentially increase the risk and
severity of wildfires. It could also significantly hamper
aerial spraying programs such as APHIS's Mormon Cricket and
Grasshopper Program, undertaken in cooperation with western
states. Additionally, research programs involving both the
conventional and the experimental applications of pesticides
undertaken by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) also
will be detrimentally affected by the panel's decision. The
time-consuming and costly process of negotiating the NPDES
permit application process will diminish the efficiency with
which the ARS will be able to undertake its initiatives, and
may, in some instances, curtail the agency's projects
entirely.
The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American
farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while
reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange.
Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional
regulatory regime of the CWA is duplicative and will not help
protect the environment. FIFRA mandates that the EPA approve
and issue a registration for a pesticide product only after
the EPA has determined that the product will not cause
``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' The
pesticide registration and re-registration process under
FIFRA considers the effects of pesticides on both human
health and aquatic resources. If the EPA has concluded that a
pesticide satisfies FIFRA and will not have an ``unreasonable
adverse effect on the environment,'' then it is reasonable to
exclude the application of that pesticide from the permitting
requirements of the CWA.
In short, I am concerned that the court's decision will
compromise American farmers' and USDA agencies' ability to
respond efficiently and effectively to emergency threats,
while providing little or no additional environmental
protection in return. Thank you for taking these issues into
account as you consider seeking further review of this case.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I have nearly 120 organizations that support
H.R. 953, representing a wide variety of public and private entities
and thousands of stakeholders. I have a letter from the nearly 120. I
listed some of those. Some of the additional names are Agricultural
Retailers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American
Mosquito Control Association; the Association of Equipment
Manufacturers; CropLife America; Family Farm Alliance; National
Agricultural Aviation Association; the National Alliance of Forest
Owners; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture;
National Farmers Union; National Pest Management Association; and the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. I include that letter
in the Record.
May 3, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the over one hundred
undersigned organizations, we urge you to vote in favor of
H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.
For almost forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and pesticide applicators including public health
agencies charged with mosquito control operated exclusively
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). In fact, EPA has testified to the adequacy of
FIFRA's comprehensive regulatory requirements including
substantial enforcement mechanisms in pursuit of that goal.
However, a 2009 activist-inspired lawsuit resulted in a
federal court decision identifying a technicality in the law
that Congress had not properly clarified its intent that
FIFRA should have preeminence over the Clean Water Act (CWA).
This decision resulted in pesticide users being required to
obtain a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. These permits were originally created to
address the discharge of waste by major industrial polluters,
but now are mandated for mosquito control districts and
others who are applying pesticides approved by EPA for use in
the environment for their beneficial purposes of trying to
prevent or control the spread of public health disease in the
U.S.
Though the NPDES permit burden lacks any additional
environmental benefit under these circumstances, it does
force substantial costs on thousands of small application
businesses and farms, as well as the municipal, county, state
and federal agencies responsible for protecting natural
resources and public health. Further, and most menacing, the
permit exposes all pesticide users--regardless of permit
eligibility--to the liability of CWA-based citizen law suits.
In a number of instances, applicators--that once conducted
mosquito abatement applications for local governments and
homeowner associations--can't afford the costs or risk of
frivolous litigation that accompanies NPDES PGPs and have
refrained from conducting public health applications.
H.R. 953 would clarify Congressional intent that federal
law does not require this redundant permit for already
regulated pesticide applications.
In the 112th Congress, similar legislation (H.R. 872)
passed the House Committee on Agriculture and went on to pass
the House of Representatives on suspension. In the 113th
Congress, the legislation (H.R. 935) passed both the House
Committees on Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure
by voice vote, and again, the House of Representatives. In
the 114th Congress, the Zika Vector Control Act (H.R. 897)
passed the House of Representatives yet again. With your help
and support, H.R. 953 will also pass the House and hopefully
become law.
Since H.R. 897 passed the House last year, there has been
yet another costly lawsuit against a mosquito control
district, forcing the district to spend its funds fighting in
court instead of protecting public health.
Under these circumstances, NPDES permit requirements impact
the use of critical pesticides in protecting human health and
the food supply from destructive and disease-carrying pests,
and in managing invasive weeds to keep open waterways and
shipping lanes, to maintain rights of way for transportation
and power generation, and in preventing damage to forests and
recreation areas. The time and funds expended on redundant
permit compliance drains public and private resources. All
this for no measurable benefit to the environment. We urge
you to eliminate this unnecessary, expensive, and duplicative
regulation by ensuring the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of
2017 passes the House on Wednesday.
Sincerely,
Agribusiness Council of Indiana; Agribusiness & Water
Council of Arizona; 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;
AmericanHort; Aquatic Plant Management Society; Arkansas
Forestry Association; Association of Equipment
[[Page H4538]]
Manufacturers; Biopesticide Industry Alliance; California
Agricultural Aircraft Association; California Association of
Winegrape Growers; California Specialty Crops Council; Cape
Cod Cranberry Growers Association.
Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association; The Cranberry
Institute; Crop Protection Association of North Carolina;
CropLife America; Council of Producers & Distributors of
Agrotechnology; 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
Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Potato Commission; Idaho
Water Users Association; Illinois Farm Bureau; Illinois
Fertilizer & Chemical Association; Iowa Agricultural Aviation
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
AgriGrowth Council; Minnesota Crop Production Retailers;
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
Landscape Professionals; 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 Onion Association; 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;
Northwest Horticultural Council; Ohio Professional
Applicators for Responsible Regulation.
Oregon Association of Nurseries; Oregon Farm Bureau; Oregon
Forest and Industries Council; Oregon Potato Commission;
Oregon Seed Council; Oregon Water Resources Congress; Oregon
Wheat Growers League; Oregonians for Food & Shelter;
Pesticide Policy Coalition; Plains Cotton Growers, Inc.;
Professional Landcare Network; Responsible Industry for a
Sound Environment; Rocky Mountain Agribusiness Association;
SC Fertilizer Agrichemicals Association; 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.
Sugar Cane League; 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;
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;
Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop Improvement
Association; Wyoming Wheat Growers Association.
American Mosquito Control Association Statement on NPDES Burden
The American Mosquito Control Association Urges Congress To Vote
``YES'' on H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017
From the perspective of the agencies charged with
suppressing mosquitoes and other vectors of public health
consequence, the NPDES burden is directly related to
combatting Zika and other mosquito-transmitted diseases.
For over forty years and through both Democratic and
Republican administrations, the EPA and states held that
these permits did not apply to public health pesticide
applications. However, activist lawsuits forced the EPA to
require such permits even for the application of EPA-
registered pesticides including mosquito control.
AMCA has testified numerous times to establish the burden
created by this court ruling. The threat to the public health
mission of America's mosquito control districts comes in two
costly parts:
Ongoing Compliance Costs
Though the activists contend that the NPDES permit has
``modest notification and monitoring requirements'' the
actual experience of mosquito control districts is much
different.
Initially obtaining and maintaining an NPDES permit comes
at considerable expense. California mosquito control
districts estimate the NPDES compliance costs for their 64
districts to be approximately $4 million dollars over six
years. These costs include;
Initial amount spent by Districts determining waters
subject to reporting.
Total amount spent by Districts tracking treatments to
Waters of the US
Water Testing Consultants
NPDES Administration/Regulatory Consultants
Legal fees related to NPDES
Physical monitoring of larvicides--not completed by
consultants
Completing annual reports
In Wyoming, there are several issues that have impacted the
mosquito districts;
Record keeping requirements has redirected 2-5 % of
District funds annually to permit fees and administrative
costs.
The cost for acre applications of both adulticide and
larvicides has increased 5 to 10-fold for some Districts.
This is due primarily to the fear that local aerial
applicators have regarding the citizen lawsuits. The local ag
pilots have declined to fly for some of the mosquito
districts in Wyoming, requiring them to go out of state to
professional application companies. The City of Laramie which
was able to treat for an estimated $1 per acre now pays an
estimated $5-$10 per acre. This has greatly reduced the acres
that can be treated with larvicide and adulticides.
In Durango, CO, the Animas Mosquito Control District
reported spending over $50,000 in GPS/GIS system, maintenance
and upgrades purchased to comply with an unknown annual
report requirement. They spent numerous hours conducting
meetings, phone calls and on the computer to clarify the
annual reporting requirements, the detail necessary in annual
reports, and even where to send the information.
The fact that the existence of the permit over the last 6
years has no additional environmental benefit (since
pesticide applications are already governed by FIFRA) makes
these taxpayer diversions from vector control unconscionable.
In a survey of mosquito control programs, 71 reported (out
of 734 nationwide) that their multiyear period expenses
incurred due to the NPDES permitting including operational,
permitting, reporting, monitoring and other administrative
costs totaled over $4 million. (This survey does not include
all of the 6-year California estimate mentioned previously).
How Could $4 Million in NPDES Costs be Better Spent
Seasonal field workers ($11,000 for starter), 377
employees.
Bti larvicide ($1.44/lb), 2,879,738 pounds.
Acres of water larvicided aerially (10 lbs/acre + $5.25
applicator cost = $19.65), 211,034 acres.
Acres of water treated by ground crews (10 lbs./acre),
287,973 acres.
West Nile virus--in house testing of adult mosquitoes
(RAMP) $19.36, 214,195 tests.
30 second radio ads for public education ($40-$200),
103,671-20,734.
Acres of aerial adult mosquito control ($.89 applicator fee
+ $.95 chemical), 2,253,708 acres.
Evening ground spraying hours ($396/hr. for vehicle,
employee, adulticide), 10,472 hrs.
Every dollar spent on duplicative regulations is a dollar
that could have been used towards Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) activities that control mosquitoes and prevent
mosquito-borne illness.
Resources must not be diverted from these mosquito control
activities in order to protect public health:
Disease surveillance--trapping and testing adult
mosquitoes, monitoring dead birds.
Larvicides and adult mosquito control--reduce mosquito
populations through targeted applications
Habitat modification/source reduction--ditching/dredgers to
permanently reduce mosquito oviposition habitats to reduce
the need for chemical control measures.
Monitoring invasive species of mosquitoes.
Public education--publications on reducing backyard sources
of mosquitoes, information on repellent and personal
protective measures.
Employees, training, and certifications.
Programs that are most affected:
Poorer, rural mosquito control districts
Programs associated with small municipalities
In the Western US, those associated with private aerial
contractors concerned with taking on the added liability.
Municipalities in the south looking to start Zika virus
control efforts. Why would Congress approve $1.1 Billion to
fight and explore Zika virus and then burden us with
regulations that hinder our ability to control the vector of
the disease?
So, why would the activist organizations be so adamant that
these permits be mandatory for public health pesticide
applications . . . ?
Exposure to Activist Litigation
Municipal mosquito control programs are vulnerable to CWA
citizen lawsuits where fines to mosquito control districts
may exceed $37,500/day. Under FIFRA, the activists would need
to demonstrate that the pesticides were misapplied, that the
product labels were not followed. Additionally, this is not a
question of the applications causing harm to public health.
The pesticides we use are specific to mosquitoes and are
generally used in very low doses by qualified applicators).
However, the CWA 3rd Party Citizen Suit Provision allows
for any third party to sue for alleged violations of NPDES
program requirements. Additionally, the CWA does not require
actual evidence of a misapplication of a pesticide or harm to
the environment,
[[Page H4539]]
but rather simple paperwork violations or merely allegations
in permit oversight.
The Toledo Area Sanitary District is currently involved in
a lawsuit that has already initially cost the mosquito
control program more than $40,000 in legal fees, and the case
has yet to go to court. This could lead to an injunction on
the spray program and end up costing taxpayers $100,000+
dollars, even though the case has nothing to do with
substantive water quality issues, but rather focuses on
alleged administrative paperwork violations.
Gem County Mosquito Abatement District (ID) was the subject
of one of these activist lawsuits utilizing the 3rd Party
Citizen Suit Provision. It took ten years and the grand total
of an entire year's annual operating budget ($450,000) to
resolve that litigation against that public health entity.
These ongoing compliance costs and threat of crushing
litigation directly impact mosquito control districts. The
existence of this unnecessary requirement for mosquito
control activities is directly related to our ability to
combat the vectors related to Zika. It diverts precious
resources away from finding and suppressing mosquito
populations.
The American Mosquito Control Association urges Congress to
vote ``YES'' on H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
of 2017.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2017.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Bob Gibbs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael Conaway,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Garret Graves,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Reps. Shuster, Gibbs, Conaway and Graves: Later this
week, the House is expected to vote on H.R. 953, ``The
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.'' This legislation
has previously passed the House of Representatives with
strong bipartisan support, and the American Farm Bureau
Federation (AFBF) urges all members of Congress to vote in
favor of the bill.
H.R. 953 is narrowly crafted to clarify that lawful use of
pesticides in or near navigable waters is not excessively
covered under two statutes, the Clean Water Act and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In doing
so, the measure simply codifies EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the law before it was thrown into confusion
by a 2009 court ruling, which imposed an additional layer of
needless red tape on pesticide applicators. H.R. 953 corrects
the duplicative requirements associated with EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide
permit by specifying that NPDES permits are not needed for
the lawful application of EPA-labeled pesticides. This is an
important fix that will reduce red tape and legal liabilities
associated with the lawful use of pesticides in protecting
public health and food security.
We urge all members to vote in favor of the ``Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.''
Thank you very much for your support.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the
National Association of Counties. NACo recommends that Congress address
some of challenges posed by the EPA's Clean Water Act permit for
pesticides to allow counties to more quickly respond to the mosquito-
based public health threats. Counties have reported either
significantly scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs
due to the additional, duplicative, and expensive paperwork and
monitoring obligations required by the program.
National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As the U.S.
House of Representatives moves forward with the ``Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017'' (H.R. 953), we would like to
highlight the impact that U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) program has on
county governments' ability to respond promptly and
effectively to emerging public health threats.
As the summer months approach and we enter mosquito season,
counties are concerned about the health and safety impacts of
mosquito-borne illnesses such as Zika. The Zika virus is an
emerging mosquito-borne illness, primarily stemming from the
bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes, and there is no vaccine.
Since mosquitos and their breeding habitats pose the largest
threat to public safety, counties can play a major role in
minimizing the potential spread of the virus and other
mosquito-borne illnesses through public education and
mosquito eradication.
However, since EPA's PGP program was instituted in 2011,
counties have reported that they have either significantly
scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due
to additional, duplicative and expensive paperwork and
monitoring obligations required under the permit. We
recommend that Congress address some of the challenges posed
by EPA's PGP permit to allow counties to more quickly respond
to mosquito-based public health threats.
We thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look
forward to continuing to work with you on issues important to
counties.
Sincerely,
Matthew D. Chase,
Executive Director,
National Association of Counties.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I thank the Agriculture Committee chairman,
Mike Conaway; and the Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, Bill
Shuster, who are the leadership on this issue. I want to thank the
Agriculture Committee ranking member, Collin Peterson, as well.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense effort to
reform this duplicative EPA regulation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 953, Reducing the
Regulatory Burdens Act. As I have noted before on similar bills in the
past, I remain concerned that this bill would mean that no Clean Water
Act protections would be required for pesticide application to water
bodies that are already impaired by pesticides.
The Clean Water Act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of
approved pesticides for pest control operations. In fact, the Clean
Water Act permit provides a specific emergency provision to prevent
outbreaks of diseases such as Zika virus.
Under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are covered
automatically under the permit and any spraying may be performed
immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. In most
instances, sprayers are only required to notify EPA of their spraying
operations 30 days after the beginning of a spraying operation.
Most pesticide applications in the United States are done in
accordance with FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act which only requires proper labeling on pesticide
products regarding usage.
However, FIFRA labeling is no substitute for ensuring that we
understand the volumes of pesticide we seem to apply to our rivers, our
lakes, our streams on an annual basis.
{time} 1515
According to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides, commonly used
pesticides frequently are present in streams and groundwater at levels
that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at levels
that may affect aquatic or fish-eating wildlife and also human life.
In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles
of rivers and streams, 1,380 of bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres
of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by
pesticides.
The EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many of
these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides
that are currently being used. I am very concerned of the effect these
pesticides have on the health of our rivers, our streams, and
especially the drinking water supplies for all our citizens, especially
the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and the poor and
disenfranchised people who have no representation. We have much cancer
appearing, and we have no idea what it is. Adding pesticides is not
helping.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Federal report on how pesticides
in California are the leading cause of impairments to water quality.
U.S. EPA Report on California Water Quality Assessment
California Causes of Impairment for reporting year 2012
Pesticides are the Cause of water impairment in California
for 4,534 miles of rivers and streams, 235,765 acres of
lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 829 square miles of bays and
estuaries, 35 miles of coastal shoreline, 42 square miles of
ocean and near coastal waters, and 43 acres of wetlands.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Currently in California there are over 4,500 miles
of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 829
square
[[Page H4540]]
miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by
pesticides. This is a significant concern in my home State, where every
drop of water has to be cleaned and needs to be conserved, reused, and
cherished.
We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA
and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the
concerns about the duplication of effort and the need to minimize the
impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large.
All the supporters are mostly farmers and other business entities.
However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a
very significant impact on water quality and that, with this bill, we
are creating the exemption from water quality protection requirements
without considering the impacts to the waters that are already impacted
by pesticides, as they are in California.
This, in turn, costs our water users, our ratepayers hundreds of
millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of water before it
is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis as the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use
of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on
the 20-plus-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area
that has pesticides as one of the contaminants.
We cannot, and should not, take away one of the only tools available
to monitor for adverse impacts of pesticides in our rivers, our
streams, and our reservoirs. Over the past 6 years, this tool has been
reasonable, has been workable to pest control operators and
agricultural interests alike, and needs to be retained. I urge my
colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today also in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The House Committee on Agriculture,
which I serve on, as does Chairman Gibbs, passed this bill out of
committee every Congress since the 112th Congress. The bill language
was likewise included in the 2012 farm bill, reported out of the
committee, as well as in the 2013 farm bill the House sent to
conference. It was also included in the committee-reported text of the
FY 2012 Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. But it has never reached the President's desk.
For more than 100 years, the Federal Government has administered its
responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to review and register pesticides in a
responsible way that protects human health and the environment.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA or a State authority issues a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, NPDES permit,
and that regulates the discharge of pollutants. NPDES permits specify
limits on what pollutants may be discharged from point sources and in
what amounts. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA
has interpreted its responsibilities related to pesticide use such that
compliance with FIFRA would mitigate the need for duplicative
permitting under the Clean Water Act.
As litigation in the early part of this decade began to challenge
this interpretation, the EPA ultimately responded with the promulgation
of a regulation on November 27, 2006, to clarify how these two laws
operated. Under the EPA's final rule, the Agency codified its earlier
interpretation that permits for pesticide application under the Clean
Water Act were unnecessary where pesticides were used in accordance
with their regulation under FIFRA.
Following the finalization of this regulation, the rule was
challenged in numerous jurisdictions. The case was ultimately heard in
the Sixth Circuit wherein the government's interpretation of the
interaction of these two laws was not given the deference we would
normally expect. The final court order nullified the EPA's regulation
and imposed what is viewed as a burdensome, costly, and duplicative
permitting process under the Clean Water Act for literally millions of
pesticide applications.
This order has imposed a burden on the EPA, State regulatory
agencies, and pesticide applicators, costing our economy in terms of
jobs as well as severely threatening the already critical budgetary
situation facing governments at all levels. It is particularly
unfortunate that this court order imposed a new requirement that has
imperiled our water resource boards, our mosquito control boards, and
our forestry and agricultural sectors, yet has provided no additional
environmental or public health protection. On the contrary, by imposing
this costly burden on public health pesticide users, it has jeopardized
public health as it relates to protection against insect-borne diseases
such as the Zika virus, West Nile virus, various forms of encephalitis,
and Lyme disease.
I recently heard from the Macon County Mosquito Abatement District in
my district based in and around Decatur, Illinois. They can attest that
the price of complying with NPDES permitting is very high. Though they
had in place a reliable system of tracking chemical usage and treatment
areas for years, the added burden of the NPDES requirements have caused
them to spend a large portion of the district's annual budget on
software strictly just for compliance and reporting processes. The
recurring yearly fees associated with the software are a never-ending
burden needlessly placed on abatement districts. The fear of litigation
dictates the detailed tracking of EPA-approved products and diverts
those funds from their actual purpose of controlling mosquitoes.
The EPA has provided technical assistance to draft this very narrow
legislation. The goal of this legislation has been to address only
those problems created by the decision of the Sixth Circuit and to be
entirely consistent with the policy of the EPA, as stated in their
November 27, 2006, final rule governing application of pesticides to
waters of the United States in compliance with FIFRA.
I urge all Members to vote for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 953,
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. This legislation eliminates
the requirement to acquire two permits for the same pesticide
application under two separate laws and, I might add, if you live in
California, there is a separate requirement under the California Clean
Water Act that requires an additional permit. That would still apply
regardless if this legislation is passed.
In order to be permitted to use a pesticide, that pesticide must be
approved under FIFRA, which includes an analysis that must be performed
that finds it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects to
the environment or to the health. However, current law requires another
permit to be acquired for the same action under the Clean Water Act if
you happen to be close to a water body, and that is where the
duplication occurs.
Not only are these requirements redundant, they are expensive, and
the cost of the individual Clean Water Act permit ranges from $150,000
to $270,000 and can take up to 2 years. No one wants to risk human
health, not I, not anyone, but in my opinion this would not do so. We
have Zika, we have West Nile, and we have a host of spreading of these
diseases by mosquitoes in which this, in fact, can address those
issues.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to
remove this unnecessary, unneeded regulatory burden and expense.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we agree that no one
thinks this bill is going to harm anyone. We are trying to look for
commonsense provisions, and I am thankful to my colleague for making
this a bipartisan solution.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me just a
moment to speak on the absolute necessity of passing the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act. The Sixth Circuit Court blatantly overstepped
its authority in directing the EPA to establish a
[[Page H4541]]
duplicative permitting process for pesticide use. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, already
requires the EPA to review the data and evaluate risks and exposures
associated with the use of certain insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, and rodenticides.
After the EPA evaluates the risk associated with the use of a given
pesticide, FIFRA prohibits its use for any purpose not already approved
by the EPA. Approved uses are clearly labeled. Requiring additional
reviews under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is
simply unnecessary and burdensome.
Furthermore, unless the body sets the record straight and overturns
the Sixth Circuit decision, we will be opening a tried-and-true
permitting process to numerous citizen lawsuits that will be bad for
agriculture and, as all such bad decisions, result in increased costs
paid for by the American consumers.
I urge my colleagues to stand behind Mr. Gibbs and this bill, stand
behind the science, and help him pass this. When he came, he started to
work on this in 2010, his hair was brown. Now it is gray. So let's help
him get this bill passed.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. This bill would restore congressional
intent regarding the relationship between FIFRA and the Clean Water
Act.
Historically, Congress has viewed FIFRA as sufficient to protect
human health and the environment. Until the early part of the past
decade, even the EPA interpreted its responsibilities related to
pesticide use as compliance with FIFRA would reduce the need for
duplicative permitting under the Clean Water Act. If pesticides were
used according to their regulation under FIFRA, then permits for
pesticide application under the Clean Water Act were unnecessary.
Unfortunately, this historic interpretation has been overturned by
activist litigation. In 2009, a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals upended the historic interpretation of the space between these
two laws. The Sixth Circuit order created a new permitting requirement
that provides no additional environmental or public health protection.
The goal of this legislation has been to address only those problems
created by the Sixth Circuit decision and to be consistent with
congressional intent and the EPA's long-held interpretation. It is a
commonsense solution to a court-imposed regulatory burden that Congress
never intended to be applied. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague and friend from
Minnesota for his bipartisan support of H.R. 953.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank my colleague from
Ohio for his leadership on bringing forth this important legislation to
actually help us focus more resources on killing mosquitoes, especially
as the mosquito season starts, as we see so many threats with Zika,
with West Nile, just the damage that we see happening around our
country from mosquitoes. We have decided we are going to put resources
into killing mosquitoes, and then we come about and find out about
these regulations that were imposed by the courts in a way that
actually makes it harder for us to kill mosquitoes.
{time} 1530
What you hear so often from people around the country is: Why is it
that you have got things happening out of Washington that make no
sense?
Congressman Gibbs identified one of those areas and said it really
doesn't make sense. We tried to work through a different remedy to try
to get the administration to fix it, and they pointed to a court case
that keeps them from fixing it.
It is one of the big frustrations you have that it actually takes an
act of Congress to bring common sense into the process of killing
mosquitoes, for goodness sake. But here we are doing it. At least we
are spending the people's business doing something that actually
injects common sense back into the things that people do in their daily
lives.
All across our community and across this country, you have local
governments that are really the ones that focus on killing mosquitoes,
and we started hearing about this problem. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we
asked the EPA to identify just how much this is actually costing.
So as everybody scrambles and fights and you hear agencies saying ``I
need more money to do this,'' ``I need more money to do that,'' we need
to be more responsible with the taxpayers' money, and people are
saying, ``Live within your means.''
And we have asked the EPA. The EPA, Mr. Chairman, told us that the
cost of implementing these EPA regulations is an extra $50 million a
year. Think of how ludicrous that is. Because of the way the EPA is
implementing the law, as we are trying to kill more mosquitoes, it is
costing $50 million a year to comply with burdensome, duplicative
regulations--rather than killing mosquitoes. We should be spending that
money, $50 million, killing more mosquitoes, not killing trees to
comply with ridiculous regulations.
So I want to commend my colleague from Ohio for bringing this back.
The House passed this in a very bipartisan way last Congress. We didn't
get it all the way to the President's desk. So this year, hopefully, we
will get this bill not only passed through the House, but through the
Senate and to President Trump's desk, where he will sign a bill that
injects common sense back into the process of killing mosquitoes.
Let's spend our money killing mosquitoes, not killing trees and
having to comply with ridiculous regulations that come out of
Washington and make no sense. Let's pass this bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time the United States House of
Representatives has considered this bill.
Now, we have heard a lot of alternative facts today. Let's have some
real facts.
Killing trees, well, first off, here is the extensive application. It
is slightly over three pages long and it can be filed electronically,
so we don't need to kill any trees.
Allegations that somehow this slows down control of mosquito
abatement or Zika virus are absolutely false. Anybody can apply a
pesticide in a public health situation. They have 30 days to file the
paperwork online afterwards. It takes about 5 minutes. It has such
technical things as your name and address, your pesticide applicator
license verified with a certain State, where you are going to use the
pesticide or herbicide.
Now, why would we want to know that? Or maybe, why wouldn't we want
not to know that? Because that is what they are saying on that side of
the aisle.
There is nothing registered with the Department of Agriculture. Yes,
we have FIFRA. These pesticides and herbicides have been registered.
They have labels--it can't be applied over water; it can't be applied
here; it can't be applied there--and we trust the applicators to follow
those rules. But when they actually use the herbicides and pesticides
absent this form, this burdensome 3\1/2\-page form, we won't know.
Now, why would we care? Well, this is essentially the 20th
anniversary of a massive fish kill in Jackson County, Oregon. In that
incident, an operator applied an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation
canal that, when it leaked into the nearby creek, killed 92,000
steelhead. Now, we kind of care about our steelhead in the Northwest,
so that was a problem.
So then the Federal agency said, Well, this is kind of a problem when
someone does that, 92,000 steelhead. Plus, anybody who drank the water
was poisoned, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't want to know about
that on that side of the aisle because Dow Chemical doesn't like it
because maybe it inhibits sales of some of these chemicals that cause
these sorts of problems.
Now, we have data now because of these forms, and we know about areas
[[Page H4542]]
that are impaired. In my State, which is like the clean, green State,
825 miles of rivers and streams and 10,000 acres of lakes and ponds in
the State of Oregon are impaired by pesticide contamination. That is
something we should do something about. People are drinking that water;
they are swimming in that water; their kids are bathing in that water.
I think that is a problem.
But we don't want to know about that. This is just a horrible
restraint on pesticide applications.
Now, we heard a lot of other hooey here. It is like: This is so
difficult; it is so difficult to do. I was talking to the ranking
member of the Agriculture Committee. He said, well, farmers don't want
to file those forms. If they hired a pesticide applicator, that person
could file the form for them.
Or, yeah, maybe they are going to have to file the 3-page form if it
involves the waters of the United States of America. If it doesn't
involve the waters, you don't have to file it. So this is really an
incredible thing.
Now, we have taken this up numerous times. It was the Pest Management
and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act in the 109th Congress--the same
bill, exactly the same bill.
Then in the 112th and the 113th Congresses, it was the Reducing
Regulatory Burdens Act. It still didn't work. It didn't become law
then.
Well, wait a minute. Let's pass it on to public fears. Last Congress,
it was called the Zika Vector Control Act in the 114th Congress. We
just heard a lot of hooey about how this will inhibit killing
mosquitoes, which, of course, is absolutely not true.
But now we are back to here. So the Zika Control Act and the Pest
Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act are now back to the
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
Now, in the past 6 years, since this paperwork was required, or
electronic work, do you know how many pesticide applicators have faced
significant impacts because of these protections? None. Zero.
Do you know how many applicators have raised problems with the Clean
Water Act pesticide general permit to EPA? None. Zero.
In fact, I specifically asked this question of the EPA's head of
water at a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing. No
specific instances where the clean water permit was causing problems or
impacts on pesticide application. Yet here we are again, one more time,
under the guise of reducing this horrible regulatory burden: name,
address, phone number, what did you apply? Where are you registered to
apply these sorts of permits? That is useful information.
I had a couple more instances in Oregon.
Tiller, Oregon, again, right in the same area where the steelhead
were killed. That same creek was contaminated with atrazine in 2014.
Local residents who drank the water complained, and they also
complained of the overspray. Then, in 2013, a helicopter in Curry
County, Oregon, oversprayed residents.
Now, if they didn't have to file these forms, we wouldn't know who
did it, when they did it, and what the chemical was. I guess that is
kind of what the Republicans want. If someone oversprays your property
and sprays stuff on you: ``Geez, I don't know. That was one of those
black helicopters. We don't know where it came from, or who that was.
We don't know what they dumped on you. Sorry.'' That is burdensome
paperwork. We wouldn't want to require that kind of burdensome
paperwork.
So that is why we are here again today for the fifth time with the
fifth remaining rationale for what we are doing here today, and it
still fails the smell test.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 10 minutes remaining. The
gentlewoman from California has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to make a few remarks on what my friend, my colleague
from Oregon said. I call it the rest of the story.
We talked about the fish kill in 1996 of the steelhead. I inquired of
this tragic incident and came to the conclusion that NPDES permitting
under the Clean Water Act would not have prevented the fish kill.
In 2003, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs published a report
which looked at this potential risk posed by the herbicide that was
used in the 1996 fish kill. The report stated:
Where sufficient information has been provided, it appears
that the fish incidents are as a result of misuse. The form
of misuse is that water was released from the irrigation
canals too early. In some cases, this was because the gate
valves were not properly closed or that they leaked. In other
cases, the applicator opened them intentionally, but too
soon. In one case, boards that helped contain the irrigation
canal water may have been removed by children playing.
The EPA goes on in the report to address each of the various species
of salmon and steelhead analyzed and repeatedly states:
It is very unlikely the pesticide suspected to cause the
Oregon fish kill would have affected the steelhead or salmon
if it was used in accordance with the label requirements.
Completing NPDES permit paperwork and paying a permit fee
does not prevent fish kills, nor does it improve water
quality. Pesticide applications in accordance with FIFRA
pesticide labels will avoid adverse environmental impacts,
including fish kills.
If a pesticide is improperly applied, there are enforcement
mechanisms in place to address this violation. In the case of the 1996
Oregon fish kill, I understand the party was subject to more than
$400,000 in fines and reimbursements for the incident.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his work
on this important legislation.
Today, I rise in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act. This legislation will bring much-needed relief to our American
farmers. They put in a great deal of time and money to deal with
duplicative regulations like the one we are addressing here today. This
bill will take away needless provisions regarding pesticide regulations
under the Clean Water Act.
Pesticide applications are already federally regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This permitting was unnecessary and
duplicative, punishing American farmers due to a misguided court
decision.
In my district in Georgia, farmers have to deal with a variety of
environmental difficulties, like the devastating freeze just this last
March. The Federal Government should not be adding redundant mandates
to already overburdened farmers.
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act has been passed out of the House
Agriculture Committee five times. It is time for Congress to correct
this mistake and give farmers and pesticide applicators much-needed
relief once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following letters to be
made part of today's record: A letter from 46 national and State
conservation and public health interest groups opposed to H.R. 953,
and, secondly, a list of over 150 different organizations who oppose
efforts to undermine the Clean Water Act protections for direct
pesticide applications, including the Alabama Rivers, San Francisco,
and the list goes on.
And the organizations: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments;
from Alaska, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics; From Arkansas, the
Earth Cause Organization; from California, Audubon and many others;
from Alabama, Alabama Rivers; from Colorado, Colorado Riverkeeper; from
the District of Columbia, Potomac Riverkeeper; from Florida, Emerald
Coastkeeper; from Georgia, Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha
Coastkeeper; from Idaho, the Idaho Conservation League; from Illinois,
the Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; and from Iowa, Quad Cities
Riverkeeper. And the list goes on, Mr. Chairman.
May 22, 2017.
Re Oppose H.R. 953 (Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017).
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 953
(``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017''). A
[[Page H4543]]
more apt title for this damaging legislation is the ``Poison
Our Waters Act'' because it would eliminate Clean Water Act
safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from
excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide General Permit
targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly six
years now and alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers
and others about the impacts of this permit have failed to
bear any fruit.
This bill is the same legislation that pesticide
manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing
for years. It has been opposed not only by the Obama
Administration. but also more than 150 public health,
fishing, and conservation organizations (see attached list).
Contrary to earlier claims made by its proponents, this bill
will not improve nor impact spraying to combat Zika virus and
other human health threats. The Pesticide General Permit at
issue already allows for spraying to combat vector-borne
diseases such as Zika and the West Nile virus. According to
the U.S. 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''
(emphasis added).
Further, the Clean Water Act has no significant effect on
farming practices. The Pesticide General Permit in no way
affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of
controlling pests (that is, spraying that doesn't discharge
into water bodies). Irrigation return flows and agricultural
stormwater runoff do not require permits, even when they
contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the
Clean Water Act remain.
Repealing the Pesticide General Permit--as this damaging
legislation seeks to do--would allow pesticides to be
discharged into water bodies without any meaningful oversight
since the federal pesticide registration law (the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) does not
require tracking of such applications.
Now that the Pesticide General Permit is in place, the
public is finally getting information that they couldn't
obtain before about the types of pesticides being sprayed or
discharged into local bodies of water. All across the
country, pesticide applicators are complying with the
Pesticide General Permit to protect water quality without
issue,
The Pesticide General Permit 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. 953.
Sincerely,
Earthjustice
League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Center for Biological Diversity
Sierra Club
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
American Sustainable Business Council
National Family Farm Coalition
Waterkeeper Alliance
Clean Water Action
Environment America
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
American Rivers
Southern Environmental Law Center
Defenders of Wildlife
Friends of the Earth U.S.
Environmental Working Group
Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides
Alabama Rivers Alliance
Beyond Pesticides
Beyond Toxics
Cahaba River Society
Center for Food Safety
Defend H2O
Endangered Habitats League
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental Protection Information Center
Gulf Restoration Network
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited Kentucky
Waterways Alliance
Klamath Forest Alliance
Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, Program
in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Oregon Environmental Council
Prairie Rivers Network
Pesticide Action Network North America
PolicyLink
San Francisco Baykeeper
Save The River / Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
The Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change
The Good Food Institute
Toxic Free NC
Turtle Island Restoration Network
WE ACT for Environmental Justice
WildEarth Guardians.
____
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 pesticide.
national-
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Bird
Conservancy, American Rivers, American Sustainable Business
Council, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity,
Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health,
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, Clean Water
Action, Clean Water Network, Defend H2O, Defenders of
Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Habitats League,
Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America,
Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Friends of
the Earth, Geos Institute, League of Conservation Voters,
National Environmental Law Center, National Family Farm
Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pesticide
Action Network North America, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, Sierra Club, The Good Food
Institute, WildEarth Guardians.
alabama
Alabama Rivers Alliance, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Cahaba
River Society, Hurricane Creekkeeper/Friends of Hurricane
Creek.
alaska
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Cook Inletkeeper, Inc.
arkansas
The Earth Cause Organization.
california
Audubon California, Better Urban Green Strategies, Butte
Environmental Council, California Sportfishing Protection
Alliance, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics,
Californians for Pesticide Reform, Coast Action Group,
Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, Environment California,
Environmental Protection Information Center, Friends of Five
Creeks, Friends of Gualala River, Friends of the Petaluma
River, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Humboldt Baykeeper,
Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath
Riverkeeper, L.A. Waterkeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water,
Madrone Audubon Society, Northern California River Watch,
Orange County Coastkeeper, Pesticide Watch, Pesticide-Free
Sacramento, Pesticide-Free Zone, Planning and Conservation
League, Russian River Watershed Protection Committee, Russian
Riverkeeper, Sacramento Audubon Society, Inc., Safe
Alternatives for Our Forest Environment, Safety Without Added
Toxins, San Diego Coastkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, San
Francisco League of Conservation Voters, San Francisco
Tomorrow, Stop the Spray East Bay, The Bay Institute, Turtle
Island Restoration Network.
colorado
Colorado Riverkeeper.
district of columbia
Potomac Riverkeeper.
florida
Emerald Coastkeeper, Indian Riverkeeper, Miami Waterkeeper,
St. Johns Riverkeeper, Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper,
Apalachicola Riverkeeper.
georgia
Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha Coastkeeper, Ogeechee
Riverkeeper, Satilla Riverkeeper, Savannah Riverkeeper.
idaho
Idaho Conservation League, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper,
Saint John's Organic Farm, Silver Valley Waterkeeper.
illinois
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited, Prairie Rivers
Network.
iowa
Quad Cities Riverkeeper.
kansas
Kansas Riverkeeper.
kentucky
Kentucky Waterways Alliance.
louisiana
Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Louisiana Bayoukeeper, Ouachita
Riverkeeper.
maine
Casoco Baykeeper.
maryland
Gunpowder Riverkeeper, Patuxent Riverkeeper, West/Rhode
Riverkeeper, Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust.
michigan
Detroit Riverkeeper, Flint Riverkeeper, Grand Traverse
Baykeeper.
missouri
Saint Louis Confluence Riverkeeper.
montana
Big Blackfoot Riverkeeper.
nebraska
Western Nebraska Resources Council.
new Jersey
Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc., Raritan Riverkeeper.
new York
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Environmental Advocates,
Hudson Riverkeeper, Lake George Waterkeeper, Long Island
Soundkeeper, Peconic Baykeeper, Save The River/Upper St.
Lawrence Riverkeeper.
north carolina
Toxic Free NC, Watauga Riverkeeper.
oklahoma
Grand Riverkeeper.
oregon
Beyond Toxics, Forestland Dwellers, Northwest Environmental
Defense Center, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Wild,
Rogue Riverkeeper, Tualatin Riverkeepers.
[[Page H4544]]
pennsylvania
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper.
south carolina
Charleston Waterkeeper, Santee Riverkeeper.
tennessee
Tennessee Riverkeeper.
texas
Galveston Baykeeper.
virginia
Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program, Shenandoah
Riverkeeper.
washington
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Spokane Riverkeeper.
west virginia
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
international
Waterkeeper Alliance, Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation.
pacific northwest
Northcoast Environmental Center, Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Associations, Northwest Center for
Alternatives for Pesticides, Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition.
south
Southern Environmental Law Center, Catawba Riverkeeper
Foundation, Gulf Restoration Network.
northeast
Housatonic River Initiative, Toxics Action Center, New
York/New Jersey Baykeeper.
mid-atlantic
Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that I want
to bring to the attention of this committee. One of the potential human
health applications related to unregulated discharges to water is
drinking water.
In May of 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a
report entitled, ``Threats on Tap,'' that documented potentially
harmful contaminants in tap water in every State of the Union. This
report, based on information obtained from State and local public
drinking water utilities, documented tens of thousands of drinking
water violations related to chemicals and other contaminants currently
found in our domestic water supply.
The report included a focus on synthetic organic compounds commonly
found in a wide variety of products, from household cleaners to
industrial, commercial, and agricultural products, including pesticides
and herbicides regulated under FIFRA.
{time} 1545
According to this report, human exposure to these contaminants can
lead to cancers--I repeat, lead to cancers--developmental effects,
central nervous system, and reproductive difficulties, endocrine
issues, or liver and kidney problems.
According to an appendix of this report, which I include in today's
Record, in 2015, there were 6,864 drinking water violations associated
with synthetic organic compounds, potentially affecting as many as 2.6
million drinking water users. Of these, a number were for direct,
health-related violations affecting more than 300,000 individuals. This
report documented ongoing drinking water violations for the worst of
the worst pesticides in terms of human health effects, including,
atrazine, chlordane, endrin, and glyphosate.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to this report, we have more information on
exactly where these drinking water violations are occurring and how
increased use of pesticides on or near water increases the risk that
humans will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals when they turn on
the tap; which begs the question: Why the proponents of this bill want
to reduce the public disclosure and monitoring requirements of the
Clean Water Act relating to pesticide applications?
Do these proponents want to let these pesticide applications and
chemical companies go back in the shadows where information on the
release of pesticides is no longer known?
I include in the Record a list of chemicals and their potential
health impact.
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Chemical, Source, Potential Health Impact, MCL (PPB), MCLG
(PPB), Number of Violations in 2015 are as follows: 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (dioxin), Emissions from waste incineration and other
combustion; discharge from chemical factories, Reproductive
difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 0.00003, 0, 124;
2,4,5-TP, Residue of banned herbicide, Liver problems, 50,
50, 214; 2,4-D, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops,
Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems; possible cancer
risk, 70, 70, 232; Alachlor, Runoff from herbicide used on
row crops, Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia;
increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 0; Aldicarb, Runoff/leaching
from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor
neurological symptoms, 3, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfone, Runoff/
leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively
minor neurological symptoms, 2, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfoxide,
Runoff/leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and
relatively minor neurological symptoms, 4, 1, 32; Atrazine,
Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Cardiovascular
system or reproductive problems; possible cancer risk, 3, 3,
263; Benzo(a)pyrene, Leaching from linings of water storage
tanks and distribution lines, Reproductive difficulties;
increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 246; Carbofuran, Leaching
of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa, Problems with
blood, nervous system, or reproductive system, 40, =40, 255.
Chlordane, Residue of banned termiticide, Liver or nervous
system problems; increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 255; DBCP
(1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane), Runoff/leaching from soil
fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards,
Reproductive difficulties, increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0,
166; Dalapon, Runoff from herbicide used on rights-of-way,
Minor kidney changes, 200, 200, 213; Di(ethylhexyl)-adipate,
Discharge from chemical factories, Weight loss, liver
problems, possible reproductive difficulties, 400, 400, 253;
Di(ethylhexyl)-phthalate, Discharge from rubber and chemical
factories, Reproductive difficulties; liver problems;
increased risk of cancer, 6, 0, 286; Dinoseb, Runoff from
herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables, Reproductive
difficulties, 7, 7, 215; Diquat, Runoff from herbicide use,
Cataracts, 20, 20, 147; EDB (ethylene dibromide), Discharge
from petroleum refineries, Problems with liver, stomach,
reproductive system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer,
0.05, 0, 177; Endothall, Runoff from herbicide use, Stomach
and intestinal problems, 100, 100, 150; Endrin, Residue of
banned insecticide, Liver problems, 2, 2, 230.
Glyphosate, Runoff from herbicide use, Kidney problems;
reproductive difficulties, 700, 700, 150; Heptachlor, Residue
of banned termiticide, Liver damage, increased risk of
cancer, 0.4, 0, 258; Heptachlor epoxide, Breakdown of
heptachlor, Liver damage; increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0,
258; Hexachlorobenzene, Discharge from metal refineries and
agricultural chemical factories, Liver or kidney problems;
reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 1, 0,
224; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Discharge from chemical
factories, Kidney or stomach problems, 50, 50, 269; Lindane,
Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cattle, lumber,
gardens, Liver or kidney problems, 0.2, 0.2, 0; Methoxychlor,
Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on fruits, vegetables,
alfalfa, livestock, Reproductive difficulties, 40, 40, 257;
Oxamyl, Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on apples,
potatoes, and tomatoes, Slight nervous system effects, 200,
200, 255; PCBs, Runoff from landfills; discharge of waste
chemicals, Skin changes; thymus gland problems; immune
deficiencies; reproductive or nervous system difficulties,
increased risk of cancer, 0.5, 0, 214; Pentachlorophenol,
Discharge from wood preserving factories, Liver or kidney
problems; increased cancer risk, 1, 0, 220; Simazine,
Herbicide runoff, Blood problems, 4, 4, 255; Toxaphene,
Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton and cattle,
Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems, increased risk of cancer,
3, 0, 222.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I just implore all our colleagues to
take a good look at what this can have an effect on our general
populace, I mean, the human impact, and I trust that they will vote
``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In my closing, I just want to really reemphasize the importance to
pass this bill and get it signed into law because the environment is at
risk, human safety is at risk, human health is at risk. We have over
100 Zika outbreaks currently in the United States. We have hundreds of
West Nile outbreaks. And what this bill does is it puts a tool in the
toolbox for our mosquito control districts, an additional tool to help
eradicate or control the mosquito population to prevent and protect
human health around our citizens.
There has been a lot of talk about pesticide chemicals in the water,
and some of these chemicals that have been mentioned are what we call
legacy chemicals that were used years ago. As a farmer, I can tell you
some of the chemicals we used when I started farming in 1975 didn't
break down. They weren't biodegradable.
The industry has changed a lot. We have new chemicals, better
chemicals, safer chemicals. Many of them are biodegradable. So these
legacy issues are not--the contaminants in a lot of the
[[Page H4545]]
water today isn't from chemicals being used in today's agricultural
environment, but it is from past years because those chemicals last in
the environment for many years.
I think it is also important that the former Secretary of
Agriculture--I stated earlier--Tom Vilsack, was very concerned about
this, and he sent a letter to the EPA Administrator at the time, Lisa
Jackson, that this court case doesn't do anything to help protect the
environment or protect water quality in the United States, and it adds
additional costs and burdens to our agricultural producers in their
efforts to produce the wholesome, safe, affordable food supply to feed
the world.
This is commonsense legislation, and I urge people to vote for H.R.
953. As has been said earlier, this bill has been up several other
times in previous Congresses; it has had strong bipartisan support.
Unfortunately, the Senate did not move on it and take action. Hopefully
this time we will see that, especially with the outbreaks of Zika and
West Nile and seeing the cost.
It was mentioned earlier, too, about the cost of getting the permit.
Obviously, doing the permit, actually applying it probably isn't much
costly, but to get all the stuff lined up, the consultants and all the
paperwork they have to do to get the information there is quite costly.
We had in previous committee hearings mosquito control districts
coming in and talking about the cost. The thousands of dollars they are
spending has blown their budget where they could be using that to spend
on mosquito eradication.
So, obviously, we have hundreds of groups around the country that
support this legislation. It is needed, and I urge my colleagues to
support it so we can move on and protect the environment, enhance the
environment, and also human health and safety.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Young of Iowa). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-21. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 953
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembed,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Act of 2017''.
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 Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
145. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 115-145.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 2, insert the following (and redesignate
subsequent subparagraphs of the quoted matter accordingly):
``(B) A discharge that contains any active or inactive
ingredient identified on the list of toxic pollutants
established pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of this Act, the
list of extremely hazardous substances established pursuant
to section 302(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11002(a)), the list of
toxic chemicals established pursuant to section 313(c) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 11023(c)), or the list of hazardous
substances established pursuant to section 102 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 348, the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment to H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The
underlying bill is overly broad, and not only risks public health, but
also endangers our agricultural lands by needlessly contaminating our
water.
Let me be clear: I support eliminating unnecessary regulatory
burdens. In fact, if you ask every Representative whether they support
getting rid of duplicative or unnecessary regulations, you would
probably get 435 yeas. However, the regulations here are far from
unwarranted.
There is a compelling reason why the Environmental Protection Agency
stepped in to protect the American public and our water from
unnecessary harms from pesticides. Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, the EPA is charged with
registering all pesticides that are made and sold in the United States.
But FIFRA does not take into account when, where, and how pesticides
are applied.
Applying a pesticide to crop land has a dramatically different
consequence to the environment than when it is sprayed directly into or
over or on bodies of water. So that is why, under the Clean Water Act,
pesticide general permits are now required for pesticide applications
in, over, or on water.
Folks are only required to apply for a pesticide general permit when
they want to release biological or chemical pesticides into, over, or
on waters of the United States. A PGP is often required for control of
the following pests: mosquitoes, vegetation and algae, animal pests,
areawide pests, and forest-canopy pests.
Now, I would like to clarify some misconceptions that we have heard
discussed here this afternoon. Claims that the pesticide general
permits recklessly harms American agriculture are simply not true. For
6 years now, the pesticide general permit has been in place. Farmers
and forestry operators have had successful growing seasons and have
provided important products to the United States around the world.
Congressional testimony has revealed no report of a pesticide
applicator being unable to apply pesticide in a timely manner.
Assertions that the pesticide general permit prevents us from combating
the Zika virus are also untrue.
When special circumstances arise, public health outbreaks like the
Zika virus or West Nile, special exemptions allow applicators to spray
pesticides
[[Page H4546]]
and apply for permits after the fact. The post-pesticide application
process is simple, and it works.
The bottom line is that limiting the amount of pesticides that are
sprayed into our lakes, rivers, and streams, into our drinking water
supplies, is common sense.
In my home State of Connecticut, pesticide contamination in
residential drinking water has been a Statewide problem for a long
time. Some of my constituents have gone for years living with stomach
pain, hair loss, body numbness, skin rashes, not knowing the cause of
their ailments. Test results have revealed pesticides were the cause.
That is why I stand here today to offer an amendment that would
ensure that we keep existing clean water protections in place so that
we can protect our waters and agricultural lands in the long run.
My amendment would retain existing Clean Water Act accountability for
the most toxic chemicals and hazardous substances commonly used in
pesticides today.
Should we would try to find a way to streamline the application
process for a pesticide general permit?
Of course. But a blanket exemption with complete disregard for clean
water, the ecosystem, and public health makes this underlying bill
unwarranted and unwise.
We must work together in this Congress to protect our waterways,
ensure a healthy food and water supply, while also protecting our
public health.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support my amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, a couple of points I would like to make. When
my colleague from Connecticut talked about spraying chemicals,
pesticides over water, the EPA has full authority, full jurisdiction to
restrict those pesticides, how they are used, when they are used, and
also who is using them; and they can restrict it to a manner where the
applicator has to have specific training. And there is nothing to stop
the EPA to say that if you are going to spray over a body of water, you
have to notify the EPA. The EPA has that authority. They have the
jurisdiction to do that.
I think it is also interesting to mention when talking about spraying
and getting a permit after the fact, yeah, that if the local entity
declares an emergency, then they can go in. But my argument is that
since this additional permitting requirement, this additional red tape
bureaucracy is stopping the preventive programs, so we shouldn't have
to get to an emergency situation where we just spray and do the permit
after the fact.
But her amendment, H.R. 953 eliminates the duplicative, expansive,
and unnecessary permit process, and helps free up resources for States,
counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of diseases
like Zika and West Nile virus. This amendment, in effect, undermines
these efforts.
The amendment intends to make the bill's exemption from the Clean
Water Act permitting ineffective by carving out from the bill those
waters that may receive a discharge containing any one of several
hundred listed chemical substances. The vast majority of substances
referenced in this amendment are not even a pesticide and have nothing
to do with the regulation of a pesticide.
Additionally, a discharge covered under this amendment does not have
to be related in any way to the use or application of a pesticide. The
net effect of this amendment is to undermine the bill based on
circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the use of a
pesticide.
Further, the amendment would require a pesticide user to conduct
extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. This defeats the
bill's purpose of reducing the regulatory burdens. I urge Members to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the subcommittee
ranking member.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty). The amendment
would help ensure the protection of public health from discharges of
toxic chemicals such as benzene, chlordane, and vinyl chloride.
In my view, the protection of our families and children from
seemingly limitless exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and our
water and our neighborhoods should be paramount, yet here we are today
considering legislation to waive the simple requirement that a chemical
pesticide sprayer fill out an application providing notice of where he
intends to spray known toxic chemicals, such as the ones I mentioned,
all known to have toxic effects on humans.
The amendment under consideration says that we should, at a minimum,
disclose and monitor the dangerous chemicals for potential toxic
effects. These are chemicals that Congress has already designated as
``toxic,'' ``hazardous substances,'' or ``extreme hazardous
substances'' in Federal statute.
As Congress, we should want to make sure that these dangerous
chemicals do not wind up in our rivers and streams, potentially
contaminating our local drinking water sources and leading to greater
toxic exposure by our families and children.
{time} 1600
The level of protection is worth 10 minutes of time by a commercial
pesticide applicator.
Mr. Chair, I approve Ms. Esty's amendment.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I just urge the Members to oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-145.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, after line 13, add the following:
SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF FISHERIES.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
shall prevent the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or a State from requiring a permit under
section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for
any discharge (as defined in such Act) that would have a
negative effect on commercial, recreational, or subsistence
fisheries, or on fisheries protected by Tribal treaty rights,
as determined by the Administrator or the State, as
applicable, based on the best available science.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 348, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this
amendment and to speak against the underlying bill.
Unfortunately, I wasn't serving the House in 2011 when this bill was
first brought to the floor. I was here in 2014, when the bill was
brought up again, twice. I was here, also, in 2016, when it was brought
up twice.
This bill has gone through a number of name changes, but its intent
remains the same, and that is, to allow the irresponsible application
of pesticides into our Nation's waterways. Undermining the Clean Water
Act, as this bill does, means taking the EPA out of the picture,
blocking them from weighing in on pesticides that are
[[Page H4547]]
dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams, without regard to the impacts
of human health, or to those who rely on recreational, commercial, and
Tribal fisheries.
We know, unfortunately, that despite efforts to regulate pesticides
for public health and safety, these dangerous chemicals continue to be
detected in surface and groundwater bodies at dangerous levels. Impacts
to fish and wildlife have been significant, and have already been
devastating in some instances. Oysters, shrimp, sea trout, and
redfish--four of the most important species to food webs, fishermen,
and the economy along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts--have shown effects
ranging from impaired survival skills, to damaged DNA, to death as a
result of exposure to pesticides that have been approved for
agricultural use.
In 2006, USGS released its review on pesticide occurrence and
concentrations in streams and groundwater. According to this report, at
least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams tested
throughout the Nation. In addition, chemicals such as DDT, which has
been banned in the U.S. for decades, were still showing up, found in
fish tissues sampled across watersheds nationwide.
We see a similar situation at the State level. In my State of
California, pesticides are among the top sources of water quality
impairments in the State. 437 waterbodies are impaired by 40 different
categories of pesticides. That is why commercial fishing groups oppose
the underlying bill.
My amendment will ensure that we don't deny either the EPA or a State
their ability to require permits for pesticide use that could have
negative effects on fisheries. Let's make sure that streams and rivers
that support fish are clean. Let's make sure that the fish we catch,
eat, and sell are free from toxic chemicals. America's fisheries are a
backbone of both sport fishing and commercial fishing industries.
The recreational sector alone accounts for more than $115 billion of
our country's economy, and it employs more than 828,000 people. My
amendment would protect these recreational activities, not only for
current generations but for future generations of anglers to come.
By accidentally contaminating our waterways, pesticides also
exacerbate the precarious status of endangered and threatened species.
In 1996, the death of over 90,000 steelhead fish, 100 coho salmon, and
thousands of nongame fish resulted from an herbicide called acrolein
that entered the waterways in Bear Creek, Oregon. Many wild salmon
stocks are now on the brink of extinction on the West Coast, and losses
in such sensitive populations make recovery efforts increasingly
difficult.
Pesticides can pose a dangerous threat to commercial fisheries. In
1999, a massive lobster die-off devastated the lives and livelihoods of
Connecticut and New York lobstermen along the Long Island Sound,
producing a multimillion-dollar settlement with pesticide manufacturers
mishandling the chemical malathion.
Similar concern has brought forth proposals to regulate methoprene
and resmethrin in Maine in order to protect their commercial fishery,
which is worth over $700 million.
Mr. Chair, I have letters of support here for my amendment from the
American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Karuk Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu
Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations,
Seafood Harvesters of America, and other organizations who are very
interested in this amendment, and support it.
May 24, 2017.
Dear Representative: As the House considers H.R. 953, the
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, we the undersigned
groups representing millions of hunters and anglers across
the nation, urge you to ensure that H.R. 953 does not
negatively impact water quality, fish health and the
recreational fishing industry by supporting Amendment #3,
sponsored by Representative Jared Huffman.
The Huffman Amendment protects fisheries and water quality
by ensuring any pesticide spraying into or over waterways
that would negatively impact our nation's fisheries is
properly monitored and permitted. The 47 million sportsmen
and women that hunt and fish each year depend on strong Clean
Water Act protections to ensure thriving fish populations
that are safe to eat and the Huffman amendment would ensure
it continues to do so.
America's hunters and anglers contribute more than $200
billion to America's economy each year and this robust
outdoor economy depends on healthy rivers, lakes, and
streams. Nearly 2,000 waterways in the United States are
known to be impaired because of pesticides, and, even at low
levels, pesticides pose a particularly concerning threat to
fish and wildlife populations. Without protective federal
safeguards in place to regulate pesticides applied to our
waterways, sportsmen and women will have access to fewer
quality hunting and fishing opportunities.
On behalf of our millions of members and conservation-
minded hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts, we urge
you to support this common-sense measure to safeguard our
water resources and outdoor heritage and support the Huffman
amendment.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Bulis,
AFFTA President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association.
John W. Gale,
Conservation Director, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.
Adam Kolton,
Vice President, National Advocacy, National Wildlife
Federation.
Steve Moyer,
Vice President, Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited.
____
House of Representatives, May 23, 2017.
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of thousands of tribal,
commercial, and recreational fishermen who depend on healthy
fisheries for their subsistence, traditional cultural
practices, businesses, and recreational enjoyment, we write
to urge you to vote YES on the Huffman amendment to H.R. 953.
The amendment would ensure that existing Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) permitting requirements for
point source polluters remain in place when science clearly
indicates they are needed to protect fisheries.
Under Sec. 402 of the FWPCA, the Administrator of the EPA
may issue permits for point source discharges of approved
pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into navigable waters,
which are also inhabited by many important and valuable fish
species that are worth billions of dollars to fishermen and
anglers each year. H.R. 953 would eliminate the EPA's
permitting authority for approved pesticides, herbicides, and
fungicides discharged into navigable waters. Many of these
chemicals, despite their approval for agricultural use, are
known to be seriously harmful to iconic fish species
including salmon and trout, jeopardizing their survival and
posing a risk to the food supply.
Congressman Huffman's amendment to H.R. 953 would simply
leave EPA permitting requirements in place for the dumping of
pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into our streams and
rivers when they are known to pose a significant risk to
fisheries. We ask that you support this amendment in order to
keep America's fisheries and strong fishing traditions alive,
safe, and prosperous. If you have any questions, please call
Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
Sincerely,
Noah Oppenheim, Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Leaf Hillman,
Director, Department of Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe;
Caleen Sisk, Chief, Winnemem Wintu Tribe; Robert
Vandermark, Executive Director, Marine Fish
Conservation Network; Kevin Wheeler, Executive
Director, Seafood Harvesters of America; Roger Thomas,
President, Golden Gate Salmon Association; Bob Rees,
Executive Director, Association of Northwest
Steelheaders; Linda Behnken, Executive Director, Alaska
Longline Fishermen's Association; Grant Putnam,
President, Northwest Guides and Anglers Association;
Benjamin Bulis, President, American Fly Fishing Trade
Association; Lyf Gildersleeve, Owner, Flying Fish
Company; Kevin Scribner, Chief Executive Officer,
Forever Wild Seafood; Cynthia Sarthou, Executive
Director, Gulf Restoration Network.
____
Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission,
Portland, OR, May 23, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: On behalf
of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
and our member tribes--the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe, I
[[Page H4548]]
would like to share our support for the amendment offered by
Mr. Huffman to H.R. 953--Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of
2017. The amendment specifically preserves the ability of the
EPA Administrator or a State to require permits necessary to
protect fisheries including Tribal treaty fisheries from
harmful discharges of FIFRA approved pesticides.
Tribal members are justifiably concerned about the impact
of water quality on the natural resources of the Columbia
River system. Our member tribes' right to abundant, healthful
fish is guaranteed by the 1855 treaties with the United
States. A century's worth of federal court decisions has
established beyond dispute that these treaty fishing rights
are permanent in nature, and that they secure for the tribes
the right to take all species of fish found throughout their
reserved fishing areas for subsistence, ceremonial and
commercial purposes. Tribal treaties are the supreme law of
the land, and federal agencies and States must interpret
designated uses to include subsistence fishing and must
protect fishable waters. Pesticides can wreak havoc on the
health of the habitat and associated food webs that support
our fisheries. They can disrupt water quality conditions and
the availability of natural riparian and aquatic vegetation
cover as well as the abundance of aquatic invertebrates and
fishes that support the growth and maturation of salmonid
species. Our tribes recognize that the health and future of
our tribal fisheries require clean, cold water that is free
of contaminants.
Regulations should be efficient, just, and effective, and
necessarily must provide the EPA and States with the
authority to protect the unique habitat and food web system
that is essential to the health of our tribal fisheries.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you
have any further questions please contact me or Dianne
Barton, PhD.
Sincerely,
Jaime A. Pinkham,
CRITFC Executive Director.
____
American Sportfishing
Association,
Alexandria, VA, May 23, 2017.
Hon. Jared Huffman,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Huffman: On behalf of the nation's
recreational fishing industry, the American Sportfishing
Association (ASA) would like to be on record as supporting
your amendment to H.R. 953. This amendment leaves EPA
permitting requirements in place for the dumping of
pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides into our streams and
rivers when they are known to pose a significant risk to
fisheries.
America's fisheries are an economic powerhouse and the
backbone of the sportfishing and commercial fishing
industries. America's recreational anglers generate more than
$48 billion in retail sales with a $115 billion impact on the
nation's economy; creating employment for more than 828,000
people.
Our industry depends on clean water for continued healthy
and abundant fisheries. There are certain chemicals used for
various on-land industry operations that are known to be
incredibly harmful to fish development and survival when
released into waterways. The Administrator of the EPA
currently enforces permitting requirements for the disposal
of these chemicals into our streams and rivers. Your
amendment would ensure that existing Federal Water Pollution
Control Act permitting requirements for point-source
polluters (Sec. 402) remain in place when science indicates
they are needed to conserve fisheries.
``The Huffman amendment'' is needed because the original
legislation, H.R. 953, would eliminate this permitting
authority for all approved pesticides, herbicides, and
fungicides discharged into streams and rivers; even when they
are known to pose a significant risk to fisheries.
We appreciate your leadership and understanding of the
importance of clean water to fishing and the outdoor
recreational economy.
Sincerely,
Scott Gudes,
Vice President of Government Affairs.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I prefer butter on my lobster rolls, not
toxic pesticides. Let's make sure that States maintain their authority
to prudently protect their economies and public health from pesticide
impacts.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, well, that was a lot of drama. Let's not lose
sight that what we are trying to do in H.R. 953 is to free up the
resources so States, counties, local governments can fight the mosquito
population, fight Zika, fight the West Nile virus, and let our
agricultural producers have the most efficient way to protect the
environment, and also produce a safe, wholesome food supply.
This amendment undermines the base bill. The amendment intends to
carve out from the bill those waters that have a discharge of any type.
That means the way this amendment is written, any type of discharge--
even if it is not a pesticide--any type of discharge, a nutrient
discharge, anything would fall under this and undermines the bill. This
amendment covers all types of discharges. I think that is important to
mention.
In addition, most waterbodies in this country are fishable, and,
therefore, subject to this amendment's carve-out. As a result, the
types of discharges and waterbodies in question under this amendment do
not need to be related at all to the actual regulation of a pesticide.
Further, the amendment would require that a pesticide user conduct
extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. Moreover, the
amendment's standard of any negative effect is vague and subjective and
could include an effect that has nothing to do with a pesticide.
Registered pesticides already take into account aquatic species' and
fisheries' health into consideration during the registration process. I
think it is important that they go through a rigorous testing process,
and more testing, and the EPA has full control. They can reject that.
If they determine that a pesticide is environmentally harmful, or
potentially harmful, they can pull that product off.
They can also restrict the product even more so, and restrict who the
applicators are, and there is nothing to stop the EPA or the State EPAs
to say: Before you apply a pesticide over a waterbody, you need to tell
us first before you do it.
There is nothing to stop the EPA from doing that.
So all this amendment does, it defeats the bill's purpose, reducing
the regulatory burdens, and I urge my Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that some States may
want to put their efforts into protecting water quality and the health
of their fisheries and their ecosystems, rather than just carpet-
bombing waterways with pesticides.
This amendment says, those States have the authority to do that if
they choose to.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I totally support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman). If this amendment is adopted,
it would maintain the existing Clean Water Act general permit
requirements to protect commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fisheries, and Tribal treaty obligations. I support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from California has
expired.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chair, I will just say that the comment about this
amendment would allow States to do it, I don't think there is anything
to stop the States from doing it now. If States want to do more to
protect water quality in their States, I think they have the right to
do that.
Under the Clean Water Act, what it says is: The States will implement
and enforce the Clean Water Act under the guidance of the Federal
Government, but they have to be, at the least, a standard of the
Federal Government. They can exceed that standard if they want, so I
don't think there is anything stopping that.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support the
underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
[[Page H4549]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 115-145 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Esty of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Huffman of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 229, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 279]
AYES--191
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--10
Black
Cummings
Graves (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Newhouse
Perlmutter
Swalwell (CA)
{time} 1637
Messrs. WEBSTER of Florida, CHAFFETZ, WITTMAN, BANKS of Indiana,
ESTES of Kansas, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, Mr. O'HALLERAN, Mrs. McMORRIS
RODGERS, and Messrs. CURBELO of Florida and WOODALL changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CLAY, Ms. MOORE, Messrs. LANCE, MEEHAN, and Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Castor of Florida was allowed to speak out
of order.)
Fifth Annual Capital Soccer Classic
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the co-chair of the
bipartisan Congressional Soccer Caucus, along with my co-chairs,
Representative Don Bacon, Darin LaHood, and Eric Swalwell, I am pleased
to inform the House that last night a group of bipartisan Members came
together to play in the fifth annual Capital Soccer Classic, a charity
benefit for the U.S. Soccer Foundation and children in underserved
areas across the country.
The U.S. Soccer Foundation transforms abandoned fields and vacant
lots into state-of-the-art soccer fields to create safe places where
kids can play. The U.S. Soccer Foundation also partners with our local
communities back home for free afterschool programs to help kids
establish healthy habits: put the cellphones aside, turn off the TV,
get outside, and learn good sportsmanship.
The Republican team was very tough: Congressmen Don Bacon, Darin
LaHood, Gus Bilirakis, Steve Knight, Erik Paulsen, and David Valadao,
who scored for the Republican team. We had a number of outstanding
congressional staff and former professional soccer stars as well, but
they were not enough for the Democratic team. The Democratic team
notched a 5-3 victory to deliver this trophy for America's blue team.
Great fun was had by all. We would like to invite you to join us next
year because the real winners are the kids across the country and the
opportunity to be healthy and well.
Mr. BACON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, it was an honor to be able to have a
bipartisan game out there and have a good time.
Soccer keeps children in shape. Thousands and thousands of our kids
get to play this every year. We also stay in shape. It also teaches
them teamwork and how to follow the rules, and they become better
citizens.
I had to do an ibuprofen this morning.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
[[Page H4550]]
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Huffman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 230, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 280]
AYES--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--11
Black
Brady (TX)
Cummings
Graves (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Newhouse
Swalwell (CA)
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1645
Mr. O'HALLERAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Iowa, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 953)
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, pursuant to House Resolution 348,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current
form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McGovern moves to recommit the bill H.R. 953 to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 4. PROTECTING AMERICAN FAMILIES FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS
SEEKING TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
This Act, including the amendments made by this Act, shall
not apply to the discharge of a pesticide if the manufacturer
or distributor of the pesticide has made a political
contribution to the President or to any Federal official
charged with registration, regulation, or approval of the use
of the pesticide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the Republicans are again bending over
backwards to help corporations and the wealthiest among us while
ignoring science and leaving hardworking American families to suffer
the consequences. This administration's decisions have placed special
interests and their financial contributions ahead of
[[Page H4551]]
the health and the safety of our citizens, and this Republican-led
House has been complicit.
Earlier this year, a toxic chemical manufacturer convinced the Trump
administration to discard decades of scientific research just so they
could continue to profit off of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that has been
proven to be harmful to human beings, especially infants and children.
The pesticide was well on its way to being banned by the EPA, which
said, in 2015, that it could not be declared safe for human health and
for the environment; but the pesticide manufacturer wrote a check for
$1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee, and just weeks
later, the proposed ban on the pesticide was magically reversed. It is
amazing how that worked out.
What I am wondering is: Did President Trump and the Republicans in
Congress think we wouldn't notice? Did they think the American people
would be okay with them knowingly allowing a dangerous pesticide to be
used on farms and affect our food supply? Republicans should be ashamed
of this blatant disregard for the health of the families they were
elected to represent.
In 2000, the EPA banned most home uses of the chemical, citing risks
to children, yet it continues to be used in agriculture production
across this country. Does this really sound like something that should
be used on the food we feed our kids?
On the campaign trail into the White House, President Trump has made
clear that he will always side with deep-pocketed polluters and
corporations over the health and safety of families.
In January 2017, Dow Chemical was reported to have contributed $1
million to President Trump's inaugural committee. The CEO of Dow
Chemical was a frequent guest of President-elect Trump, including at an
appearance at a postelection rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In March
2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban
on the pesticide.
Also in March 2017, Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on
this pesticide suggesting, in a statement, that ``by reversing the
previous administration's step to ban one of the most widely used
pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science and
decisionmaking rather than predetermined results.'' Public health
advocacy groups strongly disagreed, not to mention conservation
organizations.
Mr. Speaker, you know what? I think I trust public health experts
when it comes to protecting our families over Administrator Pruitt, who
sued the EPA at least 14 times as Oklahoma's attorney general opposing
important protections for our air and our water. Talk about the fox
guarding the henhouse.
Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to auction off the health and
safety of millions of Americans to the highest bidder. Every day the
Trump administration gets more brazen with their giveaways to special
interests, raising serious questions about corruption and conflicts of
interest.
Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp. He has created a cesspool.
We are talking about people's lives here, Mr. Speaker. This pesticide
has been shown to harm women, children, and families. It has no place
on our farms or in our food system. Our health should not be for sale.
It isn't hard to connect the dots here. The EPA abruptly reversed its
efforts to ban a toxic chemical just weeks after the chemical's
manufacturer made a political contribution to the newly elected
President. And we know their decision wasn't based on science. The
former head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention suggested that the Trump EPA is ``ignoring the science that
is pretty solid'' and putting farmworkers and exposed children at
unnecessary risk.
Now, I can see how people might start to wonder whether this
administration is on the side of special interests or the American
people. This amendment fights back against the corrupting influence of
political contributions from pesticide companies. It would ensure that
existing science-based protections for our families and our environment
cannot be overturned by a well-timed contribution to President Trump or
to those in his administration charged with implementing the law.
The American people deserve to know that their leaders will stand up
to protect their health and their safety rather than protecting the
bottom line of wealthy special interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to do the right thing and adopt this amendment and show the
American people that our government is not for sale.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary and
aims to undermine the purpose of the bill.
The underlying bill, H.R. 953, eliminates the duplicative, expensive,
and unnecessary permit process that helps free up the resources for our
States, counties, and local governments to better combat the Zika, West
Nile virus, and other diseases; but this motion, in effect, aims to
undermine the bill.
In this motion, the bill says it will not apply to anybody who makes
a discharge of a pesticide if they made a political contribution to the
President or to any Federal official charged with registration,
regulation, or approval of the use of a pesticide. That is utterly
absurd. You can't make political contributions to regulators at the
EPA.
Let's keep in mind that the EPA has full authority to regulate these
pesticides, pull pesticides off the market, and regulate who applies
them, and they have full authority to protect our water and our human
health.
This amendment simply aims to gut the bill. It is unclear how it ever
would work. We need to stop creating unnecessary roadblocks to the use
of products that stand to protect public health and feed the Nation.
H.R. 953 is a good bill that will help protect public health and the
environment and stop mosquitoes from spreading Zika and the West Nile
virus and other diseases to our vulnerable populations.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this motion and urge my colleagues to
vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 230, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 281]
AYES--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
[[Page H4552]]
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--17
Black
Costa
Cummings
Davidson
Franks (AZ)
Graves (LA)
Green, Gene
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Nadler
Newhouse
Sherman
Swalwell (CA)
Waters, Maxine
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1703
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 165, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 282]
AYES--256
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Blunt Rochester
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawson (FL)
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--165
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Krishnamoorthi
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Black
Cummings
Graves (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Newhouse
Swalwell (CA)
[[Page H4553]]
{time} 1710
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes today
on account of traveling with the Vice President on official business to
Louisiana. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
No. 279, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 280, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 281, and
``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House
chamber for votes Wednesday, May 24. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 277, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 278, and
``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Speaker, the man who has served as a father figure
to me for the past twenty years has taken a turn for the worse in his
battle against cancer and his health is rapidly deteriorating. As such,
I will be returning home and will miss votes today, Wednesday, May 24,
and for the balance of the week. Had I been present, I would have
voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 274, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 275,
``yea'' on rollcall No. 276, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 277, ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 278, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 279, ``nay'' on rollcall No.
280, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 281, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 282.
____________________