[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4719-4728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 872) 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, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 872

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

       Section 3(f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Use of authorized pesticides.--Except as provided in 
     section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     the Administrator or a State may not require a permit under 
     such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable 
     waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or 
     use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, 
     resulting from the application of such pesticide.''.

     SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.

       Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Discharges of Pesticides.--
       ``(1) No permit requirement.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a permit shall not be required by the 
     Administrator or a State under this Act for a discharge from 
     a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide 
     authorized for sale, distribution, or use under the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or the residue 
     of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such 
     pesticide.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     following discharges of a pesticide or pesticide residue:
       ``(A) A discharge resulting from the application of a 
     pesticide in violation of a provision of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that is relevant 
     to protecting water quality, if--
       ``(i) the discharge would not have occurred but for the 
     violation; or
       ``(ii) the amount of pesticide or pesticide residue in the 
     discharge is greater than would have occurred without the 
     violation.
       ``(B) Stormwater discharges subject to regulation under 
     subsection (p).
       ``(C) The following discharges subject to regulation under 
     this section:
       ``(i) Manufacturing or industrial effluent.
       ``(ii) Treatment works effluent.
       ``(iii) Discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
     vessel, including a discharge resulting from ballasting 
     operations or vessel biofouling prevention.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on H.R. 872.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act in a timely manner on H.R. 
872 to ensure that our small businesses, farmers, communities, 
counties, and State and Federal agencies will not be burdened with a 
costly, duplicative permit requirement that offers no environmental or 
health benefits. It is important to note that pesticides play an 
important role in protecting our Nation's food supply, public health, 
natural resources, infrastructure, and green spaces. They are used not 
only to protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage 
mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests, invasive weeds, and 
animals that can choke our waterways, impede our power generation, and 
damage our forests and recreational areas.
  The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 amends FIFRA and the 
Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement of a permit for 
applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. This Act is 
being passed in response to National Cotton Council v. EPA, which found 
NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of biological 
pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not intended to exempt waste-
streams or discharges from regulation simply because they may contain 
pesticides or pesticide residues. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes 
clear that the NPDES exemption only addresses discharges of pesticide 
or pesticide residue resulting from applications consistent with FIFRA. 
The legislation does not exempt applications of pesticides that violate 
the relevant requirements of FIFRA.
  There have been accusations that this bill would cause contamination 
of our waterways. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge those accusations. 
Today, some will argue in defending the Sixth Circuit Court decision 
that pesticide applications were a violation of FIFRA. The case in 
question is the Talent Water District in Jackson County, Oregon, where 
it is claimed that the application of pesticides in violation of the 
FIFRA label resulted in a fish kill of more than 92,000 juvenile 
steelhead. I point out that these pesticide applications were in 
violation of FIFRA and the requirements of FIFRA, and therefore would 
be addressed under that law. Requiring a duplicative permit under the 
Clean Water Act would not offer any additional environmental safety 
standard.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 872 is a simple fix. The legislation before us 
passed unanimously through the House Agriculture Committee and with an 
overwhelming 46-8 vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. This proves that this is not a partisan issue but an issue 
of such importance that Republicans and Democrats and even the EPA have 
worked together to provide a solution.
  H.R. 872 makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to 
require this redundant layer of bureaucracy, especially since the EPA 
already comprehensively regulates the distribution, sale, and use of 
pesticides. Although the court did extend the effective date of its 
order to October 31, it did not fix the underlying problem. The impact 
on all pesticide users required to obtain this extra permit will be the

[[Page 4720]]

same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the 
burdensome cost or real impact on their livelihoods. The only things 
this extension provides is more months of regulatory uncertainty.
  I ask my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation 
and to ensure that FIFRA remains the standard for pesticide regulation. 
Let us help protect our mutual constituency from duplicative 
obligations that provide no qualified benefit to human health or 
environmental concerns.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) be permitted to control 10 minutes 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nugent). Without objection, the 
gentleman from California will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BACA. Thank you very much.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Tim Bishop, our third 
baseman--an excellent third baseman--for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. I want to thank Nutrition and 
Horticulture Subcommittee Chair Jean Schmidt and I also want to thank 
Water Resources Subcommittee Chair Bob Gibbs for their leadership on 
this issue. I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues on 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to jointly resolve an 
important issue and to build a relationship across jurisdictions and 
across the aisle.
  H.R. 872 is a straightforward bipartisan bill that creates a 
necessary fix to the flawed National Cotton Council v. EPA Sixth 
Circuit Court decision. If the decision is implemented, pesticide 
applicators will be forced into a duplicative regulatory process that 
would require permitting under both FIFRA and the Clean Water Act. We 
don't need to duplicate. We don't need additional costs and burdens on 
many of the individuals. We need one agency that can handle it, not two 
agencies.
  While the new regulation will provide no environmental benefit, it 
will add millions in new costs to State regulating agencies, 
agricultural producers, mosquito control districts, and small 
businesses. The EPA understands this. That's why they have helped us 
write this bill. The EPA estimates that the permit process would add 
$1.7 million in annual costs to our cash-strapped States. But during a 
hearing on this issue last month, former Congressman John Salazar 
testified that the cost of implementation for the State of Colorado 
would be even greater--upwards of $20 million.

                              {time}  1720

  In addition, the permitting process is estimated to add another $50 
million to the cost of pesticide applicators, and most of them are 
small businesses.
  In my home State of California, we face a 12.2 percent unemployment 
rate and a $25 billion to $31 billion deficit. We simply can't afford 
this regulatory burden on them or on anyone else throughout the State. 
Likewise, the negative impact on agricultural, irrigation--and I state 
on agricultural, irrigation--and pest control professionals is a cause 
for serious public concern.
  My congressional district, located in California's Inland Empire, has 
long had problems with the West Nile virus. The ability of mosquito and 
pest control to respond quickly to any situation must not be 
jeopardized. If we have one agency, it can act quickly. If we have two, 
it's not only costly, but can you imagine what would happen if we 
didn't act quickly?
  For over 30 years, FIFRA has ensured that when a pesticide is used in 
accordance with label requirements, it will not bring unnecessary risk 
to our communities or to the environment. Let's work together to pass 
this simple fix to protect the public health--and I state to protect 
the public health--of our communities and to prevent costly duplicative 
regulatory burdens on us.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I have a letter that I would like to submit. 
It is from the National Association of Conservation Districts, which is 
a nonprofit organization that represents the Nation's 3,000 
conservation districts. For more than 70 years, the NACD has worked 
with the landowners and managers of private working lands to help them 
apply effective conservation practices. They understand that the EPA 
already conducts a rigorous analysis of the health and environmental 
effects of any proposed usage of a pesticide under FIFRA.
  I also have another letter to submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, 
that has been signed by 138 different agricultural, irrigation, and 
pest control organizations from across the Nation.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation. It's good bipartisan legislation. It deals with 
duplicative efforts, and consolidates some of them. It is also cost-
effective. We don't need to put the burden on anyone else.

                                           National Association of


                                       Conservation Districts,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Conservation Districts (NACD) and America's 3,000 
     conservation districts, I write to voice our support for H.R. 
     872 to allow farmers, ranchers, and foresters to continue 
     pesticide use in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). We appreciate your 
     recognition of this important issue and encourage bipartisan 
     congressional action to address the significant regulatory 
     concerns arising from a 2009 court ruling.
       In 2009, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 
     Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge 
     Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for pesticide 
     applications made ``in, over, or near'' water. Prior to this 
     ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not 
     required CWA permits for pesticides applied according to the 
     FIFRA label. This ruling creates confusion, uncertainty and 
     increased regulatory burdens.
       EPA conducts a rigorous analysis of the health and 
     environmental effects of a proposed use of a pesticide; when 
     used in compliance with the EPA-approved label, FIFRA-
     registered pesticides have already been proven safe. Rather 
     than spending precious time and resources on duplicative 
     permitting efforts, EPA should instead be focused on working 
     with landowners to support on-the-ground conservation 
     solutions with true environmental value. Forcing producers to 
     go through an additional burdensome permitting process will 
     only increase production costs and add stress on already 
     overburdened state resources, without providing any 
     additional environmental benefits.
       H.R. 872 would continue to ensure the protection of water 
     during routine, FIFRA-label pesticide use, while clarifying 
     that applicators abiding by these strict standards do not 
     need to go through the unnecessary and burdensome process of 
     obtaining CWA permits.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. We 
     look forward to working with you as we continue to provide 
     the benefits of locally-led natural resource conservation 
     across the country.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gene Schmidt,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                   March 29, 2011.
     Hon. Joe Baca,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Baca: The undersigned organizations 
     urge you to support H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
     Act, which will be considered on the House floor on the 
     suspension calendar later this week. Based on a court ruling 
     in the National Cotton Council v. EPA (6th Cir. 2009) case, 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and delegated 
     states are required to establish permit programs under the 
     Federal Clean Water Act for aquatic pesticide applications. 
     H.R. 872 is a bipartisan bill aimed at reducing the 
     regulatory burden and duplication posed by this court 
     mandate.
       Pesticides play an important role in protecting the 
     nation's food supply, public health, natural resources, 
     infrastructure and green spaces. They are used not only to 
     protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage 
     mosquitoes and other disease carrying pests, invasive weeds 
     and animals that can choke our waterways, impede power 
     generation and damage our forests and recreation areas.
       Since the inception of the Clean Water Act in 1972, water 
     quality concerns from pesticide applications have been 
     addressed during the registration and labeling process under 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
     (FIFRA). Imposing a national pollutant discharge elimination 
     system (NPDES) permit in addition to FIFRA regulation will 
     not provide any identifiable additional environmental 
     benefits.

[[Page 4721]]

       The proposed permit means further unfunded mandates on 
     already struggling governments, and it creates additional red 
     tape, squeezing existing resources and threatening added 
     legal liabilities. The permit's complex compliance 
     requirements will impose tremendous new burdens on thousands 
     of small businesses, farms, communities, counties and state 
     and federal agencies legally responsible for pest control, 
     and expose them to legal jeopardy through citizen suits over 
     paperwork violations. It could jeopardize jobs, the economy 
     and human health protections across America as regulators and 
     permittees struggle to implement and comply with these 
     permits.
       This week's court decision to grant a 6-month extension to 
     comply with permit requirements from April 9 to October 31, 
     2011 is welcome news. However, it does not change the 
     urgency, to pass H.R. 872 and fix the underlying problem of 
     regulatory redundancy and bureaucratic burden. We urge 
     Congress to pass H.R. 872 into law before the permit becomes 
     final this year.
       We respectfully ask that you join Transportation & 
     Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-FL) and Subcommittee 
     Chair Bob Gibbs (R-OH), as well as Agriculture Committee 
     Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), Ranking Member Collin Peterson 
     (D-MN), Subcommittee Chair Jean Schmidt (R-OH), and Ranking 
     Member Joe Baca (D-CA) in supporting this bipartisan bill.
           Sincerely,
         Agricultural Alliance of North Carolina, Agribusiness 
           Association of Iowa, Agribusiness Association of 
           Kentucky, Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural 
           Retailers Association, American Chemistry Council--
           Biocides Panel, American Farm Bureau Federation, 
           American Mosquito Control Association, American Nursery 
           and Landscape Association, American Soybean 
           Association, Alabama Agribusiness Council, Alabama 
           Vegetation Management Society Inc., Aquatic Ecosystem 
           Restoration Foundation, Aquatic Plant Management 
           Society, Arizona Crop Protection Association, 
           California Dried Plum Board, California Grape & Tree 
           Fruit League, Chemical Producers & Distributors 
           Association, Colorado Corn Growers Association, 
           Commercial Flowers Growers of Wisconsin, Consumer 
           Specialty Products Association, Cranberry Institute, 
           CropLife America, Crop Protection Association of North 
           Carolina, Delta Council (MS), DuPont Crop Protection, 
           DuPont Professional Products, Far West Agribusiness 
           Association, Florida Aquatic Plant Management Society, 
           Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Florida 
           Vegetation Management Association, Gardens Beautiful 
           Centers (WI), Georgia Agribusiness Council, Georgia 
           Urban Agriculture Council, Golf Course Superintendents 
           Assoc of America, Gowan Group, Growmark, Hop Growers of 
           America, Hop Growers of Washington, Illinois Fertilizer 
           & Chemical Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association, 
           Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association, Kentucky 
           Corn Growers Association, Land O'Lakes, Lawns of 
           Wisconsin Network, Maryland Grain Producers 
           Association, Michigan Agri-Buisness Association, 
           Michigan Aquatic Managers Association, Midwest Aquatic 
           Plant Management Society.
         Midsouth Aquatic Plant Management Society, Minnnesota 
           Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Agri-
           Growth Council, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, 
           Minnesota Crop Production Retailers, Minnesota Pest 
           Information & Education, Mississippi Vegetation 
           Management Association, Missouri Agribusiness 
           Association, Montana Agricultural Business Association, 
           Mosquito & Vector Control Assoc of California, National 
           Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of 
           Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop 
           Consultants, National Assoc 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 Grange, National Pest 
           Management Association, National Potato Council, 
           National Roadside Vegetation Management Assoc Inc, New 
           Jersey Green Industry Council, New Jersey Mosquito 
           Control Association, North Carolina Agribusiness 
           Council Inc., North Carolina Growers Association, North 
           Carolina State Grange, North Central Weed Science 
           Society, Northeast Aquatic Plant Management Society, 
           Northeastern Weed Science Society, Ohio Professional 
           Applicators for Responsible Regulations, Oklahoma 
           Agribusiness Retailers Association, Oregon Association 
           of Nurseries, Oregonians for Food & Shelter, 
           Professional Landcare Network, RISE (Responsible 
           Industry for a Sound Environment), Rocky Mountain 
           Agribusiness Association, Schertz Aerial Services, 
           Society of American Florists, South Carolina Aquatic 
           Plant Management Society, South Carolina Fertilizer & 
           Agrichemical Assoc, South Dakota Agri-Business 
           Association.
         Southern Crop Production Association, Southern Weed 
           Science Society, Syngenta, Texas Agricultural 
           Industries Association, Texas Aquatic Plant Management 
           Society, Texas Mosquito Control Association, Texas 
           Vegetation Management Association, USA Rice Federation, 
           US Apple Association, US Hop Industry Plant Protection 
           Committee, Valent U.S.A., Vegetation Management 
           Association of Kentucky, Virginia Agribusiness Council, 
           Washington Friends of Farms & Forests, Washington Hop 
           Commission, Washington State Potato Commission, Weed 
           Science Society of America, Western Aquatic Plant 
           Management Society, Western Growers Association, 
           Western Plant Health Association, Western Society of 
           Weed Science, Wild Blueberry Commission, Wisconsin 
           Agribusiness Council, Wisconsin Christmas Tree 
           Producers Association, Wisconsin Crop Protection 
           Association, Wisconsin Landscape Contractors 
           Association, Wisconsin Nursery Association, Wisconsin 
           Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc, Wisconsin Sod 
           Producers Association, Wyoming Ag-Business Association, 
           Wyoming Crop Improvement Association, Wyoming Wheat 
           Marketing Commission, Wyoming Wheat Growers 
           Association.

  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011.
  I recently introduced H.R. 872 to clarify congressional intent 
regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should 
be regulated. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
also known as FIFRA, has long been the Federal regulatory statute that 
governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. However, 
more recently, as a result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act 
has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over 
the use of pesticides. As a result, an additional set of permits will 
be required for the use of pesticides.
  H.R. 872 is aimed at reversing a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court 
of Appeals in National Cotton Council vs. EPA. In this ruling, the 
Sixth Circuit substituted judge-made policy choices for reasonable 
agency interpretations of the law. In the process, the court undermined 
the traditional understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with 
other environmental statutes, and it judicially expanded the scope of 
Clean Water Act regulation further into areas and activities not 
originally envisioned or intended by Congress.
  EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, 
including State agencies, cities, counties, mosquito control districts, 
water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest 
managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens who perform some 5.6 
million pesticide applications annually, will be affected by the 
court's ruling. This will virtually double the number of entities 
currently subject to NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act.
  With this ill-advised court decision, the States and a wide range of 
public and private pesticide users will face increased financial and 
administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting 
process, and all of this expense comes with no additional environmental 
protection.
  This new permitting process was meant to take effect on April 9 of 
this year. However, just 2 days ago, the Sixth Circuit granted an 
extension through October 31, 2011. The court's extension only 
temporarily postpones the need for an NPDES permit for pesticide use, 
and does not completely eliminate the need for this legislation.
  H.R. 872 fixes the problem. It exempts from the NPDES permitting 
process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide 
authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the 
pesticide is used for its intended purpose and where the use is in 
compliance with FIFRA pesticide label requirements.

[[Page 4722]]

  H.R. 872 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit's 
holding the National Cotton Council case and return the state of 
pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved. 
This bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee and 
passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a strong 
bipartisan vote of 46-8.
  Many organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private 
entities, support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name 
a few, these organizations include:
  The National Association of Counties; the National Association of 
State Departments of Agriculture; the National Water Resources 
Association; the American Mosquito Control Association; the American 
Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; CropLife America; 
and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Chairman Schmidt for her 
leadership on this bill in both the Agriculture and the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committees.
  I also want to thank the ranking members of the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment and of Transportation and Infrastructure for 
their support of the bill.
  In addition, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall 
for their leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, as well as Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson of the 
Agriculture Committee for their leadership.
  I urge all Members to support H.R. 872.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr. 
Baca yielded the balance of his time to me, may I inquire as to how 
much time we have left on this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We're here, and we're pretending we're doing something about a real 
problem. We are amending the wrong statute at the wrong time under the 
guise that this is a crisis, and we're bringing up a bill that will 
never see the light of day in the Senate.
  So what could we really do?
  Well, we could work with the Environmental Protection Agency. I've 
already written to the Environmental Protection Agency, and I would 
encourage others to as well who recently got an extension until October 
31 from the court. So there is no immediate threat of these new 
regulations going into place. Particularly, the biggest problem with 
what they're proposing is the small size of general permitting. It's 
640 acres. My State has 6,400 acres. That's a pretty big piece of 
property. I don't know many small farms or other folks who operate on 
more than 6,400 acres. Even at 6,400 acres, it's a three-page form that 
you fill out in my State.
  Oregon is the State where this problem started because 90,000 
juvenile salmon were killed by the improper application of a pesticide, 
so we would be particularly sensitive to that. We're pretty sensitive 
about our water. I think all of your constituents are sensitive about 
their water. So, to amend the Clean Water Act here, you're going at the 
wrong place. People don't want pesticides or herbicides in what they 
drink or in what their kids drink--plain and simple.
  FIFRA is meaningless in terms of really regulating what goes into the 
water. The EPA doesn't test pesticides for their water quality 
standards, and FIFRA does not regulate how much of a pesticide is safe 
to apply to water. So we should be amending FIFRA, but that would have 
been a little more work, and that would have been real legislation, and 
that might have been something that the Senate would have taken up, and 
that might really have gotten something done.
  But we don't want to do that. We want to play to the crowd here. 
Let's rage here and say it's going to cost $50,000 for every small 
business. That's a bunch of hooey.
  In my State, like I say, we have a three-page application. So the 
point is that we can do something real. We can influence the EPA, get 
reasonable regulations, and protect the drinking water of this 
country--or you can do what you're doing here today, which is 
meaningless.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, the good gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the piece of legislation before us today must be passed 
and placed on the President's desk as soon as possible if we want to 
prevent a possible blitz of regulatory burdens on our farmers and 
ranchers.

                              {time}  1730

  The 6-month delay that the EPA was granted by the court this past 
Monday evening may have bought us more time, but the delay does not fix 
the underlying problem.
  The impact on those pesticide users who will be required to obtain a 
duplicative permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is 
no difference in the burden, the cost, or the real impact on their 
livelihoods. The only thing this extension provides farmers is 6 more 
months of regulatory uncertainty. We must act now to give our farmers 
the certainty they need to continue to produce the safest, most 
affordable, and abundant food supply in the history of the world.
  If Congress does not act, more than 40 States will face increased 
financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new 
permitting requirement process during a time when many States are 
already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. This would be 
a crushing blow to an already fragile economy. Giving EPA and the 
States more time to develop a permit system does nothing to minimize 
the unnecessary expense this uninformed court decision has imposed.
  Governments at all levels are facing a fiscal emergency. This 
exercise represents a tremendous waste of valuable time and resources. 
There is no need to send our States down a path of fiscal disaster when 
we have the opportunity to put a stop to it all today.
  It was always the intent of Congress to exempt pesticide use from the 
Clean Water Act. The decision of the court represents a fundamental 
ignorance of congressional intent that will not be rectified by a 
delay. Congress has no choice but to act now.
  I would like to serve note that on the Ag Committee as chairman, I'm 
very pleased with our point person's efforts on this behalf, 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Jean Schmidt. I'd like to thank our ranking 
member, Mr. Peterson, of the full committee, and subcommittee ranking 
member, Mr. Baca, for working with us in a very bipartisan way to 
address this issue. We all agree something has to be done, something 
needs to be done, and we have an opportunity to do it.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 872.
  Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an awkward position here today being 
asked to urgently vote on a bill where there is no real sense of 
urgency and where questions of its potential impact on human health and 
the environment far outweigh the answers.
  I am also concerned that, in our effort to address concerns on 
implementation of two Federal statutes, we are neglecting a rational 
analysis of the best way to protect human health and the environment 
from the potential adverse effects of pesticides.
  Finally, I stand in opposition to this legislation because it appears 
that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it has 
stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to 
resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to all 
of us.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state from the outset that I agree pesticides 
provide a

[[Page 4723]]

valuable tool in controlling unwanted pests, whether they be mosquitoes 
in my home county of Suffolk County, New York, or corn borers in the 
Midwest. This bill is not about whether pesticides should or should not 
be used. However, what this bill does call into question is the best 
way to balance the use of pesticides with the protection of water 
quality, human health, and the environment, and the economic benefits 
associated with them.
  On this point, I am not convinced that the current efforts to protect 
human health and the environment, which this bill seeks to maintain, 
are sufficient. If they were, pesticides would not continually show up 
in the urban and rural water bodies throughout the Nation. As States 
and the U.S. Geological Survey have told us, pesticides are frequently 
detected in streams and groundwater throughout the Nation, and 
literally thousands of streams and bays and lakes are currently 
impaired or threatened by pesticides. In the State of California alone, 
pesticides are listed as the number one source of water quality 
impairment in the State.
  It is also telling that many States continue to find waters impaired 
by pesticides that have been banned in the United States for decades. 
In my view, this shows how the decisions we make today will have long-
term impacts on human health, on our environment, and create long-
lasting implications and potential increased costs for generations to 
come.
  According to the EPA, the potential human health implications of 
pesticide exposure depend on the type of pesticide and the pathway, 
concentration, and duration of exposure, and can range from minor skin 
irritations to developmental concerns to being linked to cancer. One 
potentially significant source of exposure comes from consuming 
pesticide-contaminated drinking water. Both the USGS and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture have verified the presence of pesticides and 
pesticide byproducts in drinking water sources throughout the Nation.
  While in the majority of these cases pesticide protection levels were 
below existing human health benchmarks for those pesticides that have 
standards, USGS found a number of instances where pesticide detection 
levels were above acceptable levels. Similarly, even in those instances 
where detection levels are below acceptable levels, there is still 
legitimate concern on long-term, low-level exposure to pesticides, 
especially to the health of children, pregnant women, and the elderly.
  In my view, the combination of these factors, plus the uncertainty 
created by increased detection of pesticide-chemical mixtures and the 
fact that modern drinking water treatment technologies are not designed 
to detect or remove pesticides, compels me to move cautiously on any 
proposal that would permanently eliminate options for controlling the 
amount of pesticides being released into the Nation's waters.
  In light of these concerns, and in light of the fact that the 
legislation before us provides for a permanent Clean Water Act 
exemption for pesticide use, during the markup of this bill in the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I offered a simple, 
commonsense amendment to require Congress to revisit this issue in 5 
years when we have a clearer picture on whether FIFRA is sufficiently 
protective of human health and water quality from pesticide 
contamination. If, in 5 years' time, we were to see progress in 
reducing pesticide contamination in surface and groundwaters, then we 
would have more information to justify a permanent Clean Water Act 
exemption for pesticide use. In my view, we simply do not have this 
critical information before us today.
  This simple concept was echoed by a former Bush administration 
official who was recently quoted as saying that, when it comes to 
enacting statutory exemptions from environmental regulatory 
requirements, it is appropriate to periodically review whether the 
exemption continues to be supported by data and science.
  Based on a commitment from the chairman of the full committee to work 
with me on this issue before this bill was to come to the floor, I 
withdrew my amendment and voted ``yes'' in the markup. Unfortunately, 
to date, my concerns remain unaddressed, and yet here we are today 
considering this bill under the suspension of the rules, where there is 
no opportunity to debate the issues I and several of my colleagues 
raised at the committee markup.
  It seems that the push to vote today on this bill is so great that it 
has stretched the bounds of traditional Member-to-Member commitments to 
resolve legitimate differences on issues of critical importance to us 
all, especially related to the protection of human health and the 
environment.
  I am aware that many of my colleagues and several constituencies have 
pushed for immediate consideration of this bill to respond to the 
looming court-ordered deadline for Clean Water Act permitting on April 
9. I agree that concerns expressed by States and pesticide applicators 
on how they could be expected to comply with a yet-unreleased pesticide 
general permit by the April deadline were legitimate. However, that 
deadline has now been extended by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
until October 31, 2011. It appears, therefore, that we have additional 
time to work on this issue and to resolve some of the concerns 
expressed by several members of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe a more prudent course would be to take the 
time necessary and work together to address the concerns of both sides 
in a manner that minimizes regulatory duplication, makes sense for 
pesticide applicators and the States, and addresses the concerns 
related to public health and water quality.
  I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 872 under suspension of the 
rules so that I may continue to work with my colleagues on improving 
this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 872 
because the last thing the agriculture industry needs is another 
regulation.
  Pesticides are an integral part to ensuring that our Nation continues 
to produce the world's most abundant, safe, and affordable food supply. 
As it stands today, pesticides must already go through a minimum of 125 
safety tests before being registered for use. On top of that, they are 
subject to strict labeling and usage requirements.
  If we do not pass this bill, our farmers will be required to obtain 
permits that require them to state the amount of pesticides they will 
use for a 5-year period. That's not only next to impossible, it will be 
an expensive and time-consuming process that will harm American 
agriculture, as well as cost jobs.
  Thank you very much.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, in its current form. At 
issue, the exemption in the bill means that no Clean Water Act permit 
would be required for pesticide application to water bodies that are 
already impaired by pesticides.
  Now, most pesticide applications in the United States are done in 
accordance with FIFRA, according to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides, 
and frequently are present in streams and groundwater, as you have just 
heard, at levels that exceed the human health benchmark and occur in 
many streams at levels that may affect aquatic life or fish-eating 
wildlife.
  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. 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, on our streams, and 
especially the drinking water supplies of

[[Page 4724]]

all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, the young, the 
elderly, and the poor and disenfranchised people who have no other 
representation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to place into the Record two EPA reports on 
how pesticides in California are the number one cause of impairments to 
water quality, which means there are 1,787 causes in 162 water entities 
in California alone. This means that in all the waters in the States 
that are found through testing and monitoring to be impaired or 
polluted under the Clean Water Act, pesticides are the most significant 
cause of those problems.
  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 duplication of effort and the need to minimize the 
impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large.
  However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a 
very significant impact on water quality and that we are creating this 
exemption from water quality protection requirements without 
considering the impacts to the waters that are already impaired with 
pesticides, as they are in California.
  This, in turn, costs our ratepayers, our water users, hundreds of 
millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of the water before 
it is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis, as 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
  We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use 
of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on 
the 15-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area that has 
pesticides as one of its contaminants.
  I do oppose this bill. I do need further study on this issue before 
taking this very drastic step to reregulate pesticides that affect our 
Nation's water.
  Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this 
bill.

       CALIFORNIA 2006 CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT FOR CALIFORNIA WATERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                                                             causes of
             Cause of impairment group name                 impairment
                                                             reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticides..............................................             312
Pathogens...............................................             245
Metals (other than Mercury).............................             228
Nutrients...............................................             140
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)........................             103
Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates......             103
Mercury.................................................             101
Sediment................................................              87
Total Toxics............................................              77
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion.....................              47
Toxic Organics..........................................              45
Temperature.............................................              37
Trash...................................................              37
Ammonia.................................................              33
Dioxins.................................................              27
pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions...........................              27
Toxic Inorganics........................................              24
Nuisance Exotic Species.................................              24
Other Cause.............................................              20
Algal Growth............................................              17
Taste, Color and Odor...................................              15
Cause Unknown--Impaired Biota...........................              12
Turbidity...............................................               8
Flow Alteration(s)......................................               6
Habitat Alterations.....................................               5
Fish Consumption Advisory...............................               3
Oil and Grease..........................................               2
Noxious Aquatic Plants..................................               1
Cause Unknown--Fish Kills...............................               1
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................           1,787
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             CALIFORNIA IMPAIRED WATERS, CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT GROUP: PESTICIDES, REPORTING YEAR 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                            Waterbody name               State basin name        Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA.....................................  Abalone Cove Beach.............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Alamo River....................  Colorado River Basin.....  ...........
CA.....................................  Amarillo Beach.................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Anaheim Bay....................  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  Balboa Beach...................  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  Bear River, Lower (Below Camp    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Far West Reservoir).
CA.....................................  Big Rock Beach.................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Blanco Drain...................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Bluff Cove Beach...............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Buena Creek....................  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Butte Slough...................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Cabrillo Beach (Outer).........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Calaveras River, Lower.........  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 1 (Was     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Mugu Lagoon On 1998 303(D)
                                          List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 2          Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Estuary To Potrero Rd-Was
                                          Calleguas Creek Reaches 1 And
                                          2 On 1998 303d List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 4 (Was     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Revolon Slough Main Branch:
                                          Mugu Lagoon To Central Avenue
                                          On 1998 303d List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 5 (Was     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Beardsley Channel On 1998 303d
                                          List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 9a (Was    Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Lower Part Of Conejo Creek
                                          Reach 1 On 1998 303d List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 9b (Was    Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Part Of Conejo Creek Reaches 1
                                          And 2 On 1998 303d List)..
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 10         Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Conejo Creek (Hill Canyon)-
                                          Was Part of Conejo Crk Reaches
                                          2 & 3, and Lower Conejo Crk/
                                          Arroyo Conejo N Fk On 1998
                                          303d List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 11         Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Arroyo Santa Rosa, Was Part
                                          Of Conejo Creek Reach 3 On
                                          1998 303d List).
CA.....................................  Calleguas Creek Reach 13         Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Conejo Creek South Fork, Was
                                          Conejo Cr Reach 4 And Part Of
                                          Reach 3 On 1998 303d List).
CA.....................................  Carbon Beach...................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Carquinez Strait...............  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Castlerock Beach...............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Castro Cove, Richmond (San       San Francisco Bay........  ...........
                                          Pablo Basin).
CA.....................................  Central Basin, San Francisco     San Francisco Bay........  ...........
                                          (Part of Sf Bay, Central).
CA.....................................  Coachella Valley Storm Water     Colorado River Basin.....  ...........
                                          Channel.
CA.....................................  Colorado Lagoon................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Colusa Basin Drain.............  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Cottonwood Creek (San Marcos     San Diego................  ...........
                                          Creek Watershed).
CA.....................................  Coyote Creek...................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Del Puerto Creek...............  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Central         Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Eastern         Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Export Area)..  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Northern        Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Northwestern    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Southern        Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Stockton Ship   Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Channel).
CA.....................................  Delta Waterways (Western         Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Portion).
CA.....................................  Dominquez Channel (Lined         Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Portion Above Vermont Ave).
CA.....................................  Dominquez Channel Estuary        Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Unlined Portion Below Vermont
                                          Ave).
CA.....................................  Elkhorn Slough.................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  English Canyon.................  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Escondido Beach................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Escondido Creek................  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Espinosa Slough................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Feather River, Lower (Lake       Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Oroville Dam To Confluence
                                          With Sacramento River).
CA.....................................  Five Mile Slough (Alexandria     Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Place To Fourteen Mile
                                          Slough)..
CA.....................................  Flat Rock Point Beach Area.....  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Harding Drain (Turlock           Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Irrigation District Lateral
                                          #5).
CA.....................................  Huntington Harbour.............  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  Imperial Valley Drains.........  Colorado River Basin.....  ...........
CA.....................................  Ingram Creek (From Confluence    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          With Hospital Creek To Hwy 33
                                          Crossing).
CA.....................................  Ingram Creek (From Confluence    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          With San Joaquin River To
                                          Confluence With Hospital
                                          Creek).
CA.....................................  Inspiration Point Beach........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Islais Creek...................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Jack Slough....................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Kings River, Lower (Island Weir  Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          To Stinson And Empire Weirs)..
CA.....................................  La Costa Beach.................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Lake Calabasas.................  Los Angeles..............  ...........

[[Page 4725]]

 
CA.....................................  Lake Chabot (Alameda Co).......  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Las Flores Beach...............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Las Tunas Beach................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Long Point Beach...............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Los Angeles Harbor-Cabrillo      Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Marina.
CA.....................................  Los Angeles Harbor-Consolidated  Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Slip.
CA.....................................  Los Angeles Harbor-Fish Harbor.  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Los Angeles Harbor-Inner         Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Cabrillo Beach Area.
CA.....................................  Los Angeles River Estuary        Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Queensway Bay).
CA.....................................  Los Angeles River Reach 1        Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          (Estuary To Carson Street).
CA.....................................  Los Angeles/Long Beach Inner     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Harbor.
CA.....................................  Los Angeles/Long Beach Outer     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Harbor (Inside Breakwater).
CA.....................................  Los Cerritos Channel...........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Machado Lake (Harbor Park Lake)  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Main Drainage Canal............  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Malaga Cove Beach..............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Malibu Beach...................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Malibu Lagoon Beach (Surfrider)  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Marina Del Rey Harbor-Back       Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Basins.
CA.....................................  Mcgrath Lake...................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Merced River, Lower (Mcswain     Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Reservoir To San Joaquin
                                          River).
CA.....................................  Mission Creek..................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Moro Cojo Slough...............  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Mosher Slough (Downstream Of I-  Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          5).
CA.....................................  Moss Landing Harbor............  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Mud Slough.....................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Natomas East Main Drainage       Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Canal (Aka Steelhead Creek,
                                          Downstream Of Confluence With
                                          Arcade Creek)..
CA.....................................  New River (Imperial County)....  Colorado River Basin.....  ...........
CA.....................................  Newman Wasteway................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Newport Bay, Lower.............  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  Newport Bay, Upper (Ecological   Santa Ana................  ...........
                                          Reserve).
CA.....................................  Nicholas Canyon Beach..........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Oakland Inner Harbor (Fruitvale  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
                                          Site, Part Of Sf Bay, Central).
CA.....................................  Oakland Inner Harbor (Pacific    San Francisco Bay........  ...........
                                          Dry-Dock Yard 1 Site, Part of
                                          Sf Bay, Central).
CA.....................................  Old Salinas River Estuary......  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Orcutt Creek...................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Orestimba Creek (Above Kilburn   Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Road).
CA.....................................  Orestimba Creek (Below Kilburn   Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Road).
CA.....................................  Oso Flaco Lake.................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Palo Verde Outfall Drain And     Colorado River Basin.....  ...........
                                          Lagoon.
CA.....................................  Palo Verde Shoreline Park Beach  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Paradise Cove Beach............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Peck Road Park Lake............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Petaluma River.................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Petaluma River (Tidal Portion).  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Peters Canyon Channel..........  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  Pogi Canyon Creek..............  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Point Dume Beach...............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Point Fermin Park Beach........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Port Hueneme Harbor (Back        Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Basins).
CA.....................................  Portuguese Bend Beach..........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Puddingstone Reservoir.........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Puerco Beach...................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Redondo Beach..................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Richardson Bay.................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Rio De Santa Clara/Oxnard Drain  Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          No. 3.
CA.....................................  Robert H. Meyer Memorial Beach.  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Royal Palms Beach..............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Sacramento San Joaquin Delta...  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Salinas Reclamation Canal......  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Salinas River (Lower, Estuary    Central Coast............  ...........
                                          To Near Gonzales Rd Crossing,
                                          Watersheds 30910 And 30920).
CA.....................................  Salinas River (Middle, Near      Central Coast............  ...........
                                          Gonzales Rd Crossing To
                                          Confluence With Nacimiento
                                          River).
CA.....................................  Salinas River Lagoon (North)...  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Salt Slough (Upstream From       Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Confluence With San Joaquin
                                          River)..
CA.....................................  San Diego Bay Shoreline, Near    San Diego................  ...........
                                          Switzer Creek.
CA.....................................  San Diego Creek................  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  San Diego Creek Reach 1........  Santa Ana................  ...........
CA.....................................  San Francisco Bay, Central.....  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  San Francisco Bay, Lower.......  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  San Francisco Bay, South.......  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Mendota Pool  Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          To Bear Creek.
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Bear Creek    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          To Mud Slough).
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Mud Slough    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          To Merced River).
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Merced River  Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          To Tuolumne River).
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Tuolumne      Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          River To Stanislaus River).
CA.....................................  San Joaquin River (Stanislaus    Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          River To Delta Boundary).
CA.....................................  San Juan Creek.................  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  San Leandro Bay (Part Of Sf      San Francisco Bay........  ...........
                                          Bay, Central).
CA.....................................  San Marcos Creek...............  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  San Pablo Bay..................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  San Pablo Reservoir............  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Zones.
CA.....................................  Santa Clara River Estuary......  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W     Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Pier Hwy 99 To Bouquet Cyn Rd)
                                          (Was Named Santa Clara River
                                          Reach 8 On 2002 303(D) List).
CA.....................................  Santa Maria River..............  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Santa Monica Bay Offshore/       Los Angeles..............  ...........
                                          Nearshore.
CA.....................................  Sea Level Beach................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Smith Canal....................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Stanislaus River, Lower........  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Stevens Creek Reservoir........  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Suisun Bay.....................  San Francisco Bay........  ...........
CA.....................................  Tembladero Slough..............  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Tijuana River..................  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Tijuana River Estuary..........  San Diego................  ...........
CA.....................................  Topanga Beach..................  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Trancas Beach (Broad Beach)....  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Tuolumne River, Lower (Don       Central Valley...........  ...........
                                          Pedro Reservoir To San Joaquin
                                          River).
CA.....................................  Ventura Marina Jetties.........  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Wadsworth Canal................  Central Valley...........  ...........
CA.....................................  Watsonville Slough.............  Central Coast............  ...........
CA.....................................  Whites Point Beach.............  Los Angeles..............  ...........
CA.....................................  Zuma Beach (Westward Beach)....  Los Angeles..............  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4726]]

  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act of 2011. This bill is a much-needed legislative fix that clarifies 
how pesticide application should be regulated. Congress never intended 
for pesticide applications that are already regulated under FIFRA to 
also require permits under the Clean Water Act. Yet because a Federal 
court did not interpret congressional intent correctly in a 2009 
ruling, Congress must act to ensure that farmers, ranchers, forest 
managers, and other water users, as well as mosquito abatement 
districts and local governments, won't face unnecessary and duplicative 
regulations that would make it more difficult to do their jobs.
  Everyone here supports protecting our water supplies from polluters 
acting in violation of our Nation's environmental laws and regulations; 
but it is also clear that pesticides used around streams to spray for 
mosquitoes and other pests are already adequately regulated under 
statute. Adding another layer of regulation by requiring NPDES permits 
for application of these pesticides doesn't make them safer. It only 
piles unnecessary paperwork on top of day-to-day operations for small 
businesses, farmers, and local governments.
  My good friend from Oregon mentioned that in Oregon the application 
is only three pages long. So why should it be a problem? It misses the 
point. It doesn't matter if it's one page long or 100 pages long. The 
question is unnecessary dual regulation.
  The legislation before us today would clarify Congress' intent that 
existing FIFRA regulations are adequate for aquatic pesticide use and 
provide needed certainty for farmers and ranchers who provide our 
Nation's food supply. I urge our colleagues to support this important 
legislative fix.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the balance of the 
time for both myself and Mr. Gibbs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio has 5\1/4\ minutes.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Berg).
  Mr. BERG. I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to pass this 
legislation to protect American farmers from overreaching EPA rules and 
unnecessary regulations. If this ruling were to stand, the EPA would 
have full discretion over controlling a buffer zone for chemicals on 
crops near water sources.
  Now, I have talked with farmers in North Dakota who rely on 
herbicides like Roundup to produce a good crop and to prevent weeds 
from growing. Most of central North Dakota sits in a water-rich region 
called the Prairie Pot Hole, and many of these farmers plant on land 
that is well within the EPA's buffer zone. This ruling could prevent 
these farmers from raising a good crop in this land.
  If this ruling goes into effect, it will require over 6 million 
pesticide applications will have to be issued each year to tens or even 
hundreds of thousands of farmers. If they don't comply, they will be 
forced with a fine of up to $37,000 per day per incident. We know 
overregulation hurts American business. Overregulation hurts family 
farms. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of points. There does 
appear to be strong bipartisan agreement. I know it passed out of the 
Ag Committee on unanimous vote. There was a very heavy vote in the T&I 
Committee. My reservations are rooted in the fact that I believe that 
we are rushing to a judgment in terms of making this statute permanent. 
I believe we have ample evidence to suggest that we don't know enough 
about pesticide impairment of water bodies, both surface and 
groundwater, to determine whether or not it is prudent for us to make a 
permanent exemption to the Clean Water Act.
  So when I offered the amendment, which I then withdrew, for a 5-year 
sunset so we could assess whether or not this action is the correct 
one, I believe that I was acting in a very prudent and defensible way. 
And I am very disappointed, again, that this was an issue that we 
rushed to the floor in a form that we were unable to amend so that we 
could get this bill passed.
  Now, the urgency of time has become much less pronounced because of 
the court ruling that was just announced this past Monday with respect 
to delaying the implementation of the court ruling until the end of 
October.

                              {time}  1750

  Second point. I know it's very popular to talk about the 
Environmental Protection Agency as if they are in some ways the source 
of all evil in this world. This is an issue--it's important to 
clarify--this is not an issue that the EPA saw. We are here today 
because of a court ruling. And, in fact, for years, decades, FIFRA has 
been the controlling legislation with respect to pesticide application, 
and the Clean Water Act has not been invoked.
  And, in fact, the EPA, in 2006, took a position that they would not 
engage in a process that would supersede FIFRA. It was that decision 
that was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court.
  We all want to come up with a way to handle this. We all recognize 
that pesticide application is something that is very important. I 
represent the largest agricultural county in the State of New York, and 
this is an issue that's very important to my farmers. But my farmers 
also recognize that they want to see to it that Federal policy is, in 
fact, consistent with their best interest.
  There are no better environmentalists in this country than our 
farmers. They need clean air. They need clean water in order for them 
to do their jobs.
  So as I say, I am opposed, reluctantly so, and I very much hope that 
as this goes forward and is considered by the Senate, if it, in fact, 
is considered by the Senate, that we will take our time, we will craft 
legislation that we can all support, and that we will particularly have 
legislation that has a sunset period so that we can evaluate whether or 
not we are right in taking this action today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the concerns raised by 
my colleague, the ranking member of my committee. Sunset provision, 
it's not really necessary because this Congress can take it up anytime 
they want. They don't have to wait 5 years. They can take it up next 
week, next year. So I think that's just making a kind of a statement.
  A couple of things I want to address. There was a reference to the 
geological survey. That reference was a report done over 10 years ago; 
and, really, with the detections we're finding in pesticides in our 
water bodies there are a lot of those pollutants from what we call 
legacy pollutants from years ago. Some of those detections are 
pesticides that haven't been used in the United States for many years. 
And, also, a majority of these detections are very, very low 
concentrations. We do have the technology to detect parts per trillion 
where not too many years it was parts per million, which are well below 
human health benchmarks.
  As I said, the data is old. EPA, in the last 10 years or so, does 
regulate the pesticides. They certify pesticides coming on the market 
and the amounts that can be used under FIFRA. So that is working. The 
EPA can pull a product off the market if they deem necessary, if 
there's a problem.
  The pesticides we're using today, and I'm speaking now as a farmer, 
are more biodegradable. They don't have the residue impact legacy. They 
don't stay around. They don't stick around in the soil. They break down 
in the soil. As a matter of fact, so many of our pesticides now break 
down so fast that farmers have to time the application to make sure 
they kill the weeds and

[[Page 4727]]

there's enough--it's not too soon that the crop, what we call cover 
crop, shades out the sun for the weeds to come up underneath the 
canopy. And so that's important.
  We're using less pesticides. The numbers will show that American 
agriculture is using less pesticides in lesser amounts and safer 
pesticides with the biodegradable aspect that we're seeing.
  I think it's also important to keep in mind that this bill, it will 
help bring certainty. Agriculture producers, municipalities have to 
spray for mosquitos this summer; they know what the rules are. They 
have certainty to move forward by passing this legislation.
  This legislation does not stop the EPA's having control over the 
regulation of pesticides and the certification of pesticides. And, 
again, many States also have pesticide applicator certification, 
depending on the pesticide, make a lot of applicators go through the 
same process. So there's some stringent rules and regulations in place.
  And I would contend that FIFRA is working. If it's not, if my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that's not working, then 
we need to address FIFRA and have a bill to work on that, debate that 
issue.
  But I think you'll find out that agriculture's moving in a safer 
manner to protect the environment; and this bill will keep the FIFRA in 
place and the EPA under their authority and their control to protect 
the environment and public safety when it comes especially to mosquito 
control districts.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011.
  This bi-partisan bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor, will prevent 
farmers all across Eastern Washington and our nation from being subject 
to a burdensome duplicative permitting requirement for already 
regulated pesticides. If we do not pass this bill today, on April 9, 
2011, farmers and ranchers will be susceptible to fines and may be 
forced to stop producing.
  American ingenuity has enabled farmers to produce healthier higher 
crop yields--that capability is regulated and monitored by the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure public and 
environmental safety. The delicate balance of responsible regulation of 
pesticides and innovation was subverted by the Sixth Circuit Court's 
decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA. That Court's decision 
mandates an unprecedented expansion of the Clean Water Act's (CWA) 
clearly limited regulatory prerogative by ordering pesticides that are 
already regulated and permitted under FIFRA to apply for additional 
permits not authorized under the Clean Water Act.
  Time after time, we have seen special interests abuse the court 
system to try to side-step Congress in order to get a ``pro-
environmental'' agenda implemented. If left unchecked, this judicially 
created rule would impose a substantial regulatory burden on our 
farmers and ranchers--starting with requiring an extra permit for 
pesticide applications, thousands of dollars in fines for non-
compliance, and an increased risk of lawsuits down the road. This is 
not what the authors of the CWA or FIFRA intended. The CWA is intended 
to protect our navigable waters--not prevent economic development.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense bill and 
urge the Senate to immediately take up H.R. 872 and send it to the 
President for his signature so that farmers and ranchers in Eastern 
Washington can focus on feeding and powering America--not filing out 
duplicative permit applications.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe anyone in this House 
supports truly duplicative or redundant regulation--and we should all 
be prepared to eliminate the headache and expense of unnecessary red 
tape wherever we find it. But that's not what's happening here.
  In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found in the 
National Cotton Council vs. EPA case that pesticides are pollutants 
whose discharge into our waterways is governed by the Clean Water Act. 
Today's legislation proposes to overturn that ruling and exempt 
pesticides from the Clean Water Act on the grounds that pesticides are 
already subject to registration under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
  FIFRA registration is conditioned upon a finding that an approved 
pesticide ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse affects on 
the environment''. While FIFRA registration weighs the costs and 
benefits of pesticide use nationally, it does not involve local 
assessments. For example, it does not consider whether a waterway is 
used for fishing or for swimming--or whether a waterway is already 
impaired. Indeed, with over 1000 waterways in the United States 
currently known to be impaired because of pesticide contamination, it 
is manifestly clear that FIFRA registration alone has not been 
sufficient to protect our nation's water.
  For that reason, while I support efficient and effective regulation, 
I do not believe that exempting pesticides from the Clean Water Act is 
the answer to making sure our citizens have access to clean water. I 
urge a no vote.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation. Pesticide pollution in our waterways impairs fish 
habitats, threatens drinking water, and creates dead zones in our 
oceans. In its most recent ``National Water Quality Inventory; Report 
to Congress,'' the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined 
that pesticides are the sixth leading cause of water quality impairment 
in estuaries. In Oregon, according to the EPA, 19 of our water bodies 
are considered pesticide-impaired. If ingested in drinking water at 
high levels, pesticides can cause a range of health problems from 
cancer to birth defects to kidney and liver damage to nervous system 
effects.
  This legislation would overturn a recent court decision requiring EPA 
to issue Clean Water Act permits for certain pesticide discharges. It 
doesn't make sense to take away these tools from the EPA without 
replacing them with something better. The EPA has struggled to address 
agricultural run-off and other non-point source pollution under the 
Clean Water Act, and these sources will continue to be exempt from 
permitting requirements. But point source discharges of pesticides that 
leave a residue in waterways, which is the subject of this legislation, 
is something that the EPA can address and has now been compelled to 
address by a Federal appeals court. While the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires registration of 
pesticides and evaluation of their impact on human health and the 
environment, it does not involve a performance standard for specific 
bodies of water. In areas where pesticides have impaired water quality, 
I believe it makes sense to provide the EPA with tools to address that 
impairment.
  I have heard a number of concerns from the agricultural community in 
my district about the specific standards being applied here as well as 
the increased burden of filling out paperwork. I look forward to 
working with stakeholders in my district to ensure the new requirements 
are not unreasonably burdensome. I would also support additional 
resources from the Federal Government to help counties, municipalities, 
public utilities, water districts, farmers, ranchers, and forest 
managers deal with any additional costs association with the permit 
requirements.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 872, 
the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. This legislation amends 
the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act ``FIFRA'', to clarify Congressional intent regarding 
the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters.
  In 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, promulgated a rule 
that codified EPA's longstanding interpretation that the application of 
pesticides for their intended purpose and in compliance with Pesticide 
label restrictions is not a discharge of a ``pollutant'' under the 
Clean Water Act, and therefore, a National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System permit would not be required. However, the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this rule in National Cotton Council 
v. EPA. In this case the Court required the EPA to develop a new NPDES 
permitting process under the Clean Water Act for the purposes of 
pesticide use. The Court-ordered deadline for EPA to promulgate the new 
permitting process for pesticides is April 9, 2011.
  As a result of this court decision, EPA estimates that approximately 
365,000 pesticide users, including state agencies, cities, counties, 
mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, 
farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and everyday citizens 
that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually will be 
affected, doubling the number of entities currently subject to NPDES 
permitting under the Clean Water Act.
  Once the court order goes into effect, pesticide users not covered by 
an NPDES permit will be subject to a fine of up to $37,500 per day per 
violation. In addition to the cost of compliance, pesticide users will 
be subject to an increased risk of litigation under the citizen suit 
provision of the Clean Water Act. The court ruling does not change any 
standards for pesticide regulation and provides no additional 
environmental or public health protection. It

[[Page 4728]]

simply adds a layer of unnecessary and costly bureaucracy.
  This bill recognizes that pesticides are already regulated by the EPA 
under FIFRA and that any additional regulation would be burdensome and 
duplicative. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and 
support its passage through the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. Unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained during the 
floor vote on this bill and was unable to cast my official vote in 
support of the measure. If I were present at the time of the vote, I 
would have proudly cast an ``Aye'' vote because we cannot continue to 
subject the agricultural community to increasingly burdensome 
regulations. I am pleased that Congress was able to act on this bill 
and I look to the Senate for its expedited review and hope that the 
President will subsequently sign the measure into law. Our countries 
farmers deserve nothing less.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 872, the 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
  Today, Congress could have had a legitimate and necessary debate 
about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 
Does FIFRA do an adequate job of regulating pesticides or should the 
Clean Water Act supplement these efforts to address water quality 
issues? But that is not the debate we are having today.
  Instead, the Republican majority is forcing a vote to ban the EPA 
from ever applying the Clean Water Act to pesticides discharges into 
our Nation's waters. H.R. 872 removes a critical tool the EPA may need 
to protect public health and it weakens America's most important clean 
water legislation.
  This is a deceptive piece of legislation. Proponents claim H.R. 872 
merely eliminates a duplicative bureaucratic process for pesticide 
application. In fact, if passed, H.R. 872 could permanently stop our 
ability to control and manage pesticide pollution found in America's 
rivers, lakes and streams.
  H.R. 872 would reverse a 2009 court decision. That decision found 
that the use of some pesticides and herbicides at times is a form of 
water pollution requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit. Across the country, over a thousand waterways 
are known to be ``impaired'' or polluted because of pesticides. Many 
more waters may be polluted but have not even been tested. In my home 
State of Minnesota--land of 10,000 lakes--a past U.S. Geological Survey 
study concluded that pesticides in rivers and streams in central 
Minnesota were ``ubiquitous.'' Endocrine disruptors possibly linked to 
the use of pesticides have led to the rise of mutating fish in the 
Mississippi River and 11 Minnesota lakes.
  Pesticide pollution in American waters is a problem that requires 
close review. I believe EPA is doing its job, as determined by the 
courts, to investigate and attempt to reduce harmful pesticide 
discharges into water bodies. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
has told my office that they are working diligently to implement the 
federal court decision and the EPA's permitting efforts. I am concerned 
that H.R. 872 would stop state pollution control agencies across the 
country from their important work of regulating pesticide chemicals in 
our water.
  Moreover, H.R. 872 is being rushed to passage with little debate. It 
is being considered under suspension of the rules, a procedure usually 
reserved for non-controversial bills. Opposing witnesses were not 
allowed to testify during committee hearings and the Republican 
majority broke its promises to work with members who had offered and 
then withdrawn amendments in committee. This is no way to consider a 
bill that has serious consequences for human health, wildlife and the 
environment.
  Instead of tying EPA's hands, Congress should be encouraging, even 
pressing, the EPA to address water pollution that is threatening the 
health of our families and ecosystems. I oppose H.R. 872 and the 
overreaching effort to rush this bill through the legislative process.
  Mr. GIBBS. I urge passage of 872, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 872, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________