[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16731-16732]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2011

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss 
legislation we could actually pass. I am not talking about the fiscal 
cliff or sequester or anything quite so heavy, but nevertheless very 
important. It has bipartisan support, sort of, been passed out of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, passed out of the House of 
Representatives by over 300 votes, but it has yet to be brought to the 
Senate floor for debate. That debate could be over within a half hour.
  The majority leader talks about bipartisan support for legislation 
and hurdles to bring the bipartisan legislation to the floor. Obviously 
we have them. But I want to remind the Senate that this bill has 
already passed the House, as I have said, with broad bipartisan support 
and, again, with over 300 votes. That does not happen often in the 
House of Representatives these days. It passed out of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee with bipartisan support. It did not even have to 
have a hearing. Yet the majority leader has not allowed this bill to 
come to the floor for a vote. I urge him to do that.
  I am talking about H.R. 872. What is that? That is the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. How could anybody be opposed to that? 
It has been pending before the Senate for 17 months. That is long 
enough. That is certainly long overdue. This bill was placed on the 
Senate Calendar on June 21 in 2011. We need to pass this bill. We need 
to debate it very quickly and pass this bill. It is a short bill but it 
is very critical to address a court decision that endangers the public 
health and places additional paperwork burdens on States that are 
facing very difficult budget times.
  Let me be clear. This is a pesticide safety bill, pesticides that are 
used to protect our crops and to protect our

[[Page 16732]]

public safety. I am not saying, nobody is saying, nobody ever will say, 
pesticides should never be regulated. I just do not think it needs to 
be done twice. H.R. 872 does not alter pesticide regulation. Pesticide 
applications are subject to the terms that are printed on a product 
label as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is against 
the law to apply pesticides in a manner that does not comply with the 
EPA's approval.
  Last December, 25 of our colleagues wrote to our majority leader and 
our Republican leader requesting an open debate on H.R. 872, a 
bipartisan bill. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the letter 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Despite bipartisan requests for consideration, the bill 
failed to be considered before regulatory requirements went into effect 
last year. We are already seeing costs to States, to communities, and 
to businesses that total up millions of dollars. Regulations now in 
effect are duplicative--a Senate word, a 35-cent word. That means we do 
not need it. We already have a bill in place. We already have 
regulation in place. This regulation requires businesses to undertake 
what amounts to a paperwork exercise. These requirements can slow 
responses to real public health crises such as West Nile virus.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report over 5,000 
cases of West Nile virus this year and sadly over 230 deaths. That is 
not right. Pesticide applications are currently and should continue to 
be regulated under FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 
Rodenticide Act. This bill does what all of our constituents are 
telling us to do and that is to protect human health and eliminate 
duplicative, unnecessary regulatory actions.
  The additional paperwork and permitting processes that States and 
pesticide applicators must undertake provide no additional 
environmental protection, zip, zero. It is just additional 
environmental review. The EPA estimates that approximately 365,000 
pesticide applicators will need permits to cover about 5.6 million 
applications per year. Public health officials, farmers, other 
pesticide applicators under this regulatory impact would not be facing 
these requirements if the administration had chosen to vigorously 
defend its longstanding policy that the protections under the Federal 
pesticide law were sufficient to protect the environment.
  Again, estimates suggest this duplicative regulation will require 
365,000 individuals--a requirement that will cost $50 million and 
require 1 million hours per year to implement--just to fill out the 
paperwork. Bottom line, it will not add any environmental protection. 
This layer of redtape will place a huge financial burden on the 
shoulders of cities, of counties, farm families all across the country 
as well as State governments responsible for enforcement while at the 
same time facing dire budget situations.
  Beyond agency enforcement, they will also now be exposed to the 
threat of litigation under the clean water law's citizen suit 
provisions. I think you have the real key as to where this bill was 
headed. Some of you might say there are special exemptions for public 
health emergencies, but environmental groups are challenging emergency 
actions taken this summer to address the mosquito-borne illnesses such 
as eastern equine encephalitis--not something to take an action against 
if you are faced with one of these kinds of threats. Yet we have not 
been able to move H.R. 872, to come up for a vote despite clear 
bipartisan support.
  It seems to me Congress must act to end this regulatory duplication 
and clarify that they do not need this additional burden when they are 
trying to prioritize staffing and resources.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to protect 
human health and put an end to this very costly regulation. With regard 
to the bill again, it is 872, passed the House by over 300 votes, 
bipartisan support in the Agriculture Committee, didn't even have to 
have a hearing. Let's move this bill. It is something we can do. It 
makes sense.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 8, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We request your 
     leadership in helping to resolve the following issue at the 
     earliest possible opportunity.
       As you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     recently finalized its Pesticide General Permit (PGP) under 
     the Clean Water Act (CWA), pursuant to a ruling by the Court 
     of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in National Cotton Council v. 
     EPA. Under this new permitting system, certain pesticide 
     applicators will be required to meet PGP or other permitting 
     requirements in addition to regulation under the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
       On March 31, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 872, 
     the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, which would 
     address National Cotton Council v. EPA. This legislation then 
     passed the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry on June 21 by voice vote.
       We are aware that efforts had been made to come to a 
     bipartisan resolution before these new permitting 
     requirements went into effect. However, we believe there is 
     still an opportunity to resolve this matter in a way that 
     will protect the environment while avoiding undue costs on 
     rural communities and municipalities nationwide. Thus, it is 
     our sincere hope that you will allot floor time for the 
     Senate to have a full, open debate on this matter.
       While we recognize that many important legislative items 
     vie for limited floor time, this is a rare opportunity to 
     demonstrate to the American public that Democrats and 
     Republicans are capable of working together to address 
     important issues.
           Sincerely,
         Mike Crapo, Kay Hagan, Richard Burr, Marco Rubio, David 
           Vitter, James Risch, John Boozman, Mike Johanns, Roy 
           Blunt, Rob Portman, Richard Lugar, Mary Landrieu, Kent 
           Conrad, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Ben Nelson, Max 
           Baucus, Claire McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar, 
           John Hoeven, John Thune, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, 
           Joe Manchin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________