[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13676-13685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS ACT OF 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 935.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 935) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 
Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides 
in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 935

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
     Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF AUTHORIZED PESTICIDES.

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

     SEC. 3. DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDES.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. 
Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act of 2013.
  The reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure 
politics. In the last Congress, this bill then was H.R. 872. It was 
introduced on a bipartisan basis, with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
and it passed on the suspension calendar with two-thirds of this body 
in support of it. In this Congress, H.R. 935--the exact same bill--was 
again introduced on a bipartisan basis, with bipartisan support, and it 
was voice-voted out of the Transportation and Agriculture Committees.
  However, earlier this week, partisanship reared its ugly head, and 
Members who were on record as voting in support of this legislation or 
in having agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes 
from ``yes'' to ``no'' in order for it not to be agreed on by two-
thirds of this body. This is partisanship at its ugliest. The 
principles and policy of this legislation have not changed over the 
last few years. Instead, the politics of it did.
  I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify congressional intent regarding how 
the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. 
It is the

[[Page 13677]]

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--also know as 
FIFRA--and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal 
regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the 
United States. In fact, FIFRA regulated pesticide use long before the 
enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, more recently, as the result 
of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new 
and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides.
  I will not repeat the history I gave in Monday's debate of how the 
EPA came to impose this unnecessary second layer of Federal regulation, 
but I think it is important for everyone to realize that this 
regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties, 
and homeowners.
  Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and 
maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide 
applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users 
are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order 
to comply with the new permitting process. This is adding another layer 
to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates 
being imposed on the regulated community. Despite what some would have 
you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental 
protection.
  The cost of complying with the NPDES permit regulations and the fears 
of potential liability are forcing mosquito control and other pest 
control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply 
with the regulatory requirements. This may be having an adverse effect 
on public health. In many States, routine preventative programs have 
been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted 
and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of the West Nile virus 
around the Nation in 2012. H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume 
conducting routine preventative mosquito and other pest control 
programs in the future.
  H.R. 935 exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to 
waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale, 
distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its 
intended purpose and the use is in compliance with pesticide label 
requirements. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and 
enforcement programs under FIFRA take into account environmental and 
human health risks just like the Clean Water Act does.
  H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the 
United States EPA to return pesticide regulation to where it was before 
the court got involved. It leaves FIFRA as the appropriate and adequate 
regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations, representing a wide 
variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders, 
have signed a letter supporting a legislative resolution of this issue.
  I will insert the letter in the Record. Just to name a few of these 
organizations, they include the American Mosquito Control Association, 
the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the 
National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Farmers Union, Farm Family Alliance, the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and 
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.
  In addition, I will submit for the Record a letter from the National 
Alliance of Forest Owners, who expressed support for H.R. 935. NAFO 
represents private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres 
of private forestland in 47 States, supporting 2.4 million jobs.
  Finally, I will submit for the Record a letter of support, plus a 
rebuttal paper, prepared by the American Mosquito Control Association, 
which rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several 
Members on the House floor Monday evening.

                                                    July 28, 2014.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations ask for 
     your vote in support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory 
     Burdens Act, today. The bill will be on the floor of the 
     House of Representatives on suspension this evening.
       Pesticide users must now comply with the added requirement 
     that certain pesticide applications--already stringently 
     regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and 
     Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) 
     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
     permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or 
     delegated states. The legislation would clarify that federal 
     law does not require water permits for FIFRA-compliant 
     pesticide applications.
       The new water permit for pesticides provides virtually no 
     environmental benefit because all pesticide applications are 
     already stringently regulated through FIFRA, including 
     applications to and near water. Compliance requirements under 
     the permit impose significant resource and liability burdens 
     on thousands of small businesses, farms, municipalities, 
     counties, and the state and federal agencies legally 
     responsible for protecting public health. Most notably, the 
     permit potentially exposes all pesticide users to citizen law 
     suits under the CWA.
       In the 112th Congress, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
     Act--then, H.R. 872--passed the House of Representatives on 
     suspension.
       Now, in the 113th Congress, the Act has been reintroduced 
     as H.R. 935. Strong bipartisan support was again demonstrated 
     by the bill's recent passage out of both the House Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee 
     on Agriculture.
       Pesticides play a critical role in protecting crops from 
     destructive pests, controlling mosquitoes and other disease-
     carrying pests, and managing invasive weeds that choke our 
     waterways and shipping lanes, impede power generation, and 
     damage our forests and recreation areas. We believe that the 
     water permit for pesticides jeopardizes these protections and 
     the economy as regulators and businesses expend time and 
     resources on implementation and compliance all for no 
     additional environmental benefits. We urge you to vote in 
     support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.
           Sincerely,
       Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Alliance of 
     North Carolina, Agricultural Council of Arkansas, 
     Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama Agribusiness 
     Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alabama Farmers 
     Federation, American Mosquito Control Association, American 
     Soybean Association, Aquatic Plant Management Society, 
     Arkansas Forestry Association, Biopesticide Industry 
     Alliance, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Cape 
     Cod Cranberry Growers Association, The Cranberry Institute, 
     CropLife America, Council of Producers & Distributors of 
     Agrotechnology, Edison Electric Institute, Family Farm 
     Alliance, Far West Agribusiness Association.
       Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Fruit & Vegetable 
     Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Golf Course 
     Superintendents Association of America, Hawaii Cattlemen's 
     Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Potato 
     Commission, Idaho Water Users Association, Illinois Farm 
     Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Kansas 
     Agribusiness Retailers Association, Louisiana Cotton and 
     Grain Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Maine 
     Potato Board, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Minnesota 
     Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Pesticide 
     Information & Education, Minor Crops Farmer Alliance, 
     Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau 
     Federation.
       Montana Agricultural Business Association, National 
     Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of 
     Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop 
     Consultants, National Association of State Departments of 
     Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National 
     Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National 
     Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, 
     National Pest Management Association, National Potato 
     Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 
     National Water Resources Association, Nebraska Agri-Business 
     Association, North Carolina Agricultural Consultants 
     Association, North Carolina Cotton Producers Association, 
     North Central Weed Science Society, North Dakota Agricultural 
     Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.
       Northeastern Weed Science Society, Northern Plains Potato 
     Growers Association, Ohio Professional Applicators for 
     Responsible Regulation, Oregon Potato Commission, Oregonians 
     for Food & Shelter, Pesticide Policy Coalition, Plains Cotton 
     Growers, Inc., Professional Landcare Network, RISE 
     (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), South Dakota 
     Agri-Business Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain 
     Association, Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern Crop 
     Production Association, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton 
     Growers, Southern Weed Science Society, Texas Ag Industries 
     Association, Texas Vegetation Management Association, United 
     Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Apple Association, USA Rice 
     Federation.

[[Page 13678]]

       Virginia Agribusiness Council, Virginia Forestry 
     Association, Washington Friends of Farm & Forests, Washington 
     State Potato Commission, Weed Science Society of America, 
     Western Growers Association, Western Plant Health 
     Association, Western Society of Weed Science, Wild Blueberry 
     Commission of Maine, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation, 
     Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin 
     State Cranberry Growers Association.
                                  ____



                           National Alliance of Forest Owners,

                                                    July 30, 2014.
     Hon. Bob Gibbs,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
         Representative, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gibbs: On behalf of the National Alliance of 
     Forest Owners (NAFO), I write to express NAFO's support for 
     your bill, H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. 
     NAFO represents private forest owners and managers committed 
     to promoting economic and environmental benefits of 
     privately-owned working forests. NAFO membership encompasses 
     more than 80 million acres of private forestland in 47 
     states, support 2.4 million U.S. jobs. NAFO seeks to sustain 
     the ecological, economic and social values of forests and to 
     assure an abundance of healthy and productive forest 
     resources.
       In many parts of the country, wetland areas form an 
     integral part of working forests. Congress has recognized in 
     section 404 of the Clean Water Act that forest management 
     maintains the wetlands function and has provided a permit 
     exemption for normal silviculture activities. Judicious use 
     of herbicides once or twice over 30 years helps ensure a 
     healthy and vigorous forest stand is regenerated after a 
     harvest.
       Herbicide use must now comply with the added requirement 
     that certain pesticides obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA) 
     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
     permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or 
     delegated states. This NPDES permit for herbicides provides 
     virtually no additional environmental benefit because 
     applications are already stringently regulated by EPA under 
     the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 
     (FIFRA). The permit must be renewed every five years and 
     exposes all pesticide users to citizen law suits under the 
     CWA.
       Your legislation would clarify that federal law does not 
     require water permits for FIFRA-compliant herbicide 
     applications. We believe this clarification will provide 
     certainty to forest managers and others who rely on these 
     products. We appreciate your leadership to pass this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Daniel Sakura,
     Vice President for Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                             AMCA,
                                                    July 30, 2014.
       Dear Member of Congress, I am writing on behalf of the 
     American Mosquito Control Association (AMCA) to request your 
     support for H.R. 935, which is of vital importance to the 
     public health mission of the nation's mosquito control 
     agencies.
       Threats to the public from existing and new and emerging 
     mosquito-borne diseases persist and have amplified. West Nile 
     virus (WNv) is now endemic throughout the United States and 
     annually causes local epidemics and fatalities. Eastern 
     equine encephalitis (EEE) continues as a significant health 
     risk, especially to children. Now, a new mosquito-borne 
     virus, chikungunya virus (CHK), has emerged in the Western 
     Hemisphere, causing hundreds of thousands of human cases in 
     the Caribbean and Central America. Recently, locally 
     transmitted cases of CHK have occurred in Florida, and this 
     disease now threatens numerous other states as well.
       Effective, local mosquito control programs are the best 
     line of defense against these mosquito-borne diseases. Yet 
     these programs face challenges, not the least of which is the 
     financial burden caused by the imposition of permit 
     requirements under the Clean Water Act National Pollutant 
     Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This NPDES permit 
     requirement mandates that mosquito control agencies' limited 
     financial resources be shifted away from actual mosquito 
     surveillance and control activities to administrative and 
     compliance monitoring activities.
       Mosquito control products are already very well regulated 
     under FIFRA. NPDES compliance by public health agencies does 
     not, in fact, add any additional environmental benefit, but 
     does add unnecessary costs. The impact of those added costs 
     will be felt by people at most risk to mosquito-borne 
     diseases.
       The solution is the elimination of this duplicative 
     regulatory burden by supporting and passing H.R. 935, the 
     Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. This legislation clarifies 
     that no additional federal NPDES permits are required when 
     pesticide applicators are using those products in accordance 
     with the federal mandates established by the US Environmental 
     Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs that are 
     already specified on the product label.
       We respectfully request your support of H.R. 935.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Steve Mulligan,
     AMCA President.
                                  ____

                                                             AMCA,
                                                    July 30, 2014.
       On the House floor this week, Representative DeFazio said 
     that his local mosquito control district applied for their 
     permit online and has been able to operate just fine before 
     and after the NPDES permits went into effect. It is our 
     understanding that Rep. DeFazio does not live in a mosquito 
     control district.
       However, he has contacted the 4 Rivers Vector Control 
     District in Bend, Oregon to spray his vacation home. 4 Rivers 
     VCD told him the permit would be a financial burden on their 
     operation and they we were already regulated under FIFRA.
       Rep. DeFazio's staff has called the North Morrow Vector 
     Control and the Baker Valley Vector Control managers in 
     Oregon who explained the negative impacts the permit was 
     having on their districts. The managers of those districts 
     have met with Rep. DeFazio's staff repeatedly in Washington 
     D.C. over the past several years regarding the burden NPDES 
     is having on mosquito control and provided written 
     information (AMCA briefing papers) during those meetings.
       It is our understanding that many Oregon Mosquito and 
     Vector Control Districts have similarly written him about 
     NPDES impacts on their districts at various times when there 
     has been a push for legislation.
       Rep DeFazio stated on the floor that anyone with a computer 
     can easily get a NPDES permit online, with no fee, and no 
     waiting period. This is not an accurate statement in the 
     State of Oregon and most other states in the country.
       Instead, operators seeking to register under the Oregon 
     permit must take the following steps so that uninterrupted 
     coverage continues:
       Write a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.
       Obtain a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 
     application form through the mail or in person from a DEQ 
     regional office, or download the application from the DEQ 
     website.
       Submit the application and maps of the treatment area, by 
     mail, no less than 45 days before a planned pesticide 
     application. There is no online application system.
       Pay the permit fee is $903, and you must continue to pay an 
     annual fee.
       Failure to pay applicable fees may result in denial of an 
     application or termination of coverage under this permit.
       Submit an Annual Report. This cannot be submitted online, 
     and there is no acknowledgement from the state that your 
     Annual Report has been received.
       The free, online permit only applies to the EPA's pesticide 
     general permit that covers discharges in areas where EPA is 
     the NPDES permitting authority. This only includes four 
     states (Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico), 
     Washington, D.C., all U.S. territories except the Virgin 
     Islands, most Indian Country lands, and federal facilities in 
     four additional states (Colorado, Delaware, Vermont, and 
     Washington).
       NPDES permits do not reduce the amount of pesticides being 
     used, or bring about additional water monitoring. Integrated 
     Mosquito Management strategies used by mosquito control 
     programs for over a century, new technology, safer products, 
     and our dedication to a healthy environment is what reduces 
     adverse effects to Waters of the U.S.
       The California NPDES permit is the strictest in the nation 
     requiring post-treatment water testing, but after the initial 
     samples showed that mosquito control did not adversely affect 
     water quality, that provision of the California permit has 
     been eliminated.
       Our pesticides are vigorously tested by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to be used over, near, and in water without 
     causing adverse affects to the environment. When used 
     according to the label, the EPA has built in a significant 
     margin of safety.
       Pesticides are detected in many of our nation's waters, but 
     the technology used today can detect pesticides at miniscule 
     amounts; this does not mean that pesticides are present at 
     levels toxic to people, aquatic plants or animals.
       Why would environmental groups want pesticide applicators 
     regulated under the CWA? Because it leaves municipal mosquito 
     control programs vulnerable to lawsuits where fines may 
     exceed $35,000/day. Under FIFRA they would need to 
     demonstrate that the pesticides caused harm or were 
     misapplied; because our pesticides are specific to mosquitoes 
     and used in low doses by qualified applicators that would be 
     extremely difficult. However, under the CWA, all they have to 
     prove is a paperwork violation.
       Communities without established Mosquito Control Districts 
     are being deprived of the economic and health benefits of 
     mosquito control. Historically, a local contractor could be 
     hired to provide spraying services with the understanding 
     that if he/she follows the FIFRA label he/she will be in 
     compliance with the law.
       Now, these local applicators must apply for a NPDES permit, 
     create a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, publish a 
     Notice of Intent to apply pesticides, and wait for approval 
     from the State or EPA. In most states

[[Page 13679]]

     the permits are not free. The steep fines under the Clean 
     Water Act and the cumbersome administrative process have 
     caused local applicators to discontinue mosquito control 
     services.

  Mr. GIBBS. This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations 
without rolling back any environmental safeguards.
  Don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to 
comply with the current duplicative Clean Water Act regulation of 
pesticides. Ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your 
cities and your counties. Then look at your States' Web sites to see 
what it takes to apply for the NPDES permit for pesticide applications. 
We did that. It costs over $200 in my State of Ohio, and in Oregon, it 
is over $900. That does not count the time of an applicant to complete 
the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application--all 
to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under 
FIFRA.
  I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 935.
  In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar 
legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process 
for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to 
a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities.
  Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the 
impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide general 
permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before 
the Agency's draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent 
level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you 
would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill.
  Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully 
drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the 
last 2\1/2\ years that adopted several commonsense precautionary 
measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They 
do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital 
public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-
effective manner.
  This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two 
successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully 
addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while, at the same 
time, complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water 
Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA.
  I say ``sensible'' because, as we should clearly understand, the 
intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different. 
FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides 
on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human 
health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved 
uses and restrictions. Very sensible. However, the Clean Water Act is 
focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's 
waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality--
two very distinct purposes.
  It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved 
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements is a surrogate 
for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with 
FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its 
label. Farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of the 
pesticide on local water quality.
  So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation 
to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation?
  Let's explore that.
  One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of 
the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to 
discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown 
mixtures, and at unknown locations.
  I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for 
decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially 
harmful materials almost completely below the radar.
  In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the 
only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a 
voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were 
purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive 
information was available or required on the quantities, types, or 
locations of pesticides applied in this country.
  Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for 
decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation's 
surface and groundwater, which leads me to question how eliminating any 
reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human 
health and the environment. All this would do is make it harder to 
locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our Nation's rivers, 
lakes, and streams, and it would make the accountability for these 
discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we 
would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides than 
those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real 
world.
  During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the 
environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the 
application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so 
obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone 
overlooked.
  First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide 
applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of 
pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I 
find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of 
pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.
  Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide 
applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result 
from spraying.

                              {time}  1845

  I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would 
actually be a mutually agreed-upon benefit.
  Also, it is the Clean Water Act and not FIFRA that requires pesticide 
applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being 
applied throughout the Nation. Again, if data is showing that a local 
water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public 
would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is 
causing the impairment.
  Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite 
repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example 
where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a 
pesticide applicator from performing their services.
  So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not 
significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual 
pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or 
the EPA to ban the use of pesticides.
  So let me summarize just a few points.
  One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring 
that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the 
appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact 
on human health or the environment.
  Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit 
has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to 
provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health 
communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically 
covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by 
filing of an electronic notice of intent.
  Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of 
pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many 
years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation 
from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care

[[Page 13680]]

about water quality, more needed to be done.
  I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of 
potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that 
existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general 
permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or 
significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly 
across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this 
legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does 
not exist.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Well, as a farmer, I take a little bit of offense to some of the 
remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.
  Pesticides cost money and, as farmers, we do not control what we get 
for our products, our commodities. We are raising corn and soybeans. We 
are at the mercy of the commodities market, so we have to do everything 
we can do on the cost side. And we certainly aren't going to waste a 
valuable input cost: pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide. So that is 
just an erroneous statement. That is just not true. Farmers of today 
are professionals, high capital cost operations, and it just makes no 
sense that we would waste those inputs.
  On the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there 
is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning that there was 
pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the 
environment, weren't biodegradable, and there is essentially a bank of 
residue left, and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are 
using today are much safer. The industry, the technology has improved 
drastically, and a lot of these pesticides, if not all, are more 
biodegradable.
  Also, keep in mind, under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label. That is 
the approval of the process and the application and the amount that can 
be used. In most States, if not all States, most of these pesticides 
are being applied, have to be applied by certified applicators, and 
they are licensed. So they are filling out some paperwork and have to 
do due diligence.
  This bill really does add a lot of duplication, because we went to a 
couple of States, and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body 
or a wetland--and that is open for definition how close that may be--
you have to go online and apply for the permit. In some States, you 
have to apply for, you have to submit a management plan. You have to 
list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location.
  So, basically, let's take this down to a homeowner level. A homeowner 
maybe wants to spray their yard for dandelions. If they are maybe 
reasonably close to a water body, or maybe not--that is open for 
discussion--they have to go online and, like I said, in Oregon, they 
have got to apply for a permit and submit a management plan and pay 
over a $900 fee. In my State of Ohio, it is over $200.
  I think that is a little bizarre, as long as they are applying it to 
the label under EPA approval.
  So let's also talk about mosquito control districts. We had a huge 
outbreak of West Nile virus in 2012. That was a big mosquito year. I 
guess last year wasn't as much. This year, the debate is going to be 
out on that.
  But we were hearing evidence that, because of the permitting 
requirements, that some of our mosquito control districts--and the 
American Mosquito Control Association actually surveyed their members. 
Some of them were actually kind of holding back and doing the 
preventative programs.
  I know of one large metropolitan area in the southern part of this 
country that had to declare an emergency. And the irony of this, when 
they declare an emergency, they don't have to get any permits. It was 
so bad, they had to do aerial spraying, so that was putting the 
environment even at more risk. When you go from land application up to 
aerial, you can imagine the possible results that could happen of 
contamination--and with no permit requirement.
  So we do have evidence, there was some talk on Monday night in this 
debate that the one gentleman on the other side of the aisle was 
talking about: My mosquito control district, there is no issue--no 
issue, no problem.
  Well, we talked to his mosquito control district and it is a problem, 
and they have been talking to them for the last several years that this 
is a problem.
  I would also contend, I did some research, checked around with some 
of our local spraying outfits, the grain elevators that do spraying. 
They don't know about this new rule yet because the EPA, in a lot of 
States, hasn't notified, they haven't implemented it. I think maybe 
because they know there is legislation hanging out there. So a lot of 
our entities don't know about it yet. Some of the larger, obviously, 
mosquito control districts and larger operations might know.
  But the reason, when you talk about it has been nearly 3 years, which 
is more like 2 years, and there hasn't been a problem as we might think 
there should be a problem is because a lot of them aren't doing the 
NPDES permits because they are not aware of that fact yet.
  So at some point, if we don't fix this, the hammer is going to come 
down and you are going to hear about it from farmers, mosquito control 
districts, and individual homeowners.
  So I just want to make that clear that this bill is duplicative, and 
they are under a lot of regulation, and the EPA approves the label. If 
you are not applying a pesticide under the label requirements, then you 
have got a problem.
  But we don't need to open this up to farmers and landowners and 
mosquito control districts to lawsuits and other problems. So what this 
is really boiling down to today is, now I am starting to see this is a 
revenue stream into the EPA for these outrageous costs of the NPDES 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 935, the Reducing 
Regulatory Burdens Act, which will relieve farmers, foresters, and 
other pesticide applicators from a potentially costly regulatory burden 
that would do little, if anything, to protect the environment. The 
legislation simply makes clear congressional intent by amending both 
the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to prohibit permits for pesticide application 
when pesticides are applied consistent with FIFRA.
  This legislation is necessary following a 2006 decision by the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned an EPA rule which specifically 
exempted permitting of certain pesticide applications under the Clean 
Water Act. The Court's decision preempts FIFRA by the Clean Water Act 
for the first time in the history of either statute.
  Clean Water Act permitting requirements place a significant burden 
and responsibilities on the States and the EPA. These National 
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits do not reduce the amount 
of pesticides being used or bring about additional water monitoring.
  I know many of my colleagues share my concern about the regulations 
coming from the EPA, and frankly, the last thing we need to do, we need 
the EPA to do, or the lawyers or the judges who don't understand 
agriculture, is to have them tell farmers how to farm or add another 
meaningless paperwork exercise to their workload. The courts are not 
the place to make agriculture policy, and this legislation takes a step 
to address that.
  Additionally, this bill is identical to legislation passed by the 
House last Congress with broad and strong bipartisan support. So I urge 
my colleagues to show that same support today.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

[[Page 13681]]


  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control 
that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  This legislation was the product of collaborative work done by two 
House committees, along with technical assistance from the Obama 
administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way 
legislation should be handled, and I am proud of our efforts in the 
House.
  To refresh our memories, this problem stems from an uninformed court 
decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision 
invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticides regulations that 
are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and 
duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
  I want to be clear, our pesticides are vigorously tested by the EPA 
to be used over, near, and in water without causing adverse effects to 
the environment. When used according to the label, the EPA has built in 
a significant margin of safety. Communities without established 
mosquito control districts are being deprived of the economic and 
health benefits of mosquito control.
  Historically, a local contractor could be hired to provide spraying 
services with the understanding that, if they followed the FIFRA label, 
they would be in compliance with the law. Now these local applicators 
must apply for an NPDES permit, create a Pesticide Discharge Management 
Plan, publish a notice of intent to apply pesticides, and wait for 
approval from the State or EPA. In most States, the permits are not 
free. The steep fines under the Clean Water Act and the cumbersome 
administrative process have caused local applicators to discontinue 
mosquito control services.
  The effort to have these same products today doubly regulated through 
the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and, 
ultimately, undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of 
regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and 
doubles their legal jeopardy. Think about that--doubles their legal 
jeopardy.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Crawford) for debate purposes.
  Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and 
I certainly appreciate the chairman of the Subcommittee on Waterways 
for his leadership.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 935.
  Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need in agriculture right now is more 
regulation. Pesticides are and have been an integral part of insuring 
that our Nation continues to produce the world's most abundant, safe, 
and affordable food supply. As it stands today, pesticides already go 
through a minimum of 125 safety tests before being registered for use. 
On top of that, they are subject to strict labeling and usage 
requirements, as the Agriculture Committee chairman alluded to in his 
remarks.
  Passage of H.R. 935 will clarify congressional intent that Clean 
Water Act permits are not required for lawful pesticide applications 
and protect pesticide users from abusive lawsuits.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 935, which prevents wasteful and duplicative regulations that 
could ultimately expand the EPA's reach further into every part of our 
country.
  Federal law already requires the EPA to ensure that pesticides cause 
``no unreasonable adverse effect'' to humans or the environment. Labels 
attached to pesticides that are related to its use are crafted to 
minimize such impacts. The label, in effect, is the law today. When a 
person does not follow the label, regardless of additional permits, 
they are violating the law.
  Yet activists believe requiring water permits, even when a user 
abides by the pesticide label, will somehow strengthen our water 
quality. States continue to spend more and more money and man hours 
implementing and enforcing a water permit process that most regulators 
do not believe does anything to further protect the water quality. That 
is why H.R. 935 is so important.
  This bill removes a pointless paperwork exercise and burden through 
NPDES permits that do nothing but create additional hurdles between 
consumers and the benefits of products like pesticides provide.
  Registration and labeling of a pesticide already does as much as any 
additional NPDES permit would require. In fact, EPA's own analysis 
suggests that the NPDES permits program for pesticides is the single 
greatest expansion in the program's history, covering over 5.5 million 
pesticide applications per year by 365,000 applicators.
  If H.R. 935 is not implemented, the effects of the EPA's 
overregulation would be felt across the State of Georgia. For example, 
county officials will have one more hurdle to overcome when trying to 
control the mosquito population and the outbreak of West Nile virus. 
These counties are forced to address an additional bureaucratic hurdle 
before they are able to address a serious health threat to our 
citizens, a hurdle that provides no additional benefits.
  With this unprecedented expansion, all stakeholders are affected, 
including State agencies, cities, counties, municipalities, research 
scientists, forest managers--and every American will pay for this. Last 
Congress, we passed this same legislation, 292-130, and I ask Congress 
to, again, do the same thing.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points 
here.
  For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide 
programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or 
the EPA.
  In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker, 
small applicators are already covered. They don't need to do anything. 
They are covered already under the permitting process.
  And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45 
States--a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active 
permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from 
the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of 
States.
  Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations 
would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no 
drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and 
the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what 
brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And, 
in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and 
controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn't 
absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water 
bodies are clean.
  There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that 
we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would 
subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits. 
In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms 
of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit--which applies in 
accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide 
and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts--they are, by the 
terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party.
  Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting 
process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act, 
are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and 
effectiveness

[[Page 13682]]

on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse impacts on human 
health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. In 
contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining 
the integrity of local water bodies, with direct considerations on the 
potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. So 
measuring the human health and environment with uniform labeling and 
protecting the waters are two separate purposes.
  Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides 
that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that 
are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide 
contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false.
  Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that 
documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the 
USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were 
previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several 
research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and 
insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn 
and soybean regions of the United States.
  So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for 
Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for 
the record.
  And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests 
for time because I am prepared to close.
  Mr. LUCAS. I do, indeed, have one further request, and then I will 
yield back to my friend from Ohio, who will close.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. This evening, we 
are, once again, considering H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens 
Act. Many of you will remember that the House voted in support of this 
legislation 3 years ago. That bill, H.R. 872, passed the House floor on 
suspension with a vote of 292-130.
  This same language was included in the 2012 farm bill that was 
reported out of the Agricultural Committee, as well as the 2013 farm 
bill, which the House sent to the farm bill conference. It was included 
in the committee-reported text of the fiscal year 2012 Interior and 
Environment Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, due to the opposition 
from a couple of our friends in the Senate, we have been unable to get 
this bill to the President's desk, which we know, once done, will 
guarantee his signature.
  As many of you may recall, this language was drafted at our request 
for technical assistance by the EPA general counsel. The problem we 
asked the EPA to help resolve stems from an uninformed court decision 
in the Sixth Circuit. This decision nullified a 2006 EPA regulation 
that exempted certain pesticides from having to comply with a costly 
and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, gave a very nice speech. 
And she mentioned several times the potential problem of contaminating 
creeks, the potential problems of this pesticide causing all of these 
problems that we haven't seen. We don't have the facts on that, and to 
regulate something that is already regulated--and I must caution 
everybody how these drugs and how these pesticides come out. They go 
through extensive testing. Millions of dollars are spent by these 
industries. And the intent by those pressing to have federally 
registered pesticides regulated through the Clean Water Act is 
unnecessary, it is costly, and it ultimately undermines public health. 
It amounts to a duplication of compliance costs for a variety of public 
agencies, adding to their legal jeopardy and threatening pesticide 
applicators, including mosquito control districts, with fines set at 
$37,500 per day per violation. All I can say is, welcome to going out 
of business if you are in the private sector.
  Across the country, several mosquito control districts may have to 
cease operations due to these costs. If this occurs, it would expose 
large portions of the population to mosquitoes carrying a number of 
dangerous and exotic diseases, such as West Nile virus. Hospitalization 
and rehab costs ranging from the tens of thousands into the millions of 
dollars, lost productivity, a decrease in tourism, and negative impacts 
on horses and livestock production are but a few of the costs that will 
further strain public health resources.
  Being a veterinarian for the last 30 years, I have seen effects of 
mosquito-borne diseases. In addition, the West Nile virus causes 
deaths, from alligators to humans. Also, diseases such as Eastern 
encephalitis are transmittable to people, along with dengue fever, 
which is moving its way up from the Caribbean through the peninsula of 
Florida, and it will, no doubt, get up further to the mainland of the 
United States of America, in addition to the heartworm disease in our 
pets.
  This unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and State 
interests but also to Federal agency lands located in States directly 
regulated by the EPA. For example, Federal agencies, such as the Army 
Corps of Engineers, authorize the use of some of their lands for many 
purposes, including recreation and agriculture. These uses often 
require pesticide applications to prevent mosquito-borne transmitted 
diseases and for other purposes.
  Although the local mosquito control district may be the entity 
actually applying the pesticide, the Army Corps District is required to 
obtain the permit and sign off on related reports, thereby pointlessly 
driving up costs to the Federal Government. We have agencies suing 
government agencies.
  Further, experience has shown that the Corps is unwilling to assume 
permit responsibility for activities that it is not actually 
performing. This is a regulatory burden that Congress never intended, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a 
letter from 144 environmental organizations, community-based 
organizations around the country that oppose H. Res. 935.

         Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, CATA--The Farmworker 
           Support Committee, Center for Biological Diversity, 
           Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endangered Species 
           Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida, 
           Greenpeace, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, 
           League of Conservation Voters, Lower Mississippi 
           Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
           Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, 
           Northwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest 
           Environmental Defense Center, Pesticide Action Network, 
           San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club, Surfrider 
           Foundation, Waterkeeper Alliance, Waterkeepers 
           Carolina,
                                                    July 25, 2014.
     Re Oppose H.R. 935 (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 
         2013'')

       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 935 
     (``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013''), which would 
     prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting 
     water supplies from direct applications of pesticides.
       Nearly 150 human health, fishing, environmental, and other 
     organizations have opposed efforts like H.R. 935 that would 
     undermine Clean Water Act permitting for direct pesticide 
     applications to waterways. We attach a list of these groups 
     for your reference, as well as a one-page fact sheet with 
     more information on the issue.
       Regulating pesticide discharges to waterways under the 
     Clean Water Act is critical. Despite current regulation under 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
     pesticides continue to impair our waterways in significant 
     quantities and have caused real harm to public health and 
     ecosystems. H.R. 935 would render ineffective the Clean Water 
     Act pesticide general permit that took effect in 2011 
     (``pesticide general permit''). This permit is necessary to 
     protect our waterways, public health, and fish and wildlife.
       There have been mischaracterizations of the existing permit 
     that we must correct:
       The pesticide general permit has no significant effect on 
     farming practices. The permit in no way affects land 
     applications of pesticides for the purpose of controlling 
     pests. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater 
     runoff will not require permits, even when they contain 
     pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean 
     Water Act remain.

[[Page 13683]]

       The pesticide general permit allows for spraying to combat 
     vector-borne diseases such as the West Nile virus. According 
     to the Environmental Protection Agency, the permit ``provides 
     that pesticide applications are covered automatically under 
     the permit and may be performed immediately for any declared 
     emergency pest situations.''
       The pesticide general permit--which has been in place for 
     more than two and a half years now--simply lays out 
     commonsense practices for applying pesticides directly to 
     waters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of the 
     Clean Water Act. Efforts to block this permit are highly 
     controversial, as evidenced by the attached list of groups 
     opposed.
       Please protect the health of your state's citizens and all 
     Americans by opposing H.R. 935.
           Sincerely,
         Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy & Legislation, 
           Earthjustice; Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, 
           Natural Resources Defense Council; Sara Chieffo, 
           Legislative Director, League of Conservation Voters; 
           Dalal Aboulhosn, Senior Washington Representative, 
           Sierra Club; Jeannie Economos, Pesticide Safety & 
           Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker 
           Association of Florida; Nelson Carrasquillo, Executive 
           Director, CATA--The Farmworker Support Committee; Mary 
           Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs, 
           Defenders of Wildlife; Jay Feldman, Executive Director, 
           Beyond Pesticides; Brett Hartl, Endangered Species 
           Policy Director, Center for Biological Diversity; Nina 
           Bell, Executive Director, Northwest Environmental 
           Advocates; Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace. 
           Pete Nichols, National Director, Waterkeeper Alliance; 
           Heather Ward, Executive Director, Waterkeepers, 
           Carolina; Mark Riskedahl, Executive Director, Northwest 
           Environmental Defense Center; Tara Thornton, Program 
           Director, Endangered Species Coalition; Marylee Orr, 
           Executive Director, Louisiana Environmental Action 
           Network; Paul Orr, Riverkeeper, Lower Mississippi 
           Riverkeeper; Jason Flanders, Program Director, San 
           Francisco Baykeeper; Kristin S. Schafer, Policy 
           Director, Pesticide Action Network; Lisa Arkin, 
           Executive Director, Beyond Toxics; Gus Gates, Oregon 
           Policy Manager, Surfrider Foundation; Kim Leval, 
           Executive Director, Northwest Center for Alternatives 
           to Pesticides.
                                  ____


Who Opposes Efforts To Undermine Clean Water Act Permitting for Direct 
                        Pesticide Applications?

       The below organizations have signed letters opposing 
     legislation that guts Clean Water Act safeguards protecting 
     communities from toxic pesticides:
       Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Altamaha Riverkeeper and 
     Altamaha Coastkeeper, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Apalachicola 
     Riverkeeper, Assateague Coastkeeper/Assateague Coastal Trust, 
     American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Audubon 
     California, Better Urban Green Strategies, Beyond Pesticides, 
     Big Black Foot Riverkeeper, Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper, Black 
     Warrior Riverkeeper, Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program, 
     Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, Butte Environmental Council, 
     Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Californians for 
     Pesticide Reform, California Sportfishing Protection 
     Alliance, Cape Fear River Watch, Cascobay Baykeeper, Catawba 
     Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc., Center for Biological 
     Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center on Race, 
     Poverty & the Environment, Charleston Waterkeeper, 
     Choctawhatchee Riverkeeper, Clean Water Action, Clean Water 
     Network, Coast Action Group, Colorado Riverkeeper, Cook 
     Inletkeeper, Inc., Defenders of Wildlife, Detroit 
     Riverkeeper, Dolphin Swimming and Boating Club, The Earth 
     Cause Organization, Earthjustice, Emerald Coastkeeper, 
     Endangered Species Coalition, Environment America, 
     Environment California, Environmental Protection Information 
     Center, Environmental Advocates, Flint Riverkeeper, Food & 
     Water Watch, Forestland Dwellers, French Broad Riverkeeper, 
     Friends of the Earth, Friends of Five Creeks, Friends of 
     Gualala River, Friends of the Petaluma River, Galveston 
     Baykeeper, Geos Institute, Golden Gate Audubon Society, Grand 
     Riverkeeper, Grand Traverse Baykeeper, Gunpowder Riverkeeper, 
     Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc., Haw Riverkeeper/Haw River 
     Assembly, Housatonic River Initiative, Hurricane Creekkepper/
     Friends of Hurricane Creek, Hudson Riverkeeper, Humboldt 
     Baykeeper, Idaho Conservation League, Indian Riverkeeper, 
     Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Kansas Riverkeeper, Klamath Forest 
     Alliance, Klamath Riverkeeper, Lake George Waterkeeper, Lake 
     Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, Lawyers for Clean Water, League of 
     Conservation Voters, Long Island Soundkeeper, Louisiana 
     Bayoukeeper, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Lower 
     Mississippi Riverkeeper, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper, Lower 
     Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Madrone Audubon Society, Milwaukee 
     Riverkeeper, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray, Narragansett 
     Baykeeper, National Audubon Society, National Environmental 
     Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Neuse 
     Riverkeeper Foundation, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper, 
     Northcoast Environmental Center, Northern California River 
     Watch, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Northwest 
     Center for Alternatives for Pesticides, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, 
     Orange County Coastkeeper, Oregon Wild, Oregon Toxics 
     Alliance, Ouachita Riverkeeper, Pacific Coast Federation of 
     Fishermen's Associations, Pamlico-Tar Riverkeeper, Patuxent 
     Riverkeeper, Peconic Baykeeper, Pesticide Action Network, 
     Pesticide-Free Sacramento, Pesticide-Free Zone, Pesticide 
     Watch, Planning and Conservation League, Potomac Riverkeeper, 
     Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Puget 
     Soundkeeper Alliance, Quad Cities Riverkeeper, Raritan 
     Riverkeeper, Riverkeeper, Rogue Riverkeeper, Russian River 
     Watershed Protection Committee, Russian Riverkeeper, 
     Sacramento Audubon Society, Inc., Safe Alternatives for Our 
     Forest Environment, Safety Without Added Toxins, Saint John's 
     Organic Farm, Saint Louis Confluence Riverkeeper, San Diego 
     Coastkeeper, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Francisco League of 
     Conservation Voters, San Francisco Tomorrow, Santa Monica 
     Baykeeper, Santee Riverkeeper, Satilla Riverkeeper, Save Our 
     Wild Salmon Coalition, Savannah Riverkeeper, Shenandoah 
     Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, Silver Valley Waterkeeper, Spokane 
     Riverkeeper, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Stop the Spray East Bay, 
     Tennessee Riverkeeper, The Bay Institute, Toxics Action 
     Center, Tualatin Riverkeepers, Upper Neuse Riverkeeper, Upper 
     Watauga Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, West/Rhode 
     Riverkeeper, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Xerces 
     Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Yadkin Riverkeeper.

  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I think it is important for us to deal in facts and not in 
mythology. And a couple of the facts are these:
  In 2008, States reported to the EPA--that is, State reporting 
agencies--that 16,819 miles of rivers and streams, 1,766 square miles 
of bays and estuaries, and 260,342 acres of lakes are impaired or 
threatened by pesticides. So it is simply not the fact, Mr. Speaker, 
that there is no identified pesticide contamination in our water 
bodies. It is simply not true.
  I just want to note also for the record, Mr. Speaker, that, again, 
there has been no evidence at all that, again, despite the repeated 
request of the EPA and State-run permit programs, that there are 
specific examples where the application of the Clean Water Act 
requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing 
their services. So if there was a problem and a burden, then identify 
it. And there simply has been no identification of such a problem.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to review our recent history. Just on 
Monday of this past week, the House of Representatives actually 
defeated the bill that we are considering tonight, H.R. 935, under 
suspension of the rules. So having gone through that defeat, tonight we 
have debated the merits again of that same piece of legislation under a 
rule that does not allow any amendments to improve the bill to be 
offered, debated, or voted on. Tomorrow, the House will, once again, 
vote on passage of H.R. 935, the bill that failed under a suspension of 
the rules on Monday.
  This legislation will undermine one of our Nation's most successful 
environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, in limiting the potential 
contamination of our Nation's waters by pesticides.
  Contrary to some of the rhetoric--some of which we have heard 
tonight, Mr. Speaker--the Environmental Protection Agency has 
successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit for 
the last 2\1/2\ years.

                              {time}  1915

  That regulation has several commonsense precautionary measures that 
limit contamination of local waters by pesticides--we have heard from 
the States even since 2008 that pesticide contamination in thousands of 
miles of streams, rivers, and estuaries are in fact contaminated by 
pesticide--while it would allow pesticide applicators to meet their 
vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a 
cost-effective manner.
  Now, last Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House narrowly approved a 
similar bill,

[[Page 13684]]

H.R. 872, under suspension of the rules by a vote of 292-130, under the 
guise of regulatory uncertainty under a yet-unseen Clean Water Act 
permit program.
  However, since that time, the EPA has issued a reasonable and 
protective Clean Water Act permit program that preserves vital farming, 
forestry, and mosquito control activities at the same time as 
protecting our Nation's waters. So a year passed, and we have 
implemented a program that is underway now.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act is a key to those of us who value 
clean drinking water and fishable, swimmable waters or who represent 
States that depend on tourism, like my home State of Maryland, since we 
have the fourth longest coastline in the continental United States, the 
Chesapeake Bay--which is the largest estuary in the United States--and 
several of its tributaries, including the Anacostia, Patuxent, Potomac, 
and Severn Rivers that flow through the Fourth Congressional District.
  The shoreline of the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries stretch for 
over 2,000 miles, and thousands of streams, rivers, and acres of 
wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the bay.
  Thanks to the Clean Water Act, over the past 40-plus years, billions 
of pounds of pollution have been kept out of our rivers, and the number 
of waters that meet clean water goals nationwide has doubled, with 
direct benefits for drinking water, public health, recreation and 
wildlife.
  The act represents a huge step forward by requiring States to set 
clean water standards to protect uses such as swimming, fishing, and 
drinking and for the regulation of pollution discharges.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly want to return to a laissez-faire 
policy that provided no accountability to who was using what 
pesticides, where they were using those pesticides, and in what amounts 
and resulted in thousands of miles of streams and lakes being 
contaminated by pesticides.
  I would urge my colleagues to take the commonsense approach that the 
EPA has taken and to, on both sides of the aisle, vote ``no'' on H.R. 
935 and to once again vote down legislation that is looking to solve a 
problem, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not exist.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time does my side have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deregulate pesticides as 
has been suggested by some speakers. Pesticides have been regulated 
under FIFRA for decades, and this bill does not change that.
  This bill makes it clear that if you are a mosquito control agency, a 
farmer, or a citizen that is applying a pesticide and you are complying 
with FIFRA, you do not need an NPDES permit.
  Now, there are a couple facts that came out here tonight that the 
other side said that, without this bill, it is not necessary because 
you don't have to get a permit to go out and apply pesticides. Well, if 
you are applying near a water body or a wetland, you do have to get an 
NPDES permit from the court decision.
  This was not an EPA decision. This was a court decision that looked 
at it in a narrow vision, and it was a very ill-advised court decision, 
and I would say when you look at proposed rules out there about waters 
in the United States, it is up to debate what is near or close to a 
water body, so that is a fact that we would have that.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal experience. Several years 
ago, my soybean crop--it was a Friday, late Friday afternoon, working 
with my certified pesticide applicator, we discovered that my soybean 
crop had just been attacked by spider mites, an insect, and we had to 
make application, insecticide application, to take care of it.
  That application was made on a Friday night. If I had to apply for an 
NPDES permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit it 
to the State, it comes back--I don't know if we would have got it until 
Tuesday. I would have lost--the damage to my soybean crop would have 
been substantial.
  So the issue out here that there is no cost happening, there will 
when this thing gets fully implemented because, in practice, this court 
decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country, 
but that will be coming if we fail to enact H.R. 935.
  This bill removes the needless and duplicative regulation that 
threatens public health and imposes an expensive burden on public and 
private entities trying to safely approve pesticides.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It has passed out of this House last 
Congress by a two-thirds majority. We had partisan antics going on 
Monday night. We had people switch their votes under pressure for 
partisan reasons, and that is not good government.
  This bill will help protect the environment and human safety when you 
especially look at West Nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases 
we are finding that are coming about.
  We have to allow our certified pesticide applicators, our mosquito 
control districts to do their job, and if the private sector wants to 
go in here and have to do all this extra permitting--we are not 
talking--when you hear about general permit, you think, oh, I just get 
a permit for the season, and I am good to go.
  That is not what the general permit means. What it means is you have 
to go every time you do an application, if it is near or close to a 
wetland or water body, apply for a permit, put in that permit where the 
location is going to be, probably the date.
  Well, say it is raining that day or it is too windy. Do you have to 
reapply for your permit? That is kind of up in the air still, so there 
are a whole bunch of issues out there, plus the costs, the time to do 
it, the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the one that is really bizarre is if you are a 
homeowner and you want to apply a pesticide to your yard and if you are 
near a water body or a wetland, whatever, you have to apply for a 
permit because of this court decision.
  This will bog down the NPDES permit process, and it will delay and 
add costs, and it puts farmers in jeopardy to get their crops to 
maintain and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food 
supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our 
mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from West 
Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.
  So this is critical that these bills pass because we are getting 
close to the time when we are going to see very much damage being done. 
We saw a little bit of it in 2012, in at least one large metropolitan 
area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially when they declared 
an emergency when it got so far out of hand because they didn't do the 
preventative measures.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pass this bill, send it to the 
Senate, and hopefully, the Senate takes it up and passes it to protect 
the environment and health and human safety of the citizens of this 
country.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 935.
  This debate is not one about the usefulness of pesticide use in 
modern society--which, clearly, pesticides have found such a role. 
Whether to control nuisance species, such as mosquitoes or aquatic 
invasive species, or to assist in the production of reliable 
agricultural harvests, pesticides have proven useful in sustaining the 
American livelihood.
  At the same time, we must remember that modern pesticides can be 
highly toxic chemicals that need to be thoroughly studied and used with 
great care to limit the potential impacts to human health and the 
environment. It was only a few decades ago that we learned the lessons 
of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and the devastation to the natural 
environment caused by the use of DDT.
  Yet, even today, the U.S. Geological Survey has consistently found 
the presence of pesticides and pesticide residues in our nation's

[[Page 13685]]

lakes, rivers, and streams, including many that serve as drinking water 
sources for local communities. Contrary to statements made on Monday, 
these are not simply the legacy contaminants of decades-old pesticides, 
but also modern pesticides, such as those linked to bee-colony 
collapse.
  So, common-sense should dictate that we approach the issue of 
pesticide use in or near our rivers, lakes, and streams with great 
caution, and with an even greater understanding of the cumulative and 
lasting impacts of pesticides on human health and water quality.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 935 would abandon any caution related to 
pesticide use in or near our nation's waters, and allow potential 
polluters to return to the regulatory shadows.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 argue that the protections of the 
Clean Water Act are simply duplicative of the requirements of FIFRA, 
and are unnecessary to protect local waters from pesticide 
contamination.
  These statements are simply not supported by the facts.
  As many of my colleagues noted during Monday's debate on this bill, 
these two statutes, although complimentary with one another, have 
entirely different focuses.
  FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of 
pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects 
on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating 
approved uses and restrictions.
  However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining 
the integrity of the nation's waters, with a primary focus on the 
protection of local water quality.
  It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved 
pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate 
for protecting local water quality.
  Similarly, contrary to statements made during Monday's debate, 
FIFRA's risk assessment process for individual pesticides is no 
substitute for the Clean Water Act's focus on local water quality.
  First, the FIFRA labeling process for a vast majority of pesticides 
do not address off-site, non-target, and sub-lethal effects of 
pesticide drift that can grow stronger over time.
  Second, the EPA risk registration process only considers the effect 
of the active ingredients in a pesticide, and does not consider the 
synergy of multiple ingredients in a pesticide formulation, or between 
multiple pesticides in the environment. Yet, many of the unregulated, 
inactive ingredients in pesticides have significant toxic effects in 
their own right.
  Third, the FIFRA re-registration process is a lengthy and ongoing 
process with outstanding and missing health and environmental data 
associated with pesticide reviews. As a result, EPA's assessment 
process has been routinely criticized as failing to fully assess the 
short- and long-term impacts of pesticides on human health, 
particularly on children, and on the environment.
  Fourth, under FIFRA, EPA does not track pesticide poisonings, 
including short-term and long-term adverse effects, as pointed out 
recently by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
  Finally, EPA presumes, under FIFRA, that if a pesticide is applied 
according to its label, there will not be any unintentional pesticide 
exposure to water--therefore, the risk assessment process does not 
evaluate the impact of terrestrial pesticides on water quality, despite 
the fact that these pesticides often are detected in waters--presumably 
through drift or contaminated runoff.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 935 also argue that the costs of 
implementing the Clean Water Act permitting requirements have been 
excessive. However, I have yet to see one documented case where a 
state, a mosquito control district, or a pesticide applicator has 
incurred significant increased costs from complying with the Clean 
Water Act for pesticide applications.
  This administration worked hand-in-hand with these groups to ensure 
that implementation of the Clean Water Act was consistent with current 
practices, and was not going to be costly or burdensome. If we are 
going to have a debate on the merits of this issue, it is incumbent 
upon the proponents of H.R. 935 to show proof of any perceived burden--
but as of yet, no such proof has been provided.
  As noted by my colleagues on Monday, there is no substantive reason 
why this legislation is necessary, other than to limit the scope of 
Clean Water Act protections over a source of known pollutants that are 
causing water quality impairment in this nation.
  There is no evidence of an emergency. There is no evidence of any 
significant regulatory burden. And there is no evidence of any 
substantial increase in compliance costs.
  In my view, the proponents have made no argument why this legislation 
is necessary, other than that the groups who want to restore their 
regulatory anonymity have asked for it.
  We need to ensure that potential sources of water pollution continue 
to be brought out of the shadows, which would be accomplished by 
defeating H.R. 935.
  Mr Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called 
``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act,'' which would roll back clean water 
protections and allow untracked pesticide pollution in our rivers and 
streams.
  More than two and a half years ago, the Environmental Protection 
Agency put in place basic pesticide protections by requiring a general 
permit for the direct application of pesticides into waterways. Nearly 
2,000 waterways are already contaminated by pesticides, harming fish 
and amphibians and potentially accumulating in people who eat those 
fish. The commonsense permit does not affect land applications of 
pesticides, maintains existing agricultural exemptions, and allows for 
immediate spraying to protect the public from vector-borne diseases.
  Today's legislation would roll back the permitting rule, leaving 
pesticide application unmonitored and our waterways vulnerable to 
contamination. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 935 is postponed.

                          ____________________