[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16347-16348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PEST MANAGEMENT RECORDS MODERNIZATION ACT

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5714) to permit commercial applicators of 
pesticides to create, retain, submit, and convey pesticide application-
related records, reports, data, and other information in electronic 
form.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5714

       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 ``Pest Management Records 
     Modernization Act''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS 
                   OF PESTICIDES TO COMPLY WITH RECORDKEEPING AND 
                   REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting.--
     Notwithstanding any contrary provision of Federal, State, or 
     local law, commercial applicators of pesticides, including 
     commercial applicators of restricted use pesticides, may 
     create, retain, submit, and convey a pesticide application-
     related record, report, data, or other information in 
     electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement for such 
     creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, respectively, 
     under any Federal, State, or local law.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 5714.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) 
for being here to help with this bill today. I also want to thank my 
good friend and colleague from Oregon, Representative Kurt Schrader, 
for his leadership on this important piece of legislation.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 5714, the Pest Management Records 
Modernization Act.
  Under the current law, the United States Department of Agriculture 
requires businesses that apply pesticides to maintain and provide 
access to records on their use, including the product name, amount, 
approximate date of application, and the location of application of 
each pesticide used.
  While most States allow pesticide applicator businesses to convey 
information electronically to customers as a way to comply with 
consumer information requirements, a few States still require that the 
information be provided in paper or hard copy format. The challenge 
posed to the industry is not the longstanding consumer information 
requirements themselves but, rather, the very limited transmission 
options in certain States.
  Today, businesses in virtually all sectors of the economy are going 
paperless as a way to save costs, increase efficiencies, and, yes, 
fulfill the range of local, State, and Federal regulatory requirements 
in a timely and proficient manner. Unfortunately, the transition to a 
paperless office for many pest management and other pesticide 
applicator businesses is more difficult than anticipated because of the 
decades-old State consumer information requirements that mandate 
transmission of such documents be via paper or hard copy. These 
requirements are especially disruptive for paperless companies that 
operate in multiple States, some of which permit electronic conveyance 
of the required information and others that don't.
  The USDA permits records to be retained and conveyed electronically 
for restricted use pesticide applications. Unfortunately, the 
overwhelming majority of treatments performed by pest management 
professionals are general use pesticides.
  The Pest Management Records Modernization Act is a commonsense change 
to existing law that will allow commercial applicators of pesticides to 
create, retain, and submit pesticide application-related records, 
reports, and other information in electronic form.
  As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 5714, the Pest Management Records 
Modernization Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bipartisan 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his remarks and for 
clearly stating this commonsense piece of legislation and for his 
support of it.
  I, too, would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader). 
He is the author of this piece of legislation. Something we have come 
to expect from Mr. Schrader is a commonsense, bipartisan piece of 
legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 5714, the Pest Management Records Modernization Act, is pro-
small business and pro-consumer. It improves the ability of pest 
management companies to communicate important information with their 
customers related to the products they use.
  As you heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, most States 
require pest management and other applicator companies to provide 
customers with information related to pest treatments, either 
automatically or upon request. Most of the requirements are implemented 
and enforced by State departments of agriculture, which are the State 
pesticide regulatory agency in 40 States. The required information is 
typically information directly from the pesticide label. The 
overwhelming majority of treatments performed by pest management 
professionals involve general use pesticides.
  Right now about 45 States permit electronic conveyance of this 
information directly to consumers. In fact, in the last 2 years, the 
States of California, Georgia, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Arizona have 
recognized the need to update their respective laws related to 
disclosure and passed legislation or taken administrative actions 
permitting electronic conveyance of pesticide application information.
  Like businesses in countless sectors of the economy, professional 
pest management and other pest applicator businesses are going 
paperless as a way to save costs and increase efficiencies. Going 
paperless allows businesses to back up and better safeguard data and

[[Page 16348]]

records in case of a fire, flood, or other disasters. It also makes it 
easier to prove compliance with various recordkeeping, reporting, and 
related requirements, plus it has the added advantage of being greener 
and more environmentally sound.
  Unfortunately, the transition to a paperless office for many pest 
management and other pesticide applicator businesses is more difficult 
than anticipated because of antiquated State consumer information 
requirements from the 1970s and '80s that mandated transmission of such 
documents be via hard copies or paper and do not permit electronic 
conveyance. These requirements are especially disruptive for companies 
that have made the transition to paperless that operate in multiple 
States, some of which permit electronic conveyance and others that 
don't.
  It is important to note H.R. 5714 does not put any new mandates on 
small businesses but, rather, provides them the ability to 
electronically convey information in the handful of States that have 
not yet addressed this in a changing e-commerce environment.
  As I have said previously, and as my friend from Pennsylvania stated, 
H.R. 5714 is commonsense, it is bipartisan, it is pro-consumer, and it 
is pro-small business. It deserves our support, and I encourage 
everyone to make its swift passage possible.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for his remarks and encourage my colleagues to support 
passage of this important piece of legislation. I have no further 
comments or speakers on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5714.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________