Free Trade With Cuba Act

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

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.

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. 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.

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 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. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

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 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 935.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013. I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify the congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated.

It is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known as FIFRA, and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the safety and use of pesticides in the United States. In fact, FIFRA has regulated pesticides 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.

H.R. 935 is aimed at reversing a decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Cotton Council v. EPA, which imposed Clean Water Act permitting on pesticide use. That case vacated a 2006 Environmental Protection Agency rule that codified EPA's longstanding interpretation that the application of a pesticide for its intended purpose and in compliance with the requirements of FIFRA is not a discharge of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act, and, therefore, an NPDES permit is not required.

In vacating the rule, the Sixth Circuit substituted judge-made policy choices for reasonable Agency interpretations of the law. In the process, the court undermined the traditional understanding of how the Clean Water Act interacts with other environmental statutes and judicially expanded the scope of Clean Water Act regulation further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by Congress. As a result of that court decision, EPA has been required to develop and impose a new and expanded NPDES permitting process under the Clean Water Act to cover pesticide use.

EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, including State agencies, cities, counties, mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens that perform some 5.6 million pesticide applications annually would be affected by the court's ruling. This substantially increases the number of entities subject to NPDES permitting.

With this ill-advised court decision, 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.

Despite what the fearmongers suggest, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection. NPDES compliance costs and fears of potentially ruinous litigation associated with complying with the new NPDES requirements for the use of pesticides are forcing mosquito control other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply with the regulatory requirements.

In many States, routine preventive programs have been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of West Nile virus around the Nation in 2012. In response to West Nile outbreaks, many States and communities had to declare public health emergencies, resulting in pesticide use to control mosquitoes with the delay caused by the NPDES permitting process. It remains to be seen how the control of mosquitoes will be affected this year, although recent press reports are noting an increase this summer in West Nile virus and the spread of a newly introduced tropical disease spread by mosquitoes.

H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito 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.

Exempting pesticides from the NPDES permitting is appropriate because EPA already protects human health and the environment under FIFRA. When it reviews the safety of pesticides, it determines whether to approve or not approve a pesticide for use and sets the rules for each pesticide's uses under the product label.

H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit Court's holding in National Cotton Council and return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved.

EPA provided technical assistance in drafting this bill so that it would achieve these objectives. Well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name a few, these organizations include the American Mosquito Control Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, Family Farm Alliance, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.

I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member Peterson of the Agriculture Committee for their leadership. I urge all Members to support H.R. 935.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of Agriculture.

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond a little bit to some of the questions that were raised by my good friend from Connecticut.

Back in 2012, the American Mosquito Control Association polled their members, and the feeling from the poll was that a lot of the public entities in the control districts for mosquitoes were kind of holding off on the preventive mosquito control programs. Of course, we had a record number of West Nile outbreaks in 2012. I think the season we probably didn't have quite the mosquito pressure was in 2013. We will see what happens in 2014.

My point is that because of the additional permitting and the costs and the time, a lot of districts did not do their preventive control, and they caused an outbreak of mosquitoes more severe than what it would have been--and that was from the American Mosquito Control Association.

With regard to pesticide application in the agriculture sector, if not in all States, in most States, these applications have to be done by certified applicators that have a lot of training. They know they have to abide by the label, because if they don't they could risk losing their applicator's license.

I would also raise the question that if you are a certified applicator, you might not follow the permit requirements under the Clean Water Act either. It all comes down to additional costs and delays, and we all know that you don't get a NPDES permit just overnight, so the cost factor is a major issue.

Another issue I think that needs to be talked a little bit about is, why do we find in some water bodies pesticide residue? The main reason we do is because we have something we call ``legacy'' from pesticides used long ago, years ago, that in a lot of cases aren't even on the market anymore, or if they are they are not being used by the industry because the industry, the agriculture industry and the industry, has done such a wonderful job of research and development in developing new pesticides that are actually more biodegradable and safer and less quantities used. We have come a long way in that technology.

As a farmer, I know that because I experienced that every growing season, the new technologies, the new applications and pesticides that we have available to us. So we really need to address that legacy issue and separate that out, what is really happening in these water bodies.

Then lots of times, too, in some of the data, the data is old from the United States Geological Service and things have changed. Also, some of the testing that has been done, some of the levels are well below what the human health benchmark standards are. So I think there is a scare tactic out there.

But we have got to make sure that we are applying these pesticides under label, which I think the industry is working well at. Because as a farmer, we drink the water first. It comes through our aquifers, our wells, and then also the streams through our property where we live around it, so we want to make sure that that water is clean.

So we need to assess this data--and use sophisticated methods to do that--but not have more government red tape and bureaucracy. All this does is just add time and costs and more headaches for our mosquito control districts, farmers, and others.

I just want to make the point clear that we have got to have these pesticides, and we can do it in a safe way. The technology is improving pesticide use. So that is why I think this bill is necessary to overturn a very ill-advised court decision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, that raises a question. If it has been going so good for the last 3 years and there is no need to pass this bill, why in the world would organizations like the American Mosquito Control Association think this bill is needed?

The American Farm Bureau, the National Water Resources Association, Farmers Union, and especially CropLife America are all experts out there that want to make sure that the pesticide use is under label and we are protecting the environment and not endangering it.

So I guess I would take issue with the comment that this legislation isn't needed because it has gone so great in the last 3 years. Well, we are finding out maybe it isn't going so great. I think that is the rhetoric from the other side.

We know that, in 2012, by a poll from the American Mosquito Control Association, a lot of our mosquito control districts did not initiate their preventative programs in the early spring. I know some of them had to declare an emergency.

The irony of this is when you declare an emergency, you do aerial spraying and everything else and not have to get a permit at all, so the environment is even more at risk. If they had done the preventative treatment, they might not have had to do aerial spraying.

I know at least one instance of a major metropolitan area in the Southern part of the country that had to do that. These organizations think this is important. Things aren't going so well. We are having a duplication with more permitting, more red tape, more headaches, and adding to cost.

So I strongly support this bill. Last Congress, I think this bill had 294 ``yea'' votes. It went over to the Senate. Unfortunately, the majority leader would not take it up. It was put in the farm bill, and there was pressure from one or two Senators to take it out. I think it would have passed strongly in the Senate, if we would have been able to have a vote on this very bipartisan initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 935, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 935.

When the House considered this bill in the 112th Congress, before I was elected to serve here, proponents like my good friend, Mr. Gibbs, argued that unless Congress acted, the process for getting a pesticide general permit under the Clean Water Act would cause agriculture, forestry, and public health-related activities to grind to a halt.

However, after almost 3 years of implementation, I am confused about the need for this bill. The sky has not fallen, farmers and forestry operators have had several successful growing seasons, and public health officials have 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, known as 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.

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. 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 at the localized impact of that pesticide on local water quality.

If, as my colleagues suggest, FIFRA is an adequate substitute for the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, then why is it that pesticides keep showing up in water quality samples from both ground and surface waters?

If applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide according to its label is protective of human health and the environment, then why is it that so many States continue to report significant numbers of pesticide- impaired waters?

I urge my colleagues to note that, according to a 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, at least one pesticide was detected in waters from all streams tested throughout the Nation. Let me repeat that. Pesticides were detected in every single stream tested by the USGS.

State water pollution control agencies have similarly identified a number of surface waters that are currently contaminated by pesticides. States have identified over 16,800 miles of rivers and streams, 1,700 square miles of bays and estuaries, and 372,000 acres of lakes that are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides, meaning that that particular water body cannot or should not be used as a source of drinking water and be appropriate for fish or shellfish propagation or recreation.

It is also telling that States continue to identify waters that remain impaired by pesticides, pesticides which have been banned by this country for decades.

Some have questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of the benefits are so obvious that perhaps we have simply overlooked them.

First, let us look, the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharge through the use of pesticide management measures.

Second, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish kills or wildlife kills, as my colleague from Oregon has noted, would 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 that the public, our constituents, would want to quickly identify the likely source of the pesticide that is causing the impairment.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing his or her services.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act is not being used to ban the use of pesticides.

So, again, let's summarize a few points.

First, the Clean Water Act provides a valuable service by ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at appropriate times, and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has not impeded pesticide applicators from

servicing both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered under the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by the filing of the simple electronic notice of intent.

Third, Federal and State data make it very clear that the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect bodies of water throughout the United States from being contaminated by pesticides.

If we care about water quality, we need to do more.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to question what this legislation is really trying to accomplish. Is it really about the so-called regulatory burden of applying for a Clean Water Act permit? As we noted earlier, in the majority of cases, a small-scale user of pesticides is automatically covered by the Clean Water Act under the general permit, provided they apply pesticides in a commonsense manner.

Again, is it about the so-called threat of lawsuits? Again, if the pesticide applicator is applying the pesticide in compliance with the permit, they are statutorily immune from lawsuits under the Clean Water Act.

Is it about compliance costs? Yet, again, there is no evidence at the hearing, in the record, to demonstrate that the Clean Water Act is significantly increasing the costs of compliance to the average pesticide applicator.

The reality is there is no substantive reason why this legislation is necessary, except to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act protections from pesticide pollution that is impairing water quality across the Nation.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, it is Groundhog Day again here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Much of the speech we just heard actually was read 3 years ago on the floor. Three years ago, we were in a different place. There was a new pending rule. There was tremendous uncertainty whether this would be an undue burden on individuals--no, in the end, it isn't at all--on individual farmers--no, except for the largest farms over 6,000 acres--or on forestry. And no, it has not been a problem, and I have a heavily forested State. So there was tremendous uncertainty, and the House Republicans moved this legislation. Of course, it went nowhere in the Senate.

Here we are 3 years later. We have been living under the permit and general permit process, and I am going to look forward to hearing some very specific problems, denials, or litigation from the other side--not maybe, there should have, could have, would have, might be stuff, because I am not aware of any. And we have asked.

Now, sure, my Farm Bureau supports this. Hey, whatever. That is great. Others say sure, but it is not anything that we really have on our priority list.

But, you know, here we are.

Fires are burning in the West. We don't have time for a hearing or a bill to get money to the Forest Service and the Interior Department, but we do have time to do pretend legislation that isn't going anywhere in the Senate again to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.

Why doesn't it exist? Well, first of all, all individuals and applications by farmers are exempt under a permit. You follow the label, you are fine. No one can sue you.

Then you have, if you are a bigger applicator, if you are like someone who is paid to apply pesticides and herbicides, you have to give notice under a general permit. That is all you have to do. You file it online. Not too burdensome. Most applicators, I think, have access to a computer.

Is there an approval process? No. Is there a waiting period? No. You just file it, and then you are exempt from litigation if you follow the label.

So why would we have this? Well, there have been a few instances of problems, and we want to be able to track where those problems originated. So if you have a general permit out there for an industrial application or a commercial application of a certain herbicide and it starts showing up downstream with dead fish, you know probably where it came from and you can trace it back and you will probably find out that they violated the label.

Now, why did this come about? Well, for a real reason: 92,000 steelhead were killed in southern Oregon because an irrigation district chose to use a powerful herbicide in its irrigation canals and they didn't follow the label in terms of the waiting period for it to degrade. They ran the water through and killed 92,000 fish. That is where this all started.

So we are not saying they can't use it, they can't apply it--you know, they can--but we want to know where it is coming from. In that case, it was pretty easy to track back. The trail of dead fish led right back to the irrigation canal.

In other cases of impaired waters--and I have a long list in my State, and I am sure there are other States--we are not quite sure how they got impaired or where they are being impaired, and we would have a better indication if we merely have this notice requirement.

Now, there will be a lot of fear-mongering here today: ``You won't be able to use stuff on your lawn.'' ``You will be liable.'' ``It won't be available.''

No, not true.

``Farmers won't be able to apply their own herbicides and pesticides.''

No, not true.

``Very large farms, commercial applicators will not be able to use it.''

No, not true, but they will need to put a notice online they are using it, and they are supposed to follow the label.

I really find it unfortunate that we are spending time on this instead of getting some additional allocation of funds to fight fires in the West. My State is burning up. Washington State is burning up. California is burning up. Other intermountain States are burning up. The Forest Service and BLM are going to run out of money this week or next.

They have got all their other budgets to pay for fighting fires because they can't stop fighting the fires. They can't stop.

But Congress has a bipartisan, bicameral bill agreed to by the President. There is nothing else like that in Washington, D.C., with the partisan activity around here, the conflict always between the House and the Senate.

Here is a bill agreed to by Democrats and Republicans--52 Rs, 52 Ds on the bill. Here is a bill that is pending in the House and the Senate, bicameral--it is also bipartisan on that side--and it is supported by the President.

But we can't find time to take action on that and get the Forest Service and BLM money this week because we are

doing stuff like this about pretend problems that don't exist and scaring people who use these products legitimately. It is a very sad waste of our time.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

(Ms. ESTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In conclusion, I think we have heard arguments on both sides. I am convinced more by the arguments I have heard on our side. I don't believe it is an undue burden on States. I live in a mosquito control district, and 3 years ago, they had tremendous concerns.

Last year, they went ahead with their regular program, and this year, they are going ahead with their regular permit, under a general permit which they filed online. They said it wasn't a big deal.

So I don't know where the millions of dollars comes in, unless we have States or applicators or other who don't own computers or whatever. I can't figure out where that number comes from.

So I don't believe we have created an egregious problem. Given some of the past problems and the number of impaired waterways in my State, we just want to know where the stuff is being applied. We certainly want to be certain it is applied according to the label, but if it is not, then we have some capability of tracing it back and finding the responsible party and preventing future problems and potentially penalizing those people.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.