DEVICE Act of 2017

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Today we are considering H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, introduced to clarify congressional intent regarding pesticide use in or near navigable waters.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, otherwise known as FIFRA, is the appropriate Federal statute to govern safety and the use of pesticides.

FIFRA first passed in 1910, 62 years before the Clean Water Act was passed. In 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court decision, the National Cotton Council v. EPA, changed how this all works. For years before the Clean Water Act, pesticide use was regulated by the EPA under FIFRA. Under FIFRA, the EPA regulates and approves pesticides for safe use under the label, and they have full jurisdiction under FIFRA.

The EPA previously ruled that using pesticides under FIFRA-approved use does not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, otherwise known as NPDES, permit under the Clean Water Act.

Because of this court decision in 2009, those who have been safely applying products to control pest populations now must comply with additional NPDES permitting.

Some of my colleagues across the aisle have called this Groundhog Day in the past. I agree. Time after time, they have supported increasing the regulations just for regulation's sake. They are even willing to risk public health and outbreaks of Zika and West Nile virus.

The Sixth Circuit Court decision ignored the congressional intent when the FIFRA and the Clean Water Act were passed. The court ignored sensible agency interpretation, it ignored years of regulatory precedent, it expanded the clean water jurisdiction beyond the scope set by Congress and over areas already appropriately regulated. The court decision placed burden on the

EPA, requiring a new and expanded NPDES permitting process for products already regulated.

The EPA says there are about 365,000 pesticide applicators affected by this ruling. They would include State agencies, cities and counties, mosquito control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers and ranchers, forest managers, scientists, and even everyday citizens or homeowners.

The EPA estimates $50 million in paperwork to comply alone every year with this new regulation. Federal, State, and local agencies are forced to spend taxpayer dollars in permitting, paperwork, and compliance. Private applicators, like farmers and ranchers, also face increased costs. This adds compliance costs, adds permitting costs, and it adds time and hurts productivity and efficiency. It does not add any new environmental protections.

This bad court decision affecting the budgetary decisions from local agencies, I will give you some examples here: the Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District preserves 20 percent of its annual budget in case it is sued under the Clean Water Act. I think it is important to mention when the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, it was set up with severe penalties to go after the polluters we had--I like to say the polluters of the 1960s--to clean up our waters, that we had severe problems. And when it did that, it also opened it up for citizens' lawsuits and opens up the door for more litigation.

The Benton County, Washington, Mosquito Control District, $37,000 in permit costs and paperwork they have spent. Benton County could have treated almost 2,600 acres for mosquito abatement or 400 lab tests for West Nile virus, or paid for three seasonal workers.

In Gem County, Idaho, the Mosquito Abatement District's staff spends 3 weeks a year tabulating and documenting seasonal pesticide applications related to permit oversight.

California vector control districts have estimated that it costs them $3 million to conduct administration of the NPDES permits. They also have to spend 20 percent of their annual operating budget just to maintain the computer software related to the unnecessary NPDES permit.

As a result of this court ruling, mosquito districts, State and local agencies, are now vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits for things like simple paperwork violations under the Clean Water Act. Fines for these paperwork violations, which obviously don't have any affect on the environment, can be as much as $50,000 a day.

For example, the Gem County, Idaho, Mosquito Abatement District was forced to spend $450,000 to resolve a lawsuit.

In my home State of Ohio, the Mosquito Control District for Toledo is currently embroiled in a citizen's lawsuit from a simple paperwork violation.

The 2012 West Nile outbreak is proof NPDES permits and association costs are hindering the ability to protect the public.

In 2012, the first year of the permitting requirement from the court case, West Nile cases jumped from 712 cases to almost to over 5,600 cases. That is nearly an 800 percent increase because of the unnecessary permit requirements.

The States and communities affected by West Nile had to wait until after a public health emergency was declared. Only then could relief from the NPDES permit be approved. Only after the West Nile had spread could local agencies use lifesaving pesticides to kill mosquitoes carrying the virus. Keep in mind, when the local entity, municipality, declares an emergency, they don't need to get a permit. They can spray. I like to say it is after the fact when the mosquitoes are out of control, then we do aerial spraying. Maybe we could have prevented it with surface spraying and be less harm to the environment. We shouldn't have to wait until it becomes an emergency.

H.R. 953 gets rid of the unnecessary red tape so communities can prevent outbreaks of diseases like Zika and West Nile.

Cities that need to conduct the routine preventative mosquito abatement should not have to do it with one hand tied behind their back. H.R. 953 provides a narrow, limited exception from NPDES permit requirements for those pesticides already approved under FIFRA law and used in compliance under the label which is approved by the EPA.

I think this is an important point to keep in mind: EPA already regulates these pesticides and approves them under FIFRA. It goes through rigorous testing and reporting requirements, and they set the label and make the determination. They approve how it is going to be used. If it is a restricted pesticide, they can also put more restrictions on the applicators and who the applicators are.

Therefore, removing this redundant NPDES permit is appropriate because the EPA already has full control and can handle the situation like they did for over 60 years before this court case.

The EPA has assisted in drafting H.R. 953, which does not roll back any environmental protections. It fixes the regulatory problem caused by the Sixth Circuit Court's decision and maintains the EPA's jurisdiction through FIFRA.

Similar legislation has passed the House every Congress since the court's decision, and I look forward to passing it again today, and then passing it in the Senate and have the President sign it into law.

A list of organizations--this is a snapshot of the many organizations because I don't have enough time to list all the organizations, but the American Mosquito Control Association supports it; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers Association; and United Fresh Produce Association. Those are just a few groups representing thousands of Americans who depend on commonsense EPA regulations for their livelihood.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record--and I want to talk about it here for a minute--I have a letter from former Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. In 2009, he was Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration. When this court case happened, he sent out a letter to Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In his letter, he urges the EPA to consider the significant adverse effect of the Sixth Circuit Court's 2009 decision, the National Cotton Council and EPA will have on American farmers and USDA agencies. He said in the letter:

``By broadening the Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a newly minted NPDES permit requirement. . . .''

``The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange.''

I want to repeat that. The Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration said that this court case has little environmental benefit, and it hampers American farmers to do their job to produce the most wholesome, safe, affordable food in the world.

``Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional regulatory regime''--he goes on to say--``of the CWA is duplicative and will not help protect the environment.''

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record this letter, dated March 6, 2009, from Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and his opposition to the court case and, in his opinion, what this bill does.

Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, March 6, 2009.

Hon. Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator, U.S. Environment Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

Subject: The National Cotton Council of America, et al., v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 06-

4630; 07-3180/3181/3182/3183/3184/3185/3186/3187/3191/

3236 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009).

Dear Ms. Jackson: The United States Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit recently invalidated the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Rule entitled,

``Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in

Compliance With FIFRA.'' 71 Fed. Reg. 68,483 (Nov. 27, 2006)

(Final Rule). A petition for rehearing or for rehearing en

bane before the Sixth Circuit is due on April 9, 2009. I

would very much appreciate your taking into consideration the

significant adverse effect that the court's decision will

have on American farmers, as well as on U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) agencies, and therefore request that you

seek further review of this decision by the Sixth Circuit.

In its Final Rule, the EPA reasonably interpreted the term

``pollutant'' in the Clean Water Act (CWA) as generally

excluding pesticides that are applied in compliance with the

relevant requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Final Rule established that

the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA would

not require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit when they are applied directly into waters of

the United States in order to control pests, or when they are

applied to control pests that are present over waters of the

United States, including near those waters, when a portion of

the pesticides unavoidably will be deposited into the water

in order to target the pests effectively. The EPA

specifically concluded that the terms ``chemical wastes'' and

``biological materials'' in the CWA's definition of

pollutants do not encompass the types of pesticide

applications addressed in the Final Rule. 71 Fed. Reg.

68,486.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that

the Final Rule was contrary to the plain language of the CWA.

Although the court agreed with the EPA that chemical

pesticides applied directly to water to perform a useful

purpose are not chemical wastes, it held that excess

pesticides and pesticide residue meet the common definition

of waste, and therefore are pollutants under the CWA. The

court held that the EPA is required to regulate the residue

of chemical pesticides when the pesticide is applied to land

or air, and the residue finds its way into the navigable

waters of the. United States, and when the pesticide is

applied directly to the water and the residue has a lasting

effect beyond its intended purpose. The court also found that

Congress intended for ``biological materials'' to encompass

more than ``biological wastes.'' The court held that all

biological pesticides are biological materials, and therefore

pollutants under the CWA.

The court's adverse decision will have profound

implications for American farmers. The panel's ruling

effectively broadens the potential application of the CWA to

reach agricultural activities that the EPA has never

regulated under the provisions of the CWA. By broadening the

Act's reach, the court burdens American agriculture with a

newly minted NPDES permit requirement for the application of

all FIFRA-compliant biological pesticides whenever those

pesticides might find their way into waters of the United

States, and for all FIFRA-compliant chemical pesticides

whenever the residues of those pesticides find their way into

waters of the United States. The permit requirement could

reach almost any pesticide application, requiring farmers to

navigate a permitting system that is ill-suited to the

demands of agricultural production. Failure to obtain a

timely permit for pesticide application could cripple

American farmers' emergency pest management efforts and

hamper their ability to respond quickly to new pest

infestations or threats of infestations, thus increasing the

risk of crop losses.

Additionally, several USDA agencies engage in the ground

and aerial application of pesticides, and would be adversely

affected by the panel's decision. The Forest Service (FS) and

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) now

will be required to obtain NPDES permits, which could

compromise the agencies' ability to respond with efficiency

and flexibility to emerging threats and emergency situations.

The delay and expense associated with complying with the

NPDES permitting requirement could substantially curtail the

agencies' use of pesticides. For the FS, this could result in

diminished efforts to protect the National Forests from pest

infestation and could potentially increase the risk and

severity of wildfires. It could also significantly hamper

aerial spraying programs such as APHIS's Mormon Cricket and

Grasshopper Program, undertaken in cooperation with western

states. Additionally, research programs involving both the

conventional and the experimental applications of pesticides

undertaken by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) also

will be detrimentally affected by the panel's decision. The

time-consuming and costly process of negotiating the NPDES

permit application process will diminish the efficiency with

which the ARS will be able to undertake its initiatives, and

may, in some instances, curtail the agency's projects

entirely.

The Sixth Circuit's decision encumbers the American

farmers' and the agencies' ability to do business, while

reaping little or no environmental benefit in exchange.

Subjecting FIFRA-compliant pesticides to the additional

regulatory regime of the CWA is duplicative and will not help

protect the environment. FIFRA mandates that the EPA approve

and issue a registration for a pesticide product only after

the EPA has determined that the product will not cause

``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.'' The

pesticide registration and re-registration process under

FIFRA considers the effects of pesticides on both human

health and aquatic resources. If the EPA has concluded that a

pesticide satisfies FIFRA and will not have an ``unreasonable

adverse effect on the environment,'' then it is reasonable to

exclude the application of that pesticide from the permitting

requirements of the CWA.

In short, I am concerned that the court's decision will

compromise American farmers' and USDA agencies' ability to

respond efficiently and effectively to emergency threats,

while providing little or no additional environmental

protection in return. Thank you for taking these issues into

account as you consider seeking further review of this case.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Vilsack,

Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I have nearly 120 organizations that support H.R. 953, representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders. I have a letter from the nearly 120. I listed some of those. Some of the additional names are Agricultural Retailers Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Mosquito Control Association; the Association of Equipment Manufacturers; CropLife America; Family Farm Alliance; National Agricultural Aviation Association; the National Alliance of Forest Owners; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Farmers Union; National Pest Management Association; and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. I include that letter in the Record.

May 3, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the over one hundred

undersigned organizations, we urge you to vote in favor of

H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017.

For almost forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and pesticide applicators including public health

agencies charged with mosquito control operated exclusively

under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA). In fact, EPA has testified to the adequacy of

FIFRA's comprehensive regulatory requirements including

substantial enforcement mechanisms in pursuit of that goal.

However, a 2009 activist-inspired lawsuit resulted in a

federal court decision identifying a technicality in the law

that Congress had not properly clarified its intent that

FIFRA should have preeminence over the Clean Water Act (CWA).

This decision resulted in pesticide users being required to

obtain a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit. These permits were originally created to

address the discharge of waste by major industrial polluters,

but now are mandated for mosquito control districts and

others who are applying pesticides approved by EPA for use in

the environment for their beneficial purposes of trying to

prevent or control the spread of public health disease in the

Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from the National Association of Counties. NACo recommends that Congress address some of challenges posed by the EPA's Clean Water Act permit for pesticides to allow counties to more quickly respond to the mosquito- based public health threats. Counties have reported either significantly scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due to the additional, duplicative, and expensive paperwork and monitoring obligations required by the program.

National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As the U.S.

House of Representatives moves forward with the ``Reducing

Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017'' (H.R. 953), we would like to

highlight the impact that U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) program has on

county governments' ability to respond promptly and

effectively to emerging public health threats.

As the summer months approach and we enter mosquito season,

counties are concerned about the health and safety impacts of

mosquito-borne illnesses such as Zika. The Zika virus is an

emerging mosquito-borne illness, primarily stemming from the

bite of infected Aedes mosquitoes, and there is no vaccine.

Since mosquitos and their breeding habitats pose the largest

threat to public safety, counties can play a major role in

minimizing the potential spread of the virus and other

mosquito-borne illnesses through public education and

mosquito eradication.

However, since EPA's PGP program was instituted in 2011,

counties have reported that they have either significantly

scaled back or discontinued mosquito abatement programs due

to additional, duplicative and expensive paperwork and

monitoring obligations required under the permit. We

recommend that Congress address some of the challenges posed

by EPA's PGP permit to allow counties to more quickly respond

to mosquito-based public health threats.

We thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look

forward to continuing to work with you on issues important to

counties.

Sincerely,

Matthew D. Chase,

Executive Director,

National Association of Counties.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Agriculture Committee chairman, Mike Conaway; and the Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, Bill Shuster, who are the leadership on this issue. I want to thank the Agriculture Committee ranking member, Collin Peterson, as well.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this commonsense effort to reform this duplicative EPA regulation.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague and friend from Minnesota for his bipartisan support of H.R. 953.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

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

I just want to make a few remarks on what my friend, my colleague from Oregon said. I call it the rest of the story.

We talked about the fish kill in 1996 of the steelhead. I inquired of this tragic incident and came to the conclusion that NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act would not have prevented the fish kill.

In 2003, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs published a report which looked at this potential risk posed by the herbicide that was used in the 1996 fish kill. The report stated:

Where sufficient information has been provided, it appears

that the fish incidents are as a result of misuse. The form

of misuse is that water was released from the irrigation

canals too early. In some cases, this was because the gate

valves were not properly closed or that they leaked. In other

cases, the applicator opened them intentionally, but too

soon. In one case, boards that helped contain the irrigation

canal water may have been removed by children playing.

The EPA goes on in the report to address each of the various species of salmon and steelhead analyzed and repeatedly states:

It is very unlikely the pesticide suspected to cause the

Oregon fish kill would have affected the steelhead or salmon

if it was used in accordance with the label requirements.

Completing NPDES permit paperwork and paying a permit fee

does not prevent fish kills, nor does it improve water

quality. Pesticide applications in accordance with FIFRA

pesticide labels will avoid adverse environmental impacts,

including fish kills.

If a pesticide is improperly applied, there are enforcement mechanisms in place to address this violation. In the case of the 1996 Oregon fish kill, I understand the party was subject to more than $400,000 in fines and reimbursements for the incident.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

In my closing, I just want to really reemphasize the importance to pass this bill and get it signed into law because the environment is at risk, human safety is at risk, human health is at risk. We have over 100 Zika outbreaks currently in the United States. We have hundreds of West Nile outbreaks. And what this bill does is it puts a tool in the toolbox for our mosquito control districts, an additional tool to help eradicate or control the mosquito population to prevent and protect human health around our citizens.

There has been a lot of talk about pesticide chemicals in the water, and some of these chemicals that have been mentioned are what we call legacy chemicals that were used years ago. As a farmer, I can tell you some of the chemicals we used when I started farming in 1975 didn't break down. They weren't biodegradable.

The industry has changed a lot. We have new chemicals, better chemicals, safer chemicals. Many of them are biodegradable. So these legacy issues are not--the contaminants in a lot of the

water today isn't from chemicals being used in today's agricultural environment, but it is from past years because those chemicals last in the environment for many years.

I think it is also important that the former Secretary of Agriculture--I stated earlier--Tom Vilsack, was very concerned about this, and he sent a letter to the EPA Administrator at the time, Lisa Jackson, that this court case doesn't do anything to help protect the environment or protect water quality in the United States, and it adds additional costs and burdens to our agricultural producers in their efforts to produce the wholesome, safe, affordable food supply to feed the world.

This is commonsense legislation, and I urge people to vote for H.R. 953. As has been said earlier, this bill has been up several other times in previous Congresses; it has had strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Senate did not move on it and take action. Hopefully this time we will see that, especially with the outbreaks of Zika and West Nile and seeing the cost.

It was mentioned earlier, too, about the cost of getting the permit. Obviously, doing the permit, actually applying it probably isn't much costly, but to get all the stuff lined up, the consultants and all the paperwork they have to do to get the information there is quite costly.

We had in previous committee hearings mosquito control districts coming in and talking about the cost. The thousands of dollars they are spending has blown their budget where they could be using that to spend on mosquito eradication.

So, obviously, we have hundreds of groups around the country that support this legislation. It is needed, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we can move on and protect the environment, enhance the environment, and also human health and safety.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, a couple of points I would like to make. When my colleague from Connecticut talked about spraying chemicals, pesticides over water, the EPA has full authority, full jurisdiction to restrict those pesticides, how they are used, when they are used, and also who is using them; and they can restrict it to a manner where the applicator has to have specific training. And there is nothing to stop the EPA to say that if you are going to spray over a body of water, you have to notify the EPA. The EPA has that authority. They have the jurisdiction to do that.

I think it is also interesting to mention when talking about spraying and getting a permit after the fact, yeah, that if the local entity declares an emergency, then they can go in. But my argument is that since this additional permitting requirement, this additional red tape bureaucracy is stopping the preventive programs, so we shouldn't have to get to an emergency situation where we just spray and do the permit after the fact.

But her amendment, H.R. 953 eliminates the duplicative, expansive, and unnecessary permit process, and helps free up resources for States, counties, and local governments to better combat the spread of diseases like Zika and West Nile virus. This amendment, in effect, undermines these efforts.

The amendment intends to make the bill's exemption from the Clean Water Act permitting ineffective by carving out from the bill those waters that may receive a discharge containing any one of several hundred listed chemical substances. The vast majority of substances referenced in this amendment are not even a pesticide and have nothing to do with the regulation of a pesticide.

Additionally, a discharge covered under this amendment does not have to be related in any way to the use or application of a pesticide. The net effect of this amendment is to undermine the bill based on circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with the use of a pesticide.

Further, the amendment would require a pesticide user to conduct extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. This defeats the bill's purpose of reducing the regulatory burdens. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just urge the Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, well, that was a lot of drama. Let's not lose sight that what we are trying to do in H.R. 953 is to free up the resources so States, counties, local governments can fight the mosquito population, fight Zika, fight the West Nile virus, and let our agricultural producers have the most efficient way to protect the environment, and also produce a safe, wholesome food supply.

This amendment undermines the base bill. The amendment intends to carve out from the bill those waters that have a discharge of any type. That means the way this amendment is written, any type of discharge-- even if it is not a pesticide--any type of discharge, a nutrient discharge, anything would fall under this and undermines the bill. This amendment covers all types of discharges. I think that is important to mention.

In addition, most waterbodies in this country are fishable, and, therefore, subject to this amendment's carve-out. As a result, the types of discharges and waterbodies in question under this amendment do not need to be related at all to the actual regulation of a pesticide.

Further, the amendment would require that a pesticide user conduct extremely expensive and time-consuming monitoring. Moreover, the amendment's standard of any negative effect is vague and subjective and could include an effect that has nothing to do with a pesticide.

Registered pesticides already take into account aquatic species' and fisheries' health into consideration during the registration process. I think it is important that they go through a rigorous testing process, and more testing, and the EPA has full control. They can reject that. If they determine that a pesticide is environmentally harmful, or potentially harmful, they can pull that product off.

They can also restrict the product even more so, and restrict who the applicators are, and there is nothing to stop the EPA or the State EPAs to say: Before you apply a pesticide over a waterbody, you need to tell us first before you do it.

There is nothing to stop the EPA from doing that.

So all this amendment does, it defeats the bill's purpose, reducing the regulatory burdens, and I urge my Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I will just say that the comment about this amendment would allow States to do it, I don't think there is anything to stop the States from doing it now. If States want to do more to protect water quality in their States, I think they have the right to do that.

Under the Clean Water Act, what it says is: The States will implement and enforce the Clean Water Act under the guidance of the Federal Government, but they have to be, at the least, a standard of the Federal Government. They can exceed that standard if they want, so I don't think there is anything stopping that.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary and aims to undermine the purpose of the bill.

The underlying bill, H.R. 953, eliminates the duplicative, expensive, and unnecessary permit process that helps free up the resources for our States, counties, and local governments to better combat the Zika, West Nile virus, and other diseases; but this motion, in effect, aims to undermine the bill.

In this motion, the bill says it will not apply to anybody who makes a discharge of a pesticide if they made a political contribution to the President or to any Federal official charged with registration, regulation, or approval of the use of a pesticide. That is utterly absurd. You can't make political contributions to regulators at the

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 953, Reducing the Regulatory Burdens Act. As I have noted before on similar bills in the past, I remain concerned that this bill would mean that no Clean Water Act protections would be required for pesticide application to water bodies that are already impaired by pesticides.

The Clean Water Act in no way hinders, delays, or prevents the use of approved pesticides for pest control operations. In fact, the Clean Water Act permit provides a specific emergency provision to prevent outbreaks of diseases such as Zika virus.

Under the terms of the permit, pesticide applicators are covered automatically under the permit and any spraying may be performed immediately for any declared pest emergency situations. In most instances, sprayers are only required to notify EPA of their spraying operations 30 days after the beginning of a spraying operation.

Most pesticide applications in the United States are done in accordance with FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which only requires proper labeling on pesticide products regarding usage.

However, FIFRA labeling is no substitute for ensuring that we understand the volumes of pesticide we seem to apply to our rivers, our lakes, our streams on an annual basis.

According to a 2006 USGS report on pesticides, commonly used pesticides frequently are present in streams and groundwater at levels that exceed human health benchmarks and occur in many streams at levels that may affect aquatic or fish-eating wildlife and also human life.

In the data that the States provide the EPA, more than 16,000 miles of rivers and streams, 1,380 of bays and estuaries, and 370,000 acres of lakes in the United States are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides.

The EPA suggests that these estimates may be low because many of these States do not test for or monitor all the different pesticides that are currently being used. I am very concerned of the effect these pesticides have on the health of our rivers, our streams, and especially the drinking water supplies for all our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and the poor and disenfranchised people who have no representation. We have much cancer appearing, and we have no idea what it is. Adding pesticides is not helping.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a Federal report on how pesticides in California are the leading cause of impairments to water quality.

U.S. EPA Report on California Water Quality Assessment

California Causes of Impairment for reporting year 2012

Pesticides are the Cause of water impairment in California

for 4,534 miles of rivers and streams, 235,765 acres of

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 829 square miles of bays and

estuaries, 35 miles of coastal shoreline, 42 square miles of

ocean and near coastal waters, and 43 acres of wetlands.

Currently in California there are over 4,500 miles of rivers and streams, 235,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, and 829 square

miles of bays and estuaries in my State that are impaired by pesticides. This is a significant concern in my home State, where every drop of water has to be cleaned and needs to be conserved, reused, and cherished.

We hear that pesticide application is already regulated under FIFRA and that the Clean Water Act review is not needed. I understand the concerns about the duplication of effort and the need to minimize the impacts that regulations have on small business or business at large. All the supporters are mostly farmers and other business entities.

However, I am still very concerned that these pesticides are having a very significant impact on water quality and that, with this bill, we are creating the exemption from water quality protection requirements without considering the impacts to the waters that are already impacted by pesticides, as they are in California.

This, in turn, costs our water users, our ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars to filter these pollutants out of water before it is potable. This is something I deal with on an ongoing basis as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. We currently have aquifers that are contaminated by the continued use of pesticides and fertilizers. Millions of dollars have been spent on the 20-plus-year-long cleanup effort of a Superfund site in my area that has pesticides as one of the contaminants.

We cannot, and should not, take away one of the only tools available to monitor for adverse impacts of pesticides in our rivers, our streams, and our reservoirs. Over the past 6 years, this tool has been reasonable, has been workable to pest control operators and agricultural interests alike, and needs to be retained. I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the following letters to be made part of today's record: A letter from 46 national and State conservation and public health interest groups opposed to H.R. 953, and, secondly, a list of over 150 different organizations who oppose efforts to undermine the Clean Water Act protections for direct pesticide applications, including the Alabama Rivers, San Francisco, and the list goes on.

And the organizations: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; from Alaska, the Alaska Community Action on Toxics; From Arkansas, the Earth Cause Organization; from California, Audubon and many others; from Alabama, Alabama Rivers; from Colorado, Colorado Riverkeeper; from the District of Columbia, Potomac Riverkeeper; from Florida, Emerald Coastkeeper; from Georgia, Altamaha Riverkeeper and Altamaha Coastkeeper; from Idaho, the Idaho Conservation League; from Illinois, the Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; and from Iowa, Quad Cities Riverkeeper. And the list goes on, Mr. Chairman.

May 22, 2017.

Re Oppose H.R. 953 (Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017).

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members

and supporters nationwide, we urge you to oppose H.R. 953

(``Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017''). A

more apt title for this damaging legislation is the ``Poison

Our Waters Act'' because it would eliminate Clean Water Act

safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from

excessive pesticide pollution. The Pesticide General Permit

targeted in this legislation has been in place for nearly six

years now and alarmist predictions by pesticide manufacturers

and others about the impacts of this permit have failed to

bear any fruit.

This bill is the same legislation that pesticide

manufacturers and other special interests have been pushing

for years. It has been opposed not only by the Obama

Administration. but also more than 150 public health,

fishing, and conservation organizations (see attached list).

Contrary to earlier claims made by its proponents, this bill

will not improve nor impact spraying to combat Zika virus and

other human health threats. The Pesticide General Permit at

issue already allows for spraying to combat vector-borne

diseases such as Zika and the West Nile virus. According to

the U.S. 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''

(emphasis added).

Further, the Clean Water Act has no significant effect on

farming practices. The Pesticide General Permit in no way

affects land applications of pesticides for the purpose of

controlling pests (that is, spraying that doesn't discharge

into water bodies). Irrigation return flows and agricultural

stormwater runoff do not require permits, even when they

contain pesticides. Existing agricultural exemptions in the

Clean Water Act remain.

Repealing the Pesticide General Permit--as this damaging

legislation seeks to do--would allow pesticides to be

discharged into water bodies without any meaningful oversight

since the federal pesticide registration law (the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) does not

require tracking of such applications.

Now that the Pesticide General Permit is in place, the

public is finally getting information that they couldn't

obtain before about the types of pesticides being sprayed or

discharged into local bodies of water. All across the

country, pesticide applicators are complying with the

Pesticide General Permit to protect water quality without

issue,

The Pesticide General Permit 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. 953.

Sincerely,

Earthjustice

League of Conservation Voters

Natural Resources Defense Council

Center for Biological Diversity

Sierra Club

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Sustainable Business Council

National Family Farm Coalition

Waterkeeper Alliance

Clean Water Action

Environment America

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations

American Rivers

Southern Environmental Law Center

Defenders of Wildlife

Friends of the Earth U.S.

Environmental Working Group

Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides

Alabama Rivers Alliance

Beyond Pesticides

Beyond Toxics

Cahaba River Society

Center for Food Safety

Defend H2O

Endangered Habitats League

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Protection Information Center

Gulf Restoration Network

Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited Kentucky

Waterways Alliance

Klamath Forest Alliance

Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, Program

in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

Oregon Environmental Council

Prairie Rivers Network

Pesticide Action Network North America

PolicyLink

San Francisco Baykeeper

Save The River / Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper

The Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change

The Good Food Institute

Toxic Free NC

Turtle Island Restoration Network

WE ACT for Environmental Justice

WildEarth Guardians.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that I want to bring to the attention of this committee. One of the potential human health applications related to unregulated discharges to water is drinking water.

In May of 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a report entitled, ``Threats on Tap,'' that documented potentially harmful contaminants in tap water in every State of the Union. This report, based on information obtained from State and local public drinking water utilities, documented tens of thousands of drinking water violations related to chemicals and other contaminants currently found in our domestic water supply.

The report included a focus on synthetic organic compounds commonly found in a wide variety of products, from household cleaners to industrial, commercial, and agricultural products, including pesticides and herbicides regulated under FIFRA.

According to this report, human exposure to these contaminants can lead to cancers--I repeat, lead to cancers--developmental effects, central nervous system, and reproductive difficulties, endocrine issues, or liver and kidney problems.

According to an appendix of this report, which I include in today's Record, in 2015, there were 6,864 drinking water violations associated with synthetic organic compounds, potentially affecting as many as 2.6 million drinking water users. Of these, a number were for direct, health-related violations affecting more than 300,000 individuals. This report documented ongoing drinking water violations for the worst of the worst pesticides in terms of human health effects, including, atrazine, chlordane, endrin, and glyphosate.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to this report, we have more information on exactly where these drinking water violations are occurring and how increased use of pesticides on or near water increases the risk that humans will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals when they turn on the tap; which begs the question: Why the proponents of this bill want to reduce the public disclosure and monitoring requirements of the Clean Water Act relating to pesticide applications?

Do these proponents want to let these pesticide applications and chemical companies go back in the shadows where information on the release of pesticides is no longer known?

I include in the Record a list of chemicals and their potential health impact.

Synthetic Organic Chemicals Regulated by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

Chemical, Source, Potential Health Impact, MCL (PPB), MCLG

(PPB), Number of Violations in 2015 are as follows: 2,3,7,8-

TCDD (dioxin), Emissions from waste incineration and other

combustion; discharge from chemical factories, Reproductive

difficulties; increased risk of cancer, 0.00003, 0, 124;

2,4,5-TP, Residue of banned herbicide, Liver problems, 50,

50, 214; 2,4-D, Runoff from herbicide used on row crops,

Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems; possible cancer

risk, 70, 70, 232; Alachlor, Runoff from herbicide used on

row crops, Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia;

increased risk of cancer, 2, 0, 0; Aldicarb, Runoff/leaching

from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively minor

neurological symptoms, 3, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfone, Runoff/

leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and relatively

minor neurological symptoms, 2, 1, 32; Aldicarb sulfoxide,

Runoff/leaching from pesticides, Nausea, diarrhea, and

relatively minor neurological symptoms, 4, 1, 32; Atrazine,

Runoff from herbicide used on row crops, Cardiovascular

system or reproductive problems; possible cancer risk, 3, 3,

263; Benzo(a)pyrene, Leaching from linings of water storage

tanks and distribution lines, Reproductive difficulties;

increased risk of cancer, 0.2, 0, 246; Carbofuran, Leaching

of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa, Problems with

Mr. Chairman, I just implore all our colleagues to take a good look at what this can have an effect on our general populace, I mean, the human impact, and I trust that they will vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty). The amendment would help ensure the protection of public health from discharges of toxic chemicals such as benzene, chlordane, and vinyl chloride.

In my view, the protection of our families and children from seemingly limitless exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and our water and our neighborhoods should be paramount, yet here we are today considering legislation to waive the simple requirement that a chemical pesticide sprayer fill out an application providing notice of where he intends to spray known toxic chemicals, such as the ones I mentioned, all known to have toxic effects on humans.

The amendment under consideration says that we should, at a minimum, disclose and monitor the dangerous chemicals for potential toxic effects. These are chemicals that Congress has already designated as ``toxic,'' ``hazardous substances,'' or ``extreme hazardous substances'' in Federal statute.

As Congress, we should want to make sure that these dangerous chemicals do not wind up in our rivers and streams, potentially contaminating our local drinking water sources and leading to greater toxic exposure by our families and children.

The level of protection is worth 10 minutes of time by a commercial pesticide applicator.

Mr. Chair, I approve Ms. Esty's amendment.

I totally support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman). If this amendment is adopted, it would maintain the existing Clean Water Act general permit requirements to protect commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries, and Tribal treaty obligations. I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to speak against the underlying bill.

Unfortunately, I wasn't serving the House in 2011 when this bill was first brought to the floor. I was here in 2014, when the bill was brought up again, twice. I was here, also, in 2016, when it was brought up twice.

This bill has gone through a number of name changes, but its intent remains the same, and that is, to allow the irresponsible application of pesticides into our Nation's waterways. Undermining the Clean Water Act, as this bill does, means taking the EPA out of the picture, blocking them from weighing in on pesticides that are

dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams, without regard to the impacts of human health, or to those who rely on recreational, commercial, and Tribal fisheries.

We know, unfortunately, that despite efforts to regulate pesticides for public health and safety, these dangerous chemicals continue to be detected in surface and groundwater bodies at dangerous levels. Impacts to fish and wildlife have been significant, and have already been devastating in some instances. Oysters, shrimp, sea trout, and redfish--four of the most important species to food webs, fishermen, and the economy along the Southeast and Gulf Coasts--have shown effects ranging from impaired survival skills, to damaged DNA, to death as a result of exposure to pesticides that have been approved for agricultural use.

In 2006, USGS released its review on pesticide occurrence and concentrations in streams and groundwater. According to this report, at least one pesticide was detected in water from all streams tested throughout the Nation. In addition, chemicals such as DDT, which has been banned in the U.S. for decades, were still showing up, found in fish tissues sampled across watersheds nationwide.

We see a similar situation at the State level. In my State of California, pesticides are among the top sources of water quality impairments in the State. 437 waterbodies are impaired by 40 different categories of pesticides. That is why commercial fishing groups oppose the underlying bill.

My amendment will ensure that we don't deny either the EPA or a State their ability to require permits for pesticide use that could have negative effects on fisheries. Let's make sure that streams and rivers that support fish are clean. Let's make sure that the fish we catch, eat, and sell are free from toxic chemicals. America's fisheries are a backbone of both sport fishing and commercial fishing industries.

The recreational sector alone accounts for more than $115 billion of our country's economy, and it employs more than 828,000 people. My amendment would protect these recreational activities, not only for current generations but for future generations of anglers to come.

By accidentally contaminating our waterways, pesticides also exacerbate the precarious status of endangered and threatened species. In 1996, the death of over 90,000 steelhead fish, 100 coho salmon, and thousands of nongame fish resulted from an herbicide called acrolein that entered the waterways in Bear Creek, Oregon. Many wild salmon stocks are now on the brink of extinction on the West Coast, and losses in such sensitive populations make recovery efforts increasingly difficult.

Pesticides can pose a dangerous threat to commercial fisheries. In 1999, a massive lobster die-off devastated the lives and livelihoods of Connecticut and New York lobstermen along the Long Island Sound, producing a multimillion-dollar settlement with pesticide manufacturers mishandling the chemical malathion.

Similar concern has brought forth proposals to regulate methoprene and resmethrin in Maine in order to protect their commercial fishery, which is worth over $700 million.

Mr. Chair, I have letters of support here for my amendment from the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the Karuk Tribe, the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Seafood Harvesters of America, and other organizations who are very interested in this amendment, and support it.

May 24, 2017.

Dear Representative: As the House considers H.R. 953, the

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017, we the undersigned

groups representing millions of hunters and anglers across

the nation, urge you to ensure that H.R. 953 does not

negatively impact water quality, fish health and the

recreational fishing industry by supporting Amendment #3,

sponsored by Representative Jared Huffman.

The Huffman Amendment protects fisheries and water quality

by ensuring any pesticide spraying into or over waterways

that would negatively impact our nation's fisheries is

properly monitored and permitted. The 47 million sportsmen

and women that hunt and fish each year depend on strong Clean

Water Act protections to ensure thriving fish populations

that are safe to eat and the Huffman amendment would ensure

it continues to do so.

America's hunters and anglers contribute more than $200

billion to America's economy each year and this robust

outdoor economy depends on healthy rivers, lakes, and

streams. Nearly 2,000 waterways in the United States are

known to be impaired because of pesticides, and, even at low

levels, pesticides pose a particularly concerning threat to

fish and wildlife populations. Without protective federal

safeguards in place to regulate pesticides applied to our

waterways, sportsmen and women will have access to fewer

quality hunting and fishing opportunities.

On behalf of our millions of members and conservation-

minded hunters, anglers, and wildlife enthusiasts, we urge

you to support this common-sense measure to safeguard our

water resources and outdoor heritage and support the Huffman

amendment.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Bulis,

AFFTA President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association.

John W. Gale,

Conservation Director, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.

Adam Kolton,

Vice President, National Advocacy, National Wildlife

Federation.

Steve Moyer,

Vice President, Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited.

Mr. Chairman, I prefer butter on my lobster rolls, not toxic pesticides. Let's make sure that States maintain their authority to prudently protect their economies and public health from pesticide impacts.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that some States may want to put their efforts into protecting water quality and the health of their fisheries and their ecosystems, rather than just carpet- bombing waterways with pesticides.

This amendment says, those States have the authority to do that if they choose to.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is the fifth time the United States House of Representatives has considered this bill.

Now, we have heard a lot of alternative facts today. Let's have some real facts.

Killing trees, well, first off, here is the extensive application. It is slightly over three pages long and it can be filed electronically, so we don't need to kill any trees.

Allegations that somehow this slows down control of mosquito abatement or Zika virus are absolutely false. Anybody can apply a pesticide in a public health situation. They have 30 days to file the paperwork online afterwards. It takes about 5 minutes. It has such technical things as your name and address, your pesticide applicator license verified with a certain State, where you are going to use the pesticide or herbicide.

Now, why would we want to know that? Or maybe, why wouldn't we want not to know that? Because that is what they are saying on that side of the aisle.

There is nothing registered with the Department of Agriculture. Yes, we have FIFRA. These pesticides and herbicides have been registered. They have labels--it can't be applied over water; it can't be applied here; it can't be applied there--and we trust the applicators to follow those rules. But when they actually use the herbicides and pesticides absent this form, this burdensome 3\1/2\-page form, we won't know.

Now, why would we care? Well, this is essentially the 20th anniversary of a massive fish kill in Jackson County, Oregon. In that incident, an operator applied an aquatic herbicide in an irrigation canal that, when it leaked into the nearby creek, killed 92,000 steelhead. Now, we kind of care about our steelhead in the Northwest, so that was a problem.

So then the Federal agency said, Well, this is kind of a problem when someone does that, 92,000 steelhead. Plus, anybody who drank the water was poisoned, et cetera, et cetera. But we don't want to know about that on that side of the aisle because Dow Chemical doesn't like it because maybe it inhibits sales of some of these chemicals that cause these sorts of problems.

Now, we have data now because of these forms, and we know about areas

that are impaired. In my State, which is like the clean, green State, 825 miles of rivers and streams and 10,000 acres of lakes and ponds in the State of Oregon are impaired by pesticide contamination. That is something we should do something about. People are drinking that water; they are swimming in that water; their kids are bathing in that water. I think that is a problem.

But we don't want to know about that. This is just a horrible restraint on pesticide applications.

Now, we heard a lot of other hooey here. It is like: This is so difficult; it is so difficult to do. I was talking to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. He said, well, farmers don't want to file those forms. If they hired a pesticide applicator, that person could file the form for them.

Or, yeah, maybe they are going to have to file the 3-page form if it involves the waters of the United States of America. If it doesn't involve the waters, you don't have to file it. So this is really an incredible thing.

Now, we have taken this up numerous times. It was the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act in the 109th Congress--the same bill, exactly the same bill.

Then in the 112th and the 113th Congresses, it was the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. It still didn't work. It didn't become law then.

Well, wait a minute. Let's pass it on to public fears. Last Congress, it was called the Zika Vector Control Act in the 114th Congress. We just heard a lot of hooey about how this will inhibit killing mosquitoes, which, of course, is absolutely not true.

But now we are back to here. So the Zika Control Act and the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act are now back to the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.

Now, in the past 6 years, since this paperwork was required, or electronic work, do you know how many pesticide applicators have faced significant impacts because of these protections? None. Zero.

Do you know how many applicators have raised problems with the Clean Water Act pesticide general permit to EPA? None. Zero.

In fact, I specifically asked this question of the EPA's head of water at a Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing. No specific instances where the clean water permit was causing problems or impacts on pesticide application. Yet here we are again, one more time, under the guise of reducing this horrible regulatory burden: name, address, phone number, what did you apply? Where are you registered to apply these sorts of permits? That is useful information.

I had a couple more instances in Oregon.

Tiller, Oregon, again, right in the same area where the steelhead were killed. That same creek was contaminated with atrazine in 2014. Local residents who drank the water complained, and they also complained of the overspray. Then, in 2013, a helicopter in Curry County, Oregon, oversprayed residents.

Now, if they didn't have to file these forms, we wouldn't know who did it, when they did it, and what the chemical was. I guess that is kind of what the Republicans want. If someone oversprays your property and sprays stuff on you: ``Geez, I don't know. That was one of those black helicopters. We don't know where it came from, or who that was. We don't know what they dumped on you. Sorry.'' That is burdensome paperwork. We wouldn't want to require that kind of burdensome paperwork.

So that is why we are here again today for the fifth time with the fifth remaining rationale for what we are doing here today, and it still fails the smell test.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the Republicans are again bending over backwards to help corporations and the wealthiest among us while ignoring science and leaving hardworking American families to suffer the consequences. This administration's decisions have placed special interests and their financial contributions ahead of

the health and the safety of our citizens, and this Republican-led House has been complicit.

Earlier this year, a toxic chemical manufacturer convinced the Trump administration to discard decades of scientific research just so they could continue to profit off of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that has been proven to be harmful to human beings, especially infants and children. The pesticide was well on its way to being banned by the EPA, which said, in 2015, that it could not be declared safe for human health and for the environment; but the pesticide manufacturer wrote a check for $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee, and just weeks later, the proposed ban on the pesticide was magically reversed. It is amazing how that worked out.

What I am wondering is: Did President Trump and the Republicans in Congress think we wouldn't notice? Did they think the American people would be okay with them knowingly allowing a dangerous pesticide to be used on farms and affect our food supply? Republicans should be ashamed of this blatant disregard for the health of the families they were elected to represent.

In 2000, the EPA banned most home uses of the chemical, citing risks to children, yet it continues to be used in agriculture production across this country. Does this really sound like something that should be used on the food we feed our kids?

On the campaign trail into the White House, President Trump has made clear that he will always side with deep-pocketed polluters and corporations over the health and safety of families.

In January 2017, Dow Chemical was reported to have contributed $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee. The CEO of Dow Chemical was a frequent guest of President-elect Trump, including at an appearance at a postelection rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In March 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on the pesticide.

Also in March 2017, Scott Pruitt signed an order reversing the ban on this pesticide suggesting, in a statement, that ``by reversing the previous administration's step to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science and decisionmaking rather than predetermined results.'' Public health advocacy groups strongly disagreed, not to mention conservation organizations.

Mr. Speaker, you know what? I think I trust public health experts when it comes to protecting our families over Administrator Pruitt, who sued the EPA at least 14 times as Oklahoma's attorney general opposing important protections for our air and our water. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to auction off the health and safety of millions of Americans to the highest bidder. Every day the Trump administration gets more brazen with their giveaways to special interests, raising serious questions about corruption and conflicts of interest.

Donald Trump promised to drain the swamp. He has created a cesspool. We are talking about people's lives here, Mr. Speaker. This pesticide has been shown to harm women, children, and families. It has no place on our farms or in our food system. Our health should not be for sale.

It isn't hard to connect the dots here. The EPA abruptly reversed its efforts to ban a toxic chemical just weeks after the chemical's manufacturer made a political contribution to the newly elected President. And we know their decision wasn't based on science. The former head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention suggested that the Trump EPA is ``ignoring the science that is pretty solid'' and putting farmworkers and exposed children at unnecessary risk.

Now, I can see how people might start to wonder whether this administration is on the side of special interests or the American people. This amendment fights back against the corrupting influence of political contributions from pesticide companies. It would ensure that existing science-based protections for our families and our environment cannot be overturned by a well-timed contribution to President Trump or to those in his administration charged with implementing the law.

The American people deserve to know that their leaders will stand up to protect their health and their safety rather than protecting the bottom line of wealthy special interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and adopt this amendment and show the American people that our government is not for sale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.