Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 953) 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 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin as well and echo what Mr. Woodall said in praising Brian Cooper for his many decades of service to this body. We appreciate all of his years of service. We appreciate all of the years he drove back and forth to work from Baltimore. And we appreciate the incredible patience that he has demonstrated over the years by having to listen to us time and time again.

One of the great joys of serving in this body is that you meet some remarkable people. Brian Cooper is certainly a remarkable person, and he will be missed. And I think on behalf of everybody here, we want to say: thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let me rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation.

My colleague, Mr. Woodall, just referenced all of the times we passed it, it went over to the Senate, and it didn't go anywhere. Maybe we should take a hint from the Senate that it is not a good bill and we ought to kind of reconsider some of the aspects of this bill.

But here we are again on the House floor with yet another regulatory rollback. It is shameful that the leadership of this House continues to waste precious time on bills that seem to address the concerns of Big Industry over the needs of our constituents, especially as we have so much that needs to be accomplished.

By the way, whatever happened to regular order? Do you remember when committees held hearings and markups?

The Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, did not hold a hearing. It held a markup, but it did not hold a hearing. And the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the committee with primary jurisdiction over this bill, held no hearing and did no markup.

And let's talk about amendments. The majority made in order less than half of the amendments submitted--two amendments--but they blocked through completely germane amendments. Members jumped through all of the hoops, they dotted all of the Is, and they crossed all of the Ts. These were properly drafted amendments, and they were blocked because the Republican majority was afraid to vote on them.

Now, what were these amendments?

Well, an amendment to prohibit the discharge of toxics in such circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women or harm fetal or early childhood development. The amendment protects pregnant women and children. Blocked.

An amendment to create an exception for communities that use a source of drinking water where a Federal or State emergency declaration has been issued due to a threat to public health, such as heightened exposure to an identified contaminant. Blocked.

An amendment to ensure existing Clean Water Act protections apply to waters that a State has already determined are polluted by pesticides. Blocked.

They were blocked because they would have passed.

Why are my colleagues afraid of protecting pregnant women, and ensuring clean drinking water?

That is what these amendments were about. They were germane. The only reason why they are not in order is because you chose to block them in the Rules Committee.

I would say to my Republican friends: You are not running this institution. You are ruining this institution. This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's start acting like it. And that means bringing germane amendments to the floor, letting us have a debate, letting Republicans and

Democrats debate, and then vote on those amendments.

There is not a single reason at all other than the fact that the Republican leadership did not want these amendments to pass that they were not made in order. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

And speaking of a bad process, late last week, Billy House at Bloomberg News broke the news that the House may need to vote again on this devastating TrumpCare bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article by Billy House.

[From www.bloomberg.com, May 18, 2017]

House May Need To Vote Again on GOP Obamacare Repeal Bill

(By Billy House)

House Republicans barely managed to pass their Obamacare

repeal bill earlier this month, and they now face the

possibility of having to vote again on their controversial

health measure.

House Speaker Paul Ryan hasn't yet sent the bill to the

Senate because there's a chance that parts of it may need to

be redone, depending on how the Congressional Budget Office

estimates its effects. House leaders want to make sure the

bill conforms with Senate rules for reconciliation, a

mechanism that allows Senate Republicans to pass the bill

with a simple majority.

Republicans had rushed to vote on the health bill so the

Senate could get a quick start on it, even before the CBO had

finished analyzing a series of last-minute changes. The CBO

is expected to release an updated estimate next week.

``Unaware,'' said Representative Jeff Denham of California,

with noticeable surprise Thursday, when advised that his

party leaders still hadn't sent the bill over to the Senate.

Denham was one of the House Republicans who ended up voting

for the measure, after earlier in the week opposing it.

``I am on the whip team and we have a lot of conversations,

but we have not had that one. So I am going to look into

it,'' said Denham, a member of the party's vote-counting

team.

Downplaying Concern

One senior GOP aide downplayed any concern over the

potential trouble from the CBO report, depicting it as

hypothetical, and saying that leaders will cross that bridge

if they need to.

According to several aides and other procedural experts, if

Republicans send the bill to the Senate now and the CBO later

concludes it doesn't save at least $2 billion, it would doom

the bill and Republicans would have to start their repeal

effort all over with a new budget resolution. Congressional

rules would likely prevent Republicans from fixing the bill

after it's in the Senate, the aides said.

In the Senate, the bill must hit separate $1 billion

deficit reduction targets in the jurisdiction of the Finance

Committee and the chamber's health committee. Republican

aides said failing to meet those numbers would force the

House to fix the bill even if the legislation meets the

overall cost-savings target.

If Republican leaders hold onto the bill until the CBO

report is released, then Ryan and his team could still redo

it if necessary. That would require at least one more House

vote of some sort.

Ryan told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday

that he doesn't think the House will need to vote again on

the health law. ``We just want to, out of an abundance of

caution, wait to send the bill over to the Senate when we get

the final score,'' Ryan said.

That vote could be cloaked in some kind of arcane

procedural move, but it would still be depicted as a proxy

for yet another vote on the same bill--and reluctant

Republicans will once again be forced to decide whether to

back it. Only this time, they would also be saddled with the

CBO's latest findings about the bill's costs and impacts.

Republicans had a sizable deficit reduction cushion--$150

billion--before several amendments were added to the bill at

the last minute, including changes allowing states to

legalize much skimpier health insurance plans.

Budget Assumptions

It's unclear what assumptions the CBO will make about what

states will do with that newly created flexibility. If

millions of people sign up for much cheaper, minimal

insurance, that could trigger billions--and potentially even

hundreds of billions--in costs over a decade because of the

House bill's health insurance tax credits.

``We've got to wait for the CBO score,'' said Greg Walden

of Oregon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce

Committee, which authored much of the bill. ``To prove that

you meet the reconciliation test.''

But other senior Republicans weren't aware that leaders had

been holding onto the bill.

``I had no idea,'' Dennis Ross of Florida, another member

of the vote-counting team, said Thursday, adding that the

prospect of another vote ``does concern me.''

GOP leaders never said publicly they were planning to hold

on to the bill for two weeks or longer.

Democrats' Criticism

``Every school child knows that when you pass a bill in the

House, you send it to the Senate,'' said Louise Slaughter,

the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. ``You

don't hide it in a drawer somewhere for two weeks, while you

wait for information that you should have had before you

passed it.''

The speaker and other Republicans urgently pushed their May

4 floor vote, despite a polarized Republican conference,

using the frantic final hours to win over holdouts. Even so,

20 Republicans still voted against the bill. After the bill

squeaked through, Ryan and other senior Republicans dashed to

the White House for an unusual celebration of a one-chamber

vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure everyone understands that. We thought we were through with it here in the House, but we may not be. After Republicans used emergency procedures on more than one occasion to rush their bill through the House of Representatives, we found out that Republican leaders had yet to send a bill over to the Senate for its consideration. Instead, they have been hiding the bill for nearly 3 weeks.

What happened to the urgency that my colleagues were talking about a few weeks ago?

We heard from our Republican friends that the sky would fall if we didn't act upon TrumpCare immediately. It had to be done right then and there. We couldn't slow down long enough to hear from the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office. We couldn't slow down enough so that people could actually read what was in the bill. We couldn't slow down enough to do hearings or to get estimates on how this massive bill would impact the healthcare of millions of Americans.

I think it has become clear to all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the only reason to rush through this process was to trick their own Members into voting for this disastrous bill. It was to keep their Members from seeing the CBO score before they voted for the bill, because if they had seen it, many of them may not have voted for it. Republican leadership couldn't risk transparency, and they wouldn't let the facts get in the way of passing TrumpCare.

We expect CBO to release their final analysis tomorrow. Finally, we will know how many millions of Americans will be kicked off of their healthcare because of these reckless and heartless Republican policies. We will find out how devastating this bill will be for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. And we will finally learn just how big that tax cut for wealthy Americans is going to be.

I guess my question to Republican leaders of this House is: What was the rush? If you were going to have to hold up the bill over here until the CBO score was released anyway, why couldn't we just have waited to receive this very important information before we asked the House to vote on this terrible bill?

Oh, wait. I know why the Republican leadership needed to move TrumpCare so fast, so that the bill's namesake--President Trump--didn't throw a temper tantrum. That is what this was all about. So he wouldn't call them out in one of his infamous Twitter rants.

But it wasn't about good legislating. It was a lousy process basically designed to prematurely shove a bill through that is bad for Americans, all for some headline or temporary political gain.

Now, if you have been watching the news lately, you will notice that our 45th President hasn't been generating the best headlines, what with ``this Russia thing''--those are his words--constant leaks of information from his staff to the press, never mind the President's leaking of sensitive classified information on national security matters.

President Trump needed a win for himself, even if it is a loss for the American people. As we all know, it is all about him.

Now, I remind my Republican colleagues that they work for the American people, that the ultimate boss for all of us is our constituents, not the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has made a habit of completely skirting regular order and rushing through legislation crafted behind closed doors with no opportunity for meaningful debate and consideration, and this TrumpCare bill is a prime example.

We had emergency meetings, backroom deals, and fixes to the fixes to the fixes, and what we were left with is a lousy product that we may have to consider again. My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of themselves.

Process matters. We are on the Rules Committee. If you don't believe process matters, you ought to get on a different committee. It matters for the integrity of this institution, and it matters if we are to prevent lousy legislation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the Trump budget that was just released this morning.

We are still digging through the text and combing through the details, but from what we have already seen, it is devastating. Reports indicate that this budget makes the deepest cuts to Federal programs that help the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor. Mr. Speaker, that is nothing to be proud of.

At a time when our crumbling infrastructure needs repair, our kids need access to affordable education, and our workers need training to move into high-tech jobs, we simply cannot afford to turn our back on these critical investments that will move our country forward. But this budget plan does just that.

Since we are on the floor to talk about an antienvironment bill today, I should note that the Environmental Protection Agency is among the agencies hardest hit by President Trump's ruthless proposal. Through massive cuts to the EPA, the Trump administration is paving the way toward dirtier air and more polluted water. But my Republican colleagues don't seem to be too concerned with that. They have been proposing cuts to EPA for years and years and years.

Mr. Speaker, of all the rotten provisions tucked into this document-- and I could go on and on and on--I find the most troubling to be the radical assault on people living in poverty.

You know, it is easy to sit in an office at OMB and concoct plans to throw people off of SNAP and off of Medicaid and kick them out of their housing. This plan does just that. By any reading, by any measure, that is what it does. We are reading about a $274 billion cut to our safety net, on top of the over $800 billion cut to Medicaid included in the TrumpCare bill.

These are real people, Mr. Speaker. They are our constituents. They are our neighbors and our friends. Our kids go to school together.

But given some of the proposals I have seen from this majority party, I have to wonder whether some of my colleagues might never have talked with anyone living in poverty. I would say to them, life is very different when you leave your country club. Life is very different. It is very hard for people struggling in poverty. Being poor in this country is hard work, and you ought to know that by now.

My Republican colleagues have made a habit of belittling the poor instead of trying to understand their struggles. They work hard, Mr. Speaker--often at more than one job--to put food on the table for their kids and to find a roof over their heads. They are exhausted from work and from worry.

We see them every day, serving tables, washing dishes, hauling away trash, cleaning offices, mowing lawns, stacking heavy loads, taking care of people's children, comforting the sick. Theirs are the faces in the bus windows going home from work at 2 in the morning. Theirs are the faces arriving at work at 5 in the morning the next day. They deserve our respect, not the disdain shown to them and to their families in this disgraceful budget.

I would like to remind my colleagues that poverty and hunger in rural areas is often as bad as, and sometimes even worse than, in cities. So I find it highly offensive that this budget slashes our safety net for the very people that President Trump promised to protect, the very people who put President Trump in office.

You know, I heard some of the rationale for this budget from the White House, saying: Well, you know, people who are on SNAP ought to work.

Well, let me just say for the Record so it is clear to everybody here that the majority of people on SNAP are children, are senior citizens, are people who are disabled. Of those who can work, a majority of them work. They work, but they earn so little that they are still stuck in poverty.

Why aren't we having a debate about increasing wages in this country? Why is the debate focused on how we make the lives of those in poverty even more miserable?

You know, budgets are moral documents, and this is the most heartless, reckless, and damaging plan I have ever seen. It is immoral.

The President's Budget Director talked yesterday about compassion for taxpayers and for Trump supporters. Well, give me a break. You know, I would tell Mr. Mulvaney I don't think that word means what he think it means.

Compassion, that is feeding starving children, helping a father get back on his feet after a job loss, helping a mother get back on her feet after a job loss, cleaning up poisoned water, ensuring everyone has a chance at living a healthy life regardless of how much money they have. That is compassion, not turning our backs on these people.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us at the expense of the public safety net is cruel. It is coldhearted and, Mr. Speaker, I am sick of it. I assure you that is not compassionate.

So I hope my Republican colleagues will have the courage to stand up against this administration and do what is right for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Throughout his campaign, President Trump made promises that he would not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Now we have come to find out that he has broken every one of those promises.

The Trump budget includes more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts in the GOP healthcare bill and then adds additional cuts on top of that, with total Medicaid cuts of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

Furthermore, the Trump budget guts Social Security disability insurance which, as of 2015, covered 10 million recipients.

The Trump budget also slashes funding for SNAP, our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, by $193 billion. That is a 25 percent cut. SNAP is the program that provides people food. That's it--food.

We have 42 million people in this country who are food insecure--42 million. We should all be ashamed of that. And the answer is to cut SNAP by 25 percent?

Oh, and by the way, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal.

And let's not forget that the Republicans' healthcare disaster takes $75 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, shortening the life of the trust fund.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

If the gentleman wants to yield me some of his time, I am more than happy to go on for as long as you would like.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, instead of protecting our most vulnerable, President Trump and the House Republicans continually insist on tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we need to hold President Trump to his word. Therefore, I am asking that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being considered if it would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under the Social Security Act, if it would increase either the early or full retirement age to receive Social Security benefits.

This would prevent any legislation from being considered if it would privatize Social Security. We would prevent any legislation from being considered that would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for individuals entitled to or enrolled for benefits under Medicare or result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals enrolled in or eligible to receive medical assistance through a State Medicaid plan or waiver.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to my colleagues that I urge everybody in this House to remember why we came to Congress and who sent us here. Our primary obligation is to the people of this country, and they did not send us here to make their lives more miserable.

When you look at the priorities in the President's budget, when you look at the impact that the healthcare bill, the TrumpCare bill that the House of Representatives passed, when you look at the impact it is going to have on tens of millions of Americans in this country, these bills will devastate people.

So we need to get back to what is important. It is not about propping up the President during his difficulties. It is not about playing to the cheap seats at the Heritage Foundation or some other rightwing think tank. Our primary obligation is to people of the United States. This budget and the priorities of this Republican majority and the priorities of this President undercut the security and the economic well-being of every single person in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that a number of amendments that are germane were offered in the Rules Committee to protect the health and safety of women and children, and they were not made in order. So amendments were offered and they were blocked. I just point that out for the Record.

I would just say that the bill has changed over the years, and I voted against it in committee.

I guess the question is: If we are all in agreement that we want to protect women and children, what was the harm in making in order an amendment that would have done that?

It was perfectly germane, and the Rules Committee decided not to make it in order. I think that is a question that the gentleman hasn't answered.

I appreciate that all the people on the Agriculture Committee are experts, but you know what?

There are other people who know a lot about science, pesticides, and agriculture who were not on the committee. And just because a committee takes action--I mean, if that is the new rule now: if you are on the committee, you can't offer amendments. Well, that is an unfortunate new approach that the Republicans are taking.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Again, hearing the gentleman say that we all want to protect the lives of pregnant women and children, I just want to ask as an inquiry: Is the amendment by Eddie Bernice Johnson that prohibits the discharge of toxins in such circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women, or could harm fetal, or early childhood development, which is perfectly germane, is that made in order? Is that part of the rule?

Well, I don't think it is. I would just simply say to the gentleman, if he wants more cooperation, then maybe we ought to open the process up, and actually listen to what the Democrats have to say too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I found myself listening to the Reading Clerk as he read through the rule. It is a fairly straightforward rule, but it sounded pretty complicated as he was going through it. And I am reminded that

standing to your left is one of the gentlemen that helps us sort through those issues.

As every Member of this institution knows, who was listening to the colloquy last week, Brian Cooper is leaving this House after 35 years of public service, honorable service, showing up day in and day out. My friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, working on the Rules Committee, sometimes go until 2, 3, or 4 in the morning. Well, folks like Mr. Cooper can't go home until the Rules Committee goes home.

So day in and day out, with absolutely no pomp or circumstance, just dedicated public service, Brian Cooper served this institution. I fear this will be the last time he and I are on the floor together while I have control of the microphone. And I did not want to yield control of that microphone without telling how much his assistance has meant to me.

You know, Mr. Speaker, standing in that chair is a powerful responsibility. The burden sometimes is a lot to bear. When you are surrounded by a team of excellence, as you are today, with Ethan to your right and Brian to your left, I know you do that with great confidence. I am grateful to folks who help us to succeed.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for all of that service.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 is a structured rule. It provides for consideration of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. It makes in order two amendments from my Democratic colleagues-- one from Ms. Esty and one from Mr. Huffman.

As you might remember, the House passed a nearly identical version of this bill last year, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately, it did not get across the finish line in the Senate, so it did not make it to the President's desk. We are trying again this year. My sincere hope is that we will succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you hear from constituents, as I do, talking about regulatory burdens, and why can't we bring commonsense rules and regulations to Washington. H.R. 953, the bill that this rule would make in order, is an attempt to do that.

This bill prohibits the EPA from requiring unnecessary and duplicative pollution permits for certain pesticides. Now, so often when we start a sentence with ``this prevents the EPA,'' folks think: Oh, there go those Republicans again going after the environment, waiving those regulations that protect friends and family.

Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that accusation is never accurate. But, in particular, it fails to address this situation.

For decade upon decade, the EPA has regulated pesticides in this country. If we pass H.R. 953 today, for decades and decades to come, the EPA will continue to regulate pesticides in this country.

As a result of litigation, Mr. Speaker, the courts are forcing the EPA not to regulate pesticides as pesticides, but to regulate pesticides as pollutant discharges, as if there is something else to do with pesticides other than to spray it.

They are saying that you can't just get a permit to use your pesticide, Mr. Speaker. You can't just read the label and the proper application and get a permit to apply, as indicated on the label. You must also get a permit to discharge a pollutant as if the pesticide is not already regulated as a pesticide itself.

Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. The good news is I am surround by a team of excellence here in the United States House of Representatives and, in a bipartisan way, we have already agreed that it makes no sense.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, we brought a substantially similar measure to the floor, and we passed it under a process called suspension of the rules. It is a process we save for those bills that are relatively noncontroversial. It passed in a bipartisan way, but didn't make it across the Senate floor.

We brought it back again, Mr. Speaker, to this floor. We brought it under a rule, as we are doing today. It passed again in a bipartisan way. We sent it to the Senate, but couldn't make it across the Senate floor.

Mr. Speaker, we added it to the farm bill that we passed here in the House, which, again, passed in a bipartisan way. We sent it over to the Senate and it was stripped out on the Senate side.

Mr. Speaker, we have come together time and time again as a body to move this commonsense regulatory reform forward. It is my great hope that I will get support from both sides of the aisle again today not just on this rule, but on the underlying legislation, and that we will move forward in a bipartisan way again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts I do not have any speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that. I would like to inquire of the Speaker: Is my friend from Massachusetts working on my yielded time or is he working on his time?

I thank my friend.

If my friend would yield, I was advised that I had yielded an abundance of time. I just wanted to make sure that I was not being more generous than you and I would have intended.

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

I want to recognize that, if you locked my friend from Massachusetts and me in a room together, it would be over both of our objections, but we would be able to solve about 50 percent of the challenges that face this country.

There is something different that happens in conversation and dialogue when the cameras are turned off than happens when the cameras are on, and of course we are going to keep these cameras here on the floor of the House for as long as you and I are here because the American people have a right to see and a right to know.

But just like Mom and Dad don't want to have all their conversations in front of the kids, and the kids certainly don't want to have all of their conversations in front of Mom and Dad, there is a role to be played for folks to be able to close the door and sit down and visit with each other and try to make things better.

My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. The only job that we have is to make a difference for our constituency back home. Sometimes we legitimately disagree on how to do that. The budget is a good example.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, President Obama, in his 8 years as President of the United States, never once introduced a budget that balanced. He borrowed from our children and our grandchildren in every single budget.

And when I say he didn't introduce a budget that balanced, I don't mean that he didn't balance in year 1, I don't mean he didn't balance in year 10. I mean never, ever, ever looking forward in his budgets did he ever stop borrowing.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a man or woman in this institution who believes that you can run a country that way. There is not one. There is not a man or woman in this institution who doesn't understand that balancing budgets is going to mean hard decisions, and so it is absolutely the right place for the dialog about what those hard decisions should be.

But let us not be confused for one moment. There is no pathway to balance that isn't hard. Borrowing from your children and your grandchildren to pay for what you want today is always going to be easier, Mr. Speaker, than paying for it yourself. We are going to have to have that conversation.

I agree with my friend from Massachusetts. We do not work for the President of the United States in this institution. If anything, he works for us.

I sit on the House Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I promise you, we are promulgating our own House budget, a work product that is going to make this institution proud. I am particularly pleased to be working with Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black on that budget, even as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, it will balance by making commonsense changes to Federal programs, one of which is included in this bill here today.

Take the EPA, for example. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, if you have not read the comments of our new EPA Administrator, to get into those because what he would tell you, which is absolutely true, is that we have Superfund sites in this country that are so polluted they cannot be utilized for other purposes.

They have been on the Superfund list for decades through Republican Presidents and through Democratic Presidents. They have been sitting on that list. There is no plan to clean them up, no plan to make a difference in those communities, and no plan to serve those constituencies. That is wrong.

Instead of spending its time and resources making a difference for families, making a difference for the environment, what is the EPA having to do?

Respond to court cases that tell it to treat the reasonable and labeled application of pesticides; not as spraying pesticides in your field, but as if you were operating a factory and just having as an effluent, pesticide flowing out of your factory. That is just nonsense.

The reason we produced pesticides is to spray it in fields. We do not need an effluent discharge permit as if we are running a factory, pumping it into our streams. We are not. We are spraying it on our plants to do what?

Address the food needs of this Nation.

My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right when he talks about hunger in this Nation, Mr. Speaker. He is absolutely right. I dare say that there is not a community in this country that is not affected by hunger. But the biggest advocate we have in the fight against hunger is the American farmer, Mr. Speaker.

There is nobody in the world who does it better; there is nobody in the world who produces it cheaper; there is nobody in the world that has the capability of producing the food to go on the grocery store shelves in America except the American farmer. And these pesticides and herbicides make a difference in getting that food out of the field and onto those store shelves.

We want to do it with strict EPA regulation. That is what is lost in this debate. There is not one Member of this body that wants to repeal EPA regulation. We want to keep that EPA regulation. It is called FIFRA, that regulation that pesticides are regulated under. No one wants to change that at all.

All folks want to do is say: Wait a minute, this is not a factory discharge issue. This is a pesticide issue.

My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. I sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Speaker. We did not have a hearing or a markup on this bill, and it was absolutely referred to our committee.

Why, Mr. Speaker?

It was referred to our committee because we have jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act, but this has never been a Clean Water Act issue, except the courts tried to make it one. This has never been a Clean Water Act issue, except the litigants tried to make it one. So when we tried to fix the problem, we didn't waste a moment in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee dealing with the Clean Water Act because this has never been a Clean Water Act issue. It is an ag issue, which is why it went through my friend of Massachusetts' Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't begrudge anyone the job that they have to do in this institution. We have different constituencies. They ask different things of us.

We all have to come and do our work. But I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, everything doesn't have to be an us-against-them battle. Sometimes it is just about us. Sometimes there is more that unites this country than divides this country, and that is okay. Sometimes we are able to work together on commonsense solutions, and that is okay.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill came to the House under suspension of the rules, again, that process that we use for things that are noncontroversial, my friend from Massachusetts supported it at that time. He supported it because it is good legislation that is going to make a difference for folks back home. It is going to make a difference in combating hunger in every jurisdiction across this Nation.

When this bill went through the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker, there were no amendments offered. The Agriculture Committee is composed of Republicans and Democrats. It is a place where discussion takes place. It was the markup of this bill, which is when you go and try to amend it and make it better. Not one amendment was offered from either side.

Why?

Because we have discussed this issue, we have litigated this issue, and we have worked together on this issue, and it is a collaborative work product.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank my friend. He is absolutely right. When the experts on the Agriculture Committee considered this, when the folks who spend their entire careers on Capitol Hill working on pesticide and pesticide safety considered this, they had absolutely no amendments to offer whatsoever.

When it came to the Rules Committee and the entire House could offer amendments, folks absolutely offered amendments. The Rules Committee, on which the gentleman from Massachusetts and I serve, made two of those amendments in order. We rejected others. You heard my friend's opening statement, Mr. Speaker, that one of the amendments we rejected was to protect pregnant women.

Well, Mr. Speaker, for Pete's sake, I have served with these men and women in here. I have been in this body for 6 years. There is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care about pregnant women. There is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care about children. There is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care. What we do in this institution is care. And when my friend from Massachusetts supported this bill, when he supported this bill, there were no amendments along those lines.

When the gentleman supported this bill without the amendment dealing particularly with pregnant women and children, I don't believe for a moment the gentleman forgot about those pregnant women and children. I don't believe for a moment he decided he was going to punish pregnant women and children. I believe that he thought those protections were inherent in the base text, and he was right when he thought it, and he was right when he supported it.

Reclaiming my time, I will tell my friend two things that he already knows. Number one is we do accept amendments from the entire Congress. That is the purpose of the Rules Committee being in existence, and we have added two amendments to this bill for consideration.

When the gentleman supported it in the 112th Congress, we considered no other amendments. That is a change this time. We are going to do that. When it passed the last time we did a rule, no one offered any amendments. This is a change from that time. When we passed it in the Agriculture bill, no one offered any amendments. So it is a change this time. We absolutely are opening up the process more and more with every time the House considers this bill.

But I would also tell my friend something that we are going to have to grapple with as an institution, and that is that I don't need a Rules Committee if what we are going to do is make every amendment that comes to this institution in order.

The only reason we have a Rules Committee is to pick and choose. The only reason we have a Rules Committee is to set up a timetable on which we can debate and consider things in a reasonable manner. The only reason we have a Rules Committee is because we are not operating under unanimous consent as our friends in the Senate do, though we absolutely could. And I would refer him to my friend, Daniel Webster, who has some marvelous ideas about how we might do that.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is legitimate for folks back home to wonder what is going on in that United States House. They passed it in a bipartisan way once. They passed it in a bipartisan way twice. They passed it in a bipartisan way three times, and here it is on the floor today, and it is as if the sky is falling and going to open up and swallow everything that is good and decent about this land.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why is that the conversation we are having today instead of the one we had not once, not twice, but three times about how we could use this legislation to improve the lives of citizens across this country?

Perhaps that is just the environment we are in. Perhaps that is just the cards we have been dealt in politics across America today, Mr. Speaker, but we have a chance together as an institution to stand up and say it does not have to be that way. We have a chance together to stand up and say that we can do better than those partisan shenanigans. We can get together on things that are going to make a difference, and the first opportunity you are going to have after this speech, Mr. Speaker, to do that, is in supporting the rule for this bill. The first opportunity we are going to have to do that is in supporting this rule, and then supporting the underlying legislation and sending it back to the Senate one more time. It is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and we have the opportunity to do that together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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.