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…
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