Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 90th birthday of former Representative Ralph Regula.

Ralph Straus Regula was born in Beach City, Ohio, on December 3, 1924. Prior to his election to Congress, Mr. Regula served in the United States Navy; worked as a schoolteacher and a principal in Stark County schools; and served in the Ohio State House, Senate, and on the Ohio State Board of Education. In 1973, Mr. Regula was elected to Congress and served 18 consecutive terms, until his retirement in 2009.

During his tenure in Congress, Mr. Regula served as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, where he worked across party lines to improve educational opportunities, workforce training programs, and health care. He was a passionate advocate for research and the advancement of science.

Congressman Regula billed himself a ``regular'' guy. He was the son of a dairy farmer and part of a high school graduating class of only 25, where he developed a strong work ethic and love of community. Ralph loved serving here because he cared about people and helping improve the quality of their lives. In this House, he was a pragmatic leader willing to find solutions to tough problems.

I have personally known Ralph for over three decades and have many fond memories meeting with him both here and back in Ohio as my Congressman. Like many others, I have learned so much from Congressman Ralph Regula over the years. To that, I say thank you.

Today I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the great life and career of Mr. Ralph Regula, wishing him a very happy 90th birthday.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014.

Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about the administration's proposal to redefine the scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and the unilateral approach the agencies took developing this rule. The agencies' attempt to expand their jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act will have serious consequences for the Nation's economy, threaten jobs, and restrict landowners from making decisions about their property.

In my subcommittee hearing earlier this year, we discovered that the EPA could not identify a single State that supports this rule. Under the Clean Water Act, the States are supposed to act as coregulators with the Federal Government, and this partnership has enjoyed much success over the years. It is unfortunate that the agencies have chosen to take a closed-door approach to this rulemaking instead of engaging in a proper and transparent process working with their State counterparts.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5078 will put an end to the EPA's overreach and will ensure that any new rule is adopted openly and responsibly, and takes into consideration the concerns of the State, local governments, and other stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment because it seeks to gut this legislation.

This amendment would allow the administration to go forward and finalize its flawed rule, expanding Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act if they determine entirely of their own discretion that the rule is consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and other factors listed in this amendment. Basically, the EPA can self-certify that they are ready to move forward.

This amendment is misleading. The administration has already stated that they believe the proposed rule is consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and with other factors listed in this amendment. The effect of this amendment is to allow the agencies to finalize their flawed rule that many believe is not consistent with the Supreme Court decisions and other listed factors.

This amendment would put the U.S. EPA solely in charge of America's waters, and it would take away the Federal-State partnership that H.R. 5078 seeks to preserve. It would allow the EPA to finalize and implement the rule without consulting with the States. Let me repeat that. It would allow the U.S. EPA to move forward without consulting with their counterpart State EPAs.

In contrast, H.R. 5078 preserves the Federal-State partnership that was set up under the Clean Water Act in 1972. This important legislation recognizes that the proposed administration rule has created controversy, confusion, and discord in the clean water regulatory programs. H.R. 5078 calls for a timeout to stop the final development of this ill-conceived rule. In addition, it requires that the agencies consult with State and local governments to develop a consensus rule that will work and protect our water resources.

As I said during the general debate in our subcommittee, they were not able to identify any State regulatory agency that supports this proposed rule. That ought to be a red flag to all American people and to all of the stakeholders involved.

As my friend on the other side talked about expansion and jurisdiction, I would argue of the proposed rule, if it is not necessary, why does the Secretary of Agriculture have to put together an interpretive rule when it has been said that agriculture is exempt from these practices? Why move forward?

We don't need this rule. I urge the Members to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I most strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment because it seeks to undermine the intent of this legislation.

There is a great deal of controversy over what the EPA's proposed rule would do or would not do. Added to that, they have a subsequent proposal of the interpretive rule from the Department of Agriculture.

What H.R. 5078 says is, ``Stop. Time out.'' The bill says, ``Stop this rule process. Go back to the States and back to the stakeholders and local governments and work together,'' which was the intent of the Clean Water Act. Let's have these agencies work together to develop a consensus rule that will actually provide clarity and allow the Federal and State governments to work as partners in protecting America's waters. This amendment would give the EPA unfettered discretion in making determinations regarding State water quality standards, taking away the Federal-State partnership that this legislation is seeking to preserve.

I need to remind everybody what this bill does. This bill says, ``Time out. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, go back to the drawing board. Go back to the States. Work with the States. Work with your counterparts in the States, and develop a consensus to the rule that you need. Go back to the partnership.''

Let's have a cooperative relationship between the States and the Federal U.S. EPA.

Let's have commonsense proposals to protect our Nation's waters and not a one-size-fits-all policy coming out of Washington, D.C. Because when it comes to water bodies, streams, and so on, one-size-fits-all policies don't always work. We need to be working with those local governments and the States to develop the policies to protect and enhance our environment at the local level.

So let's send it back, support H.R. 5078, and make sure that our U.S. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will work with their counterparts to seek commonsense policies that protect and enhance our water quality and our safe drinking water here in the United States. I urge all Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is unnecessary. There are already adequate protections put in the law, in the FIFRA law. FIFRA evaluates it. The EPA evaluates the process. It goes through the process, and if there is any risk to the environment or human health, they won't get their label. There won't be a label. It will be a restricted pesticide, and it won't be approved.

So I say this is unnecessary. It is duplicative. There are already enough protections in the current FIFRA law, and all this is redundant and just plain unnecessary. So we need to move ahead.

I strongly oppose the motion to recommit and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the bill (H.R. 935) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013.

The reason we are back here on the floor for this bill today is pure politics. In the last Congress, this bill then was H.R. 872. It was introduced on a bipartisan basis, with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it passed on the suspension calendar with two-thirds of this body in support of it. In this Congress, H.R. 935--the exact same bill--was again introduced on a bipartisan basis, with bipartisan support, and it was voice-voted out of the Transportation and Agriculture Committees.

However, earlier this week, partisanship reared its ugly head, and Members who were on record as voting in support of this legislation or in having agreed to it by voice vote were urged to change their votes from ``yes'' to ``no'' in order for it not to be agreed on by two- thirds of this body. This is partisanship at its ugliest. The principles and policy of this legislation have not changed over the last few years. Instead, the politics of it did.

I introduced H.R. 935 to clarify congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. It is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act--also know as FIFRA--and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. In fact, FIFRA regulated pesticide use long before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, more recently, as the result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides.

I will not repeat the history I gave in Monday's debate of how the EPA came to impose this unnecessary second layer of Federal regulation, but I think it is important for everyone to realize that this regulatory burden is impacting not just farmers, but cities, counties, and homeowners.

Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process. This is adding another layer to an already big and growing pile of unfunded regulatory mandates being imposed on the regulated community. Despite what some would have you believe, all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection.

The cost of complying with the NPDES permit regulations and the fears of potential liability are forcing mosquito control and other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect resources to comply with the regulatory requirements. This may be having an adverse effect on public health. In many States, routine preventative programs have been reduced due to the NPDES requirements. This most likely impacted and increased the record-breaking outbreaks of the West Nile virus around the Nation in 2012. H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventative mosquito and other pest control programs in the future.

H.R. 935 exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose and the use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and enforcement programs under FIFRA take into account environmental and human health risks just like the Clean Water Act does.

H.R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with technical assistance from the United States EPA to return pesticide regulation to where it was before the court got involved. It leaves FIFRA as the appropriate and adequate regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stakeholders, have signed a letter supporting a legislative resolution of this issue.

I will insert the letter in the Record. Just to name a few of these organizations, they include the American Mosquito Control Association, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the National Water Resources Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, Farm Family Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, CropLife America, and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.

In addition, I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Alliance of Forest Owners, who expressed support for H.R. 935. NAFO represents private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres of private forestland in 47 States, supporting 2.4 million jobs.

Finally, I will submit for the Record a letter of support, plus a rebuttal paper, prepared by the American Mosquito Control Association, which rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several Members on the House floor Monday evening.

July 28, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives: The undersigned organizations ask for

your vote in support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory

Burdens Act, today. The bill will be on the floor of the

House of Representatives on suspension this evening.

Pesticide users must now comply with the added requirement

that certain pesticide applications--already stringently

regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)--obtain a Clean Water Act (CWA)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or

delegated states. The legislation would clarify that federal

law does not require water permits for FIFRA-compliant

pesticide applications.

The new water permit for pesticides provides virtually no

environmental benefit because all pesticide applications are

already stringently regulated through FIFRA, including

applications to and near water. Compliance requirements under

the permit impose significant resource and liability burdens

on thousands of small businesses, farms, municipalities,

counties, and the state and federal agencies legally

responsible for protecting public health. Most notably, the

permit potentially exposes all pesticide users to citizen law

suits under the CWA.

In the 112th Congress, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens

Act--then, H.R. 872--passed the House of Representatives on

suspension.

Now, in the 113th Congress, the Act has been reintroduced

as H.R. 935. Strong bipartisan support was again demonstrated

by the bill's recent passage out of both the House Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee

on Agriculture.

Pesticides play a critical role in protecting crops from

destructive pests, controlling mosquitoes and other disease-

carrying pests, and managing invasive weeds that choke our

waterways and shipping lanes, impede power generation, and

damage our forests and recreation areas. We believe that the

water permit for pesticides jeopardizes these protections and

the economy as regulators and businesses expend time and

resources on implementation and compliance all for no

additional environmental benefits. We urge you to vote in

support of H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act.

Sincerely,

Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Alliance of

North Carolina, Agricultural Council of Arkansas,

Agricultural Retailers Association, Alabama Agribusiness

Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alabama Farmers

Federation, American Mosquito Control Association, American

Soybean Association, Aquatic Plant Management Society,

Arkansas Forestry Association, Biopesticide Industry

Alliance, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Cape

Cod Cranberry Growers Association, The Cranberry Institute,

CropLife America, Council of Producers & Distributors of

Agrotechnology, Edison Electric Institute, Family Farm

Alliance, Far West Agribusiness Association.

Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Florida Fruit & Vegetable

Association, Georgia Agribusiness Council, Golf Course

Superintendents Association of America, Hawaii Cattlemen's

Council, Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Potato

Commission, Idaho Water Users Association, Illinois Farm

Bureau, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association, Kansas

Agribusiness Retailers Association, Louisiana Cotton and

Grain Association, Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Maine

Potato Board, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Minnesota

Agricultural Aircraft Association, Minnesota Pesticide

Information & Education, Minor Crops Farmer Alliance,

Missouri Agribusiness Association, Missouri Farm Bureau

Federation.

Montana Agricultural Business Association, National

Agricultural Aviation Association, National Alliance of

Forest Owners, National Alliance of Independent Crop

Consultants, National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National

Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National

Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union,

National Pest Management Association, National Potato

Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,

National Water Resources Association, Nebraska Agri-Business

Association, North Carolina Agricultural Consultants

Association, North Carolina Cotton Producers Association,

North Central Weed Science Society, North Dakota Agricultural

Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance.

Northeastern Weed Science Society, Northern Plains Potato

Growers Association, Ohio Professional Applicators for

Responsible Regulation, Oregon Potato Commission, Oregonians

for Food & Shelter, Pesticide Policy Coalition, Plains Cotton

Growers, Inc., Professional Landcare Network, RISE

(Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), South Dakota

Agri-Business Association, South Texas Cotton and Grain

Association, Southern Cotton Growers, Inc., Southern Crop

Production Association, Southern Rolling Plains Cotton

Growers, Southern Weed Science Society, Texas Ag Industries

Association, Texas Vegetation Management Association, United

Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Apple Association, USA Rice

Federation.

Virginia Agribusiness Council, Virginia Forestry

Association, Washington Friends of Farm & Forests, Washington

State Potato Commission, Weed Science Society of America,

Western Growers Association, Western Plant Health

Association, Western Society of Weed Science, Wild Blueberry

Commission of Maine, Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,

Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association, Wisconsin

State Cranberry Growers Association.

This is a good bill that reduces burdensome regulations without rolling back any environmental safeguards.

Don't just ask the environmental community about what it takes to comply with the current duplicative Clean Water Act regulation of pesticides. Ask your farmers and your mosquito control agencies in your cities and your counties. Then look at your States' Web sites to see what it takes to apply for the NPDES permit for pesticide applications. We did that. It costs over $200 in my State of Ohio, and in Oregon, it is over $900. That does not count the time of an applicant to complete the process or the time of a regulator to evaluate the application--all to regulate again something that is already adequately regulated under

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

Well, as a farmer, I take a little bit of offense to some of the remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows.

Pesticides cost money and, as farmers, we do not control what we get for our products, our commodities. We are raising corn and soybeans. We are at the mercy of the commodities market, so we have to do everything we can do on the cost side. And we certainly aren't going to waste a valuable input cost: pesticide, herbicide, and insecticide. So that is just an erroneous statement. That is just not true. Farmers of today are professionals, high capital cost operations, and it just makes no sense that we would waste those inputs.

On the issue about finding pesticide residues in water bodies, there is an issue that we call legacy issue, meaning that there was pesticides used many years ago that didn't break down in the environment, weren't biodegradable, and there is essentially a bank of residue left, and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are using today are much safer. The industry, the technology has improved drastically, and a lot of these pesticides, if not all, are more biodegradable.

Also, keep in mind, under FIFRA, the EPA approves the label. That is the approval of the process and the application and the amount that can be used. In most States, if not all States, most of these pesticides are being applied, have to be applied by certified applicators, and they are licensed. So they are filling out some paperwork and have to do due diligence.

This bill really does add a lot of duplication, because we went to a couple of States, and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body or a wetland--and that is open for definition how close that may be-- you have to go online and apply for the permit. In some States, you have to apply for, you have to submit a management plan. You have to list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location.

So, basically, let's take this down to a homeowner level. A homeowner maybe wants to spray their yard for dandelions. If they are maybe reasonably close to a water body, or maybe not--that is open for discussion--they have to go online and, like I said, in Oregon, they have got to apply for a permit and submit a management plan and pay over a $900 fee. In my State of Ohio, it is over $200.

I think that is a little bizarre, as long as they are applying it to the label under EPA approval.

So let's also talk about mosquito control districts. We had a huge outbreak of West Nile virus in 2012. That was a big mosquito year. I guess last year wasn't as much. This year, the debate is going to be out on that.

But we were hearing evidence that, because of the permitting requirements, that some of our mosquito control districts--and the American Mosquito Control Association actually surveyed their members. Some of them were actually kind of holding back and doing the preventative programs.

I know of one large metropolitan area in the southern part of this country that had to declare an emergency. And the irony of this, when they declare an emergency, they don't have to get any permits. It was so bad, they had to do aerial spraying, so that was putting the environment even at more risk. When you go from land application up to aerial, you can imagine the possible results that could happen of contamination--and with no permit requirement.

So we do have evidence, there was some talk on Monday night in this debate that the one gentleman on the other side of the aisle was talking about: My mosquito control district, there is no issue--no issue, no problem.

Well, we talked to his mosquito control district and it is a problem, and they have been talking to them for the last several years that this is a problem.

I would also contend, I did some research, checked around with some of our local spraying outfits, the grain elevators that do spraying. They don't know about this new rule yet because the EPA, in a lot of States, hasn't notified, they haven't implemented it. I think maybe because they know there is legislation hanging out there. So a lot of our entities don't know about it yet. Some of the larger, obviously, mosquito control districts and larger operations might know.

But the reason, when you talk about it has been nearly 3 years, which is more like 2 years, and there hasn't been a problem as we might think

there should be a problem is because a lot of them aren't doing the NPDES permits because they are not aware of that fact yet.

So at some point, if we don't fix this, the hammer is going to come down and you are going to hear about it from farmers, mosquito control districts, and individual homeowners.

So I just want to make that clear that this bill is duplicative, and they are under a lot of regulation, and the EPA approves the label. If you are not applying a pesticide under the label requirements, then you have got a problem.

But we don't need to open this up to farmers and landowners and mosquito control districts to lawsuits and other problems. So what this is really boiling down to today is, now I am starting to see this is a revenue stream into the EPA for these outrageous costs of the NPDES programs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deregulate pesticides as has been suggested by some speakers. Pesticides have been regulated under FIFRA for decades, and this bill does not change that.

This bill makes it clear that if you are a mosquito control agency, a farmer, or a citizen that is applying a pesticide and you are complying with FIFRA, you do not need an NPDES permit.

Now, there are a couple facts that came out here tonight that the other side said that, without this bill, it is not necessary because you don't have to get a permit to go out and apply pesticides. Well, if you are applying near a water body or a wetland, you do have to get an NPDES permit from the court decision.

This was not an EPA decision. This was a court decision that looked at it in a narrow vision, and it was a very ill-advised court decision, and I would say when you look at proposed rules out there about waters in the United States, it is up to debate what is near or close to a water body, so that is a fact that we would have that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a personal experience. Several years ago, my soybean crop--it was a Friday, late Friday afternoon, working with my certified pesticide applicator, we discovered that my soybean crop had just been attacked by spider mites, an insect, and we had to make application, insecticide application, to take care of it.

That application was made on a Friday night. If I had to apply for an NPDES permit, fill out the form, put in the management plan, submit it to the State, it comes back--I don't know if we would have got it until Tuesday. I would have lost--the damage to my soybean crop would have been substantial.

So the issue out here that there is no cost happening, there will when this thing gets fully implemented because, in practice, this court decision has not been fully implemented in practice across the country, but that will be coming if we fail to enact H.R. 935.

This bill removes the needless and duplicative regulation that threatens public health and imposes an expensive burden on public and private entities trying to safely approve pesticides.

This is a bipartisan bill. It has passed out of this House last Congress by a two-thirds majority. We had partisan antics going on Monday night. We had people switch their votes under pressure for partisan reasons, and that is not good government.

This bill will help protect the environment and human safety when you especially look at West Nile virus and all the other mosquito diseases we are finding that are coming about.

We have to allow our certified pesticide applicators, our mosquito control districts to do their job, and if the private sector wants to go in here and have to do all this extra permitting--we are not talking--when you hear about general permit, you think, oh, I just get a permit for the season, and I am good to go.

That is not what the general permit means. What it means is you have to go every time you do an application, if it is near or close to a wetland or water body, apply for a permit, put in that permit where the location is going to be, probably the date.

Well, say it is raining that day or it is too windy. Do you have to reapply for your permit? That is kind of up in the air still, so there are a whole bunch of issues out there, plus the costs, the time to do it, the bureaucracy, the red tape, and the costs.

Mr. Speaker, I think the one that is really bizarre is if you are a homeowner and you want to apply a pesticide to your yard and if you are near a water body or a wetland, whatever,

you have to apply for a permit because of this court decision.

This will bog down the NPDES permit process, and it will delay and add costs, and it puts farmers in jeopardy to get their crops to maintain and get the yields we need to produce the wholesome food supply in this country that our agricultural community produces and our mosquito control districts that protect many of our citizens from West Nile virus and other mosquito-borne diseases.

So this is critical that these bills pass because we are getting close to the time when we are going to see very much damage being done. We saw a little bit of it in 2012, in at least one large metropolitan area, when they had to spray for mosquitoes aerially when they declared an emergency when it got so far out of hand because they didn't do the preventative measures.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pass this bill, send it to the Senate, and hopefully, the Senate takes it up and passes it to protect the environment and health and human safety of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 935) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

It is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known as FIFRA, and not the Clean Water Act, which has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the safety and use of pesticides in the United States. In fact, FIFRA has regulated pesticides long before the enactment of the Clean Water Act. However, more recently, as the result of a number of lawsuits, the Clean Water Act has been added as a new and redundant layer of Federal regulation over the use of pesticides.

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

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

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

With this ill-advised court decision, Federal and State agencies are expending vital funds to initiate and maintain Clean Water Act permitting programs governing pesticide applications, and a wide range of public and private pesticide users are now facing increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process.

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

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

H.R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito control programs in the future. H.R. 935 exempts from the NPDES permitting process a discharge to waters involving the application of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under FIFRA, where the pesticide is used for its intended purpose and the use is in compliance with pesticide label requirements.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, have you tried to use the excuse the dog ate your homework? Well, Lois Lerner, the former director of the exempt organizations of the IRS seems to think the excuse that she can't find her emails is acceptable to tell Congress.

When the House requested access to Ms. Lerner's emails, the IRS had known for months that the hard drives of hers and many other officials had conveniently been destroyed. Government agencies are missing accountability.

The American people have constantly been looking for answers as to why the IRS chose to harass taxpayers based on their political beliefs and restrict their First Amendment rights.

The IRS is currently tasked with enforcing the failing health care law, and now, they are attempting to regulate free speech. The double standard that plagues the IRS must end. Asking Americans for years of paperwork regarding their taxes is simply hypocritical when the IRS is unable to produce information required of them.

I know the investigations conducted by the various House committees will help to expose what really happened and work to prevent this kind of government overreach from occurring again. Government needs to be transparent and accountable to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Congress to reengage in the development of the Nation's water resources and play a bigger role in prioritizing projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility in determining what projects should go forward and will reassert itself in the face of an administration that creates one-size- fits-all policy with little or no transparency.

The conference report of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, is one of the most policy and reform-focused pieces of legislation related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This is a bipartisan conference report that was developed by working across the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing in America's future.

This conference report contains no earmarks, cuts Federal red tape, streamlines the project delivery process, and strengthens our water transportation networks to promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth in jobs now and well into the future.

This conference report is fiscally responsible by more than fully offsetting new project authorizations with deauthorizations of old, inactive projects. This conference report establishes a path forward for enacting a WRRDA bill every 2 years without conceding any congressional authority to the executive branch.

Just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not necessarily mean it will produce a better project. In fact, a large costly project with so many add-ons that it never gets funded is a benefit to no one.

In what used to take the corps 3 to 5 years to study, it has now become the norm for the corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years to complete a study; and it is no wonder it is taking so much time, since the corps has to review in detail many different alternatives. Too often, we allow Federal agencies, including the Corps of Engineers, to literally study projects to death.

This conference report accelerates the Corps of Engineers study delivery process by limiting studies to 3 years and $3 million.

In addition, we accelerate the study delivery process by requiring concurrent reviews by the district, division, and headquarters level personnel. Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies for the length of time it takes to carry them out.

The corps reviews far too many alternatives and then sends to Congress a project request that far exceeds in scope and cost what was initially intended.

Too often, non-Federal interests and their contributions are forced to sit on the sidelines while our international competitors race past us. This conference report empowers non-Federal interests and ensures projects will be completed faster and cheaper with local support.

Too often, resources from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are diverted to activities unrelated to keeping U.S. ports competitive in a global marketplace. This conference report creates the incentive to spend the funds for their intended purpose.

One of the most important elements of this legislation is that it ensures the legislative branch engages in the Water Resources Development Act process at least once every Congress.

By working together, the conference committee has accomplished what many have said could not be done, produce an authorization bill for the Army Corps of Engineers without earmarks.

In order to get these needed reforms in place and to establish the new process for future authorizations, I urge all Members to support the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3590, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013.

I would like to speak specifically to title VI of the bill.

The fundamental constitutional right to bear arms must be protected for all law-abiding citizens. Americans deserve the right to exercise their rights to not only enjoy recreational activities, but also provide self-defense for themselves and their loved ones.

In the 111th Congress, this body passed legislation that ultimately became law which allows for guns to be legally possessed and carried on lands within our National Parks. Following enactment of that legislation, the Army Corps of Engineers immediately issued the following release:

Public Law 111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or

facilities. The passage of this new law does not affect

application of title 36 regulations.

The Corps administers over 11.7 million acres of land, including 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 campsites, and 4,000 miles of trails. Much of this land is remote and without quick access to emergency services or law enforcement, so the ability to carry a firearm in the case of emergency is imperative.

This Army Corps policy preempts State regulatory frameworks for transporting and carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapons permits and other State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Title VI of the bill is aimed at protecting these rights by ensuring the right to carry at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Development Projects. Specifically, this legislation prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that prevents an individual from possessing firearms on these properties, thereby restoring the continuity to Federal law.

Gun owners need to able to exercise their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps projects.

I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Representative Latta, for including my bill into this piece of legislation.

I urge Members to support title VI and this legislation as a whole.

This week, Americans, the administration, along with the media, are starting to see the harmful effects of ObamaCare on our country.

Many Ohioans are experiencing sticker shock and are desperately worried if they will have coverage at all and if they will keep their doctor. A constituent recently told me that his hours were cut to part- time in order for his employer to keep the business running. A man from Canton, Ohio, called in and will see his premiums increase by 700 percent due to this harmful law. A single mother of two young boys from Ashland, Ohio, will not be able to afford the increase in price of her premium each month under ObamaCare. When she wrote in, she asked a great question:

If this is the Affordable Care Act, why can I no longer

afford my health care insurance?

It seems as though my constituents have more common sense than those who wrote this devastating law.

I, along with my colleagues in the House, remain committed to protecting Americans from this law and ensuring that you are in charge of your health care decisions, not some bureaucrat here in Washington. Whether it is the doctor's office, the gas pump, the dinner table, or in the job market, Washington is standing in the way of hardworking Americans, and it is just not fair.

Mr. Chairman, now is the time for the Congress to reengage in the development of the Nation's water resources and play a bigger role in prioritizing projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Congress cannot abdicate its constitutional responsibility in determining what projects should go forward and should reassert its constitutional authority.

H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, is one of the most policy- and reform-focused pieces of legislation related to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

H.R. 3080 is a bipartisan bill that was developed by working across the aisle to achieve a common goal of investing in America's future.

H.R. 3080 contains no earmarks, cuts Federal red tape, streamlines the project delivery process, and strengthens our water transportation networks to promote competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth.

H.R. 3080 is a jobs bill. $1.4 trillion worth of goods associated with 30 million jobs in international trade are impacted. Thousands of jobs are created and supported by the construction and maintenance of our waterways and locks and dams.

This bill is fiscally responsible by more than fully offsetting new project authorizations with deauthorizations of old, inactive projects.

This bill establishes a path forward for enacting a WRRDA bill every 2 years without conceding any congressional authority to the executive branch.

This committee held numerous listening sessions, public roundtables, and official hearings in developing the legislation. We have heard from the public, industry, stakeholders, and from our colleagues in Congress while developing this legislation and have incorporated their ideas into H.R. 3080.

Just because a study is costly, complex, and long does not necessarily mean it is a better project. In fact, a large, costly project with so many add-ons that never gets funded is a benefit to no one.

In what used to take the Army Corps 3 to 5 years to do a study has now become the norm for the Corps to take 10, 12, or even 15 years to produce a study. It is no wonder it is taking so much time, since the Corps has to review, in detail, many different alternatives.

In one case, a Chief's Report was sent to the Congress last year. The study for the project was authorized in 1999. The original purpose of the project was for navigation improvements. But when the Chief's Report was delivered to the Congress last year, the total project cost was $650 million, but only $250 million was for the actual construction of the navigation improvements. The rest of the project costs, almost $400 million, are attributed to environmental enhancements, not just environmental mitigation.

In another case, the Corps of Engineers delivered to Congress a Chief's Report for which there is no non-Federal cost-share partner. That study took 7 years to develop, but since there is no non-Federal sponsor, why should Congress authorize the project? The funding spent on that study could have been spent more wisely on projects where there are non-Federal sponsors and local support.

Too often, we allow Federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers, to literally study these projects to death. H.R. 3080 accelerates the Corps of Engineers study delivery process by limiting studies to 3 years and $3 million. In addition, we accelerate the study delivery process by requiring concurrent reviews at the district-, division-, and headquarters-level personnel.

Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on the hook for these studies and for the length of time it takes to carry them out. The Corps reviews far too many alternatives and then sends to Congress a project request that far exceeds, in scope and costs, what was initially intended.

Too often, non-Federal interests and their contributions are forced to sit on the sidelines while our international competitors race past us. H.R. 3080 empowers non-Federal interests and ensures projects will be completed faster and cheaper with local support.

Too often, resources from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are diverted to other activities unrelated to keeping the U.S. ports competitive in a global marketplace. H.R. 3080 creates the incentive to spend the funds for their intended purpose in a manner that all ports agree upon.

One of the most important elements of this legislation is that it ensures the legislative branch engages in the Water Resources Development Act process at least once every Congress.

I appreciate Messrs. Shuster, Rahall, and Bishop's bipartisan support. By working together, we can accomplish solid goals to get this done.

I urge the reforms pass.

I want to thank my subcommittee staff--Geoff Bowman, John Anderson, Jon Pallow--and my personal staff--Corry Marshall and Joe Price--for their efforts.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan manager's amendment.

In this amendment, we provide clarity related to expediting projects while authorizing the Corps of Engineers to move to pre-construction, planning, engineering, and design activities immediately following a completed feasibility study. This will ensure work will continue without stops and starts in the study process.

We authorize non-Federal interests with the ability to carry out work at their own expense pursuant to an unauthorized yet completed feasibility study if the non-Federal interest agrees to carry out the work subject to any State or Federal permitting departments, and that the non-Federal interests carry out the project in accordance with the feasibility study.

We request that the Corps of Engineers review the uses and economic feasibility of nonstructural alternatives in their review of existing authorities for clearing-out work after a storm event. We have made technical and conforming changes to the bill.

We developed this amendment working closely with Members to address several key issues and to improve upon the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

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

Mr. Speaker, like myself and many Americans, I am very frustrated over the inaction of Congress to get its work done; but let's look back at what has happened over the last week or so.

The House Republicans, we have sent bills over to the Democratically- controlled Senate to open the government, to run the government, to fund the government. We have sent, starting from delaying ObamaCare, which most Americans have serious problems with, to other bills, and I want to talk about the latter two that we sent.

One was to fund the government completely until December 15, but also with two exceptions. The one exception is that Members of Congress and the President would live by the same rules under ObamaCare that all Americans have to. The other exception is ObamaCare. We need to delay those rules, and let's move on.

The people that talk about the status quo in American history here, the status quo, if you vote for a clean CR, you want the status quo to remain the same. That means unemployment stays where it is, forcing Americans into part-time work. We need structural changes to the underlying problems. We need to address why our debt keeps going up.

The President, yesterday, in his news conference, talked about raising the debt ceiling doesn't increase the debt ceiling, doesn't increase spending. Well, I wish the President would answer to me: When he took office, the debt was $10 trillion; now it is approaching $17 trillion. How does raising the debt ceiling not increase the debt?

The President talks about it is unprecedented, talking about the debt ceiling and having negotiations would be unprecedented if we do that. Well, Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill did it. Bill Clinton did it. President Obama did it in 2011 under the Budget Control Act. It is not unprecedented. And, interestingly, the time the President has been forced to negotiate are times when we have had crises that we have had to address, and the President did that in 2011.

If ObamaCare is so good and it is the President's signature piece of legislation, he ought to be the first one to sign up for it. I believe the First Family ought to be the first in line to sign up for ObamaCare. But, you know what? The President of the United States is exempt from ObamaCare. It doesn't make sense. He ought to have to live by his own bills that he supported and pressed through.

We talk about compromise. I am sure the President doesn't watch FOX News, but I think Bill O'Reilly has a compromise that maybe makes some sense. The individual mandate--that was one of the things we put in there, in one of those bills--we said delay the individual mandate for 1 year. The President delayed the employer mandate for 1 year. It only makes sense, especially when you see so many people having trouble signing up, getting on and all the uncertainty. We are getting reports

now of premiums going through the roof, higher deductibles, higher copays, and we need to delay it.

One of the items we said in the bill was to delay the individual mandate for 1 year. That was rejected by the Senate. Also, we sent a bill over there to say, Okay, if you don't take that, let's just go to conference. Let's sit down and talk. Let's negotiate.

But I think the compromise Bill O'Reilly put out on FOX News the other night makes some sense. Make the individual mandate voluntary, but don't force people to go on this. Delay it for 1 year. Don't force people to go on this and risk their privacy concerns, force them to pay higher insurance premiums for insurance they may not need. Let's see what happens.

As ObamaCare moves through, I think that is a compromise that makes some sense, and the President ought to look at that and talk about that; but in order to do that, he needs to come to the table. He needs to sit down with House Republicans and negotiate and work through the problems. That is how our system of government was set up, and that is how it is supposed to work. The Founders had that right, especially in divided government. So I encourage the President.

Now, this morning there are some reports that the President is inviting the House and Senate Democrats to the White House later today, and supposedly we are going to get an invitation here soon. That is encouraging. I hope he is serious about sitting down and working out the differences, because we have to get back to the work the American people expect us to do.

So I look forward to sitting down with the President and our leadership and working through these problems and getting the government going; but we can't do it without sitting down and talking and making sense and representing the American people, because we were elected to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the benefits of cancer research and the importance of the National Institutes of Health, or NIH.

In my home State of Ohio, over 66,000 people will be diagnosed with cancer this year and over 25,000 will lose their battle with this devastating disease. Like every State, Ohio receives essential funding from the NIH each year. The NIH funds lifesaving medical research leading to the development of innovative ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer. This research takes place at universities, hospitals, cancer centers, and labs across my State, including the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center and the James Cancer Center at Ohio State University.

In addition to the benefits of combating cancer and so many other diseases, NIH funding also produces tens of billions of dollars in new economic activity across the country. According to the Ohio Council of Medical Deans, every dollar invested in biomedical research translates to a $2.21 investment in the local economy. In 2012 alone, Ohio received almost $800 million in NIH funding, which supported more than 13,000 jobs.

Cancer is a disease that does not discriminate against age or race. Many people have friends or loved ones who have been affected by this terrible disease. I urge my colleagues to support cancer research.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 107 of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill.

Section 107 prohibits the Corps of Engineers from developing, adopting, implementing, administrating, or enforcing any change to the Corps and EPA rules and guidance defining the waters of the United States. This provision is aimed at the so-called ``guidance'' which the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers have developed to expand the extent of waters covered by the Clean Water Act. This so-called guidance goes far beyond merely clarifying the scope of waters subject to the Clean Water Act programs. This guidance has been sitting around for nearly 3 years and is acting as de facto law.

By the agency's own admission, the guidance would substantially change Federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and significantly increase the scope of the Federal Government's power to regulate waters and land associated with those waters.

The effect of the guidance will be to reverse the decisions by the United States Supreme Court that recognized limits to the Federal Government's regulatory authority and to undermine the longstanding Federal-State partnership in the regulation of waters. This expansion has resulted in confusion, permitting delays, and added costs and burdens for communities, farmers, small businessmen, industries, and other Americans.

The administration has issued this so-called ``guidance'' and has refused to go to the rulemaking process, which violates the principles of the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA, and the intent of Congress when they enacted the law. The APA sets the standards for the activities and rulemaking for all Federal regulatory agencies and is designed to ensure those Federal agencies use open, uniform, and fair procedures. The requirements of the APA are not mere formalities.

In unilaterally developing its guidance, the administration has ignored calls from the State agencies and environmental groups, as well as Members of Congress, including almost half the Members of the House of Representatives, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures and has avoided consulting with the States, which are the Federal agency partners, in implementing the Clean Water Act.

This amendment condones the administration's willingness to ignore the requirements of the APA and supports the administration's Federal jurisdictional power grab under the Clean Water Act.

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

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment to strike section 112 of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The current regulatory definition of the term ``fill material'' is consistent with EPA and the Corps' longstanding practice and ensures that necessary placement of excess rock and soil generated by construction and development projects in waters in the United States are regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This current rule brings certainty and protects the environment.

Both the EPA and the Corps have stated they are considering revising the definition of fill material. If unelected bureaucrats redefine this important definition, it would have a significant impact on the ability of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction projects, and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act section 404 permits.

Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and further this administration's assault on over 1 million jobs that are dependent on the economic output generated by these operations. Congress should therefore reject any attempts to add a new, inappropriately narrow definition of the term ``fill material'' that will not only harm existing operations but would also halt many new job-creating projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, as of today, 85 percent of the offshore areas have been blocked from offshore drilling by the Obama administration. The energy legislation on the floor this week makes significant strides towards increasing our offshore production.

Additional energy production contributes to lowering fuel prices at a time when gas prices are over 100 percent higher than when President Obama took office.

H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, creates 1.2 million American jobs over the long term by removing Federal barriers to offshore energy production. According to the CBO, the legislation would also generate $1.5 billion in new Federal revenues over the 10-year period, which helps pay down our outrageous national debt.

This important legislation grows the economy and creates American jobs at a time of high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. Furthermore, it puts us on a path to energy independence and security by decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

We need to stand together to support this legislation that addresses our soaring gas prices and our sinking economy.