Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SCHMIDT. I rise in support of the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we act in a timely manner on H.R. 872 to ensure that our small businesses, farmers, communities, counties, and State and Federal agencies will not be burdened with a costly, duplicative permit requirement that offers no environmental or health benefits. It is important to note that pesticides play an important role in protecting our Nation's food supply, public health, natural resources, infrastructure, and green spaces. They are used not only to protect crops from destructive pests, but also to manage mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests, invasive weeds, and animals that can choke our waterways, impede our power generation, and damage our forests and recreational areas.
The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 amends FIFRA and the Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement of a permit for applications of pesticides approved for use under FIFRA. This Act is being passed in response to National Cotton Council v. EPA, which found NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is not intended to exempt waste-streams or discharges from regulation simply because they may contain pesticides or pesticide residues. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes clear that the NPDES exemption only addresses discharges of pesticide or pesticide residue resulting from applications consistent with FIFRA. The legislation does not exempt applications of pesticides that violate the relevant requirements of FIFRA.
There have been accusations that this bill would cause contamination of our waterways. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge those accusations. Today, some will argue in defending the Sixth Circuit Court decision that pesticide applications were a violation of FIFRA. The case in question is the Talent Water District in Jackson County, Oregon, where it is claimed that the application of pesticides in violation of the FIFRA label resulted in a fish kill of more than 92,000 juvenile steelhead. I point out that these pesticide applications were in violation of FIFRA and the requirements of FIFRA, and therefore would be addressed under that law. Requiring a duplicative permit under the Clean Water Act would not offer any additional environmental safety standard.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 872 is a simple fix. The legislation before us passed unanimously through the House Agriculture Committee and with an overwhelming 46-8 vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This proves that this is not a partisan issue but an issue of such importance that Republicans and Democrats and even the EPA have worked together to provide a solution.
H.R. 872 makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to require this redundant layer of bureaucracy, especially since the EPA already comprehensively regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. Although the court did extend the effective date of its order to October 31, it did not fix the underlying problem. The impact on all pesticide users required to obtain this extra permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burdensome cost or real impact on their livelihoods. The only things this extension provides is more months of regulatory uncertainty.
I ask my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation and to ensure that FIFRA remains the standard for pesticide regulation. Let us help protect our mutual constituency from duplicative obligations that provide no qualified benefit to human health or environmental concerns.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source