The Honorable Donna F. Edwards
Opening Statement in Opposition to H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
July 30, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 935.
In the 112th Congress, the Republican leadership moved similar legislation under the guise that, unless Congress acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome that it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and public health-related activities.
Now, some may say that this may be a bit of hyperbole to describe the impacts of the Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide general permit. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the Agency’s draft permit went into effect with the almost nonexistent level of concern expressed after almost 3 years of implementation, you would likely question why we are here this evening debating this bill.
Contrary to the rhetoric, the EPA and the States have successfully drafted and implemented a new pesticide general permit, a PGP, for the last 2 1/2 years that adopted several commonsense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. They do so in a way that allows pesticide applicators to meet their vital public health, agricultural, and forestry-related activities in a cost-effective manner.
This sky has not fallen. Farmers and forestry operators have had two successful growing seasons, and public health officials successfully addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while, at the same time, complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA.
I say “sensible” because, as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different. FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions. Very sensible. However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality – two very distinct purposes.
It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirements is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. Farmers do not need to look to the localized impact of the pesticide on local water quality.
So why are groups, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to CropLife America, so adamantly opposed to this regulation?
Let’s explore that.
One plausible answer is that these groups do not want to come out of the regulatory shadows that have allowed unknown individuals to discharge unknown pesticides, in unknown quantities, with unknown mixtures, and at unknown locations.
I wonder how the American public would react to the fact that, for decades, pesticide sprayers could apply massive amounts of potentially harmful materials almost completely below the radar.
In fact, prior to the issuance of the pesticide general permit, the only hard evidence on pesticide usage in this country came from a voluntary sampling of the types and amounts of pesticides that were purchased from the commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive information was available or required on the quantities, types, or locations of pesticides applied in this country.
Based on that practice, I guess we should not be surprised that, for decades, pesticides have been detected in the majority of our Nation’s surface and groundwater, which leads me to question how eliminating any reporting requirement on the use of pesticides is protective of human health and the environment. All this would do is make it harder to locate the sources of pesticide contamination in our Nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams, and it would make the accountability for these discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides than those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world.
During the debate this past Monday, several speakers questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of these benefits are so obvious that it is not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked.
First, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharges through the use of pesticide management measures, such as integrated pest management. I find it very difficult to argue that using an appropriate amount of pesticides for certain applications would be a problem.
Second, it is the Clean Water Act, not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish or wildlife kills would actually be a mutually agreed-upon benefit.
Also, it is the Clean Water Act and not FIFRA that requires pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being applied throughout the Nation. Again, if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think the public would want to quickly identify the likely sources of pesticide that is causing the impairment.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware that, despite repeated requests to both EPA and the States, of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing their services.
So despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act has not significantly increased the compliance costs to States or individual pesticide sprayers, nor has it been used as a tool by outside groups or the EPA to ban the use of pesticides.
So let me summarize just a few points.
One, the Clean Water Act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate times and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment.
Number two, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has imposed no impediment on the ability of pesticide applicators to provide their valuable service to both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered by the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by filing of an electronic notice of intent.
Three, Federal and State data make clear that application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the Nation from being contaminated by pesticides. So, if we care about water quality, more needed to be done.
I can see no legitimate reason why we would want to allow any user of potentially harmful chemicals to return to the regulatory shadows that existed prior to the issuance of Clean Water Act pesticide general permits. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative, or significant financial burden, and it has been implemented seamlessly across country. As was stated during the debate on Monday, this legislation is seeking to address a pretend problem that simply does not exist.
I urge a “no” vote on H.R. 935, and I reserve the balance of my time.
