The Honorable Donna F. Edwards
Debate on H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
July 30, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clear up a couple of points here.
For the record, 45 States actually manage their own pesticide programs. So it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government or the EPA.
In fact, contrary to what we have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker, small applicators are already covered. They don’t need to do anything. They are covered already under the permitting process.
And then just to be clear, in fact, in the management of those 45 States – a State like Idaho, for example, currently has 122 active permits, and there has been no charge for that permit. It is free from the Federal Government. And that is true for actually a number of States.
Now, we have heard about the dramatic effect that the regulations would have. But, in fact, for almost 3 years now, there has been no drama. The process has worked well. And confusing the FIFRA process and the purposes of the Clean Water Act, I think in some ways, is what brings us here today. As I said earlier, they are very distinct. And, in fact, just because we need to cover applying pesticides and controlling the way that those are applied and the application doesn’t absolve us of a responsibility also to make certain that our water bodies are clean.
There is another myth, actually, that has been put forward here that we have heard. And that is that maintaining the Clean Water Act would subject pesticide applicators to litigation and increase citizen suits. In fact, this is false. If a pesticide applicator abides by the terms of the Clean Water Act, the pesticide general permit – which applies in accordance with the FIFRA label and minimizes the use of the pesticide and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts –
they are, by the terms of the Clean Water Act, immune from lawsuits by any party.
Another myth that we have just heard here is that the permitting process, Mr. Speaker, the FIFRA requirements and the Clean Water Act, are duplicative. As I have said earlier, FIFRA addresses the safety and effectiveness on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. In contrast, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies, with direct considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to specific waters. So measuring the human health and environment with uniform labeling and protecting the waters are two separate purposes.
Another myth that we have heard here is that most of the pesticides that are contained in the existing studies are legacy pesticides that are no longer used domestically. There is no evidence of pesticide contamination by currently used pesticides. This is absolutely false.
Although the U.S. Geological Survey did publish a report in 2006 that documented how pesticides were detected in every stream tested by the USGS, including pesticides such as DDT and chlordane that were previously banned as recently as 2014, the USGS has published several research studies showing how more recently developed pesticides and insecticides are being detected as widespread in streams in high corn and soybean regions of the United States.
So we have heard a lot of mythology here, but it is important for Congress to deal in reality. So I just wanted to clear those things for the record.
And I would inquire of the gentleman if he has additional requests for time because I am prepared to close.
