Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

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

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

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

Mr. GIBBS

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

Mr. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS. 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.

Mr. GIBBS. 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 FIFRA. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS

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

Mr. GIBBS

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

Mr. GIBBS. 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. GIBBS. 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.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. 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.