Bob Gibbs

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. With the modification, I think this is a good amendment. I want to commend my colleague for offering it because I think we will get an accurate report from the EPA when they do their study on whether we're making progress because of H.R. 2018 or if we're going backwards. So I think it's important to have this amendment modified to provide those words ``or reductions.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Modification to Amendment No. 4

Mr. GIBBS. EPA's role in regulating pipelines is minimal as compared to the role of other agencies. This bill would have little effect on regulating pipelines. Therefore, we can accept this amendment.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize and restate that the States are operating under an already approved plan from the U.S. EPA which addresses these concerns, so I don't see how we go backwards, because they're operating within the framework that was set up. By the way, under the Clean Water Act, that plan is reviewed every 3 years. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GIBBS. Under the gentleman from Missouri's amendment, if a State has made a disaster declaration any time in the last 5 years, H.R. 2018 would not be applicable to waters in the area. This amendment would continue to allow the EPA to overturn State-established and U.S. EPA- approved water quality standards and unilaterally impose federally dictated permitting and other regulatory requirements on States and other disaster responders. This, in turn, would impact on the ability of States and other disaster responders to respond to and conduct cleanups after major flood disasters and would discourage States from seeking disaster assistance. I urge all Members to oppose the Carnahan amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. The gentleman from Colorado seems to suggest that States would continue to allow polluters to pollute waters of their States under H.R. 2018 unless this amendment is adopted. Nothing could be further from the truth. If H.R. 2018 degraded water quality, none of us would support this legislation. I also question the implementation of the amendment. If you had a permit holder who is in significant noncompliance, does that negate water quality provisions for the water body the permit holder may be polluting? Of course not. Nothing in H.R. 2018 allows a permit holder to violate the terms of a permit. I urge all Members to oppose the Polis amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. Almost four decades ago, when it enacted the Clean Water Act, Congress established a system of cooperative federalism by making the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, and the States partners in regulating the Nation's water quality and allocated the primary responsibilities for dealing with day-to-day water pollution control matters to the States. For most of these almost four decades, this system of cooperative federalism between the EPA and the States has worked quite well. However, in recent years, the EPA has begun to use questionable tactics to usurp the States' role under the Clean Water Act in setting water quality standards and to invalidate legally issued permits by the States. EPA has decided to get involved in the implementation of State standards, second-guessing States with respect to how standards are to be implemented and even second-guessing EPA's own prior determinations that the State standards meet the minimum requirements for the Clean Water Act. EPA has also inserted itself into the States and the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance decisions and the second-guessing State and other agencies' permitting decisions. The EPA's recent actions increasingly are amounting to bullying the States and are unprecedented. H.R. 2018 was introduced to clarify and restore the longstanding balance that had existed between the States and the EPA as coregulators under the Clean Water Act and to preserve the authority of States to make determinations relating to their water quality standards and permitting. The bill was carefully and narrowly crafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own water quality standards and permits without undue interference on second-guessing from EPA bureaucrats in Washington with little or no knowledge of local water quality conditions. The legislation reins in EPA from unilaterally issuing a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant adopted by a State and EPA already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant. H.R. 2018 restricts EPA from withdrawing its previous approval of a State NPDES water quality permitting program or from limiting Federal financial assistance for a State water quality permitting program on the basis that EPA disagrees with the State. Further, the bill restricts EPA from objecting to NPDES permits issued by a State. Moreover, the bill clarifies that EPA can veto an Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 404 permitting decision when the State concurs with the veto. These limitations apply only in situations where EPA is attempting to contradict and unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal policies on a State's water quality program. By limiting such overreaching by the EPA, H.R. 2018 in no way affects EPA's proper role in reviewing State permits and standards and coordination pollution control efforts between the States. EPA just has to get back to the more collaborative role it has long played as the overseer of the States' implementation of the Clean Water Act. Detractors of this legislation claim that the bill only intends to disrupt the complementary roles of EPA and the States under the Clean Water Act and eliminate EPA's ability to protect water quality and public health in downstream States from actions in upstream States. In reality, these detractors want to centralize power in the Federal Government so it can dominate water quality regulation in the States. Implicit in their message is that they do not trust the States in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens. This bill returns the balance, certainty, and cooperation between the States and the Federal Government in regards to the environment that our economy, job creators, and permit holders have been begging for. Well over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities support this legislation. Just to name a few, these organizations include the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, the National Water Resources Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the Associated General Contractors of America. July 12, 2011. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Urging Swift Passage of the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018) Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The undersigned 121 organizations, representing a broad cross- section of the American economy, are united in their strong support for the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (H.R. 2018), a bipartisan bill passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 22. The bill would reaffirm the decades-old state-federal relationship set out in the Clean Water Act (CWA) by addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ongoing regulatory overreach. We urge all House members to vote for passage of this important legislation when it is considered on the House floor later this week. H.R. 2018 has important job creation, economic security, and federalism implications. Over the years, EPA has repeatedly challenged states' authority and expertise under the CWA and asserted its control as the sole arbiter of evolving CWA permitting requirements and standards. The agency's actions jeopardize more than $220 billion of annual economic activity subject to CWA Sec. 402 and 404 permits. H.R. 2018 would help put people back to work and create new jobs in the sectors our members serve by restoring the proper balance between EPA and the states in regulating the nation's waters, protecting the CWA's system of cooperative federalism, and preventing EPA from second-guessing or delaying a state's CWA permitting and water quality certification decisions. We urge swift enactment of H.R. 2018 and look forward to working with you to accomplish that important objective. Sincerely, Agricultural Retailers Association; Alabama Cattlemen's Association; American Concrete Pavement Association; American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Rental Association; American Road & Transportation Builders Association; American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona Rock Products Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; The Associated General Contractors of America; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; Buckeye Valley Chamber of Commerce; Chamber of Commerce of the Mid-Ohio Valley; Chemical Producers & Distributors Association; Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Colorado Livestock Association; CropLife America; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Deep South Equipment Dealers Association; Delaware State Chamber of Commerce; Edison Electric Institute; Equipment Distributors Association of Minnesota; Far West Equipment Dealer Association. Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association; The Fertilizer Institute; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; Georgia Construction Aggregate Association; Georgia Mining Association; Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce; Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce; Idaho Cattle Association; Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Illinois Coal Association; Industrial Minerals Association--North America; Iowa Cattlemen's Association; Iowa Limestone Producers Association; Iowa-Nebraska Equipment Dealers Association; Kansas Aggregate Producers Association; Kansas Livestock Association; Kansas Ready Mixed Concrete Association; Kentucky Association of Manufacturers; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky Coal Association; Kentucky Crushed Stone Association, Inc.; Lodi Chamber of Commerce; Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Aggregates Association; Mid-America Equipment Retailers Association; Midwest Equipment Dealers Association; Minnesota-South Dakota Equipment Dealers Association; Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Montana Equipment Dealers Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association; National Asphalt Pavement Association; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers. National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn Growers Association; National Milk Producers Federation; National Mining Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Precast Concrete Association; National Ready Mixed Concrete Association; National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; National Water Resources Association; Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc.; North American Equipment Dealers Association; North Dakota Implement Dealers Association; Northeast Equipment Dealers Association, Inc.; NUCA Representing Utility and Excavation Contractors. Ohio Aggregates & Industrial Minerals Association; Ohio Chamber of Commerce; Ohio Equipment Distributors Association; Ohio-Michigan Equipment Dealers Association; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Pacific Northwest Hardware & Implement Association; Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Aggregates and Concrete Association; Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; Portland Cement Association; Public Lands Council; Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment; Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce; Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce; South Dakota Agri-Business Association; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association; South East Dairy Farmers Association; SouthEastern Equipment Dealers Association; South Western Association; Tennessee Concrete Association; Tennessee Road Builders Association; Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; U.S. Cattlemen's Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Egg Producers; USA Rice Federation; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Utah Farm Bureau Federation; The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; Utah Wool Growers Association; Virginia Agribusiness Council; Virginia Grain Producers Association; Virginia Poultry Federation; Washington Aggregates & Concrete Association; Washington Cattlemen's Association; Washington Farm Bureau; West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; West Virginia Coal Association; West Virginia Manufacturers Association; Western Business Roundtable; Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Crop Improvement Association; Wyoming Stock Growers.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. GIBBS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2018 and to also include extraneous materials and letters of support into the Congressional Record.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, as we have seen time and time again, this motion is nothing more than a partisan political move. There has been ample time for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suggest amendments to this bill in regular order. As we've been doing all year, our Republican majority is openly considering bills through the committee process and full consideration by the House. This bill is no exception. And yet here we have a last-minute motion that is designed to ensure that EPA can continue to unilaterally force its own one-size-fits-all Federal policies onto the States' water quality programs. The underlying bill, H.R. 2018, reestablishes the States' balanced role in carrying out the provisions of the Clean Water Act. But this motion, in effect, says that the underlying bill will not apply virtually anywhere the Clean Water Act applies. Implicitly, this motion also says that the States cannot be trusted in protecting the quality of their waters and the health of their citizens, and the Federal Government knows best. The fact is that our bill is the result of bipartisan work that will protect against unwarranted intrusions by the U.S. EPA. It ensures the continuation of longstanding cooperation between the Federal Government and the States to appropriately issue regulations. Passage of the underlying bill will stop the EPA from repeatedly creating regulatory uncertainty and forcing unnecessary and endless delays, and the time to act is now. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 872) 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, as amended.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

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. 872.

Mr. GIBBS. I urge passage of 872, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the concerns raised by my colleague, the ranking member of my committee. Sunset provision, it's not really necessary because this Congress can take it up anytime they want. They don't have to wait 5 years. They can take it up next week, next year. So I think that's just making a kind of a statement. A couple of things I want to address. There was a reference to the geological survey. That reference was a report done over 10 years ago; and, really, with the detections we're finding in pesticides in our water bodies there are a lot of those pollutants from what we call legacy pollutants from years ago. Some of those detections are pesticides that haven't been used in the United States for many years. And, also, a majority of these detections are very, very low concentrations. We do have the technology to detect parts per trillion where not too many years it was parts per million, which are well below human health benchmarks. As I said, the data is old. EPA, in the last 10 years or so, does regulate the pesticides. They certify pesticides coming on the market and the amounts that can be used under FIFRA. So that is working. The EPA can pull a product off the market if they deem necessary, if there's a problem. The pesticides we're using today, and I'm speaking now as a farmer, are more biodegradable. They don't have the residue impact legacy. They don't stay around. They don't stick around in the soil. They break down in the soil. As a matter of fact, so many of our pesticides now break down so fast that farmers have to time the application to make sure they kill the weeds and there's enough--it's not too soon that the crop, what we call cover crop, shades out the sun for the weeds to come up underneath the canopy. And so that's important. We're using less pesticides. The numbers will show that American agriculture is using less pesticides in lesser amounts and safer pesticides with the biodegradable aspect that we're seeing. I think it's also important to keep in mind that this bill, it will help bring certainty. Agriculture producers, municipalities have to spray for mosquitos this summer; they know what the rules are. They have certainty to move forward by passing this legislation. This legislation does not stop the EPA's having control over the regulation of pesticides and the certification of pesticides. And, again, many States also have pesticide applicator certification, depending on the pesticide, make a lot of applicators go through the same process. So there's some stringent rules and regulations in place. And I would contend that FIFRA is working. If it's not, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel that's not working, then we need to address FIFRA and have a bill to work on that, debate that issue. But I think you'll find out that agriculture's moving in a safer manner to protect the environment; and this bill will keep the FIFRA in place and the EPA under their authority and their control to protect the environment and public safety when it comes especially to mosquito control districts.

Mr. GIBBS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. I recently introduced H.R. 872 to clarify congressional intent regarding how the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters should be regulated. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, also known as FIFRA, has long been the Federal regulatory statute that governs the sale and use of pesticides in the United States. However, more recently, as a 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. As a result, an additional set of permits will be required for the use of pesticides. H.R. 872 is aimed at reversing a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Cotton Council vs. EPA. In this ruling, 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 it judicially expanded the scope of Clean Water Act regulation further into areas and activities not originally envisioned or intended by Congress. 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 who perform some 5.6 million pesticide applications annually, will be affected by the court's ruling. This will virtually double the number of entities currently subject to NPDES permitting under the Clean Water Act. With this ill-advised court decision, the States and a wide range of public and private pesticide users will face increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting process, and all of this expense comes with no additional environmental protection. This new permitting process was meant to take effect on April 9 of this year. However, just 2 days ago, the Sixth Circuit granted an extension through October 31, 2011. The court's extension only temporarily postpones the need for an NPDES permit for pesticide use, and does not completely eliminate the need for this legislation. H.R. 872 fixes the problem. It 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 where the use is in compliance with FIFRA pesticide label requirements. H.R. 872 was drafted very narrowly to address the Sixth Circuit's holding the National Cotton Council case and return the state of pesticide regulation to the status quo before the court got involved. This bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee and passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 46-8. Many organizations, representing a wide variety of public and private entities, support a legislative resolution of this issue. Just to name a few, these organizations include: The National Association of Counties; the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; the National Water Resources Association; the American Mosquito Control Association; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the National Farmers Union; CropLife America; and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Chairman Schmidt for her leadership on this bill in both the Agriculture and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. I also want to thank the ranking members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment and of Transportation and Infrastructure for their support of the bill. In addition, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership of 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. 872. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. GIBBS

Mr. GIBBS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with many of my newly elected colleagues, as one of the Members that came to Washington to stop the ``red tape'' factory of regulations and help businesses get back to creating jobs. In every community I visit in my district, I have met a business owner who is fed up with spending tremendous amounts of money to comply with unlimited, burdensome regulation--or have invested dollars that are tied up for months or even years waiting for Federal agencies to make the decisions held up by regulations and also the permitting process. This is what I came to Congress to stop. These rulemakings create uncertainty and costs, as the details of the regulations take extensive periods of time to finalize. At a time when job creation is paramount to economic recovery, businesses are being forced to postpone decisions on hiring and expansion. A prime example of these harmful regulations is a company in my district that asked the EPA in 2001 to make changes to the Land Disposal Restrictions to ensure proper treatment and promote recycling. EPA decided to take a different track on their request, and 10 years later that company is still waiting for an answer--10 years later. This has to stop. Another example, EPA has overextended its authority over 404 permits by allowing a permit to be issued, then years later, retroactively vetoing the exact same permit. By doing so, it not only leaves the business questioning the worth of the permit, it leaves investors wondering if they can commit funding to a project without fear of the EPA arbitrarily revoking the permit. EPA has fundamentally changed the term from ``permit'' to ``perhaps.'' This has to stop. We need to hold our regulators accountable and make sure they are carrying out the intent of the law, not enhancing their own agenda or stifling economic and job recovery.