Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. This evening, we are, once again, considering H.R. 935, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. Many of you will remember that the House voted in support of this legislation 3 years ago. That bill, H.R. 872, passed the House floor on suspension with a vote of 292-130.

This same language was included in the 2012 farm bill that was reported out of the Agricultural Committee, as well as the 2013 farm bill, which the House sent to the farm bill conference. It was included in the committee-reported text of the fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, due to the opposition from a couple of our friends in the Senate, we have been unable to get this bill to the President's desk, which we know, once done, will guarantee his signature.

As many of you may recall, this language was drafted

at our request for technical assistance by the EPA general counsel. The problem we asked the EPA to help resolve stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit. This decision nullified a 2006 EPA regulation that exempted certain pesticides from having to comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.

My colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, gave a very nice speech. And she mentioned several times the potential problem of contaminating creeks, the potential problems of this pesticide causing all of these problems that we haven't seen. We don't have the facts on that, and to regulate something that is already regulated--and I must caution everybody how these drugs and how these pesticides come out. They go through extensive testing. Millions of dollars are spent by these industries. And the intent by those pressing to have federally registered pesticides regulated through the Clean Water Act is unnecessary, it is costly, and it ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of compliance costs for a variety of public agencies, adding to their legal jeopardy and threatening pesticide applicators, including mosquito control districts, with fines set at $37,500 per day per violation. All I can say is, welcome to going out of business if you are in the private sector.

Across the country, several mosquito control districts may have to cease operations due to these costs. If this occurs, it would expose large portions of the population to mosquitoes carrying a number of dangerous and exotic diseases, such as West Nile virus. Hospitalization and rehab costs ranging from the tens of thousands into the millions of dollars, lost productivity, a decrease in tourism, and negative impacts on horses and livestock production are but a few of the costs that will further strain public health resources.

Being a veterinarian for the last 30 years, I have seen effects of mosquito-borne diseases. In addition, the West Nile virus causes deaths, from alligators to humans. Also, diseases such as Eastern encephalitis are transmittable to people, along with dengue fever, which is moving its way up from the Caribbean through the peninsula of Florida, and it will, no doubt, get up further to the mainland of the United States of America, in addition to the heartworm disease in our pets.

This unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and State interests but also to Federal agency lands located in States directly regulated by the EPA. For example, Federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, authorize the use of some of their lands for many purposes, including recreation and agriculture. These uses often require pesticide applications to prevent mosquito-borne transmitted diseases and for other purposes.

Although the local mosquito control district may be the entity actually applying the pesticide, the Army Corps District is required to obtain the permit and sign off on related reports, thereby pointlessly driving up costs to the Federal Government. We have agencies suing government agencies.

Further, experience has shown that the Corps is unwilling to assume permit responsibility for activities that it is not actually performing. This is a regulatory burden that Congress never intended, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source