I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. With that, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore purr superintendent to House Resolution 694, the previous question is ordered on the resolution as amended. The question is on adoption of the resolution. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Ms. Slaughter mr. Speaker, i request the yeas and nays. The speaker pro tempore the yeas and nays are requested. All those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. A sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 225, the nays are 201. Resolution is adopted and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the able. For what purpose does the gentleman from iowa from ohio seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h. R. 935. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, i call up bill h. R. 935, to amend the federal insecticide, f, ngicide act, to clarify congressional intent, regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk Union Calendar number 346, h. R. 935, a bill to amend the federal insecticide, fungicide act and the federal Water Pollution control act to clarify congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pest sidse in or near nave pesticides in or near navigable waters and for other urposes. The speaker pro tempore the chair would ask all members to take their conversations from the floor, all members and staff to take their seats. The gentleman from ohio, mr. Gibbs, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. Edwards, will each control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Gibbs mr. Speaker, i yield high such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Gibbs mr. Speaker, 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 it was h. R. 872, was introduced on a bipartisan basis with overwhelming bipartisan support and passed under suspension calendar with 2 3 of this body in support of it. This congress, h. R. 935, the exact same bill was again introduced on a bipartisan basis with bipartisan support and was voice voted out of the transportation and agricultural committees. However, earlier this week partisanship reared its lug ugly head and members who are on record voting in support of this legislation or 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 2 3 of this body. This is a this is partisanship at its uglyist. The principles and policies of this administration have not changed over the last few years. Instead the politics of it did. I introduced 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 roticide act 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 has regulated pestside use before the enact of the clean water act. However, who are recently, result of the 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 on mondays debate of how e. P. A. Came to compose this unnecessary second layer of federal regulation. But i think its 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 on a wide range of public and private Pesticide Users and 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 permit regulations and fears of are forcing bility Mosquito Control and other pest control programs to reduce operations and redirect the resources to comply with the regulatory requirements. This may be having adverse this may be having an adverse effect on Public Health. In many states routine preventive programs have been redulesed due to requirements. This most likely impacted and increased the Record Keeping outbreaks of the west nile virus around the nation in 2012. H. R. 935 will enable communities to resume conducting routine preventive mosquito and other pest control programs in the future. H. R. 935 exempts from the permitting process a discharge of waters involving the application of pesticides authorized for sale, distribution or use under fifra, where the Pesticide Use for the intended purposes and is used in compliance with pesticide label requirements. This is appropriate because pesticide registration and enforcement programs under fifra takes into account environmental and human risk just like the clean water act does. H. R. 935 was drafted very narrowly with Technical Assistance from the United States e. P. A. To return pesticide regulation to where it was before the court got involved. It lists fifr as the appropriate and adequate regulating statute. Well over 150 organizations representing a wide variety of public and private entities and thousands of stake holders have signed a letter supporting legislative resolution of this issue. Ill insert the letter into 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 fet ration, the National Farmers uniform, farm family alliance, the National Rural electric cooperative association, crop life america, and responsible industry for a sound environment. In addition, i will submit for the record a letter to the National Alliance of forest owners who have expressed support for h. R. 935. Private forest owners and managers of over 80 million acres of private forest land in 47 states, supporting 2. 4 million jobs. And finally, i will submit for the record a letter of support, plus a rebuttal paper prepared by the american Mosquito Control association that rebuts the inaccuracies of several statements made by several members on the house floor monday evening. Thanks good bill that reduces burdensome Regulation Without rolling back any environmental safeguards. Dont just ask the Environmental Community about what it takes to comply with the current clean water act regulation of pesticides. Ask your farmers and your Mosquito Control agencies in your cities and counties. And then look at your states website to see what it takes to apply for a permit for pesticide applications. We did that. It cost over 200 in my state of ohio, in oregon its over 900. And 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. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from ohio reserves. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland. Mr. Edwards thank you, mr. Speaker. I ms. Edwards thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to h. R. 935 and yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. Edwards thank you, mr. Speaker. In the 11th congress, the Republican Leadership 112th congress, the Republican Leadership moved similar legislation under the guys that unless we acted, the process for applying a pesticide would be so burdensome it would grind to a halt an array of agricultural and publicrelated health activities. Some would say this may be a ly to high person describe the impacts of the Environmental Protection hyperboles. However, if you were to compare the concern expressed before the agencys draft permit went into effect, with the almost nonexistent level of concern expressed after almost three years of implementation, you would likely question why were here this evening debating this bill. Contrary to the rhetoric, e. P. A. And the states have successfully drafted and implemented new pesticide general permits, p. G. P. , for the last 2 1 2 years it adopted several commonsense precautionary measures to limit the contamination of local waters by pesticides. And they do so in a way that allows pesticide am katers to meet their vie am katers to meet their vital ed apply ters to meet their vital missions. There have been two successful growing seasons and Public Health officials successfully addressed multiple threats of mosquitoborne illness while at the same time complying with this sensible requirements of both the clean water act and the federal insect side, fungicide and rodent side 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 restrictions, very sensible. However, the clean water act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the nations waters. With a primary focus on the protection of local water quality, two very distinct purposes. Its simply incorrect to say that applying a fifraapproved pesticide in accordance with labeling requirements is the surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with f, ifra is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. Farmers do not need to look at the localized impact of the pesticide on local water quality. So why are groups ranging from the American FarmBureau Federation to crop life america so adamantly opposed to this regulation . Well, lets explore that. One plausible answer is because 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 Many American how the American People would react to the fact that for decades pesticide sprayers sprayers could put massive amounts of potentially harmful materials almost completely below the radar. 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 commercial dealers of pesticides. No comprehensive information was available or required on the quantities, types or location of pesticides supplied in this country. And based on that practice, i guess we should not be surprised that for decades pesticides have been detected in the majority of our nations surface and groundwaters. Which lead nose a question of 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 nations rivers, lakes and streams, and make accountability for these discharges even more difficult. If this legislation were to pass, we would require more disclosure of those who manufacture pesticides and those who actually release these dangerous chemicals into the real world. Now, during the debate on 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 its not surprising they may have otherwise gone overlooked. Mr. Speaker, first it is the clean water act and not fifra that requires pesticide applicators to manage discharges through 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 am caters to monitor for and report any adverse indense 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 see ide applikaters to how many pesticides are being provided throughout the nation. 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 source of the pesticide thats causing the impairment. Despite repeated re quirmentse to the e. P. A. Where the current clean water act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicantor from. Erforming their services and let me summarize, the clean water act does provide a valuable service in ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at the appropriate time and 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 impedement n plaketors to provide their Public Health communities. Most politicses are covered by the pesticide general permit either by no action by filing of an electronic notice of intent. And three, federal and state data make clear that application of pesticides in compliance with fifra alone was insufficient to protect water bodies throughout the nation from being contaminated from pesticides. If we care about water quality, more is neeted 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 permit. It has caused no known regulatory, administrative or significant financial burden and has been implemented seamlessly across the 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. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady reserves. As a farmer, i take a little bit offense to some of the remarks that we are applying pesticides in the shadows. Mr. Gibbs pesticides cost money and as farmers we do not control what we get for our products. Its our commodities and raising corn and soy beans and we are at the mercy of the commodities market and we arent going to waste input costs. So thats just a wrong statement that is not true. Farmers today are professionals, high capital cost operations and 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 there are pesticides used many years ago that didnt break down in the environment and essentially a bank of residue left and you get those legacy issues. The pesticides we are using today are much safer and the technology has improved and a lot of these pesticides are more biodegradeable. Fifra approves the label and that is the approval of the process and application and the amount that can be used. And most states, if not all states, most of these pesticides have to be applied by certified applicators and they are licensed and filling out paperwork and have to do due diligence. This bill adds to duplication. We went to a couple of states and if you are applying a pesticide near a water body or wetland and thats open for definition of how close that may be, you have to go online and apply for the permit and some states you have to apply for a you have to submit a Management Plan and list where you are going to be applying the pesticide, the location. So basically lets take it down to home owner level. If they want to spray their yard and maybe close to a water body, thats open for discussion, they have to go online and in oregon they have to submit a Management Plan. In my state of ohio, over 200. Thats a little bizarre as long as they are playing it to the label under e. P. A. Approval. So lets talk about Mosquito Control districts. We had a huge outbreak of west nile virus in 2012. Last year wasnt as much. His year, the debate is out on ms. Edwards mr. Speaker, i yield 2 1 2 minutes to the gentleman from minnesota. The speaker pro