Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011

Floor Speech

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe anyone in this House supports truly duplicative or redundant regulation--and we should all be prepared to eliminate the headache and expense of unnecessary red tape wherever we find it. But that's not what's happening here.

In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found in the National Cotton Council vs. EPA case that pesticides are pollutants whose discharge into our waterways is governed by the Clean Water Act. Today's legislation proposes to overturn that ruling and exempt pesticides from the Clean Water Act on the grounds that pesticides are already subject to registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

FIFRA registration is conditioned upon a finding that an approved pesticide ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse affects on the environment''. While FIFRA registration weighs the costs and benefits of pesticide use nationally, it does not involve local assessments. For example, it does not consider whether a waterway is used for fishing or for swimming--or whether a waterway is already impaired. Indeed, with over 1000 waterways in the United States currently known to be impaired because of pesticide contamination, it is manifestly clear that FIFRA registration alone has not been sufficient to protect our nation's water.

For that reason, while I support efficient and effective regulation, I do not believe that exempting pesticides from the Clean Water Act is the answer to making sure our citizens have access to clean water. I urge a no vote.

Source