Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

This piece of legislation before us today is very familiar to many of us. As many of you will remember, we stood here 3 years ago voting on this same bill text. That bill, H.R. 872, was passed by this body with an overwhelming demonstration of bipartisan support. The legislation was the product of collaborative work done between two House committees, along with the technical assistance of the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency. This is the way legislation should be handled, and I was proud of our efforts in the House.

To refresh your memory, this problem stems from an uninformed court decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting pesticide applications that are in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act.

The effect to have these same products doubly regulated through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly, and ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies and doubles their legal jeopardy.

Additionally, more than 40 States have endured increased financial and administrative burdens in order to comply with the new permitting requirement process during a time when many States are already being forced to make difficult budget decisions. Should vector control agencies cease operations due to these costs, it will expose a vast new unprotected population cohort to mosquitoes potentially carrying a number of dangerous exotic diseases such as West Nile.

Some will argue the costs associated with this permit requirement have been small. As it stands, some people may believe millions of dollars to be a small amount, but I think most of our constituents would disagree. What nobody can document--and let's think about this again--what no one can document is a single benefit this burden has offered. In a time when our economy is struggling, regulatory burdens that add cost while providing no quantitative benefit need to be eliminated. This is an unnecessary, costly, duplicative permitting requirement. It is a poster child for regulatory reform.

Now, my friends, if you can only look at one thought, simply bear this in mind: by this misguided court ruling requiring the double permitting process, you are causing States to waste money. They don't have the money to waste.

I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source