Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AND ASK FOR ORDER IN THE HOUSE.
THE
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
I RISE
TO A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND.
THE GENTLEMAN'S RECOGNIZED FOR
HIS POINT OF ORDER.
MR. SPEAKER, FIRST PERMIT ME
TO STATE THE POINT OF ORDER.
I MAKE A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST
CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATION
VIOLATES CLAUSE 10 OF RULE 21
WHICH STATES IT IS NOT INED
ORERED TO CONSIDER A BILL IF IT
HAS THE EFFECT OF INCREASING
SPENING FOR THE CURRENT YEAR
AND A FIVE-YEAR WINDOW.
C.B.O. ESTIMATES THIS BILL WILL
COST $500 MILLION OVER FIVE
YEARS WITHOUT AN OFFSET IN THE
AS YOU CAN SEE, MR. CHAIRMAN,
MR. SPEAKER, WE ARE SETTING
ASIDE PAY-GO AND INSTITUTING
CUT-AS-YOU-GO WHICH MEANS IF
THERE IS ANY SPENDING CALLED
FOR IN ANY NEW WAY OR
AUTHORIZATION, THERE HAS TO BE
SOME CUTTING SOMEWHERE.
THAT WAS SAID BY ERIC CANTOR.
THE SPEAKER SAID, UNDER THIS
CUT GS GO RULE, IF IT IS YOUR
INTENTION TO CREATE NEW
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, YOU MUST
ALSO TERMINATE OR REDUCE
SPENDING ON AN EXISTING
GOVERNMENT PROGRAM OF EQUAL OR
SAME SIZE IN THE SAME BILL.
AS WE KNOW ON JANUARY 5, THERE
WAS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES
WHERE MEMBERS FAILED TO TAKE
THE ROOM.
ON FEBRUARY FAILED TO OFFER
PROPER CONSTITUTIONALITY
STATEMENT WITH LEGISLATION THAT
WAS OFFERED, ON MARCH 3, FAILED
TO REQUIRE 3/5 MAJORITY FOR THE
PASSAGE OF A BILL TO RAISE TAX
RATES, ON MARCH 17, THIS HOUSE
FAILED --
THE
GENTLEMAN IS ARE CORRECT.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
WE FAILED TO MAKE
LEGISLATION AVAILABLE FOR 72
HOURS AND NOW WE ARE FAILING TO
INCLUDE AN OFFSET FOR NEW
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS REQUIRED
UNDER THESE RULES UNDER CUT-GO.
IN ORDER FOR THESE RULES TO BE
TAKEN SERIOUSLY WE CAN'T SIMPLY
SAY BECAUSE IT'S A FAVORITE
PROGRAM THE SPEAKER WE'RE GOING
TO RAISE THE RULES.
THE RULES ARE THERE FOR A
REASON.
WE VOTED ON THOSE RULES AND THEY
WERE MADE AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THE CHANGE OF HANDS IN THIS
HOUSE.
WHEN YOU HAVE STATEMENTS LIKE
THIS BY THE SPEAKER, THEY SHOULD
BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT THE
POINT OF ORDER.
THE
CHAIR IS NOT AWARE OF ANY POINT
OF ORDER AGAINST THE PENDING
MEASURE THAT WOULD BE TIMELY OR
COGNIZANT AT THIS TIME.
PART OF -- POINT OF
INQUIRY.
IS IT NOT UNDER THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE THAT UNDER CLAUSE 10-A OF
RULE 21, WHAT THE SPEAKER
ARTICULATED IN THIS SENTENCE IS
IN FACT THE RULE THAT IF YOU
HAVE MONEY THAT NEEDS TO BE
OFFSET IT HAS TO BE OFFSET IN
THE SAME BILL AND IT IS FURTHER
NOT THE CASE THAT IN THIS BILL
IT'S BEEN STIPULATED ON BOTH
SIDES THAT THIS EXPENSE OF $300
MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS IS NOT
PAID FOR.
IS THAT OR IS IT NOT THE RULE OF
THE HOUSE?
THE
HOUSE DOES HAVE A CLAUSE 10 OF
RULE 21 -- THE GENTLEMAN DOES
NOT SUPPORT A POINT OF ORDER AT
THIS STAGE IN THE DEBATE.
THE RULE EXISTS BUT
DID YOU -- BUT WE DON'T NEED TO
FOLLOW.
IT
THE
GENTLEMAN IS UNTIMELY.
THE POINT IS THAT THE GENTLEMAN
IS UNTIMELY IN HIS POINT OF
ORDER.
INQUIRY, MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.
QUESTION.
DOES THE RULE STIPULATED HERE
EXIST?
IT IS THE ONLY REASON WE'RE NOT
FOLLOWING IT IS I DIDN'T GET TO
THE FLOOR IN TIME?
THE
CHAIR WILL NOT RESPOND TO
POLITICAL COMMENTARY.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
THE BILL.
THOSE IN FAVOR WILL SIGNIFY BY
SAYING AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THIRD READING.
A BILL TO
RE-AUTHORIZE THE D.C.
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
MR. SPEAKER, I
HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMIT AT THE
IS THE
GENTLEMAN OPPOSED TO THE BILL?
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
OPPOSED TO THE BILL?
COME COME YES, I AM, IN ITS
CURRENT FORM --
YES, I AM, IN ITS
CURRENT FORM.
THE
GENTLEMAN QUALIFIES.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE
MARYLAND --
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DISPENSE
WITH THE READING.
MR. SPEAKER, I OBJECT.
THE
CLERK WILL READ.
MR. SPEAKER, I OBJECT
TO THE DISPENSING OF THE RULE
AND I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER
AGAINST THE MOTION.
POINT OF ORDER IS RESERVED.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE
MOTION.
MR. CUMMINGS OF
MARYLAND MOVES TO RECOMMIT THE
ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT
REFORM WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
REPORT THE SAME BACK TO THE
HOUSE FORTHWITH, WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT.
STRIKE ALL AFTER THE ENACTING
CLAUSE AND INSERT THE FOLLOWING,
SECTION 1, FUNDING FOR D.C.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND D.C. PUBLIC
CHARTER SCHOOLS, A, GENERAL
AUTHORITY, FROM THE FUNDS
APPROPRIATED UNDER SECTION 2,
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION AND
THIS ACT REFERRED TO AS THE
SECRETARY SHALL BE PROVIDE FUNDS
TO THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND THIS ACT REFERRED
TO AS THE MAYOR, IF THE MAYOR
AGREES TO THE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION B FOR,
ONE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR CONTINUED
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL STUDENTS IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS.
TWO, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS FOR
CONTINUED IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL
STUDENTS IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,
AND, THREE, SPECIAL EDUCATION
SERVICES UNDER THE INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT,
20, UNITED STATES CODE, 1400,
FOR STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH
SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
CHARTER SCHOOLS, B, CONDITION OF
RECEIPT OF FUNDS, AS A CONDITION
OF RERECEIVING FUNDS UNDER THIS
ACT, THE MAYOR SHALL, ONE, ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
SECRETARY TO MONITOR AND
EVALUATE THE USE OF FUNDS
AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CHARTER SCHOOLS UNDER
THIS ACT.
AND, TWO, ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS
ARE USED BY THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL STUDENTS IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS
RESPECTIVELY BY USING EFFECTIVE
METHODS AND INSTRUCTIONAL
STRATEGIES WHICH ARE BASED ON
SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED RESEARCH
THAT STRENGTHEN THE CORE
ACADEMIC PROGRAM OF SCHOOLS
IDENTIFIED FOR IMPROVEMENT,
CORRECTIVE ACTION OR
RESTRUCTURING UNDER SECTION 1116
OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.
SECTION 2, AUTHORIZATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS.
THERE ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE
APPROPRIATED $30 MILLION FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012 IN EACH OF THE
FOUR SUCCEEDING YEARS --
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE
IS NOT IN ORDER.
HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE CLERK MAY PROCEED.
OF WHICH, ONE, $10
MILLION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE
TO CARRY OUT PARAGRAPH 1 OF
SECTION 1-A FOR EACH FISCAL
YEAR.
TWO, $10 MILLION SHALL BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO CARRY OUT PARAGRAPH
YEAR.
AND, THREE, $10 MILLION SHALL BE
MADE AVAILABLE TO CARRY OUT
PARAGRAPH 3 OF SECTION 1-A FOR
EACH FISCAL YEAR.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
CONTINUE TO RESERVE HIS POINT OF
ORDER?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
HIS POINT OF ORDER?
NO, I DO NOT.
THE
GENTLEMAN WITHDRAWS HIS POINT OF
ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE IS NOT
IN ORDER.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND MAY
PROCEED.
MR. SPEAKER, THE
FINAL AMENDMENT BEFORE US WOULD
ACCOMPLISH TWO IMPORTANT GOALS.
FIRST, THE AMENDMENT WOULD CUT
THE FUNDING AUTHORIZED BY H.R.
471 IN HALF, THEREBY REDUCING
THE FEDERAL DEFICIT OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS BY $100 MILLION
BELOW WHAT WAS -- $150 MILLION
BELOW WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED FOR
H.R. 471.
WE HEARD A LOT OF RHETORIC FROM
THE OTHER SIDE TODAY, MR.
SPEAKER, BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR.
VOTING FOR THIS MOTION WILL SAVE
$150 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS.
SO THE QUESTION FOR MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IS WILL
YOU BE TRUE TO YOUR PROMISES TO
ADDRESS THE DEFICIT OR WILL YOU
PUT THESE PROMISES ASIDE TO
SUPPORT A PET PROJECT THAT
ADVANCES A NARROW IDEOLOGICAL
AGENDA?
SECOND, INSTEAD OF SPENDING
MONEY ON A MINISCULE FRACTION OF
STUDENTS WHO WILL RECEIVE A
VOUCHER, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
TARGET SCARCE FEDERAL RESOURCES
TO AREAS WHERE THEY WOULD DO THE
MOST GOOD.
SCHOOLS, AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
I.D.A. ACTIVITIES, AS WE HAVE
DISCUSSED, STUDENTS
PARTICIPATING IN EXISTING D.C.
VOUCHER PROGRAMS HAVE SHOWN NO
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT IN READING OR MATH
SKILLS.
BY CONTRAST STUDENTS IN THE D.C.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS --
MR. SPEAKER, THE HOUSE IS NOT
IN ORDER.
THE
GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED.
STUDENTS IN THE D.C. PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS HAVE
SHOWN SIGNIFICANT GAINS OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DIRECT
FUNDS TO SUPPORT SCHOOLS THAT
HAVE BEEN PROVE BE TO -- PROVEN
TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO
PROVIDE FUNDS TO SUPPORT SPECIAL
EDUCATION AND IDEA-RELATED
PROGRAMS IN THE DISTRICT.
IDEA FUNDING GOES TOWARD
CRITICAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES.
SUCH AS EARLY INTERVENTION,
SUPPORT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS AND ASSISTANCE TO HELP
STUDENTS GAIN ACCESS TO SUITABLE
SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF IDEA,
ACHIEVEMENT AMONGST STUDENTS
SERVED BY THIS PROGRAM HAS
IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY.
BUT MORE PROGRESS MUST BE MADE.
AS MAYOR GRAY DISCUSSED MONDAY
IN HIS STATE OF THE DISTRICT
ADDRESS, D.C. HAS BEEN UNABLE TO
SERVE ALL OF ITS SPECIAL NEEDS
KIDS IN PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IS
PAYING NEARLY A QUARTER OF A
BILLION DOLLARS TO SEND STUDENTS
TO NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT CAN
SERVE DISABLED STUDENTS' UNIQUE
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HELP D.C.
BETTER SERVE STUDENTS WHO NEED
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES IN
THE PUBLIC SYSTEM.
IMPORTANTLY LET IT BE CLEAR THAT
IF YOU VOTE YES ON THIS MOTION,
THE AMENDMENT IT PROPOSES WILL
BE VOTED ON IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THIS DEBATE.
THAT VOTE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A
VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE OF THE
BILL.
ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT WILL
NOT DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THIS
LEGISLATION AND THEREFORE I URGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FOR
DEFICIT REDUCTION.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DIRECT
SCARCE FEDERAL DOLLARS WHERE
THEY WILL DO THE MOST GOOD.
I URGE A YES VOTE ON THIS FINAL
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL AND WITH
THAT I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA, MR. MILLER.
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS
MONEY IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES
AND YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE
ADDITIONAL DEFICIT, YOU AT LEAST
THAT'S EFFECTIVE.
AND THAT WORKS FOR THE CHILDREN.
AND IMPROVES THEIR EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES.
INVESTING IN THE D.C. VOUCHER
PROGRAM THAT IS NOW RUN OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS, BY EVERY STUDY
THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON IT SAYS
THAT THESE STUDENTS ARE DOING NO
BETTER THAN WHEN THEY LEFT THEIR
SCHOOL BUT WE'RE SPENDING $100
MILLION TO EDUCATE THEM.
THEY STATISTICALLY ARE NOT ANY
IMPROVED OVER THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE SCHOOL THAT THEY LEFT.
BUT WE CONTINUE TO SPEND THE
MONEY ON THE MYTH THAT SOMEHOW
THIS IS A MODEL PROGRAM THAT YOU
WOULD RECOMMEND CATE ALL OVER
THE COUNTRY.
-- REPLICATE ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY.
WHY WOULD YOU REPLICATE A
PROGRAM THAT IS SO INEFFICIENT
AND DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
EDUCATION ADVANTAGE FOR THE
STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN IT ?
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE PARENTS
WHO CHOSE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE VOUCHER PROGRAM FEEL THEY
MADE A GOOD DECISION.
BUT THAT'S NOT A MARK OF WHETHER
OR NOT THEY'RE GETTING THE
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY THAT
WITH MR. CUMMINGS' AMENDMENT,
YOU CAN INVEST IN WHAT IS
WORKING, YOU CAN INVEST IN THE
AFRICAN-AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS HAVE SEEN DOUBLE-DIGIT
GAINS IN READING AND MATH.
AND IN PERCENTAGE OF HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS HAVE ACHIEVED ADVANCED
STAT US IN READING AND MAGGET
HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED.
THE PERCENTAGE OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION STUDENTS ACHIEVING
PROFICIENT STATUS HAS MORE THAN
DOUBLED.
THESE SCHOOLS, PUBLIC AND PUBLIC
CHARTER SCHOOLS, ARE WORKING FOR
THE CHILDREN OF D.C.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE
YOU INSIST THAT WHAT YOU REALLY
OUGHT TO DO IS TAKE $100 BILLION
IN NEW DEFICIT SPENDING AND PARK
IT IN THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM
BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMITMENT ON
THE IDEOLOGICAL BASIS.
BUT NOT ON PROGRAMS THAT WORK.
WE OUGHT TO CHOOSE THE PROGRAMS
THAT WORK FOR THE CHILDREN OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I'LL BE BRIEF.
WE SPENT AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTES
DISCUSSING THE BILL AND THE
AMENDMENT.
AND AT LEAST THE DELEGATE FROM
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ATTEMPTED TO MOVE THESE DOLLARS
ALL TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.
THIS BILL IN FACT NOT ONLY
DENIES THE CHILDREN WHO ARE IN
THESE PROGRAMS TODAY, SOME OF
THEM SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN, BUT IN
FACT IT CUTS FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
EDUCATION.
UNDER THIS MOTION TO RECOMMIT,
THE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
ON A YEARLY BASIS WOULD GO FROM
$40 MILLION TO $20 MILLION.
THERE WOULD BE LESS MONEY IN THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN ADDITION
TO BEING NO MONEY FOR
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS.
I OPPOSE THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT,
URGE SUPPORT OF THE UNDERLYING
BILL AND YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION
TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE
TABLE.
THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
A COMMUNICATION.
THE HONORABLE THE
SPEAKER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
SIR, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSION
GRANTED IN CLAUSE 2-H OF RULE 2
OF THE RULES OF THE U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE CLERK
RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE
FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE
SENATE ON MARCH 30, 2011, AT
9:32 A.M., THAT THE SENATE
PASSED WITHOUT AMENDMENT H.R.
1079.
WITH BEST WISHES I AM.
SIGNED SINCERELY, KAREN L.
HAAS, CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
THE
CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE THE
FOLLOWING ENROLLED BILL.
H.R. 1079, AN ACT TO
AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
OF 1986, TO EXTEND THE FUNDING
AND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY OF
THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST
FUND, TO AMEND TITLE 49, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO EXTEND THE
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TODAY ON
THE MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES
ON WHICH A RECORDED VOTE OR THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE ORDERED OR ON
WHICH THE VOTE INCURS OBJECTION
UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF RULE 20.
POSTPONED QUESTION WILL BE
TAKEN LATER.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO SEEK
RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO
SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R.
872 WITH AN AMENDMENT.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
H.R. 872, A BILL 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.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE --
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO YIELD
FOR AN UNANIMOUS QUESTION.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD I
HAVE A QUESTION.
WE HAVE TWO BILLS BEFORE US ON
THE UNION CALENDAR.
ONE, THE TEXT IS IN BOLD, THE
SECOND, THE TEXT IS IN ITALICS.
COULD -- AND THE TEXTS ARE NOT
IDENTICAL.
COULD YOU TELL US WHICH OF THE
VERSIONS WE'RE CONSIDERING?
MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE HOUSE
COME TO ORDER?
I CAN'T HEAR.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. GIBBS,
AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
YORK, MR. BISHOP, EACH WILL
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO.
SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS IN
WHICH TO REVISE AND EXTEND
THEIR REMARKS AND INCLUDE
EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS ON H.R.
872.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD
MY TIME TO THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
OHIO, MRS. SCHMIDT, AND ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT SHE BE
ALLOWED TO CONTROL THAT TIME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I YIELD HALF MY TIME, 10
MINUTES.
WHO
SEEKS RECOGNITION?
MR. SPEAKER, I
RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL
AND ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MR. SPEAKER, IT'S
IMPERATIVE THAT WE ACT IN A
TIMELY MANNER ON H.R. 872, TO
ENSURE THAT OUR SMALL
BUSINESSES, FARMERS,
COMMUNITIES, COUNTIES AND STATE
AND FEDERAL AGENCIES WILL NOT
BE BURDENED WITH A COSTLY
DUPLICATIVE PERMIT REQUIREMENT
THAT OFFERS NO ENVIRONMENTAL OR
HEALTH BENEFITS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
PESTICIDES PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN PROTECTING OUR NATION'S
FOOD SUPPLY, PUBLIC HEALTH,
NATURAL RESOURCES,
SPACES.
THEY USE NOT ONLY TO HELP CROPS
FROM DESTRUCTIVE PESTS BUT ALSO
TO MANAGE MOSQUITOS AND OTHER
PESTS, INVASIVE WEEDS AND
ANIMALS THAT CAN CHOKE OUR
WATERWAYS, DAMAGE OUR FORESTS
AND RECREATIONAL AREAS.
BURDENS
ACT OF 2011 AMENDS THE
CLEANWATER ACT TO ELIMINATE THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A PERMIT FOR
APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES
APPROVED FOR USE.
THIS ACT IS BEING PASSED IN
RESPONSE TO THE NATIONAL COTTON
COUNCIL VS. E.P.A. WHICH FOUND
PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR --
BIOLOGICAL PESTICIDES AND
CHEMICAL BEST SIDED THAT LEAVE
A RESIDUE.
THIS LEGISLATION, MR. SPEAKER,
IS NOT INTENDED TO EXEMPT WASTE
TEAM OR DISCHARGES FROM
REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY
CONTAIN PESTICIDES OR PESTICIDE
RESIDUES.
THIS LEGISLATION, MR. SPEAKER,
MAKES CLEAR THAT NPDE AS
EXEMPTION ONLY ADDRESSES
DISCHARGES OF PESTICIDED OR
PESTICIDE RESIDUES RESULTING
FROM APPLICATIONS CONSISTENT
WITH SIEVE ARE A.
THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT EXEMPT
APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDED THAT
VIOLATE THE RELEVANT
REQUIREMENTS.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN -- HAS BEEN
-- THERE HAVE BEEN ACCUSATIONS
THAT THIS BILL WOULD CAUSE
CONTAINMENT OF OUR WATERWAYS.
BUT, MR. SPEAKER, I CHALLENGE
THOSE ACCUSATIONS.
SOME WILL ARGUE THAT PESTICIDE
APPLICATIONS WERE A VIOLATION.
THE CASE IN QUESTION IS THE
WATER DISTRICT IN JACKSON
COUNTY, OREGON, WHERE IT IS
CLAIMED THAT THE APPLICATION OF
PESTICIDES IN VIOLATION OF THE
LABEL IN VIOLATION OF THE LABEL,
RESULTED IN A FISH KILL OF MORE
THAN 92,000 JUVENILE STEELHEADS.
THESE APPLICATIONS WERE IN
VIOLATION.
AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND
THEREFORE WOULD BE ADDRESSED
UNDER THAT LAW.
REQUIRING A DUPLICATIVE PERMIT
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
WOULDN'T VIOLATE ANY
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY STANDARDS.
872 IS A SIMPLE FIX.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH AN OVERWHELMING
46-8 VOTE.
THIS PROVES THAT THIS IS NOT A
PARTISAN ISSUE BUT AN ISSUE OF
SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT
REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND THE
E.P.A. HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO
PROVIDE A SOLUTION.
IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS TO REQUIRE THIS
REDUNDANT LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY
SINCE THE E.P.A. REGULATES THE
PESTICIDES.
ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID EXTEND
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER
TO OCTOBER 31, IT DID FIX THE
UNDERLINING PROBLEM.
THIS WILL BE THE SAME IN OCTOBER
AS IT IS TODAY.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE
BURDEN COSTS OR REAL IMPACT ON
THEIR LIVELIHOODS.
THE ONLY THING THIS EXTENSION
PROVIDES IS MORE MONTHS OF
REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS NECESSARY PIECE OF
LEGISLATION AND THIS REMAIN THE
STANDARD FOR PESTICIDE
REGULATION.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
OBJECTION.
THE THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM FROM
OHIO WILL CONTROL THE REMAINDER
OF HER 10 MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
BACA, BE PERMITTED TO CONTROL 10
MINUTES OF MY TIME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE GENTLEMAN
TIME.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FROM NEW YORK FOR YIELDING THE
TIME AND LOOK FORWARD TO PLAYING
WITH HIM IN BASEBALL.
WE NEED HIM TO PLAY THIRD BASE.
IIZE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF H.R.
872.
THE REDUCING REGULATORY BURDEN
ACT OF 2011.
I WANT TO THANK THE SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIR AND ALSO WANT TO THANK
WATER SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR FOR
THEIR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE TO
JOINTLY RESOLVE THE IMPORTANT
ISSUE TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS
ACROSS JURISDICTIONS AND ACROSS
THE AISLE.
H.R. 872 IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD,
BIPARTISAN BILL THAT CREATES THE
NECESSARY FIX TO THE FLAWS OF
THE NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL
VERSUS E.P.A. COURT DECISION.
IF THE DECISION IS IMPLEMENTED,
PESTICIDE PLAKE ON ITORS WILL BE
FORCED INTO DUPELA CATIVE
PROCESS THAT WILL BE REQUIRING
DUPLICATION PERMITS.
WE DON'T NEED THAT.
WE NEED ONE AGENCY THAT CAN
HANDLE IT, NO TWO AGENCIES.
THE NEW REGULATION WILL PROVIDE
ADD BENEFITS, AND ADD OS COSTS
TO THE AGENCIES, AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCERS, MOSQUITO CONTROL
DISTRICTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.
E.P.A. UNDERSTANDS THIS.
THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE HELPED US
WRITE THIS BILL.
I WANT TO STATE THAT TWO
CONGRESSMEN WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT
A STATEMENT OF SMORT SUPPORT.
E.P.A. ESTIMATES THAT THE E.P.A.
PROCESS WOULD ADD COSTS TO OUR
STATES.
BUT DURING A HEARING ON THIS
ISSUE LAST MONTH, FORMER
CONGRESSMAN JOHN SALAZAR
TESTIFIED THAT THE COST OF
IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE STATE OF
COLORADO WOULD BE GREATER,
UPWARD OF $20 MILLION.
THE PERMITTING PROCESS ESTIMATED
TO ADD ANOTHER $50 MILLION TO
THE COST OF PESTICIDE PLAKEORS
AND MOST ARE SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE FACE 212.2% UNEMPLOYMENT AND
$25 BILLION DEFICIT.
WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS REGULATORY
BURDEN ON THEM OR ANYONE ELSE.
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
AGRICULTURAL AND IRRIGATION AND
THE PEST CONTROL PROFESSIONALS
IS CAUSE FOR SERIOUS CONCERN.
MY DISTRICT LOCATED IN
CALIFORNIA HAS HAD A LONG
HISTORY WITH THE WEST NILE
VIRUS, THE ABILITY FOR THE
MOSQUITO CONTROL TO RESPOND MUST
NOT BE JEOPARDIZED.
IF WE HAVE ONE AGENCY, THEY CAN
ACT QUICKLY.
IF WE HAVE TWO, NOT ONLY COSTLY
BUT IMAGINE IF WE DIDN'T ACT
QUICKLY.
WHEN A PESTICIDE IS USED IN
ACCORD ANSWER WITH THE LABEL
REQUIREMENTS IT WOULDN'T BE
BRING RISK TO OUR COMMUNITIES OR
THE ENVIRONMENT.
LET'S PASS THIS SIMPLE FIX TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND I
STATE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND PREVENT
COSTLY, DUPLICATIVE REGULATORY
BURDENS ON US.
WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE A
LETTER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
SUBMIT OF A GROUP AND IT'S A
LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATIVE
DISTRICTS, A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS
3,000 CONSERVATIVE DISTRICTS FOR
MORE THAN 70 YEARS.
IT HAS WORKED WITH LAND OWNERS,
MANAGERS TO PROVIDE WORKING
LANDS TO HELP THEM APPLY FOR
EFFECTIVE CONSERVATIVE
PRACTICES.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE E.P.A.
ALREADY CONDUCTS ANALYSIS OF THE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS
OF ANY PROPOSED USE OF
PESTICIDES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THEIR
SUPPORT.
AND I HAVE ANOTHER LETTER SIGNED
BY 138 DIFFERENT --
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT
THAT LETTER AND ASK MY
COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION.
IT IS GOOD BIPARTISAN
LEGISLATION AND DEALS WITH THE
EFFORTS AND CONSOLIDATING SOME
OF THE EFFORTS AND COST
EFFECTIVE AND WE DON'T NEED TO
PUT THE BURDENS ON ANYONE ELSE.
I YIELD BACK TO MR. BISHOP.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED.
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 PESTICIDES IN
AND/OR NEAR NAVIGABLE WATERS
SHOULD BE REGULATED.
THE ACT HAS LONG BEEN THE
FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUTE THAT
GOVERNANCE THE SALE AND USE OF
PESTICIDES IN THE UNITED STATES.
HOWEVER, MORE RECENTLY, AS A
RESULT OF A NUMBER OF LAWSUITS,
CLEAN WATER ACT HAS BEEN ADDED
AS A REDUNDANT FEDERAL LAYER.
AN ADDITIONAL SET OF PERMITS
WILL BE REQUIRED FOR USE OF
PESTICIDES.
H.R. 872 IS AIMED AT REVERSING A
DECISION FROM THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.
IN THIS RULING, THEY 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
AIR ACT INTER-- CLEAN WATER ACT
INTERACTS WITH OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND
EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF THE CLEAN
WATER REGULATION INTO AREAS AND
ACTIVITIES NOT ORIGINALLY
ENVISIONED OR INTENDED BY
E.P.A. HAS ESTIMATED THAT
APPROXIMATELY 365,000 PESTICIDE
USERS, STATE AGENCIES, CITIES,
COUNTIES, MOSQUITO CONTROL
DISTRICTS, WATER DISTRICTS,
PESTICIDE, FARMERS RANCHERS,
FOREST MANAGERS AND EVERY DAY
CITIZENS THAT PERFORM 5.6
MILLION APPLICATIONS T WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE COURT'S RULING.
THIS WILL DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF
ENTITIES CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO
PERMITTING UNDER THE CLEAN WATER
ACT.
WITH THIS COURT DECISION, THE
STATES AND A WIDE RANGE OF
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PESTICIDE
USERS WILL FACE INCREASED
FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDENS.
AND THIS EXPENSE COMES WITH NO
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION.
THIS NEW PERMITTING PROCESS WAS
MEANT TO TAKE EFFECT ON APRIL 9
OF THIS YEAR.
HOWEVER, TWO DAYS AGO, THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT GRANTED AN EXTENSION.
THE COURT'S EXTENSION
TEMPORARILY POSTPONES THE NEED
FOR THE PERMIT AND DOES NOT
LEGISLATION.
H.R. 872 FIXES THE PROBLEM.
IT EXEMPTS FROM THE PERMITTING
PROCESS A DISCHARGE TO WATERS
INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF A
PESTICIDE AUTHORIZED FOR SALE,
DISTRIBUTION OR USE UNDER THIS,
WHERE THE PESTICIDE IS USED FOR
ITS INTENDED PURPOSE AND USED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PESTICIDE
LABEL REQUIREMENTS.
H.R. 872 WAS DRAFTED VERY
NARROWLY TO ADDRESS THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT'S HOLDING IN THE
NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL CASE AND
RETURN THE STATE OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION TO THE STATUS QUO
BEFORE THE COURT GOT INVOLVED.
THIS BILL UNANIMOUSLY OUT OF THE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE AND PASSED
THE COMMITTEE ON A STRONG
BIPARTISAN VOTE OF 46-8.
MANY ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING
A WIDE VARIETY OF PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE ENTITIES SUPPORT A
RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE.
THESE ORGANIZES INCLUDE THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS
OF AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL WATER
RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN
MOSQUITO CONTROL ASSOCIATION,
AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL FARMERS
UNION, CROP LIFE FOR AMERICA AND
RESPONSIBLE INDUSTRY FOR A SOUND
ENVIRONMENT.
MR. SPEAKER, I WANT TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN SMID FOR HER
LEADERSHIP AND -- SCMIDT AND
THANK THE RANKING MEMBERS ON THE
SUBCOMMITTEES FOR THEIR SUPPORT
OF THE BILL.
I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN MICA
AND RAHALL FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP
AS WELL AS CHAIRMAN LUCAS AND
RANKING MEMBER PETTER SON OF THE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE.
I URGE ALL MEMBERS TO SUPPORT
H.R. 872 AND I RESERVE.
THE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, IN
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT MR. BACA
YIELDED BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME TO ME, CAN YOU TELL ME HOW
MUCH TIME IS LEFT ON THIS SIDE?
15
MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OREGON,
MR. DEFAZIO.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
WE ARE HERE
PRETENDING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
WE ARE AMENDING THE WRONG
STATUTE AT THE WRONG TIME UNDER
THE GUISE THAT THIS IS A CRISIS
AND BRINGING UP A BILL THAT WILL
NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN
THE SENATE.
SO WHAT COULD WE DO?
WE COULD WORK WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND I HAVE WRITTEN TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHERS WHO
RECENTLY GOT AN EXTENSION UNTIL
OCTOBER 31 FROM THE COURT.
THERE IS NO THREAT.
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH WHAT
THEY ARE PROPOSING IS THE SMALL
SIZE OF GENERAL PERMITTING AT
640 ACRES.
MY STATE HAS 6,400 ACRES.
THAT'S A PRETTY BIG PIECE OF
PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW MANY SMALL FARMS OR
FOLKS WHO OPERATE ON LESS THAN
6,400 -- MORE THAN 6,400 ACRES.
AND EVEN AT 6,400 ACRES IT'S A
THREE-PAGE FORM YOU FILL OUT IN
WE COULD SEE -- AND OREGON IS
THE STATE WHERE THIS PROBLEM
STARTED, BECAUSE 90,000 JUVENILE
SALMON WERE KILLED BY THE
IMPROPER APPLICATION OF A
PESTICIDE.
SO WE WOULD BE PARTICULARLY
SENSITIVE TO THAT.
WE ARE SENSITIVE ABOUT OUR
WATER.
ALL OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE
SENSITIVE.
TO AMEND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
HERE, YOU ARE GOING AT IT AT THE
WRONG PLACE.
PEOPLE DON'T WANT PESTICIDES IN
WHAT THEY DRINK OR KIDS DRINK.
FIFRA IS MEANINGLESS IN TERMS OF
REGULATING WHAT GOES INTO THE
WATER.
E.P.A. DOESN'T TEST PESTICIDES
FOR THEIR WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND FIFRA DOES NOT
REGULATE HOW MUCH OF A PESTICIDE
IS SAFE TO APPLY TO WATER.
WE SHOULD BE AMENDING FIFRA BUT
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORK AND
LEGISLATION AND SOMETHING THE
SENATE WOULD HAVE TAKEN UP AND
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BUT
PLAY TO THE CROWD HERE.
IT'S GOING TO COST $50,000.
THAT IS A BUNCH OF HOOEY.
WE HAVE A THREE-PAGE
APPLICATION.
SO THE POINT IS, WE CAN DO
SOMETHING REAL.
WE CAN IMPLEMENT E.P.A. AND GET
REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND
PROTECT THE DRINKING WATER OR DO
WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE TODAY,
WHICH IS MEANINGLESS.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLELADY FROM OHIO.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE
GOOD THE GENTLEMAN FROM