forward here and we've heard and that is that maintaining the clean water act would subject pesticide am katers to litigation -- applicators to litigation and increased citizen suits. in fact, this is false. if a pesticide applicator abides by the terms of the clean water act, the pesticide general permit, which apply misaccordance with the fifra label, and minimizes the use of the pesticide and conducts routine monitoring of acute impacts, they are by the terms of the clean water act immune from lawsuits by any party. another myth that we've heard here is that the -- and we just heard -- is that the permitting process, mr. speaker, the fifra requirements and the clean water act are duplicative. as i've said earlier, the fifra addresses the safety and effectiveness on a national scale, presenting unreasonable adverse impacts on human health and the environment through uniform labeling requirements. in contrast, the clean water act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of local water bodies with direct considerations on the potential impact of additional pollutants to specific wa