THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

[Page: E1008]  GPO's PDF
---

• Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to reach an agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This bill eliminated the famous Delaney Clause for residues in raw and processed foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food , agricultural and consumer interests, as well as the pesticide industry saw the passage of FQPA as an opportunity to assure that sound science is paramount in EPA's determinations on the use of chemicals on crops, in homes and for public health concerns. FQPA required the EPA to establish scientific, rational, sound and reasonable standards.

• Mr. Speaker, sound science is what the authors intended and expected. This is what Congress wanted--sound science as the rule's foundation. Further, the new law provided an additional safety factor to protect infants and children, and new ways of assessing pesticide benefits and risks. This is something Congress fully supported and continues to support. Despite strong congressional support, implementing the law at the regulatory level has been a very difficult and unnecessarily complex process.

• In fact, only a few months after the law was passed, the FQPA implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's agricultural industry so substantial that Vice President Gore sent a memorandum to both the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency on April 8, 1998. This memorandum laid out the White House's plan for putting FQPA's implementation on the right track.

• The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic principles: sound science in protecting pubic health, regulatory transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and consultation with the public and other agencies. America's agricultural and urban pest control community supported the Vice President's approach.

• Mr. Speaker, now, a year after the White House got directly involved in FQPA's implementation process, it remains derailed. It has become clear to me that Congress must again revisit this issue. It is my humble hope, we can revisit FQPA the way we left it, in a bipartisan spirit of cooperation.

• Mr. Speaker, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause. What Congress and the Nation got was much worse. In fact, the EPA has failed to provide scientifically sound guidance to the regulated community. The EPA's approach follows a path toward great economic harm for agricultural producers and pest outbreaks causing diseases concerns for urban and suburban communities it is an approach that is without a scientific foundation.

• Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, workable implementation of the bipartisan law. Americans want and deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. Americans want and deserve rules that follows the Vice President's stated goals. Americans want and deserve rules that fit FQPA's requirements.

• In order to achieve these results, I along with Mr. TOWNS, Mr. CONDIT and Mr. BOYD have introduced ``The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999.'' This legislation maintains the strong safety standards established by FQPA. This bill simply establishes a scientific-based process for implementing the law which will be based on sound, peer reviewed science and open for public review. Further, it ensures that agricultural producers across the country, who are already facing tough times, will not be adversely impacted by loss of crop protection tools because the EPA failed to use good science in reviewing crop protection tools under the new standards of FQPA. It will also ensure the consumers' food supply and food quality will not be affected by incomplete and faulty data. MY LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES THE FOLLOWING

• The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 lays out the problems that the EPA has faced over the last few years in implementing the law. In many cases, the EPA simply does not know what to do because the scientific protocols for assessing certain crop protection products under the new law have not been developed. Further, it highlights the extreme negative consequences if the law is implemented improperly. For example, organophosphate insecticides are used on 70 percent of the acres treated in the United States and are used to control of vector insects that spread diseases. If the EPA continues on their current path, many of these products could be lost. Farmers will be left without replacement products and exposed to major losses due to pest outbreaks. Consequently, this will lead to either a shortage of quality produce or increase in import from countries where their farmers do not follow our stringent guidelines. It will also limit the ability of agencies to control vector insects, thus causing health risks for millions of Americans.

• This legislation will require the EPA to perform a simple ``transition analysis'' on products before releasing any information about the safety of the product to the public or making final tolerance decisions. If the transition analysis determines that the Administrator is using assumptions when existing data makes the use of the assumption unnecessary or is using worst case estimates, anecdotal, unverified, or

  [Page: E1009]  GPO's PDF

  scientifically implausible data, the Administrator cannot make final re-registration decisions on those products until sufficient time has been provided to allow the data to be developed, submitted and subsequently evaluated by the Agency.

• The Administrator is required to issue rules to implement the FQPA properly within one year of enactment of this bill. Further, the Administrator is required to issue guidelines specifying the kinds of information that will be required to support the issuance or continuation of a tolerance or exemption from the requirements for a tolerance and shall revise such guidelines from time to time.

• My bill provides protections, especially to small acreage farmers to ensure that they will not be left without crop protection tools. This legislation requires the Administrator to report to Congress priorities for registering new products that will replace products that are being removed from use and expedite the registration process. This will allow the farmers to continue to provide a safe, reliable food supply.

• The USDA and EPA are required to assess the potential negative trade effects of implementing FQPA. The program will monitor the competitive strength of major United States agricultural commodity sections in the international marketplace. Such commodity sectors include fruits and vegetables, corn wheat, cotton rice, soybeans and nursery and forest products.

• Mr. Speaker, FQPA must be implemented properly or grave results will occur. My bill gives this Congress a chance to do something good for the American people and the American Farmer. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.
  

  ---

  THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
  Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
  Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
  Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                  Doc Contents      

  ---