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: S10065]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last week, 20 of my colleagues of both parties joined me in introducing the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act, a bill to amend the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure that the EPA used sound science in its evaluation of pesticide uses. This legislation is particularly relevant given yesterday's announcement by the EPA that they will ban two important pesticides.

   Let me begin by saying that a safe food supply is, of course, in everyone's best interests. We all want to ensure that our children and American consumers continue to have access to abundant, safe agricultural products. It is in the best interests of consumers and agricultural producers that decisions on pesticide uses are based on sound scientific analysis--sound scientific analysis. That was the intent of the law which passed, with strong bipartisan support, 3 years ago. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. It passed with the overwhelming support of the agricultural industry and was seen as a much-needed modernization of laws governing all pesticide use.

   As written and signed by the President, the FQPA requires the EPA to reassess all of the Nation's pesticides, using more data, taking more factors into account, and allowing greater margins of safety. The FQPA also requires that these standards be based on hard data and sound science, not arbitrary assumptions or computer models.

   Under the FQPA, next week the EPA faces its first deadline for announcing its evaluation of some 3,000 uses of pesticides. As EPA prepares for its deadline, it has not fully used the sound scientific analysis called for in the 1996 FQPA bill. Instead, the EPA has relied on theoretical computer models and worst case scenarios in many of these cases. The EPA frequently prefers this approach, partly as a result of not having the resources or the time to focus. But this is not what Congress intended in 1996. We did not intend for farmers to lose the use of safe and effective pesticides. We did not intend for public health officials dealing with pest control issues to lose the products that help them protect the public.

   The bill my colleagues and I have introduced, the Regulatory Openness and Fairness Act, makes sure that EPA follows what was the intent of Congress 3 years ago. It will lessen the chance that safe and effective pesticides would be removed from the market without scientific justification; it provides a clear and predictable regulatory process based on scientific data; it streamlines the process for evaluating new pesticides; and it provides Congress with facts on how the act, as applied by the EPA, affects agriculture exports.

   We cannot forget that crop protection allows our farmers to produce the grains, the fruits, and the vegetables that feed not just our Nation but the world. Unnecessary regulations have a dampening effect on the engine that has fueled America's economic growth. That engine is called productivity. If the FQPA is not implemented fully and fairly, based on sound science, we will unnecessarily place our agricultural producers at a very great competitive disadvantage in world markets. Production prices will increase, productivity will decrease, and consequently our farmers will see their exports decline. This is hardly the time to be placing extra, unnecessary burdens on America's farmers.

   This bill is good for both consumers and agricultural producers. Consumers will continue to have safe, affordable, and abundant agricultural goods and farmers will continue to have the tools they need to produce safe, quality food products and to compete in the world market.

   In Nebraska, we call that common sense. I am proud to join my 20 colleagues in a strong bipartisan effort to introduce the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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