[Page: S1744]---
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to reach a unanimous agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This new law eliminated the famed Delaney Clause for residues in raw and processed foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food and agricultural interest, 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 use of crop protection chemicals. It is worth saying it again--a scientific, rational, sound and reasonable standard.
Mr. President, 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. Despite a unanimous Congressional vote, 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 entire FQPA implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's agriculture 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 getting FQPA's implementation back on track.
The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic principles. It included sound science in protecting public health, regulatory transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and consultation with the public and other agencies. The Vice President's approach was supported by America's agriculture community. Everyone's hopes were high.
Mr. President, today, almost a year after the White House got directly involved in FQPA's implementation process, it is still off track. It is becoming clear to me that Congress may again have to revisit FQPA.
Mr. President, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause.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 approach follows a path toward great economic harm for both agricultural producers and urban users of these products--an EPA approach which is without scientific foundation.
Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, workable implementation of this bipartisan law. Americans want and deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. Americans want and deserve rules that follow the Vice President's memo. Americans want and deserve rules which fit FQPA's requirements.
In order for these rules to be achieved EPA must:
Allow development of the best scientific methodology and data;
Base its decisions on actual pesticide uses rather than model assumptions; and
Operate in an open, transparent manner to establish uniform, scientific and practical policies.
Mr. President, this is simple and straightforward, and makes scientific common sense. This request is consistent with the intent of the unanimously passed law. This request is also consistent with the Vice President's memo of nearly a year ago.
The requirements of the law are achievable. I have confidence that EPA can do this right--EPA just needs to take the time, invest the effort with the proper focus.
EPA must recognize the problems that will be created if FQPA is improperly implemented. It is estimated that the economic impact for agricultural producers is tremendous. For just one class of chemicals being analyzed by EPA, estimates have shown a 55% yield loss in my state for corn if these products were eliminated. For cotton in Mississippi, the yield loss has been estimated at 8 percent. Crops across the United States would also be negatively impacted.
However, Mr. President, FQPA is not just about farming. Poor implementation of FQPA could also have consequences in the public health area. FQPA's passage was not just about reassessing old products, it was more about getting new, safer crop protection products on the market. FQPA's passage was bipartisan & unanimous because Congress also wanted new products and a rational scientific process. One such new product intended for use on cotton is currently under review by EPA. This new cotton insecticide, PIRATE, is extremely important to Mississippi cotton producers and we need full registration of this product before the growing season this year.
Mr. President, EPA must implement FQPA properly. EPA should not make any final decisions on important pesticide products until they have completely developed a clear and transparent process for implementing the law and have evaluated the impacts of product loss. With that done--FQPA will meet the expectations of Congress.
END