[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour
of 10:15 having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4) to promote the industrial competitiveness and
economic growth of the United States by strengthening and
expanding the civilian technology programs of the Department
of Commerce, amending the Stevensson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 to enhance the development and
nationwide deployment of manufacturing technologies, and
authorizing appropriations for the Technology Administration
of the Department of Commerce, including the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other
purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Kassebaum Amendment No. 1477, to establish a 15-year
statute of repose for those aircraft with fewer than 20 seats
that are used in scheduled service.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand there could be some
separate activity relative to the Kassebaum amendment. We are not sure
at this particular point. I am told the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi now has an amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran].
Mr. COCHRAN. May I inquire of the Chair if it would be in order to
send an amendment to the desk at this point, or do I need to seek
unanimous consent to temporarily set aside another pending amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair advises the Senator from
Mississippi that the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mrs.
Kassebaum] is now the pending business of the Senate. The Senator from
Mississippi can either ask that that amendment be set aside or offer
his amendment to the amendment currently pending from the Senator from
Kansas.
Amendment No. 1480
(Purpose: To extend certain compliance dates for pesticide safety
training and labeling requirements)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] be laid aside for
the purpose of offering this amendment, which I will now send to the
desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment offered now by the Senator from
Mississippi.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an
amendment numbered 1480.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. . COMPLIANCE DATES FOR PESTICIDE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Worker Protection Standards.--
(1) In general.--The compliance date for the worker
protection standard set forth in part 170 of subchapter E of
chapter I of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be
October 23, 1995.
(2) Pesticide safety training.--Not later than April 23,
1995, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'')
shall--
(A) develop and distribute pesticide safety training
materials that convey, at a minimum, the information referred
to in section 170.230(c)(4) of such title; and
(B) assist the appropriate Federal, State, and tribal
agencies in implementing pesticide safety training programs
required under section 170 of such title.
(b) Labeling requirements.--
(1) Enforcement.--
(A) In general.--During the period ending on October 23,
1995, the labeling requirements for pesticides and devices
set forth in subpart K of part 156 of subchapter E of chapter
I of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, may be enforced
only--
(i) in a State that has established a worker protection
program with respect to pesticides and devices as of the date
of enactment of this Act; and
(ii) for the purpose of enforcing a State program referred
to in clause (i).
(B) Equivalency.--During the period ending on October 23,
1995, each worker protection program referred to in
subparagraph (A)(i) shall be considered to meet the
requirements of the worker protection standard set forth in
part 170 of such subchapter. After such date, the
Administrator shall reassess whether the program meets the
standard.
(2) Notification of purchasers.--Beginning on April 22,
1994, each registrant of pesticides shall provide information
for point-of-sale notification to inform purchasers of
pesticides that the applicable compliance date for the
labeling requirements referred to in paragraph (1)(A) is
October 23, 1995.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi has
the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to carry
out the intent and purpose of the underlying legislation before the
Senate, to improve competitiveness and to help ensure that America's
economic well-being is developed without unnecessary burden and
restriction by Federal Government rules and laws. At the same time,
this amendment helps the Government recognize that it has a
responsibility to ensure that its actions serve the interests of our
economic growth and expansion.
To that end, I send this amendment to the desk. The Senate will note
that it is cosponsored by the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], and
the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]. The purpose is to extend a
deadline that now exists under regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of farm workers who
are handling and using pesticides in agriculture activity.
The reason I am offering this amendment is that unless Congress acts
before an April 15 deadline provided by current EPA regulations, State
departments of agriculture will be required to enforce regulations
dealing with worker protection procedures. These regulations will have
to be followed, in turn, on farms, in nurseries, and in timberland
pursuits throughout the United States.
The reason the April 15 deadline is a problem is very accurately
described in a letter that I received back in early September from a
farmer in my home county of Hinds County, MS. The letter is signed by
Mr. Randolph Smith, president of the board of directors of the Hinds
County Farm Bureau and a person I have known all my life. As a matter
of fact, he is a distant cousin, and I hope the Senate will not hold
that against me for responding to his request for some assistance in
this matter.
He basically outlines the problem in the letter as follows:
The farmers of Hinds County Farm Bureau are very concerned
about some of the new regulations regarding the use of
personal protective equipment and also the upcoming rules on
restricted entry intervals. These regulations are included in
the new worker protection standard that was issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
He says:
It is our belief that many of these rules are much too
complicated, in some cases, and very impractical in others.
We as farmers have more exposure to ag chemicals than
anyone else. Therefore, we are keenly aware of the need for
caution when applying them. It is in our best interest as
well as the general public's best interest to see that these
chemicals are handled in a safe manner for everyone involved.
That's why it is our hope that some of the rules that have
been passed down to us concerning the application and use of
ag chemicals can be looked at so that we can change them to
be more practical.
He then goes on to describe a lot of the specifics and problems that
the farmers in my county think should be addressed by the EPA. I sent
this letter over to the Environmental Protection Agency for its
information and asked the agency to respond to the concerns that have
been raised. I also asked the EPA to indicate whether or not there
would be any possibility for extending the effective date of these
regulations beyond April 15, if these concerns could not be dealt with
in a satisfactory manner.
I received a letter from the EPA dated October 26, 1993. It is a long
letter. I will not take up the time of the Senate to read it. I will
put both of these letters in the Record for the information of
Senators.
But I am going to read the last paragraph.
EPA recognizes that not all provisions of the WPS--
That is the worker protection standards
are equally applicable across American agriculture, and,
while establishing minimum requirements for worker/handler
protection, has provided great flexibility in how and when
that protection is to be provided. I hope this responds to
your concerns. If I may be of further service, please let me
know. Sincerely yours, Victor Kimm, Acting Assistant
Administrator.
After receiving this letter, my concerns, and those I was seeking to
help, were heightened and increased. If you read the letter, you will
understand that EPA is talking about flexibility in the enforcement of
these regulations. EPA officials say they are going to have flexibility
in how and when these regulations are enforced. I suppose that means
they will randomly select some people against whom to enforce the
regulations and then let others have a grace period in which they will
be free from compliance requirements under the regulations. That is the
only conclusion that a fair reading of this letter allows you to form.
At this point, for the purpose of clarity of the record, Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of both of these
letters, the one to me from Mr. Randolph Smith, and the other I
received from the Environmental Protection Agency in October 1993, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hinds County
Farm Bureau Federation,
Raymond, MS.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Hon. Thad Cochran: The farmers of Hinds County Farm
Bureau are very concerned about some of the new regulations
regarding the use of Personal Protective Equipment and also
the upcoming rules on Restricted Entry Intervals. These
regulations, as you know, are included in the new Worker
Protection Standard that was issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency. It is our belief that many of these rules
are much too complicated in some cases and very impractical
in others. We as farmers have more exposure to ag chemicals
than anyone else; therefore, we are keenly aware of the need
for caution when applying them. It is in our best interest as
well as the general public's best interest to see that these
chemicals are handled in a safe manner for everyone involved.
That is why it is our hope that some of the rules that have
been passed down to us concerning the application and use of
ag chemicals can be looked at so that we can change them to
be more practical.
One of the areas in which we should like to see some
modification is the rules concerning the use of Personal
Protective Equipment. We believe certainly, that this
equipment should be available and that all workers should be
trained to use it. The decision as to when and where to use
this equipment should be up to the particular individual.
Some of the reasons for this opinion are as follows:
1. Wearing the PPE clothing in the extreme heat that we
have here in summer can be more hazardous than the actual
chemicals.
2. If an employee did not wear the equipment even after he
was instructed to, then would the farmer have liability?
3. Some employees may become more careless because they
would feel they were fully protected with the clothing on.
Another area that we believe should be reviewed is the fact
that all agricultural crops are treated the same under these
guidelines. There is a considerable difference in the way
that fruits and vegetables are raised as opposed to a crop
such as cotton or soybeans. It is our opinion that these
differences should be considered when the regulations are
written. Crops that are handled by hand should be treated
differently from crops that are worked completely
mechanically.
Finally, the rules regarding Restricted Entry Intervals is
something that we are very concerned about. This regulation
mandates the placing of hazardous chemical signs at all
entrances of a field for a certain period of time before and
after a chemical is applied. We believe that many of the
rules in this section are unnecessary. Some of the reasons
are:
1. Chemicals are almost exclusively applied on private
property, therefore anyone who would enter the property
without the owners permission would be guilty of trespassing.
2. Employees of a farmer who applies a chemical should be
aware of the timing of the application and of the
restrictions of any chemicals.
3. Hazardous chemical signs posted all through the
countryside will cause unnecessary alarm among the general
public.
In closing we would like to thank you for all your support
that you have provided to agriculture over the years. We hope
that you will be able to help us in this effort to modify the
rules and regulations that we are concerned with. Let us
assure you that there is no one who is any more concerned
with the safe application and use of agricultural chemicals
than the farmer. We are the ones who are using these tools
and our livelihood depends on them being used safely and
effectively.
Thank you again for your help and support.
Sincerely,
Randolph Smith,
President, Hinds County Farm Bureau
Board of Directors.
____
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, October 26, 1993.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: Thank you for your letter of
September 15 on behalf of the Hinds County Farm Bureau
Federation, expressing their concern at certain provisions of
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Worker Protection
Standard (WPS). This regulation was issued in August 1992,
and will be fully implemented in April 1994.
The Farm Bureau is concerned about several aspects of the
WPS, in particular the provisions for personal protective
equipment (PPE) and field posting requirements.
With respect to PPE, the Farm Bureau rightfully recognizes
the possibility that PPE worn in high heat and humidity may
result in heat stress. EPA also recognizes the heat stress
problems associated with protective clothing, a potential
problem which is by no means confined to southern states such
as Mississippi. The WPS specifically provides that employers
should take appropriate precautions to prevent heat stress
when using PPE. Moreover, they are required to include in
training for pesticide handlers information on how to
recognize the symptoms of heat stress. The Agency has
prepared a guidance document discussing the recognition and
management of heat stress, now in the process of being
finalized. This brochure will be made widely available to the
user community. Notwithstanding these provisions, however,
EPA believes that PPE is an essential protection that should
not be withheld, and that with proper awareness and
management of heat stress conditions, PPE can generally be
used without increasing risks.
The Farm Bureau also asks whether the farmer would have
liability if a worker failed or refused to wear appropriate
PPE. This rule creates responsibilities based upon the
employer/employee relationship, and it is primarily the
responsibility of the employer to ensure compliance with its
provisions, including the wearing of PPE. However,
enforcement officials have authority to consider the facts of
the case before making a determination of whether a violation
has occurred.
EPA cannot speculate whether a worker wearing PPE would
become careless or ignore safety measures because the PPE
gives a feeling of protection. Certainly a worker wearing
appropriate PPE is better protected against the hazards of
pesticide exposure than one who is not. Nonetheless PPE
cannot entirely substitute for other risk reduction measures,
such as restricted entry intervals. A key element to ensure
that workers do not become complacent is proper training as
to the hazards of pesticides, the ability of PPE to prevent
such hazards, and the limitations of PPE. In training,
emphasis should be placed upon taking advantage of all of the
protections (PPE, Restricted entry intervals, training,
notification, decontamination) as means of reducing risk, and
not placing reliance on any one in particular.
The Farm Bureau raised the point that the farming of fruits
and vegetables differs significantly from that of cotton and
soybeans, expressing the belief that EPA did not take these
differences into account in developing the WPS. I assure you
the Agency has fully considered that many crops are grown
almost entirely mechanically, and has built into the WPS
exceptions that minimize the burdens of the rule for such
agricultural operations. The provisions of the WPS are
intended for the protection of agricultural workers and
pesticide handlers. If workers or pesticide handlers are
never used in the production of an agricultural crop, clearly
the provisions of the WPS never apply. Even where workers are
used, the provisions of the WPS are based upon the potential
for worker/handler exposure: where such exposure does not
occur, as might be the case in cotton or soybean farming, the
provisions are minimal and non-burdensome. I encourage the
Farm Bureau to familiarize their members with the various
exposure based exceptions of the WPS, which will relieve them
of a number of its provisions based upon ``no exposure.''
Finally, the Farm Bureau believes that the posting of
fields is unnecessary, arguing that posting would
unnecessarily alarm the general public, that employees of a
farm know or should be aware of the chemical applications and
restrictions, and that others who enter private fields are
trespassers (and presumably posting should not be required
for their protection). EPA cannot agree with these arguments.
First, fields are required to be posted only for
applications of pesticides that are of highest toxicity
(Toxicity Category I). There will not be a vast number of
posted fields because many pesticides are not in Toxicity
Category I. When less toxic pesticides are used, employers
may use signs or oral warnings to notify workers of pesticide
applications. Posting or other notification is not required,
however, if no worker will enter, work, or pass on foot
within \1/4\ mile of a treated area. In the case of field
crops such as cotton, soybeans, wheat, and corn, which are
not generally harvested by hand, it may well be that no
workers would be in or near the treated areas.
Moreover, the WPS is intended for the protection of workers
and not trespassers or the general public. Therefore, fields
are required to be posted at usual points of worker entry
only. Signs would not be expected to be necessary along
public roads unless workers routinely use the road to gain
access to a treated field, and then only at the field
entrance. If there are no usual points of worker entry,
signs would normally be placed in the corners of treated
fields. The signs will neither be so numerous nor so
directed that they should create public alarm by their
presence. To the extent that the public is informed of
pesticide-treated fields by warning signs, they benefit
indirectly.
Second, one of the principal reasons for the WPS is that,
contrary to the Farm Bureau's statement, workers and handlers
generally are not informed about pesticide hazards, trained
in safety measures, or informed of pesticide applications. On
farms with small numbers of workers or permanent workers
(such as may be the case for cotton, soybeans, and other
large mechanized crop operations), it may be true that the
workers are as well informed as the Farm Bureau assets. If
this is the case, the WPS will reinforce those notification
and training practices that already exist. However, the vast
majority of workers are migrant, seasonal or contract workers
who are not aware or informed of which pesticides have been
used, or of the hazards they pose. For these workers, the WPS
is of paramount importance to ensure that employers provide
such basic information.
EPA recognizes that not all provisions of the WPS are
equally applicable across American agriculture, and, while
establishing minimum requirements for worker/handler
protection, has provided great flexibility in how and when
that protection is to be provided. I hope this responds to
your concerns. If I may be of further service, please let me
know.
Sincerely yours,
Victor J. Kimm,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
Mr. COCHRAN. I do not want to delay the Senate too long, but I do
want to put in perspective what the problem is and why we are here in
March 1994 asking to suspend the effective date of these enforcement
regulations.
We have come a long way since we first understood the complexity of
the issues involved. The dangers include added costs to American
agriculture, compliance expenses, uncertainties about whether some of
the regulations will be enforced or ignored, and the inconsistencies
among different kinds of agriculture pursuits regarding the use of
chemicals. There are also concerns over whether farmers will have to
wear protective clothing when applying chemicals. If so, which ones
will and which ones will not.
These are questions that concern American agriculture. I think what I
will have to say over the next few minutes will illustrate that point.
Following some additional discussions and meetings at EPA, on
December 13 a letter was written by me and Senator Bennett Johnston of
Louisiana, which was signed by other Senators, to the President in
regard to the regulations that were about to be implemented. It was in
connection with the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill that was being
considered by the Senate. There was report language we had suggested to
include to help EPA understand the problems. What we basically said in
this letter is as follows:
While we strongly support a program which provides a high
level of protection for farm workers from pesticides, a
substantial concern has been raised over the complexity of
these requirements and the potential for confusion or
uncertainty by State regulatory agencies and agriculture
users. We are concerned with reports that EPA is seriously
behind schedule in developing training materials, educational
outreach programs, and implementation guidance to States on
how to regulate the program.
I will ask at this point, Mr. President, that this December 13 letter
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, December 13, 1993.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing you with regard to
S.Rpt. 103-137, which accompanies H.R. 2491, the fiscal year
1994 appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies. The report language refers to the implementation of
the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA) Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides. While we strongly
support a program which provides a high level of protection
for farmworkers from pesticides, a substantial concern has
been raised over the complexity of these requirements and the
potential for confusion or uncertainty by state regulatory
agencies and agricultural users. We are concerned with
reports that EPA is seriously behind schedule in developing
training materials, education outreach programs, and
implementation guidance to states on how to regulate the
program.
The Senate report language suggests that the ``EPA review
their implementation schedule of these standards to permit
adequate educational and outreach activities.'' The National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), the
association representing the state agencies, which in most
cases, will be responsible for the enforcement of the
program, has proposed a solution to EPA which tracks the
Senate language. That proposal is to delay the enforcement
until October 23, 1995. In the interim, the state agencies
have suggested that an increased level of education and
training should occur in order to prepare the regulated
community for the new pesticide labels which would be on the
market October 23.
In a recent meeting between EPA and NASDA, six ``ideal
goals'' of the program were agreed to by both parties: to
protect farmworkers; to provide effective training of
employers prior to the program implementation (worker
training after implementation); to obtain effective and
timely label changes; to develop quality compliance programs
in all states; to create an environment for acceptance of the
program in ``the field'' (by farmers); and to resolve the
major issues of concern still surrounding the program (e.g.,
reentry interval, personal protective equipment,
notification, etc.). It is our opinion that these goals
cannot be met if implementation occurs as scheduled on April
21, 1994. Moreover, we are told EPA has failed to provide a
host of educational materials to the regulated community, and
has failed to provide the state regulators with the
information and answers necessary to regulate the program.
Also, we understand much of this material was due prior to
April 21, 1993, and either has yet to be provided or was
provided at inadequate levels.
In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious
deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we
strongly encourage you to delay the labeling requirements
until October 23, 1995. This will allow EPA, the states,
farmworker representatives and farmers to discuss the areas
of concern and develop the necessary material for proper
implementation. Only then will a program be ready to provide
the protection farmworkers deserve.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
J. Bennett Johnston.
Chuck Grassley.
Mitch McConnell.
Thad Cochran.
Mr. COCHRAN. It is important to understand this issue because we are
now describing a State regulatory responsibility. Even though it is a
Federal regulation that EPA has promulgated and will take effect,
unless we act, on April 15, the States are under an obligation under
the regulations--and I suppose the law, even though the law is very
vague about this--to enforce the regulations.
This means that State governments all over the country will have to
train staff to understand the EPA regulations, when they apply, when
they do not apply, and what all the materials mean. As a result of
these regulations, they will have the responsibility to impose fines
and penalties and to ensure farm workers, farmers, nurserymen, and
timberland owners who grow pine trees and other kinds of timber in
production agriculture environments to comply with these very detailed
and very technical regulations.
We did not receive any kind of satisfactory response to our letter of
December 13. Because of this lack of response, 10 other Senators raised
this same issue in a letter to the President dated February 16 of this
year. It was either drafted by Senator Helfin of Alabama or Senator
Faircloth of North Carolina. Their two names appear as the first two
signatures. By sending the letter to the President, the Senators wanted
to ensure that somebody in the administration understand the
seriousness of the same problem that Senator Johnston and I had raised
in December. I am going to read another highlight of this letter as an
example of the kind of anxiety that was being manifested by the Senate
as recently as February 16.
This is not a debate about the regulations themselves.
I am reading from the letter.
As you know, the goals of the program have been agreed to
by all participants. The EPA and the States wish to (1)
protect farm workers; (2) provide effective training of
employers prior to program implementation; (3) obtain
effective and timely label changes; (4) develop quality
compliance programs in all States; (5) create an environment
for acceptance of the program locally; (6) and to resolve the
major issues of concern still surrounding the program.
It is our opinion, and that of many of the States, that
these goals cannot be met if implementation occurs as is
scheduled on April 21, 1994.
And then in the last paragraph the Senators say this.
In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious
deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we
strongly encourage you to delay enforcement of the program.
This will allow the EPA, the States, farm worker
representatives, and farmers to discuss the areas of concern
and develop the necessary material for proper implementation.
Only then will a program be effective in providing protection
to farm workers.
And the Senators' names appear. I ask unanimous consent, Mr.
President, that this letter of February 16 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
February 16, 1994.
The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to you today in regard
to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation
of the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) for agricultural
pesticides.
While we all understand the importance of a program which
protects farm workers from pesticides, substantial concern
has been raised nationwide over the complexity of these
requirements and the potential for confusion by state
regulatory agencies and agricultural users, including farm
workers themselves.
Members of the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture (NASDA), the association representing the state
agencies, will be responsible for the enforcement of this
program, and NASDA has proposed a feasible solution to
potential disaster. We would request that you postpone
enforcement of new WPS standards until their concerns have
been addressed.
This is not a debate about the regulations themselves. As
you know, the goals of the program have been agreed to by all
participants. The EPA and the states wish to (1) protect farm
workers; (2) provide effective training of employers prior to
program implementation; (3) obtain effective and timely label
changes; (4) develop quality compliance programs in all
states; (5) create an environment for acceptance of the
program locally; (6) and to resolve the major issues of
concern still surrounding the program. It is our opinion, and
that of many of the states, that these goals cannot be met if
implementation occurs as is scheduled, on April 21, 1994.
In fact, although the EPA and state Departments of
Agriculture have been working together on this project, the
EPA has continued to ignore the concerns of state pesticide
regulators regarding the complexity of the new standards, and
the logistical problems that will result from implementation
on April 21, 1994. While ongoing dialogue between all
effected parties is now progressing, it will be impossible to
resolve the outstanding issues and provide the educational
and training material needed for proper implementation by
April 21.
In light of the complexity of the regulation and serious
deficiencies in the program implementation preparation, we
strongly encourage you to delay the enforcement of the
program. This will allow the EPA, the states, farm worker
representatives and farmers to discuss the areas of concern
and develop the necessary material for proper implementation.
Only then will a program be effective in providing protection
to farm workers.
Thank you for you time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Lauch Faircloth, Larry E. Craig, Dirk Kempthorne, Dave
Duenberger, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Howell Heflin, Jesse
Helms, Pete V. Domenici, Larry Pressler, Strom
Thurmond.
Mr. COCHRAN. As I mentioned, the States are charged under the
regulations with enforcing these new regulations.
The people at the local level in the State departments of agriculture
will be charged with the day-to-day responsibilities for implementing
these regulations. This group itself is against these regulations.
I have a letter that I will put in the Record to illustrate the
seriousness of this situation, and how it is viewed by the States and
those who will be called upon to carry out these things on a daily
basis.
At their annual mid-year meeting the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, representing all 50 States and four
territories, unanimously approved a resolution asking the
administration to delay enforcement implementation of the Environmental
Protection Agency's new Worker Protection Standard for agricultural
pesticides. They asked that this be delayed until October 23, 1995.
The details of their concerns are expressed very well in a letter
dated February 27, which has been signed by almost all of the members
of this association who were attending this meeting. Over 40 state
commissioners of agriculture, or whatever other title they have, signed
this letter. It very clearly asks that this be considered a matter--I
will use their phrase--``of utmost urgency'' that the administration
act to delay the enforcement of these standards.
It says:
We, as the heads of the State-led pesticide agencies,
believe it is time for EPA to listen to our concerns and act
in a responsible manner.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the February 27 letter
that I just referred to be printed in its entirety in the Record, and
showing the signatures of all of those who signed it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture,
February 27, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: At its annual mid-year meeting, the
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
(NASDA), representing all fifty states and four territories
(American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands),
unanimously approved a resolution once again asking you to
delay enforcement implementation of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) new Worker Protection Standard
(WPS) for Agricultural Pesticides until October 23, 1995. In
the interim, NASDA believes that increased education and
training efforts should be conducted by the states with
material just now becoming available from EPA (though
quantities are still inadequate). In almost every case, the
state departments of agriculture will be required to
implement this new standard on April 21, 1994 under a
cooperative agreement with EPA and consistent with state laws
requiring us to enforce the label.
Mr. President, a major train wreck is about to occur. It is
simply impossible for us as state regulators and farmers to
implement this program nationwide as currently designed and
scheduled. We have been working with EPA, USDA, Members of
Congress, farmers, and farmworkers attempting to fix the
serious problems with the program and to educate the
regulated community. Our efforts, as well as those of the
agricultural production community, have been rebuffed by EPA
and have failed to resolve this serious problem. A
combination of the lateness of EPA in providing educational
material--almost ten months late by their own schedule, and
now arriving to the states after farmers have already entered
the field for this planting season--and parts of the
regulation which will be impossible to implement have created
a situation primed for disaster.
EPA has suggested that enforcement of the standard should
be ``flexible'' in the beginning stages of the program. We do
not believe that it is in the best interest of pesticide
regulation to tell farmers to ignore the law--the label is
the law. Beyond that, we as regulators cannot ignore the
label once it is on the product. It is the law, so we must
enforce the standard on April 21, 1994.
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant EPA Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, addressed our
meeting. We were seriously disappointed with her remarks on
WPS and continued lack of regard for our concerns as state
regulators. EPA has consistently failed to address our
problems in a genuine way even though we have come to the
table in good faith.
Mr. President, it is of the utmost urgency that you act to
delay the enforcement of the standard to October 23, 1995. We
as the heads of the state lead pesticide agencies believe it
is time for EPA to listen to our concerns and act in a
responsible manner.
Sincerely,
Bob Odom, Louisiana; Gus R. Douglass, West Virginia; W.
Greg Nelson, Idaho; Don Rolston, Wyoming; Phillip A.
Fishburn, Kansas; L.H. Ivy, Tennessee; ------ ------,
Colorado; Bernard W. Shaw, Maine; Keith Kelly, Arizona;
Henry J. Voss, California; Rick Perry, Texas; Clinton
V. Turner, Virginia; Arthur R. Brown, Jr., New Jersey;
Richard T. McGuire, New York; Fred L. Dailey, Ohio;
Yukio Kitagawa, Hawaii; Bruce Andrews, Oregon; David L.
Tompkins, South Carolina; ------ ------, Puerto Rico;
James A. Graham, North Carolina; ------ ------,
Minnesota; Charles W. Anderson, Oklahoma; Alan T.
Tracy, Wisconsin; Rebecca Doyle, Illinois; John L.
Saunders, Missouri; Leo A. Giacometto, Montana; A.W.
Todd, Alabama; John W. Cramer, Alaska; Frank A. DuBois,
New Mexico; Thomas W. Ballow, Nevada; Gerald King,
Arkansas; Boyd E. Wolff, Pennsylvania; James R.
Moseley, Indiana; Dale M. Cochran, Iowa; Ed Logsdon,
Kentucky; Jay C. Swisher, South Dakota; John F.
Tarburton, Delaware; Stephen H. Taylor, New Hampshire;
Thomas Irvin, Georgia; Gary G. Peterson, Utah; Larry E.
Sitzman, Nebraska; Jim Buck Ross, Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope it is obvious to Senators by now
that we are at a point where there have been a lot of meetings. These
meetings have been at the highest levels in the administration,
involving Cabinet level officials who are trying to resolve some of
these concerns and issues. But we have not really gotten anywhere.
The reason the February 27 letter was written was to create a policy
statement from all of these discussions. It was obviously written in an
effort to assuage concerns and tell everyone that everything was going
to be all right. It emphasized that nobody was going to get in trouble;
there would be a lot of flexibility; there would be a grace period
while everybody learned what the words meant in all of these
regulations; and, there would only be occasional enforcements, with
nobody new being targeted or exempt.
So, rather than contribute to a feeling of comfort, it increased
concerns.
This policy statement is dated February 22. I have a copy here under
the title of ``Enforcement of the Agricultural Worker Protection
Standard Under FIFRA.'' It is a three-page statement. I am going to
ask, at this point, Mr. President, that a copy of the policy statement
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[Policy statement from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, Feb. 22, 1994]
Enforcement of the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Under FIFRA
The Agency has received a number of questions regarding
delaying enforcement of the Federal Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170 and related labeling
regulations at 40 CFR part 156). We have never proposed
delaying enforcement of this rule; to do so would seriously
undermine the protections afforded pesticide handlers and
agricultural workers, the very people the rule was designed
to protect.
We are committed to using the flexibilities that we do
have, in terms of guidance and implementation, to reach the
underlying goals of the revised Worker Protection Standard
while addressing the concerns. We have clearly demonstrated
our willingness to listen to concerns and to bring all
parties together to find solutions.
On enforcement of the Standard, EPA's position has been one
of advocating phased-in, risk-based targeting of inspectional
activities. We have also consistently supported state
flexibility to address state priorities through State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) and Enforcement Response Policies
(ERPs) reflecting the nature of violations and their risk.
Given the flexibility provided, the importance of the safety
provisions of the revised rule and the amount of work
completed and underway with the states and regulated parties,
we do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to
delay the enforcement of the revised rule.
We would like to describe specifically the tenor of the
enforcement guidance currently being used by the states for
this rule, and to point out areas where the states are
encouraged to set priorities and target activities based on
state-specific needs.
In planning for the implementation of the WPS, the Agency
prepared guidance on the national approach for compliance
monitoring and enforcement and shared the guidance, in draft
form, with the states so that they could provide their
perspective and comments before the national guidance was
finalized. The Agency received significant input from the
states and took serious steps to incorporate the majority of
the states' comments into the national guidance. This
guidance includes a National Compliance Monitoring Strategy,
a WPS component in the National Cooperative Agreement
Guidance, assistance to the states in their development of
State Implementation Plans, worker protection inspection
guidance, and worker protection inspector training which is
being piloted this week with state representatives at the
National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI).
The National Compliance Monitoring Strategy for WPS
recommends that the states strike a balance between
activities used to prevent violations from occurring in the
first place (i.e. guidance, training, outreach and compliance
assistance) and activities used to correct and deter
violations (i.e. inspections, and enforcement actions). The
Strategy and the other guidance issued by the Agency
recommend that the states focus on outreach and compliance
assistance prior to the enforceable dates of the rule. Once
the effective dates of the rule have passed, EPA encourages
the states to target their inspections based on: (1) the
phased-in compliance dates associated with different
components of the rule; and (2) factors associated with the
risk posed at different inspection sites, including
information on product toxicity, crops grown, harvest methods
used at specific sites, worker exposure, historical problems
with products, and compliance history of sites. Enforcement
priorities for the initial compliance dates focus on
pesticide product label compliance.
Our inspection guidance recognizes that many states already
have an inspection targeting scheme in place, and therefore
recommends ``. . . that states and regional offices:
incorporate worker protection specific factors into their
schemes based on available information, and tailor targeting
schemes to meet particular needs and local concerns.'' EPA
provided a risk-based inspection targeting approach to the
states simply as an example of the type of approach we
recommend be developed on a state-by-state basis. Our
guidance goes on to state that compliance assistance can
still be provided following the completion of both routine
and targeted inspections in order to inform the regulated
community of the WPS provisions, as well as to clarify
requirements. People need to understand what is expected of
them, and we will continue to emphasize communication and
training for the next few years.
With regard to enforcement actions themselves as a result
of violations identified during inspections, many first time
FIFRA violations by individuals such as farmers who are not
certified commercial applicators may receive a notice of
warning for their first violation. The Agency's FIFRA
Enforcement Response Policy incorporates the statutory
minimum penalties and adjusts any penalty for violations
based on risk and other factors such as whether the violator
has a history of violations. Each state may either adopt the
Federal ERP or, more commonly, adjust its penalties to state
law. Each new regulation, such as the Worker Protection
Standard, offers a state the opportunity to adjust its ERP to
new provisions. States currently have written Enforcement
Response Policies (ERPs) reflecting the appropriate penalties
for violations of individual state law. We have indicated to
the Regions that states should be following their own ERPs
for violations of the WPS.
Beyond the guidance discussed above, under the state
Enforcement Cooperative Agreements, the states were asked to
develop State Implementation Plans which address: 1) outreach
and communication; 2) training; 3) coordination with other
state and Federal agencies; and 4) state-specific compliance
monitoring strategy based on the National Strategy. States
submitted these SIPs to the Regions with their enforcement
priorities articulated. Regions have been working with the
states to implement their SIPs. The FY 95 State Cooperative
Agreement Guidance will request states to continue to update
their SIPs. Since FY 90, a major component of the Cooperative
Enforcement Agreement program has been to provide funds for
the development of a program for enforcement of WPS. The
Agency received earmarked funds from Congress for each of
those fiscal years to award to the states and tribes for
implementation planning of the WPS. We should note that the
State Enforcement Cooperative Agreements are negotiated
between the regions and states annually and revised to
reflect changing priorities at both the state and National
level.
We fully intend to go forward with all of the training,
education, compliance assistance and flexible focused
enforcement activities planned for the Worker Protection
Standard. We continue to be committed to working with all
interested parties in ensuring responsible and reasonable
implementation of this important regulation.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will read the last paragraph again to
show you that we have not come very far since that first exchange of
correspondence that I had with EPA back in September of last year. Here
is the last paragraph:
We fully intend to go forward with all of the training,
education, compliance assistance and flexible--
Flexible--
focused enforcement activities planned for the Worker
Protection Standard. We continue to be committed to working
with all interested parties in ensuring responsible and
reasonable implementation of this important regulation.
Everything in there sounds pretty good unless you stop to think about
this phrase: ``* * * flexible focused enforcement activities.'' Nobody
knows what that means. After all of these months trying to understand
the EPA's intentions, and whether there would be a period for training
and developing equipment designed to meet the regulations that are
being implemented, farmers and agriculture agencies around the country
are still perplexed.
It seems to me, Mr. President, and those who have joined in writing
these letters, that Senators ought to cosponsor this amendment and
delay the enforcement of these regulations for a period of time within
which we can do these things that EPA says are necessary.
I am going to again read what we want to have done. It is in the last
paragraph of this policy statement:
* * * training, education, compliance assistance.
That is what we need before the regulations are in enforced. What
they are saying is we are going to begin enforcing the regulations in a
``flexibly, focused'' manner--whatever that is--and while we are doing
that, we are going to proceed with ``training, education, and
compliance assistance.''
The whole point is that for almost 2 years now EPA has had an
opportunity to do those things: ``training, education, and compliance
assistance.'' EPA officials could have held workshops around the
States, assisted people who will have the job of day-to-day
enforcement, and explain to farmers what the phrases mean.
For example, you are supposed to have full protective clothing worn
if you are a farm worker and you are applying a pesticide. Think about
this. You are in Mississippi in July, and you are a crop duster. I was
just trying to think what all of this means in practical, everyday
terms and how people deal with these things out in the real world. You
are going to have a crop duster look like he is going on a space ship
to the Moon.
Maybe that is what EPA is going to require. Maybe not. But if you
read what the protective clothing requirements are for pesticide
applicators, you could reach that conclusion without stretching your
imagination much at all.
I do not know what effect it will have on people who apply pesticides
from the air in the Mississippi Delta or throughout the country. But it
is bound to have some new requirement. These are persons who handle and
apply pesticides. Here is a whole list of things that they are going to
have to do beginning in April of this year.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that this requires some action by the
Congress that says, in effect, ``Hey, wait a minute, let's don't get
the cart before the horse. Let's don't start fining people and imposing
penalties on folks before they know how to comply with the
regulations.''
That is the whole point of this. Those of us who have been raising
these concerns and trying to have meetings and iron these issues out
are not against protecting farmers. But we think they have a right to
be treated fairly and to be put on notice, understand the rules. That
is at the core of our system of justice and it ought to be at the core
and at the heart of the way Government treats its citizens.
Here we are talking about improving competitiveness, helping improve
our economic ability to compete as a Nation, and we are going to put on
the necks and backs of American agriculture some of the most
potentially costly and disruptive requirements and regulations than we
have ever seen. And agriculture has had its fair share of burdensome
requirements and regulations.
I am not saying we do not need to be careful. That is not the point.
People need to be educated, and they need to be protected.
But if we turn loose an agency of the Federal Government to direct
State departments of agriculture to enforce regulations and impose
sanctions on farmers, agriculture producers, nursery people and folks
who grow pine trees, we need to make sure that they fully understand
what the consequences of all of these regulations will be, how they are
going to be enforced, and how they should comply.
The other day, my friend and our distinguished Secretary of
Agriculture, Mike Espy, was in Mississippi, and he also had an
opportunity to talk to an agriculture group meeting in New Orleans.
This issue came up at the meeting, and he discussed it, and said he
would try to get an extension of this deadline.
The whole thing is that we are at the point where the deadline is
almost here--April 15, almost a month from now. This will become a fact
of life for agriculture throughout this Nation, unless the Congress
acts or unless the administration changes its mind. But they keep
saying they are not going to do anything.
This policy statement which I just put in the Record, and other
responses that we have had, indicate that they are not going to do
anything. Here are some newspaper articles, in addition to the one I
mentioned about Secretary Espy's visit to New Orleans and to
Mississippi. Here is one in the Farm Bureau News, which also brings
everybody up to date, a February article, and then one as recently as
March 7, where the Farm Bureau brought this matter to the attention of
President Clinton himself at its meeting in Washington.
According to reports, they do not expect to delay implementation of
these standards, and they expect States to crack down on violators.
I ask unanimous consent that these newspaper articles from the Farm
Bureau News be printed at this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Farm Bureau News, Feb. 7, 1994]
Ag Officials Seek Delay in Regs
Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups are urging a
delay in implementation of the Environmental Protection
Agency's farm worker pesticide protection regulations, saying
more time is needed for education and training.
The new worker protection standard is scheduled to be
implemented this year on April 21. Farm Bureau and the
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
(NASDA) have asked EPA to delay implementation until Oct. 23,
1995.
The state agricultural officials and other groups say they
are committed to protecting farm workers, but that the
program, as currently developed, does not achieve that goal.
They say EPA has failed to provide information, educational
materials and training in order for the agricultural
community to comply with the new rules.
A large portion of the material either has yet to be
provide or has been provide at inadequate levels, they say.
``Unfortunately it appears EPA is more committed to its
arbitrary date of April 21, 1994, than it is to protecting
farm workers and ensuring the education of the agricultural
community,'' said a letter from NASDA to President Clinton,
urging him to resolve the issue.
The new regulations expand the scope of protection
standards to include not only field workers performing hand
labor operations, but also forestry, nursery and greenhouse
workers and pesticide handlers. The rules apply to all
operations that hire one or more workers.
The agriculture industry is not asking that EPA abandon its
regulatory scheme, said Libby Whitley, an American Farm
Bureau Federation governmental relations director. She said
farmers--who will bear the brunt of these regulations--are
prepared to comply, but need extensive training.
A delay in implementation to October 1995 would provide a
more realistic timeframe for the agricultural community to
comply with the complex new regulations, she said.
____
[From the Delta Farm Press, Feb. 11, 1994]
Wants Delay on Implementation: Espy Vows Fight on WPS Date
(By Forest Laws)
Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy says he will seek
postponement of the April 15 deadline for full implementation
of the new Worker Protection Standards.
Although EPA officials have indicated on several occasions
recently that there will be no delays in the April 15
effective date, Espy said he will discuss the issue with
other cabinet officials to try to buy more time for farmers
to learn how to cope with the complicated standards.
``I am sensitive to their (farmers') concerns, particularly
with something as important as this,'' Espy said during a
press conference at the National Cotton Council's annual
meeting in New Orleans.
The secretary said he wants to talk to Labor Secretary
Robert Reich and EPA Administrator Carol Browner about
``easing in'' WPS regulations that require extensive worker
training and use of personal protective equipment for some
agricultural chemicals.
``In the South, it doesn't make much sense, in some cases,
to mandate the heavy protective clothing,'' he said. ``As
desirable as the intent may be, down here it gets hot, 100
degrees plus. The health effects may be more adverse from
requiring that level of protective clothing than from the
pesticide itself.''
Espy said USDA is not the primary agency for implementing
the WPS regulations. ``But whenever agriculture is discussed,
we have said we are going to be there.''
That is the tack Espy took in December when he was able to
keep agriculture's foot in the door on the reformulated
gasoline issue--a door the petroleum industry had attempted
to close.
Espy, WHO REPORTS have said was at home sick at the time,
came to his office and arranged to meet with EPA officials on
the eve of the announcement of their new reformulated
gasoline policy. The result: Ethanol could account for 30
percent of that market in the years ahead.
In his speech to Cotton Council delegates, Espy said he had
promised then President-elect Clinton that he would position
USDA for the future, that he would make it more farmer
friendly and that he would help to foster a ``different
attitude'' within the department bureaucracy.
``I said that we would create a different climate, that we
would move USDA from being just a Department of Agriculture
to being a Department for Agriculture,'' he noted. ``And
we're doing that--we're changing USDA from top to bottom.''
As part of the streamlining or reinvention of government
that is underway, Espy said USDA will reduce itself from 43
agencies to 30. He is proposing that an ``early buyout''
program be offered to 8,500 full-time employees.
The proposal was scheduled for mark-up in a House
Agriculture subcommittee on Feb. 8, and Espy said he has
received assurances from Senate Agriculture Committee leaders
that they would begin work on the proposal soon after. The
legislation could be enacted by March, he said.
Following passage, USDA, will begin the process of closing
approximately 1,300 field offices nationwide and
consolidating many of its functions into ``one-stop'' service
centers.
``We're trying to save you money; we're trying to become
more service oriented and less acronym-oriented,'' he said.
``It's all about being farmer friendly, streamlined,
consolidated, doing what we promised.''
Espy said he was pleased with the way USDA worked with the
council on the 1994 acreage reduction program (ARP)
requirement.
``At the time we announced it in November, the preliminary
17.5 percent ARP for upland cotton made sense in terms of
projected U.S. supply and demand balance and the requirements
of the law,'' he said.
``But the final ARP that we announced earlier this month is
11 percent, and it's based on lower production estimates for
the 1993 crop and improved export prospects stemming from
reduced foreign production. Because we reduced the ARP, U.S.
producers will benefit from the better export prospects and
that means higher farm income.''
Espy pledged to continue to fight for farmers on a variety
of fronts, citing such issues as wetlands delineation,
endangered species, reauthorization of the clean water act,
and pesticide policy debates.
``This administration inherited a set of pesticide laws and
regulations that don't work,'' he said. ``We must work to
harmonize often contradictory attitudes. Consumers demand
constant assurances that our food supply is safe. They have
trepidations about the harmful effects of pesticides.
``Producers, on the other hand, also demand constant
assurances the regulatory system will give them the tools
they need to raise their crops. And so we must work with both
sets of attitudes to harmonize them.''
The former congressman from Mississippi also said he wanted
to publicly thank council staff member Bill Gillon for his
assistance during confirmation hearings last winter.
Gillon, general counsel for the NCC, was detailed to Espy
to brief him on USDA policy issues and accompany him during
his round of visits with members of the Senate Agriculture
Committee prior to the hearings.
____
[From the Farm Bureau News, Mar. 7, 1994][
FB Encourages Clinton to Delay Worker Rules
A delay in implementing new farm worker pesticide
protection regulations is needed to give the agricultural
industry adequate time to comply, Farm Bureau told President
Clinton last week.
In a letter, American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean
Kleckner urged Clinton to push back the enforcement date of
the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations to Oct. 23,
1995. The current schedule calls for enforcement to begin
this April 15.
The rules would require, among other things, that farm
workers who handle pesticides wear protective clothing, be
informed about the chemicals they handle and be prohibited
from returning to fields too soon after chemicals are
applied.
Kleckner said Farm Bureau is not asking EPA to abandon the
new regulations, but rather to provide more time, education
and training so state regulatory agencies and farmers can
comply.
``These regulations are precedent-setting,'' Kleckner said.
``They mandate vast new responsibilities and costs for
farmers and ranchers. They create significant new liabilities
both for pesticide users and manufacturers. Further, they are
a sizable new unfunded federal mandate for state enforcement
agencies.
``Farmers, who will bear the brunt of the regulations, will
comply,'' Kleckner said. ``To do so, however, will require
extensive education and employer compliance training.''
EPA has been slow to distribute training materials to
states, and has not yet decided whether to implement a worker
training certification program, he said.
``EPA has stated it believes that compliance will come
about only through a trained work force,'' he said. ``If it
truly believes this, then the training activities must be
focused at the basic employment level--on the farm.''
State agriculture departments are strongly seeking the
delay, citing the potential cost of enforcing the rules and
inadequate preparation time. In addition, members of
Congress, farm groups, state regulators, and farm worker
groups and unions have asked EPA to delay implementation of
the new standards.
Reps. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio) filed
legislation last week asking Congress to delay enforcement of
the rules to Oct. 23, 1995. They are concerned about the
heavy financial burdens that could be placed on states and
agribusinesses.
According to news reports, EPA assistant administrator Lynn
Goldman said information on the rules is being circulated to
farmers and states. She said the agency would not expect
states to immediately crack down on violators.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will grant some relief
in this situation and grant our request, which this amendment would do,
to extend the deadline for this regulation.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is
recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me compliment my friend from Mississippi
for this amendment. My farmers are very concerned, and they have told
me of their concern. They do not have time to do the training and get
ready for the requirements and the regulations, and they have never
seen Government be flexible when a regulation is in place and when they
are in jeopardy. They are very concerned, and I compliment the Senator
on his position.
But, Mr. President, may I make a point here. It may be that under the
circumstances, this amendment may never see the light of day. I feel
sorry for the chairman of the Commerce Committee, who is leading a
fight for a bill that has been passed through the Senate unanimously at
least twice. It came out of the Commerce Committee unanimously, and now
we see all kinds of nongermane amendments being put on this
legislation. They keep going on and on and on.
I think it is time we step back and begin to look at how we are
operating legislatively here in the Senate. It may be that at some
point we would just go ahead and let everybody have their say for a few
minutes and move to table, and we will take these potential amendments
off the bills one at a time, if necessary. But I think we are making
this bill a Christmas tree, and that is very unfortunate.
I know, and others will say, ``This is the only way I can get it up;
I could not get it up any other way.'' I understand that part. But it
does jeopardize the operation of the Senate to get to other bills that
are important, and I hope that we will be able, through the leadership,
to try to work out something, not only to accommodate those who have
legislation that is necessary, but also to accommodate those that come
to the Senate floor with a piece of legislation that comes out of
committee unanimously, and you talk for a week on it, and you never get
to the guts of the legislation that is brought out of the committee.
So I would like to put my colleagues on notice that I am going to be
giving serious consideration to trying to see if there is something
that cannot be worked out where we do not find ourselves in the
position of getting a ``Christmas tree'' every time we have a piece of
legislation up.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to join in complimenting my
colleague from Mississippi for introducing this amendment.
Three weeks ago, I held a farm advisory meeting in South Dakota. The
meeting was held on a farm in Hamlin County near the small town of
Hazel, SD. The meeting was held on a Friday night and well over 40
farmers, ranchers, and small businessmen were in attendance. Some
farmers drove over 100 miles to attend.
The meeting was held in the basement of the home of Donald Christman.
I hold several of these kinds of listening meetings. It is one of those
times when a Senator gets home and listens directly to constituents at
the grassroots level. This direct input lets me know exactly what is on
the minds of farmers and ranchers in South Dakota.
One of the first things they raised with me was a concern about the
Environmental Protection Agency's regulations on worker protection
standards. The most startling fact was that only one or two of the
farmers in attendance were aware that the new regulations would become
effective on April 15, 1994.
These farmers wondered how they could possibly comply with these
regulations if they had not been told what they will have to do. Many
wondered how the regulations came about in the first place. Now that
was an excellent point.
I explained to them: ``Well, Congress did not do this. This was the
Government bureaucracy.'' They asked, ``Who do we talk to? You are our
Senator. We need your help.'' I said I would return to Washington and
try to do something about it. I wish to join my colleague from
Mississippi in sponsoring this amendment, because it directly addresses
a main concern of South Dakota farmers and ranchers.
It is a problem that we need to attach this amendment to the pending
business, but time is of the essence. Yet April 15, 1994, is just a few
weeks away, and many farmers in South Dakota do not want to be fined or
have legal action taken against them for not complying with regulations
they know little, if anything, about. The EPA has even admitted that
getting the word of the new regulations to the public has been a
problem.
However, at times, this is the way the legislative process works. The
amendment is very timely. Without some action by Congress, the
regulation will go into effect and possibly jeopardize many farmers and
ranchers. This should not be allowed to happen. Time must be granted to
educate the public on what action is needed on their part. The
regulations should not be shoved onto them. Time is also needed to
thoroughly review how these regulations will impact the daily
operations of farmers and ranchers. What may work in Maine may not work
in South Dakota. What may work in South Dakota may not work in
Mississippi. We need time to work this out as well.
My colleague from Mississippi has carefully analyzed the current
situation and has developed an appropriate response. I hope the
amendment will pass. It is greatly needed. I think most Members of the
House and Senate should be in favor of this.
So I compliment my friend from Mississippi. This is exactly one of
the main concerns the farmers and ranchers raised with me in my
agriculture advisory listening meeting in the basement of a farmer's
home near Hazel, SD.
I would like to join my colleague in sponsoring this amendment, and
ask that he add me as a cosponsor to the amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from South Dakota be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it could very well be a meritorious
initiative or amendment, but it is certainly not timely or appropriate
on this bill. Let me first say that I share a great deal of sentiment
for the initiative by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. But
not on S. 4. We have a technology bill; we have advance technology
programs; we have the manufacturing technology centers, the extension
services, and the small business loans. There is not a word in this
bill about pesticides or the Department of Agriculture regulations on
pesticides. So Senator Cochran's amendment is absolutely not germane
whatsoever.
Nonetheless, as I said, I sympathize with the Senator's cause. I
harken back to 1967, when my State's peach farmers faced a similar
problem. They were confronted with rules and regulations requiring that
they wear a white cape, a hood with eye slits opened up in it, and
little white gloves; at that time they looked like Klansmen running
around in the peach orchard. We had signs every 25 yards, and under the
regulations, it was safe to eat the peach, but unsafe to go in and pick
the peach.
I vividly recall Senator George Aiken, of Vermont, who joined with
this freshman Senator in resolving this problem.
So I am sympathetic, but I am not prepared to talk on pesticides and
rulings and regulations at this particular time. I am concerned by the
procedural gridlock on this bill. As the distinguished majority whip
has pointed out, we are getting into a sort of open sesame as to the
offering of non-germane amendments; there is no discipline.
This has to be solved, I take it, at the top level by the leadership
on both sides of the aisle as to what the procedures are going to be.
In times past, a Senator would not dare attempt to attach an
extraneous amendment such as this on a bill. Now, it is virtually
standard operating procedure around here to just come in at any time
with any measure, no relation whatsoever to the subject matter. So this
is not a surprise, you might say, in that we had heard this last
evening. We notified the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and
others who seem to be interested and have been working on this matter.
That was 45 minutes ago. We understand they have other work to do, but
we have work to do as well.
I do not know any way to advance this bill than to move to table this
amendment. Everybody wants to be courteous and indulgent, but we will
only be indulgent for a short period of time around here and then we
will move for a vote. If the Senator gets his vote on the motion to
table and we do not table it, that will tell us something. Then it is
accepted and we will put it on the bill.
This open sesame on S. 4 began, unfortunately, with a sponsor of the
bill who contributed to unanimous support for it in committee. We
worked out problem areas together to make sure that it was not pork,
that it was not picking winners and losers, that it had to be picked by
the industry, that the industry had to provide the majority of the
funds and, thereby, we provided for peer review by the National Academy
of Engineering.
Now, because the Senator is disillusioned with the negotiations on
GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in December signals
are switched, and I am hearing that same member who supported the bill
over the years now talking about pork and claiming that now we have a
new philosophy, a new departure in industrial policy.
Then in the next breath he said, in effect, ``By the way, I like the
industrial policy for the aircraft industry.''
If we had to pick the No. 1 industrial policy for any private sector,
it would be the aircraft industry. I mean we do not debate on NASA or
whether we have a space station. We go forward, increase the budget,
relative to space. I am chairman of that authorization committee and am
totally familiar with that. We come and talk about the spinoffs. And
the No. 1 spinoff is this. Why get a man up in space when you cannot
afford to support the safety of a man walking on the streets.
Well, you have to understand here is the leading industry with
respect to most of our balance of trade, our productivity, our lead in
the manufacture of aircraft, and all of that comes from the space
program. It all comes from research in the Department of Defense.
Yes, we have the Export-Import Bank financing to promote sales around
the world in aircraft.
So I believe, yes, that is an industrial policy. But when it comes
here to helping small business in technology, he says, oh, we better
not, now we have a new departure, and it is time. I have talked to a
Senator. The gentleman said he had not thought of that, and now we have
to start a whole new debate because the distinguished Senator is
disillusioned with the GATT negotiations back in December.
That is no way. It is gridlock. It is, I guess, in keeping with this
idea that since we are the most deliberative body, yes, we can have
extended debate. But this is not extended debate. This is extended
shenanigans. Anybody can come at any time, and once you get your
amendment up, you can get recognized; when you are talking about
technology, and small business, and research you get veer off into
discussion of regulations on pesticides in agriculture.
As manager of this bill I will go along with the general norms. But I
put everybody on notice that we are not going to sit here all day long
just to indulge Senators who are busy elsewhere and have work to do and
then we are supposed to go to 11 and 12 o'clock at night until everyone
gets exhausted and wants to go home on the weekend. I mean, come on. I
will stay here through the weekend. It suits me fine.
But we need some discipline and understanding on both sides of the
aisle so that we can move legislation that is agreed on by everyone and
worked out by all the committees--the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources, the Committee on Rules and Administration, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, plus the committees on the House
side.
So with that understanding, I understand that two or three Senators
are on the floor who still want to be recognized. I understand the
Senator from Mississippi has an important initiative here. However, it
is an important initiative on an agricultural measure, and it is not
relevant to this bill
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran].
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me quickly say it is not the purpose
of this Senator to delay the Senate in consideration of this
legislation or this amendment. If the Senator wishes to proceed to a
vote on the amendment, I have no objection to that.
We have made our argument. We have talked about the problem. We have
tried to explain it as succinctly as we can and put it in perspective
so the Senate will know what the issue is and understand what the vote
will be about if we do have a vote on the amendment.
So, I just want Senators to understand that the request for delay in
considering the amendment or voting on it or disposing of it is not
coming from the proponent of the amendment.
We made our case. We have made the best argument we can make. We put
in the Record all the supporting documentation of why we think this is
a serious matter and one of some urgency.
So we certainly do not want to delay. We want to impose the will of
the Senate on the process so that we can ensure that fairness and due
process and advanced notice of the effect of these regulations are well
understood. The whole point is for the EPA to recognize we need to have
the training, the discussion of the procedures, and all of the rest in
advance of the enforcement. We should not just randomly pick out
someone to nail, start cracking down on violators and putting sanctions
on State departments of agriculture who are the victims in many ways of
the mandates of the Federal Government.
They have not been given any money to train or hire staff to carry
out the enforcement. They have just been told by the Federal
Government: ``You do it. We are going to tell you generally what is
against the rules and what is not, and if you cannot understand, we
will just come in and enforce and fine you and then you will understand
it.''
That creates an awful lot of anxiety. If there is anything that is
going to hurt our competitiveness, it is that kind of Government action
that adds unnecessary costs, impedes our ability to efficiently operate
farms, agriculture, timber growing operations, nurseries, and other
operations. We ought to take action. That is the whole point of this
amendment. `
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to address the bill before us today, S. 4, and
to offer my strong support, not only for the substance of S. 4, the
National Competitiveness Act, but to echo the appeals of the chairman
of the committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Hollings] and others that we exercise some self-restraint, which I know
is often difficult, and focus on what is in S. 4 and not let it get
sidetracked with a lot of amendments.
I say that without casting any judgment on the particular amendment
pending now or any others being offered. But I say it with a particular
sense of urgency since S. 4 addresses two problems that it is important
for us to address--job creation and competitiveness.
Mr. President, we have a lot of problems in our country, but I can
tell you, at least from the point of view of my constituents in
Connecticut, there is no more serious problem than getting on with the
task of getting our economy moving again, and creating and protecting
jobs.
In the 5 years since 1989 when the recession began, my State of
Connecticut has lost something on the order of 200,000 jobs. That is a
lot of jobs. Connecticut has not been the only victim of job loss--as
my colleagues in this Chamber know, Connecticut's experience with job
loss is a story that has repeated itself in many places around the
country.
But the sad part of the story is that this recession, which may be
over in the minds of some economists, is not over in the lives of a lot
of Americans: it is not like other recessions. This was not a temporary
reduction in demand that led to people being laid off in the bad times
and rehired in better times.
There are a lot of people out there who were laid off because of
changes in the structure of our economy, because of downsizing, because
of the reduction in our defense budget. These are people --many of whom
are in midcareer--capable, qualified people--frankly, the kinds of
people who never expected to be laid off and now worry about whether
they will ever be rehired. And their worries resonate throughout much
of the rest of the population--among their neighbors and their former
coworkers who wonder whether they will be next.
This bill, in a way that would be hard to put on a bumper sticker,
really deals with the heart of protecting and creating jobs in America
by putting the Government in a partnership with business to improve our
competitiveness and the available supply of good jobs in this country.
We use a lot of initials in talking about this bill--NIST, ATP's,
MTC's. For me, what this bill is all about is j-o-b-s; jobs.
In the debate over how to improve the competitiveness in American
manufacturing, we have spent a lot of time addressing the high cost of
capital, the low rate of savings and investment, chronic trade and
budget deficits, and failure of our educational system then to prepare
our workers. All of those are obviously critical and important to
protecting and creating jobs.
But this bill really confronts the basic question, which is: How do
we keep this country on the leading edge of manufacturing and
technology?
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] has really been a
pioneer in this. He was way out front before a lot of others saw the
opportunity for the Government to be constructive in a partnership
relationship with business.
I was privileged to serve on an economic task force a couple of years
ago that the majority leader put together to continue some of these
programs. In the various committees, we had bipartisan support. We
worked to put together a package of economic initiatives and when that
package passed, we had bipartisan support.
And we have had bipartisan support again in bringing this bill out of
committee, because it is the right thing to do and the sensible thing
to do. It is beyond politics, beyond partisanship. It is, in a
practical sense, what the business community of America is asking the
Federal Government to do to help them remain competitive by protecting
and creating good jobs.
Let me talk in concrete terms about what this bill does.
This act expands the number of centers where small manufacturers can
go to get hands-on training in the latest technology.
S. 4 also expands the Advanced Technology Program--that is ATP--at
the National Institutes for Standards and Technology--that is NIST. The
ATP matches funds for industry-led efforts to solve industrywide
problems. And, for those with the idea that will take technology
forward, the conceptual technological breakthrough, but who do not have
the resources to carry it forward, this bill has the Critical
Technologies Financing Pilot Program. I do not think we have even
reduced this program to letters or an acronym yet, Mr. President, but
it is important to people with the bright idea that could lead to the
employment of thousands of people in the future.
Let me state there are three simple reasons to support this bill.
The first is to promote and improve American technology. The key to
global competitiveness is the ability to deliver a better product at a
better price. Obviously, this could be achieved in a number of ways.
For example, we can artificially hold down wages or we can sell
products more cheaply in foreign markets than we sell them at home. But
there really is only one way to deliver a superior product at a cheaper
cost without sacrificing the living standards of American workers or
punishing American consumers. That is to increase productivity. And the
way to get increased productivity is through advances in technology.
Technological advances can drive an economy by creating new goods,
new services, new jobs, new capital, even new industries. When applied
to existing systems, advanced technology can improve productivity and
the quality of products. Anyone with the most basic computer can
confirm that advanced technology can indeed make a job easier and
faster.
Technological advances can help compensate for competitive
disadvantages that American firms may face overseas, including
comparatively higher costs of capital and labor.
We should take pride in the fact that the United States remains the
world leader in basic research and in many areas of applied research.
At the same time, research in and of itself does not lead to improved
productivity and economic growth. R&D is merely the first step. It is
commercialization, the process of moving products from our laboratories
to our factories, that leads to increased productivity, continued
economic growth, and the ultimate rise in our standard of living.
But, unfortunately, that is also where we too often fail. We must, as
our competitors do, aggressively support emerging technologies so they
can be transformed into the commercially viable products, the job-
creating businesses for the international marketplace.
Reason two relates to manufacturing and small manufacturers.
Mr. President, manufacturing currently employs approximately nearly
19 million Americans and adds about $1.3 trillion to the economy each
year. The export of manufactured goods account for nearly 67 percent of
the total value of U.S. exports of goods and services.
As anyone who has visited a machine tool shop or a ball bearing plant
can tell you, most of these manufacturers are hardly giants--there are
an estimated 360,000 small and midsized manufacturing firms in the
United States. But in terms of being job generators, these firms are
giants. By way of illustration, during the years 1988 through 1992
manufacturing firms with fewer than 20 employees added 220,000 jobs,
while manufacturing firms with more than 500 employees lost nearly 1
million jobs.
While the small companies employ millions of Americans, they lag
behind virtually all our competitors in adapting new manufacturing
equipment and technology. These companies need a sophisticated
manufacturing extension service, much like the extensive system we have
set up for agriculture. For comparison: While agriculture represents
about 2 percent of our total GDP, U.S. manufacturing represents nearly
12 times that much--about 23 percent. At the same time, the U.S. spends
over a billion dollars on agricultural extension programs while we
spend one-tenth of that on manufacturing extension programs--about $100
million.
Mr. President, a robust and technologically advanced network of small
business manufacturers are our best hope for staying competitive. ``Few
and far between'' is the best description of the public and private
institutions in the U.S. getting the word out on new technologies. This
causes particular concern for small manufacturers who do not have the
resources to keep up with technological developments taking place in
the United States, never mind overseas. Contrast this with Japan--where
technology dissemination and technical assistance is commonplace. For
example, the Japanese Government provides $235 million for a nationwide
network of 185 technology extension centers.
Reason three relates to information technology.
Mr. President, the ``information superhighway'' has become the new
``buzzword'' of the nineties. It has come to signify the frontier of
technological innovation. It is also likely to become the frontier of
international trade and competition. The U.S. is well positioned to set
the standard, to be the ``pace car'' on this new information
superhighway. However, that leadership role will require partnerships
between government, universities, and the private sector.
By putting information about advanced technology onto the
superhighway, S. 4 envisions benefits in any number of fields--
including health, education, and medicine.
answers to criticism
industrial policy
Mr. President, there has been some suggestion that S. 4 puts the
Federal Government in the position of picking winners and losers in the
marketplace--so called industrial policy. Industrial policy conjures up
images of Government bailouts for inefficient smokestack industries.
That is not what this bill is about. What we are talking about is
industry-led, not Government-led, initiatives that occur at the
technology development stage, not after products go to market.
The National Competitiveness Act does not replace the free market.
What it does do is carve out a constructive role for the Government to
play in technology policy--particularly in the precompetitive,
precommercial, developmental stages of technological advancement. That
means that S. 4 does not meddle in the market. Indeed, S. 4 puts
Government behind the private sector. S. 4 requires the private sector
to match any Federal grant to ensure that it is the market--not the
Government choosing the winners and losers.
Mr. President, the recognition of the importance of certain
industries cuts across party lines. Even under President Bush, the
National Critical Technologies Panel, which was part of the Office of
Science and Technology policy, prepared a list of 22 key technologies
and a report which stressed ``the need for increased cooperation
between Government and corporations.'' In their report, the National
Critical Technologies Panel stated:
The failure to maintain world class manufacturing
capabilities would compromise the nation's ability to compete
in domestic and international markets, and would threaten our
ability to obtain access to the full range of components and
equipment required for a strong national defense.
In these days of shrinking defense budgets, the civilian sector is
increasingly leading the military in research and development. In the
old, cold days it was very much the other way around with the military
providing the research and developments for civilian spinoffs.
gatt
I would also like to address the GATT issue. Let us be clear--the
Europeans spend heavily on industrial R&D and industrial subsidies.
That is the status quo. That is the situation we face today. Under the
new GATT rules, they will be limited in their ability to subsidize
products and product development. That is good news. The new GATT
subsidy rules will help level the playing field for U.S. firms. In a
March 7 letter to Majority Leader Mitchell, John Gibbons, the
President's science and technology advisor, had this to say about the
subsidies code in the GATT agreements:
It puts real teeth in disciplining unfair, trade-distorting
production and export subsidies. At the same time, it
protects economically desirable U.S. government investment in
research and development from potential challenge by foreign
countries.
Mr. President, our GATT negotiators should be congratulated, not
castigated, for the progress they have made in this area. The agreement
will not open the subsidy floodgate--it is a precise, surgical approach
which will impose discipline on our trading partners in the subsidy
area. S. 4 clearly falls within the precise parameters set forth by our
GATT negotiators.
budget
I am concerned about the budget deficit. I have been saying for
months that we must make hard choices--if we add programs, we must cut
or eliminate others. And that is what this bill does.
Every new dollar this proposal authorizes is matched by cuts in the
President's budget. More importantly, because S. 4 requires an industry
dollar for dollar match for every award. S. 4 leverages both private
sector and State dollars. For every dollar we spend we know we are
moving at least twice as much into the economy. So not only are we
making the hard choices, we are also spending wisely. I could not put
it better than the President did in a letter he sent to Majority Leader
Mitchell on Monday:
S. 4's leveraged investment offers this nation a high rate
of return: by helping industry to create jobs and compete
successfully in the global marketplace, we will grow the
economy.
conclusion
If maintaining a world class manufacturing capability--as the Bush
administration suggested--is critical to both our national defense and
economic security, then we should not be expending our time on the
question of whether or not the Federal Government should be supporting
technological advances. What we should be asking is ``What is the best
way for us to keep and maintain that advances?'' How can we put the
resources and leverage capacity of the Federal Government directly
behind American industrial technologies to improve our industrial
competitiveness over the long term? I believe the National
Competitiveness Act provides us with the answer to these questions. I
am grateful for the work of Senator Hollings and others in bringing
this bill to the floor and I encourage my colleagues to support me in
supporting S. 4.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut has really been part and parcel of this bill. He has headed
up an economic leadership group of Senators from both sides of the
aisle. They have been working. They have been vitally interested in
technology. They have been vitally interested in the commercialization
of our technology. They have been vitally interested in the research
necessary for us to be kept on the cutting edge. In that light, no one
could be more grateful than myself for his particular contribution over
the last 1\1/2\ to 2 years that we have been working on this particular
measure. So I thank him for his comments here this morning and his
contribution.
Mr. President, I think we can move back to the Kassebaum amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina
for his kind words and longtime leadership in the whole process of how
the Government can create a partnership with business to create jobs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of my remarks be
printed in the Record as if read and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings]
is recognized.
amendment no. 1477
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand this particular matter now
has been worked out with the distinguished Senator from Kansas. In this
unanimous-consent request I will be referring to the text of the
language attached. I will yield to the Senator from Kansas at that time
to submit that language and to indicate her approval.
____________________