[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                H.R. 967

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week the House passed legislation, 
H.R. 967, that would exempt pesticides used on fruits and vegetables 
from statutory requirements to supply current health and safety data to 
the Environmental Protection Agency. The requirements to supply this 
data were first imposed in 1972 by the reregistration provisions of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA]. But the 
agency was not supplied with funding or firm deadlines to complete 
reregistration until FIFRA was amended in 1988. After 20 years, a 
health and safety review of pesticides is finally underway.
  Environmental and consumer groups strongly oppose any exemptions for 
minor use pesticides. These groups are concerned about waiving health 
and safety data for such chemicals because fruits and vegetables are 
such an important part of children's diets. They are also opposed to 
putting off the day, after waiting over 20 years, for determining 
whether these chemicals are truly safe. These same concerns were voiced 
in the 1993 National Academy of Sciences report ``Pesticides in the 
Diets of Infants and Children.''
  Minor crop growers are concerned, however, that some chemical 
companies are not reregistering pesticides for use on fruits and 
vegetables due solely to the cost associated with reregistration.
  The committee staff worked for weeks on a compromise that would be 
acceptable to fruit and vegetable growers, environmentalists and 
consumers. Unfortunately, a final agreement could not be reached.
  The compromise would have conditioned the data waivers and time 
extensions under the bill to recordkeeping and risk reduction efforts. 
The benefits of the bill would have been available in states that have 
pesticide recordkeeping. Nineteen States (including Vermont, 
California, and Florida) already require records. These States account 
for three-quarters of the fruit and vegetable production in the United 
States.
  The compromise would have also permitted the benefits of the bill to 
be available in States that don't have recordkeeping if grower 
associations or even individuals would agree to keep records. Some food 
processing companies, for example, already require individual growers 
to keep records.
  Thus, the bill would not impose any new recordkeeping requirements on 
farmers. It would simply limit the benefits of the bill to those 
growers who keep records.
  The compromise would also ask minor crop growers to adopt risk 
reduction plans by (1) developing a safer alternative pest management 
tools; or (2) adopting a use reduction program.
  I regret that we were unable to reach a compromise that would satisfy 
all interested parties. I intend to continue working for a solution 
that all sides can support next year. I thank Senator Inouye for his 
efforts and cooperation on this matter.

                          ____________________