[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8127-H8147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1627) to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and for 
other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1627

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Food Quality Protection Act 
     of 1996''.
                    TITLE I--SUSPENSION-APPLICATORS

      SEC. 101. REFERENCE.

       Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed 
     in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
                         Subtitle A--Suspension

      SEC. 102. SUSPENSION.

       (a) Section 6(c)(1).--The second sentence of section 
     6(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(1)) is amended to read: ``Except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), no order of suspension may be 
     issued under this subsection unless the Administrator has 
     issued, or at the same time issues, a notice of intention to 
     cancel the registration or change the classification of the 
     pesticide under subsection (b).''.
       (b) Section 6(c)(3).--Section 6(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(3)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``The Administrator may issue an emergency order 
     under this paragraph before issuing a notice of intention to 
     cancel the registration or change the classification of the 
     pesticide under subsection (b) and the Administrator shall 
     proceed to issue the notice under subsection (b) within 90 
     days of issuing an emergency order. If the Administrator does 
     not issue a notice under subsection (b) within 90 days of 
     issuing an emergency order, the emergency order shall 
     expire.''; and
       (2) by striking ``In that case'' and inserting ``In the 
     case of an emergency order''.

     SEC. 103. TOLERANCE REEVALUATION AS PART OF REREGISTRATION.

       Section 4(g)(2) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(g)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) As soon as the Administrator has sufficient 
     information with respect to the dietary risk of a particular 
     active ingredient, but in any event no later than the time 
     the Administrator makes a determination under subparagraph 
     (C) or (D) with respect to pesticides containing a particular 
     active ingredient, the Administrator shall--
       ``(i) reassess each associated tolerance and exemption from 
     the requirement for a tolerance issued under section 408 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a);
       ``(ii) determine whether such tolerance or exemption meets 
     the requirements of that Act;
       ``(iii) determine whether additional tolerances or 
     exemptions should be issued;
       ``(iv) publish in the Federal Register a notice setting 
     forth the determinations made under this subparagraph; and
       ``(v) commence promptly such proceedings under this Act and 
     section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as 
     are warranted by such determinations.''.

[[Page H8128]]

     SEC. 104. SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL.

       Section 25(d) (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Administrator 
     shall'' and inserting:
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Science review board.--There is established a Science 
     Review Board to consist of 60 scientists who shall be 
     available to the Scientific Advisory Panel to assist in 
     reviews conducted by the Panel. Members of the Board shall be 
     selected in the same manner as members of temporary subpanels 
     created under paragraph (1). Members of the Board shall be 
     compensated in the same manner as members of the Panel.''.

      SEC. 105. NITROGEN STABILIZER.

       (a) Section 2.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``or'' after 
     ``defoliant,'' and inserting ``, or nitrogen stabilizer'' 
     after ``desiccant'';
       (B) at the end of paragraph (3) by striking ``and'';
       (C) at the end of paragraph (4) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) at the end by adding the following:
       ``(5) in the case of a nitrogen stabilizer, an ingredient 
     which will prevent or hinder the process of nitrification, 
     denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or urease production 
     through action affecting soil bacteria.'';
       (2) in subsection (u), by striking ``and'' before ``(2)'' 
     and by inserting ``and (3) any nitrogen stabilizer,'' after 
     ``desiccant,''; and
       (3) at the end by adding the following:
       ``(hh) Nitrogen Stabilizer.--The term `nitrogen stabilizer' 
     means any substance or mixture of substances intended for 
     preventing or hindering the process of nitrification, 
     denitrification, ammonia volatilization, or urease production 
     through action upon soil bacteria. Such term shall not 
     include--
       ``(1) dicyandiamide;
       ``(2) ammonium thiosulfate; or
       ``(3) any substance or mixture of substances.--
       ``(A) that was not registered pursuant to section 3 prior 
     to January 1, 1992; and
       ``(B) that was in commercial agronomic use prior to January 
     1, 1992, with respect to which after January 1, 1992, the 
     distributor or seller of the substance or mixture has made no 
     specific claim of prevention or hindering of the process of 
     nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization urease 
     production regardless of the actual use or purpose for, or 
     future use or purpose for, the substance or mixture.
     Statements made in materials required to be submitted to any 
     State legislative or regulatory authority, or required by 
     such authority to be included in the labeling or other 
     literature accompanying any such substance or mixture shall 
     not be deemed a specific claim within the meaning of this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Section 3(f).--Section 3(f) (7 U.S.C. 136a(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer 
     products.--Any mixture or other combination of--
       ``(A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers registered under this 
     Act; and
       ``(B) 1 or more fertilizer products,
     shall not be subject to the provisions of this section or 
     sections 4, 5, 7, 15, and 17(a)(2) if the mixture or other 
     combination is accompanied by the labeling required under 
     this Act for the nitrogen stabilizer contained in the mixture 
     or other combination, the mixture or combination is mixed or 
     combined in accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or 
     combination does not contain any active ingredient other than 
     the nitrogen stabilizer.''.

     SEC. 106. PERIODIC REGISTRATION REVIEW.

       (a) Section 6.--Section 6 (7 U.S.C. 136d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking the heading and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Existing Stocks and Information.--''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (a) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Existing stocks.--The Administrator may permit the 
     continued sale and use of existing stocks of a pesticide 
     whose registration is suspended or canceled under this 
     section, or section 3 or 4, to such extent, under such 
     conditions, and for such uses as the Administrator determines 
     that such sale or use is not inconsistent with the purposes 
     of this Act.''.
       (b) Section 3.--Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Registration Review.--
       ``(1)(A) General rule.--The registrations of pesticides are 
     to be periodically reviewed. The Administrator shall by 
     regulation establish a procedure for accomplishing the 
     periodic review of registrations. The goal of these 
     regulations shall be a review of a pesticide's registration 
     every 15 years. No registration shall be canceled as a result 
     of the registration review process unless the Administrator 
     follows the procedures and substantive requirements of 
     section 6.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prohibit the Administrator from undertaking any other review 
     of a pesticide pursuant to this Act.
       ``(2)(A) Data.--The Administrator shall use the authority 
     in subsection (c)(2)(B) to require the submission of data 
     when such data are necessary for a registration review.
       ``(B) Data submission, compensation, and exemption.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the provisions of subsections 
     (c)(1), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(D) shall be utilized for and be 
     applicable to any data required for registration review.''.
     Subtitle B--Training for Maintenance Applicators and Service 
                              Technicians

      SEC. 120. MAINTENANCE APPLICATORS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS 
                   DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by section 106, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(jj) Maintenance Applicator.--The term `maintenance 
     applicator' means any individual who, in the principal course 
     of such individual's employment, uses, or supervises the use 
     of, a pesticide not classified for restricted use (other than 
     a ready to use consumer products pesticides); for the purpose 
     of providing structural pest control or lawn pest control 
     including janitors, general maintenance personnel, sanitation 
     personnel, and grounds maintenance personnel. The term 
     `maintenance applicator' does not include private applicators 
     as defined in section 2(e)(2); individuals who use 
     antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or disinfectants; 
     individuals employed by Federal, State, and local governments 
     or any political subdivisions thereof, or individuals who use 
     pesticides not classified for restricted use in or around 
     their homes, boats, sod farms, nurseries, greenhouses, or 
     other noncommercial property.
       ``(kk) Service Technician.--The term `service technician' 
     means any individual who uses or supervises the use of 
     pesticides (other than a ready to use consumer products 
     pesticide) for the purpose of providing structural pest 
     control or lawn pest control on the property of another for a 
     fee. The term `service technician' does not include 
     individuals who use antimicrobial pesticides, sanitizers or 
     disinfectants; or who otherwise apply ready to use consumer 
     products pesticides.''.

      SEC. 121. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE 
                   APPLICATORS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS.

       The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 30 and 31 as sections 33 and 
     34, respectively; and
       (2) by adding after section 29 the following:

     ``SEC. 30. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE 
                   APPLICATORS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS.

       ``Each State may establish minimum requirements for 
     training of maintenance applicators and service technicians. 
     Such training may include instruction in the safe and 
     effective handling and use of pesticides in accordance with 
     the Environmental Protection Agency approved labeling, and 
     instruction in integrated pest management techniques. The 
     authority of the Administrator with respect to minimum 
     requirements for training of maintenance applicators and 
     service technicians shall be limited to ensuring that each 
     State understands the provisions of this section.''.
     TITLE II--MINOR USE CROP PROTECTION, ANTIMICROBIAL PESTICIDE 
           REGISTRATION REFORM, AND PUBLIC HEALTH PESTICIDES

      SEC. 201. REFERENCE.

       Whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed 
     in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
                 Subtitle A--Minor Use Crop Protection

      SEC. 210. MINOR CROP PROTECTION.

       (a) Definition.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by 
     section 120, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ll) Minor Use.--The term `minor use' means the use of a 
     pesticide on an animal, on a commercial agricultural crop or 
     site, or for the protection of public health where--
       ``(1) the total United States acreage for the crop is less 
     than 300,000 acres, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture; or
       ``(2) the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, determines that, based on information 
     provided by an applicant for registration or a registrant, 
     the use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to 
     support the initial registration or continuing registration 
     of a pesticide for such use and--
       ``(A) there are insufficient efficacious alternative 
     registered pesticides available for the use;
       ``(B) the alternatives to the pesticide use pose greater 
     risks to the environment or human health;
       ``(C) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a 
     significant part in managing pest resistance; or
       ``(D) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a 
     significant part in an integrated pest management program.

     The status as a minor use under this subsection shall 
     continue as long as the Administrator has not determined 
     that, based on existing data, such use may cause an 
     unreasonable adverse effect on the environment and the use 
     otherwise qualifies for such status.''.
       (b) Exclusive Use of Minor Use Pesticides.--Section 
     3(c)(1)(F) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(1)(F)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
     (iii) and (iv), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

[[Page H8129]]

       ``(ii) The period of exclusive data use provided under 
     clause (i) shall be extended 1 additional year for each 3 
     minor uses registered after the date of enactment of this 
     clause and within 7 years of the commencement of the 
     exclusive use period, up to a total of 3 additional years for 
     all minor uses registered by the Administrator if the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, determines that, based on information provided 
     by an applicant for registration or a registrant, that--

       ``(I) there are insufficient efficacious alternative 
     registered pesticides available for the use;
       ``(II) the alternatives to the minor use pesticide pose 
     greater risks to the environment or human health;
       ``(III) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a 
     significant part in managing pest resistance; or
       ``(IV) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a 
     significant part in an integrated pest management program.

     The registration of a pesticide for a minor use on a crop 
     grouping established by the Administrator shall be considered 
     for purposes of this clause 1 minor use for each 
     representative crop for which data are provided in the crop 
     grouping. Any additional exclusive use period under this 
     clause shall be modified as appropriate or terminated if the 
     registrant voluntarily cancels the product or deletes from 
     the registration the minor uses which formed the basis for 
     the extension of the additional exclusive use period or if 
     the Administrator determines that the registrant is not 
     actually marketing the product for such minor uses.'';
       (3) in clause (iv), as amended by paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``and (ii)'' and inserting ``, (ii), and (iii)''; 
     and
       (4) at the end of the section, as amended by paragraph (1), 
     by adding the following:
       ``(v) The period of exclusive use provided under clause 
     (ii) shall not take into effect until 1 year after enactment 
     of this clause, except where an applicant or registrant is 
     applying for the registration of a pesticide containing an 
     active ingredient not previously registered.
       ``(vi) With respect to data submitted after the date of 
     enactment of this clause by an applicant or registrant to 
     support an amendment adding a new use to an existing 
     registration that does not retain any period of exclusive 
     use, if such data relates solely to a minor use of a 
     pesticide, such data shall not, without the written 
     permission of the original data submitter, be considered by 
     the Administrator to support an application for a minor use 
     by another person during the period of 10 years following the 
     date of submission of such data. The applicant or registrant 
     at the time the new minor use is requested shall notify the 
     Administrator that to the best of their knowledge the 
     exclusive use period for the pesticide has expired and that 
     the data pertaining solely to the minor use of a pesticide is 
     eligible for the provisions of this paragraph. If the minor 
     use registration which is supported by data submitted 
     pursuant to this subsection is voluntarily canceled or if 
     such data are subsequently used to support a nonminor use, 
     the data shall no longer be subject to the exclusive use 
     provisions of this clause but shall instead be considered by 
     the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of clause 
     (i), as appropriate.''.
       (c) Time Extensions for Development of Minor Use Data.--
       (1) Data call-in.--Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 
     136a(c)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) Upon the request of a registrant the Administrator 
     shall, in the case of a minor use, extend the deadline for 
     the production of residue chemistry data under this 
     subparagraph for data required solely to support that minor 
     use until the final deadline for submission of data under 
     section 4 for the other uses of the pesticide established as 
     of the date of enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act 
     of 1996, if--
       ``(I) the data to support other uses of the pesticide on a 
     food are being provided;
       ``(II) the registrant, in submitting a request for such an 
     extension, provides a schedule, including interim dates to 
     measure progress, to assure that the data production will be 
     completed before the expiration of the extension period;
       ``(III) the Administrator has determined that such 
     extension will not significantly delay the Administrator's 
     schedule for issuing a reregistration eligibility 
     determination required under section 4; and
       ``(IV) the Administrator has determined that based on 
     existing data, such extension would not significantly 
     increase the risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the 
     environment. If the Administrator grants an extension under 
     this clause, the Administrator shall monitor the development 
     of the data and shall ensure that the registrant is meeting 
     the schedule for the production of the data. If the 
     Administrator determines that the registrant is not meeting 
     or has not met the schedule for the production of such data, 
     the Administrator may proceed in accordance with clause (iv) 
     regarding the continued registration of the affected products 
     with the minor use and shall inform the public of such 
     action. Notwithstanding the provisions of this clause, the 
     Administrator may take action to modify or revoke the 
     extension under this clause if the Administrator determines 
     that the extension for the minor use may cause an 
     unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In such 
     circumstance, the Administrator shall provide, in writing to 
     the registrant, a notice revoking the extension of time for 
     submission of data. Such data shall instead be due in 
     accordance with the date established by the Administrator for 
     the submission of the data.''.
       (2) Reregistration.--Sections 4(d)(4)(B), 4(e)(2)(B), and 
     4(f)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(d)(4)(B), (e)(2)(B), and 
     (f)(2)(B)) are each amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Upon application of a registrant, the 
     Administrator shall, in the case of a minor use, extend the 
     deadline for the production of residue chemistry data under 
     this subparagraph for data required solely to support that 
     minor use until the final deadline for submission of data 
     under this section for the other uses of the pesticide 
     established as of the date of enactment of the Food Quality 
     Protection Act of 1996 if--
       ``(i) the data to support other uses of the pesticide on a 
     food are being provided;
       ``(ii) the registrant, in submitting a request for such an 
     extension provides a schedule, including interim dates to 
     measure progress, to assure that the data production will be 
     completed before the expiration of the extension period;
       ``(iii) the Administrator has determined that such 
     extension will not significantly delay the Administrator's 
     schedule for issuing a reregistration eligibility 
     determination required under this section; and
       ``(iv) the Administrator has determined that based on 
     existing data, such extension would not significantly 
     increase the risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the 
     environment. If the Administrator grants an extension under 
     this subparagraph, the Administrator shall monitor the 
     development of the data and shall ensure that the registrant 
     is meeting the schedule for the production of the data. If 
     the Administrator determines that the registrant is not 
     meeting or has not met the schedule for the production of 
     such data, the Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
     clause (iv) of section 3(c)(2)(B) or other provisions of this 
     section, as appropriate, regarding the continued registration 
     of the affected products with the minor use and shall inform 
     the public of such action. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     this subparagraph, the Administrator may take action to 
     modify or revoke the extension under this subparagraph if the 
     Administrator determines that the extension for the minor use 
     may cause an unreasonable adverse affect on the environment. 
     In such circumstance, the Administrator shall provide written 
     notice to the registrant revoking the extension of time for 
     submission of data. Such data shall instead be due in 
     accordance with the date then established by the 
     Administrator for submission of the data.''.
       (d) Minor Use Waiver.--Section 3(c)(2) (7 U.S.C. 
     136a(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``In general.--'' after ``(A)'';
       (2) by inserting ``Additional data.--'' after ``(B)'';
       (3) by inserting ``Simplified procedures.--'' after 
     ``(C)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Minor use waiver.--In handling the registration of a 
     pesticide for a minor use, the Administrator may waive 
     otherwise applicable data requirements if the Administrator 
     determines that the absence of such data will not prevent the 
     Administrator from determining--
       ``(i) the incremental risk presented by the minor use of 
     the pesticide; and
       ``(ii) that such risk, if any, would not be an unreasonable 
     adverse effect on the environment.''.
       (e) Expediting Minor Use Registrations.--Section 3(c)(3) (7 
     U.S.C. 136a(c)(3)) is amended --
       (1) by inserting after ``(A)'' the following: ``In 
     general.--'';
       (2) by inserting after ``(B)'' the following: ``Identical 
     or substantially similar.--''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Minor use registration.--
       ``(i) The Administrator shall, as expeditiously as 
     possible, review and act on any complete application--

       ``(I) that proposes the initial registration of a new 
     pesticide active ingredient if the active ingredient is 
     proposed to be registered solely for minor uses, or proposes 
     a registration amendment solely for minor uses to an existing 
     registration; or
       ``(II) for a registration or a registration amendment that 
     proposes significant minor uses.

       ``(ii) For the purposes of clause (i)--

       ``(I) the term `as expeditiously as possible' means that 
     the Administrator shall, to the greatest extent practicable, 
     complete a review and evaluation of all data, submitted with 
     a complete application, within 12 months after the submission 
     of the complete application, and the failure of the 
     Administrator to complete such a review and evaluation under 
     clause (i) shall not be subject to judicial review; and
       ``(II) the term `significant minor uses' means 3 or more 
     minor uses proposed for every nonminor use, a minor use that 
     would, in the judgment of the Administrator, serve as a 
     replacement for any use which has been canceled in the 5 
     years preceding the receipt of the application, or a minor 
     use that in the opinion of the Administrator would avoid the 
     reissuance of an emergency exemption under section 18 for 
     that minor use.

       ``(D) Adequate time for submission of minor use data.--If a 
     registrant makes a request for a minor use waiver, regarding 
     data required by the Administrator, pursuant to

[[Page H8130]]

     paragraph (2)(E), and if the Administrator denies in whole or 
     in part such data waiver request, the registrant shall have a 
     full-time period for providing such data. For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `full-time period' means the time 
     period originally established by the Administrator for 
     submission of such data, beginning with the date of receipt 
     by the registrant of the Administrator's notice of denial.''.
       (f) Temporary Extension of Registration for Unsupported 
     Minor Uses.--
       (1) Reregistration.--
       (A) Sections 4(d)(6) and 4(f)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(d)(6) and 
     (f)(3)) are each amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``If the registrant does not commit to support a specific 
     minor use of the pesticide, but is supporting and providing 
     data in a timely and adequate fashion to support uses of the 
     pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the pesticide are 
     nonfood uses and the registrant does not commit to support a 
     specific minor use of the pesticide but is supporting and 
     providing data in a timely and adequate fashion to support 
     other nonfood uses of the pesticide, the Administrator, at 
     the written request of the registrant, shall not take any 
     action pursuant to this paragraph in regard to such 
     unsupported minor use until the final deadline established as 
     of the date of enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act 
     of 1996, for the submission of data under this section for 
     the supported uses identified pursuant to this paragraph 
     unless the Administrator determines that the absence of the 
     data is significant enough to cause human health or 
     environmental concerns. On such a determination the 
     Administrator may refuse the request for extension by the 
     registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the registrant, 
     the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     notice of the receipt of the request and the effective date 
     upon which the uses not being supported will be voluntarily 
     deleted from the registration pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If 
     the Administrator grants an extension under this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall monitor the development of the data 
     for the uses being supported and shall ensure that the 
     registrant is meeting the schedule for the production of such 
     data. If the Administrator determines that the registrant is 
     not meeting or has not met the schedule for the production of 
     such data, the Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
     section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the continued registration 
     of the affected products with the minor and other uses and 
     shall inform the public of such action in accordance with 
     section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding this subparagraph, the 
     Administrator may deny, modify, or revoke the temporary 
     extension under this paragraph if the Administrator 
     determines that the continuation of the minor use may cause 
     an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In the 
     event of modification or revocation, the Administrator shall 
     provide, in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking the 
     temporary extension and establish a new effective date by 
     which the minor use shall be deleted from the 
     registration.''.
       (B) Section 4(e)(3)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(e)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``If the 
     registrant does not commit to support a specific minor use of 
     the pesticide, but is supporting and providing data in a 
     timely and adequate fashion to support uses of the pesticide 
     on a food, or if all uses of the pesticide are nonfood uses 
     and the registrant does not commit to support a specific 
     minor use of the pesticide but is supporting and providing 
     data in a timely and adequate fashion to support other 
     nonfood uses of the pesticide, the Administrator, at the 
     written request of the registrant, shall not take any action 
     pursuant to this subparagraph in regard to such unsupported 
     minor use until the final deadline established as of the date 
     of enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, for 
     the submission of data under this section for the supported 
     uses identified pursuant to this subparagraph unless the 
     Administrator determines that the absence of the data is 
     significant enough to cause human health or environmental 
     concerns. On the basis of such determination, the 
     Administrator may refuse the request for extension by the 
     registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the registrant, 
     the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     notice of the receipt of the request and the effective date 
     upon which the uses not being supported will be voluntarily 
     deleted from the registration pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If 
     the Administrator grants an extension under this 
     subparagraph, the Administrator shall monitor the development 
     of the data for the uses being supported and shall ensure 
     that the registrant is meeting the schedule for the 
     production of such data. If the Administrator determines that 
     the registrant is not meeting or has not met the schedule for 
     the production of such data, the Administrator may proceed in 
     accordance with section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) regarding the 
     continued registration of the affected products with the 
     minor and other uses and shall inform the public of such 
     action in accordance with section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding 
     this subparagraph, the Administrator may deny, modify, or 
     revoke the temporary extension under this subparagraph if the 
     Administrator determines that the continuation of the minor 
     use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
     environment. In the event of modification or revocation, the 
     Administrator shall provide, in writing, to the registrant a 
     notice revoking the temporary extension and establish a new 
     effective date by which the minor use shall be deleted from 
     the registration.''.
       (2) Data.--Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)), as 
     amended by subsection (c)(1), is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(vii) If the registrant does not commit to support a 
     specific minor use of the pesticide, but is supporting and 
     providing data in a timely and adequate fashion to support 
     uses of the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the 
     pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant does not commit 
     to support a specific minor use of the pesticide but is 
     supporting and providing data in a timely and adequate 
     fashion to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, the 
     Administrator, at the written request of the registrant, 
     shall not take any action pursuant to this clause in regard 
     to such unsupported minor use until the final deadline 
     established as of the date of enactment of the Food Quality 
     Protection Act of 1996, for the submission of data under 
     section 4 for the supported uses identified pursuant to this 
     clause unless the Administrator determines that the absence 
     of the data is significant enough to cause human health or 
     environmental concerns. On the basis of such determination, 
     the Administrator may refuse the request for extension by the 
     registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the registrant, 
     the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a 
     notice of the receipt of the request and the effective date 
     upon which the uses not being supported will be voluntarily 
     deleted from the registration pursuant to section 6(f)(1). If 
     the Administrator grants an extension under this clause, the 
     Administrator shall monitor the development of the data for 
     the uses being supported and shall ensure that the registrant 
     is meeting the schedule for the production of such data. If 
     the Administrator determines that the registrant is not 
     meeting or has not met the schedule for the production of 
     such data, the Administrator may proceed in accordance with 
     clause (iv) of this subparagraph regarding the continued 
     registration of the affected products with the minor and 
     other uses and shall inform the public of such action in 
     accordance with section 6(f)(2). Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of this clause, the Administrator may deny, 
     modify, or revoke the temporary extension under this 
     subparagraph if the Administrator determines that the 
     continuation of the minor use may cause an unreasonable 
     adverse effect on the environment. In the event of 
     modification or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, 
     in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking the temporary 
     extension and establish a new effective date by which the 
     minor use shall be deleted from the registration.''.
       (g) Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C)(ii) by striking ``90-day'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``180-day''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``90-day'' and 
     inserting ``180-day''.
       (h) Utilization of Data for Voluntarily Canceled 
     Chemicals.--Section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Utilization of data for voluntarily canceled 
     pesticide.--When an application is filed with the 
     Administrator for the registration of a pesticide for a minor 
     use and another registrant subsequently voluntarily cancels 
     its registration for an identical or substantially similar 
     pesticide for an identical or substantially similar use, the 
     Administrator shall process, review, and evaluate the pending 
     application as if the voluntary cancellation had not yet 
     taken place except that the Administrator shall not take such 
     action if the Administrator determines that such minor use 
     may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. 
     In order to rely on this subsection, the applicant must 
     certify that it agrees to satisfy any outstanding data 
     requirements necessary to support the reregistration of the 
     pesticide in accordance with the data submission schedule 
     established by the Administrator.''.
       (i) Environmental Protection Agency Minor Use Program.--The 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 
     136 et seq.), as amended by section 121, is amended by adding 
     after section 30 the following:

     ``SEC. 31. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MINOR USE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) The Administrator shall assure coordination of minor 
     use issues through the establishment of a minor use program 
     within the Office of Pesticide Programs. Such office shall be 
     responsible for coordinating the development of minor use 
     programs and policies and consulting with growers regarding 
     minor use issues and registrations and amendments which are 
     submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
       ``(b) The Office of Pesticide Programs shall prepare a 
     public report concerning the progress made on the 
     registration of minor uses, including implementation of the 
     exclusive use as an incentive for registering new minor uses, 
     within 3 years of the passage of the Food Quality Protection 
     Act of 1996.''.
       (j) Department of Agriculture Minor Use Program.--The 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 
     136 et seq.), as amended by subsection (i), is amended by 
     adding after section 31 the following:

     ``SEC. 32. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINOR USE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     (hereinafter in this section referred

[[Page H8131]]

     to as the `Secretary') shall assure the coordination of the 
     responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture related to 
     minor uses of pesticides, including--
       ``(1) carrying out the Inter-Regional Project Number 4 (IR-
     4) as described in section 2 of Public Law 89-106 (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(e)) and the national pesticide resistance monitoring 
     program established under section 1651 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5882);
       ``(2) supporting integrated pest management research;
       ``(3) consulting with growers to develop data for minor 
     uses; and
       ``(4) providing assistance for minor use registrations, 
     tolerances, and reregistrations with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.
       ``(b)(1) Minor Use Pesticide Data.--
       ``(A) Grant authority.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Administrator, shall establish a program to make grants 
     for the development of data to support minor use pesticide 
     registrations and reregistrations. The amount of any such 
     grant shall not exceed \1/2\ of the cost of the project for 
     which the grant is made.
       ``(B) Applicants.--Any person who wants to develop data to 
     support minor use pesticide registrations and reregistrations 
     may apply for a grant under subparagraph (A). Priority shall 
     be given to an applicant for such a grant who does not 
     directly receive funds from the sale of pesticides registered 
     for minor uses.
       ``(C) Data ownership.--Any data that is developed under a 
     grant under subparagraph (A) shall be jointly owned by the 
     Department of Agriculture and the person who received the 
     grant. Such a person shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary under which such person shall share any fee paid to 
     such person under section 3(c)(1)(F).
       ``(2) Minor use pesticide data revolving fund.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a revolving fund to be known as the 
     Minor Use Pesticide Data Revolving Fund. The Fund shall be 
     available without fiscal year limitation to carry out the 
     authorized purposes of this subsection.
       ``(B) Contents of the fund.--There shall be deposited in 
     the Fund--
       ``(i) such amounts as may be appropriated to support the 
     purposes of this subsection; and
       ``(ii) fees collected by the Secretary for any data 
     developed under a grant under paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(C) Authorizations of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year to carry 
     out the purposes of this subsection $10,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended.''.
        Subtitle B--Antimicrobial Pesticide Registration Reform

      SEC. 221. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended by section 210(a) is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (u), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The term `pesticide' does not include liquid chemical 
     sterilant products (including any sterilant or subordinate 
     disinfectant claims on such products) for use on a critical 
     or semi-critical device, as defined in section 201 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321). For 
     purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `critical 
     device' includes any device which is introduced directly into 
     the human body, either into or in contact with the 
     bloodstream or normally sterile areas of the body and the 
     term `semi-critical device' includes any device which 
     contacts intact mucous membranes but which does not 
     ordinarily penetrate the blood barrier or otherwise enter 
     normally sterile areas of the body.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(mm) Antimicrobial Pesticide.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `antimicrobial pesticide' means 
     a pesticide that--
       ``(A) is intended to--
       ``(i) disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or 
     development of microbiological organisms; or
       ``(ii) protect inanimate objects, industrial processes or 
     systems, surfaces, water, or other chemical substances from 
     contamination, fouling, or deterioration caused by bacteria, 
     viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, or slime; and
       ``(B) in the intended use is exempt from, or otherwise not 
     subject to, a tolerance under section 408 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a and 348) or a 
     food additive regulation under section 409 of such Act.
       ``(2) Excluded products.--The term `antimicrobial 
     pesticide' does not include --
       ``(A) a wood preservative or antifouling paint product for 
     which a claim of pesticidal activity other than or in 
     addition to an activity described in paragraph (1) is made;
       ``(B) an agricultural fungicide product; or
       ``(C) an aquatic herbicide product.
       ``(3) Included products.--The term `antimicrobial 
     pesticide' does include any other chemical sterilant product 
     (other than liquid chemical sterilant products exempt under 
     subsection (u)), any other disinfectant product, any other 
     industrial microbiocide product, and any other preservative 
     product that is not excluded by paragraph (2).''.

      SEC. 222. FEDERAL AND STATE DATA COORDINATION.

       Section 3(c)(2)(B) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)), as amended by 
     section 210(f)(2), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(viii)(I) If data required to support registration of a 
     pesticide under subparagraph (A) is requested by a Federal or 
     State regulatory authority, the Administrator shall, to the 
     extent practicable, coordinate data requirements, test 
     protocols, timetables, and standards of review and reduce 
     burdens and redundancy caused to the registrant by multiple 
     requirements on the registrant.
       ``(II) The Administrator may enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with a State to carry out subclause (I).
       ``(III) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this clause, the Administrator shall develop a process to 
     identify and assist in alleviating future disparities between 
     Federal and State data requirements.''.

      SEC. 223. LABEL AND LABELING.

       Section 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(9) Labeling.--
       ``(A) Additional statements.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), it shall not be a violation of this Act for a 
     registrant to modify the labeling of an antimicrobial 
     pesticide product to include relevant information on product 
     efficacy, product composition, container composition or 
     design, or other characteristics that do not relate to any 
     pesticidal claim or pesticidal activity.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Proposed labeling information under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be false or misleading, shall not 
     conflict with or detract from any statement required by law 
     or the Administrator as a condition of registration, and 
     shall be substantiated on the request of the Administrator.
       ``(C) Notification and disapproval.--
       ``(i) Notification.--A registration may be modified under 
     subparagraph (A) if --

       ``(I) the registrant notifies the Administrator in writing 
     not later than 60 days prior to distribution or sale of a 
     product bearing the modified labeling; and
       ``(II) the Administrator does not disapprove of the 
     modification under clause (ii).

       ``(ii) Disapproval.--Not later than 30 days after receipt 
     of a notification under clause (i), the Administrator may 
     disapprove the modification by sending the registrant 
     notification in writing stating that the proposed language is 
     not acceptable and stating the reasons why the Administrator 
     finds the proposed modification unacceptable.
       ``(iii) Restriction on sale.--A registrant may not sell or 
     distribute a product bearing a disapproved modification.
       ``(iv) Objection.--A registrant may file an objection in 
     writing to a disapproval under clause (ii) not later than 30 
     days after receipt of notification of the disapproval.
       ``(v) Final action.--A decision by the Administrator 
     following receipt and consideration of an objection filed 
     under clause (iv) shall be considered a final agency action.
       ``(D) Use dilution.--The label or labeling required under 
     this Act for an antimicrobial pesticide that is or may be 
     diluted for use may have a different statement of caution or 
     protective measures for use of the recommended diluted 
     solution of the pesticide than for use of a concentrate of 
     the pesticide if the Administrator determines that --
       ``(i) adequate data have been submitted to support the 
     statement proposed for the diluted solution uses; and
       ``(ii) the label or labeling provides adequate protection 
     for exposure to the diluted solution of the pesticide.''.

     SEC. 224. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTIMICROBIAL 
                   PESTICIDES.

       Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a), as amended by section 106(b), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Registration Requirements for Antimicrobial 
     Pesticides.--
       ``(1) Evaluation of process.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable consistent with the degrees of risk presented by 
     a antimicrobial pesticide and the type of review appropriate 
     to evaluate the risks, the Administrator shall identify and 
     evaluate reforms to the antimicrobial registration process 
     that would reduce review periods existing as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection for antimicrobial pesticide 
     product registration applications and applications for 
     amended registration of antimicrobial pesticide products, 
     including--
       ``(A) new antimicrobial active ingredients;
       ``(B) new antimicrobial end-use products;
       ``(C) substantially similar or identical antimicrobial 
     pesticides; and
       ``(D) amendments to antimicrobial pesticide registrations.
       ``(2) Review time period reduction goal.--Each reform 
     identified under paragraph (1) shall be designed to achieve 
     the goal of reducing the review period following submission 
     of a complete application, consistent with the degree of 
     risk, to a period of not more than --
       ``(A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial active ingredient 
     pesticide registration;
       ``(B) 270 days for a new antimicrobial use of a registered 
     active ingredient;
       ``(C) 120 days for any other new antimicrobial product;
       ``(D) 90 days for a substantially similar or identical 
     antimicrobial product;
       ``(E) 90 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial 
     registration that does not require scientific review of data; 
     and
       ``(F) 90 to 180 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial 
     registration that requires scientific review of data and that 
     is not otherwise described in this paragraph.
       ``(3) Implementation.--
       ``(A) Proposed rulemaking.--
       ``(i) Issuance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall publish 
     in the Federal Register proposed regulations to accelerate 
     and improve the review of

[[Page H8132]]

     antimicrobial pesticide products designed to implement, to 
     the extent practicable, the goals set forth in paragraph (2).
       ``(ii) Requirements.--Proposed regulations issued under 
     clause (i) shall --

       ``(I) define the various classes of antimicrobial use 
     patterns, including household, industrial, and institutional 
     disinfectants and sanitizing pesticides, preservatives, water 
     treatment, and pulp and paper mill additives, and other such 
     products intended to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate 
     growth or development of microbiological organisms, or 
     protect inanimate objects, industrial processes or systems, 
     surfaces, water, or other chemical substances from 
     contamination, fouling, or deterioration caused by bacteria, 
     viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, or slime;
       ``(II) differentiate the types of review undertaken for 
     antimicrobial pesticides;
       ``(III) conform the degree and type of review to the risks 
     and benefits presented by antimicrobial pesticides and the 
     function of review under this Act, considering the use 
     patterns of the product, toxicity, expected exposure, and 
     product type;
       ``(IV) ensure that the registration process is sufficient 
     to maintain antimicrobial pesticide efficacy and that 
     antimicrobial pesticide products continue to meet product 
     performance standards and effectiveness levels for each type 
     of label claim made; and
       ``(V) implement effective and reliable deadlines for 
     process management.

       ``(iii) Comments.--In developing the proposed regulations, 
     the Administrator shall solicit the views from registrants 
     and other affected parties to maximize the effectiveness of 
     the rule development process.
       ``(B) Final regulations.--
       ``(i) Issuance.--The Administrator shall issue final 
     regulations not later than 240 days after the close of the 
     comment period for the proposed regulations.
       ``(ii) Failure to meet goal.--If a goal described in 
     paragraph (2) is not met by the final regulations, the 
     Administrator shall identify the goal, explain why the goal 
     was not attained, describe the element of the regulations 
     included instead, and identify future steps to attain the 
     goal.
       ``(iii) Requirements.--In issuing final regulations, the 
     Administrator shall--

       ``(I) consider the establishment of a certification process 
     for regulatory actions involving risks that can be 
     responsibly managed, consistent with the degree of risk, in 
     the most cost-efficient manner;
       ``(II) consider the establishment of a certification 
     process by approved laboratories as an adjunct to the review 
     process;
       ``(III) use all appropriate and cost-effective review 
     mechanisms, including--

       ``(aa) expanded use of notification and non-notification 
     procedures;
       ``(bb) revised procedures for application review; and
       ``(cc) allocation of appropriate resources to ensure 
     streamlined management of antimicrobial pesticide 
     registrations; and

       ``(IV) clarify criteria for determination of the 
     completeness of an application.

       ``(C) Expedited review.--This subsection does not affect 
     the requirements or extend the deadlines or review periods 
     contained in subsection (c)(3).
       ``(D) Alternative review periods.--If the final regulations 
     to carry out this paragraph are not effective 630 days after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, until the final 
     regulations become effective, the review period, beginning on 
     the date of receipt by the Agency of a complete application, 
     shall be --
       ``(i) 2 years for a new antimicrobial active ingredient 
     pesticide registration;
       ``(ii) 1 year for a new antimicrobial use of a registered 
     active ingredient;
       ``(iii) 180 days for any other new antimicrobial product;
       ``(iv) 90 days for a substantially similar or identical 
     antimicrobial product;
       ``(v) 90 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial 
     registration that does not require scientific review of data; 
     and
       ``(vi) 240 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial 
     registration that requires scientific review of data and that 
     is not otherwise described in this subparagraph.
       ``(E) Wood preservatives.--An application for the 
     registration, or for an amendment to the registration, of a 
     wood preservative product for which a claim of pesticidal 
     activity listed in section 2(mm) is made (regardless of any 
     other pesticidal claim that is made with respect to the 
     product) shall be reviewed by the Administrator within the 
     same period as that established under this paragraph for an 
     antimicrobial pesticide product application, consistent with 
     the degree of risk posed by the use of the wood preservative 
     product, if the application requires the applicant to satisfy 
     the same data requirements as are required to support an 
     application for a wood preservative product that is an 
     antimicrobial pesticide.
       ``(F) Notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the 
     Administrator shall notify an applicant whether an 
     application has been granted or denied not later than the 
     final day of the appropriate review period under this 
     paragraph, unless the applicant and the Administrator agree 
     to a later date.
       ``(ii) Final decision.--If the Administrator fails to 
     notify an applicant within the period of time required under 
     clause (i), the failure shall be considered an agency action 
     unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed for purposes of 
     judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       ``(iii) Exemption.--This subparagraph does not apply to an 
     application for an antimicrobial pesticide that is filed 
     under subsection (c)(3)(B) prior to 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(4) Annual report.--
       ``(A) Submission.--Beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this subsection and ending on the date that the goals under 
     paragraph (2) are achieved, the Administrator shall, not 
     later than March 1 of each year, prepare and submit an annual 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate.
       ``(B) Requirements.--A report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include a description of--
       ``(i) measures taken to reduce the backlog of pending 
     registration applications;
       ``(ii) progress toward achieving reforms under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(iii) recommendations to improve the activities of the 
     Agency pertaining to antimicrobial registrations.''.

      SEC. 225. DISPOSAL OF HOUSEHOLD, INDUSTRIAL, OR 
                   INSTITUTIONAL ANTIMICROBIAL PRODUCTS.

       Section 19(h) (7 U.S.C. 136q(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Nothing in'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Antimicrobial products.--A household, industrial, or 
     institutional antimicrobial product that is not subject to 
     regulation under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 
     et seq.) shall not be subject to the provisions of 
     subsections (a), (e), and (f), unless the Administrator 
     determines that such product must be subject to such 
     provisions to prevent an unreasonable adverse effect on the 
     environment.''.
                  Subtitle C--Public Health Pesticides

      SEC. 230. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Adverse Effects.--Section 2(bb) (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Administrator shall consider the risks and benefits of public 
     health pesticides separate from the risks and benefits of 
     other pesticides. In weighing any regulatory action 
     concerning a public health pesticide under this Act, the 
     Administrator shall weigh any risks of the pesticide against 
     the health risks such as the diseases transmitted by the 
     vector to be controlled by the pesticide.''.
       (b) New Definitions.--Section 2 (7 U.S.C. 136), as amended 
     by section 221, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(nn) Public Health Pesticide.--The term `public health 
     pesticide' means any minor use pesticide product registered 
     for use and used predominantly in public health programs for 
     vector control or for other recognized health protection 
     uses, including the prevention or mitigation of viruses, 
     bacteria, or other microorganisms (other than viruses, 
     bacteria, or other microorganisms on or in living man or 
     other living animal) that pose a threat to public health.
       ``(oo) Vector.--The term `vector' means any organism 
     capable of transmitting the causative agent of human disease 
     or capable of producing human discomfort or injury, including 
     mosquitoes, flies, fleas, cockroaches, or other insects and 
     ticks, mites, or rats.''.

      SEC. 231. REGISTRATION.

       Section 3(c)(2)(A) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``pattern of use,'' the following: 
     ``the public health and agricultural need for such minor 
     use,''; and
       (2) by striking ``potential exposure of man and the 
     environment to the pesticide'' and inserting ``potential 
     beneficial or adverse effects on man and the environment''.

      SEC. 232. REREGISTRATION.

       Section 4 (7 U.S.C. 136a-1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (i)(4), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and 
     by adding after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) The Administrator shall exempt any public health 
     pesticide from the payment of the fee prescribed under 
     paragraph (3) if, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, the Administrator determines, 
     based on information supplied by the registrant, that the 
     economic return to the registrant from sales of the pesticide 
     does not support the registration or reregistration of the 
     pesticide.'';
       (2) in subsection (i)(5), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (F) and (G) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively, and 
     by adding after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) The Administrator shall exempt any public health 
     pesticide from the payment of the fee prescribed under 
     paragraph (3) if, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Health and Humans Services, the Administrator determines, 
     based on information supplied by the registrant, that the 
     economic return to the registrant from sales of the pesticide 
     does not support the registration or reregistration of the 
     pesticide.'';
       (3) in subsection (i)(7)(B), by striking ``or to 
     determine'' and inserting ``, to determine'' and by inserting 
     before the period the following: ``, or to determine the 
     volume usage for public health pesticides''; and
       (4) in subsection (k)(3)(A), by striking ``or'' at the end 
     of clause (i), by striking the period at the end of clause 
     (ii) and inserting thereof ``; or'', and by adding after 
     clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) proposes the initial or amended registration of an 
     end use pesticide that, if registered as proposed, would be 
     used for a public health pesticide.''.

[[Page H8133]]

      SEC. 233. CANCELLATION.

       Section 6(b) (7 U.S.C. 136d(b)) is amended by adding after 
     the eighth sentence the following: ``When a public health use 
     is affected, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     should provide available benefits and use information, or an 
     analysis thereof, in accordance with the procedures followed 
     and subject to the same conditions as the Secretary of 
     Agriculture in the case of agricultural pesticides.''.

      SEC. 234. VIEWS OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                   SERVICES.

       Section 21 (7 U.S.C. 136s) is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), 
     respectively, and by adding after subsection (a) the 
     following:
       ``(b) Secretary of Health and Human Services.--The 
     Administrator, before publishing regulations under this Act 
     for any public health pesticide, shall solicit the views of 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the same manner 
     as the views of the Secretary of Agriculture are solicited 
     under section 25(a)(2).''.

      SEC. 235. AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR.

       Section 25(a)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136w(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``various classes of pesticides'' 
     the following: ``, including public health pesticides,''; and
       (2) by striking ``and nonagricultural pesticides'' and 
     inserting ``, nonagricultural, and public health 
     pesticides''.

      SEC. 236. IDENTIFICATION OF PESTS.

       Section 28 (7 U.S.C. 136w-3) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(d) Public Health Pests.--The Administrator, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall identify pests 
     of significant public health importance and, in coordination 
     with the Public Health Service, develop and implement 
     programs to improve and facilitate the safe and necessary use 
     of chemical, biological, and other methods to combat and 
     control such pests of public health importance.''.

      SEC. 237. PUBLIC HEALTH DATA.

       Section 4 (7 U.S.C. 136a-1) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(m) Authorization of Funds To Develop Public Health 
     Data.--
       ``(1) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, 
     `Secretary' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     acting through the Public Health Service.
       ``(2) Consultation.--In the case of a pesticide registered 
     for use in public health programs for vector control or for 
     other uses the Administrator determines to be human health 
     protection uses, the Administrator shall, upon timely request 
     by the registrant or any other interested person, or on the 
     Administrator's own initiative may, consult with the 
     Secretary prior to taking final action to suspend 
     registration under section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv), or cancel a 
     registration under section 4, 6(e), or 6(f). In consultation 
     with the Secretary, the Administrator shall prescribe the 
     form and content of requests under this section.
       ``(3) Benefits to support family.--The Administrator, after 
     consulting with the Secretary, shall make a determination 
     whether the potential benefits of continued use of the 
     pesticide for public health or health protection purposes are 
     of such significance as to warrant a commitment by the 
     Secretary to conduct or to arrange for the conduct of the 
     studies required by the Administrator to support continued 
     registration under section 3 or reregistration under section 
     4.
       ``(4) Additional time.--If the Administrator determines 
     that such a commitment is warranted and in the public 
     interest, the Administrator shall notify the Secretary and 
     shall, to the extent necessary, amend a notice issued under 
     section 3(c)(2)(B) to specify additional reasonable time 
     periods for submission of the data.
       ``(5) Arrangements.--The Secretary shall make such 
     arrangements for the conduct of required studies as the 
     Secretary finds necessary and appropriate to permit 
     submission of data in accordance with the time periods 
     prescribed by the Administrator. Such arrangements may 
     include Public Health Service intramural research activities, 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with academic, 
     public health, or other organizations qualified by experience 
     and training to conduct such studies.
       ``(6) Support.--The Secretary may provide for support of 
     the required studies using funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under this section, the Public Health Service 
     Act, or other appropriate authorities. After a determination 
     is made under subsection (d), the Secretary shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House Representatives and 
     the Senate of the sums required to conduct the necessary 
     studies.
       ``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section 
     $12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for succeeding fiscal years.''.
     Subtitle D--Expedited Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides

      SEC. 250. EXPEDITED REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES .

       Section 3(c) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)), as amended by section 223, 
     is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(G) If the applicant is requesting that the registration 
     or amendment to the registration of a pesticide be expedited, 
     an explanation of the basis for the request must be 
     submitted, in accordance with paragraph (10) of this 
     subsection.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) Expedited registration of pesticides.--
       ``(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph, the Administrator shall, utilizing public 
     comment, develop procedures and guidelines, and expedite the 
     review of an application for registration of a pesticide or 
     an amendment to a registration that satisfies such 
     guidelines.
       ``(B) Any application for registration or an amendment, 
     including biological and conventional pesticides, will be 
     considered for expedited review under this paragraph. An 
     application for registration or an amendment shall qualify 
     for expedited review if use of the pesticide proposed by the 
     application may reasonably be expected to accomplish 1 or 
     more of the following:
       ``(i) Reduce the risks of pesticides to human health.
       ``(ii) Reduce the risks of pesticides to nontarget 
     organisms.
       ``(iii) Reduce the potential for contamination of 
     groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental 
     resources.
       ``(iv) Broaden the adoption of integrated pest management 
     strategies, or make such strategies more available or more 
     effective.
       ``(C) The Administrator, not later than 30 days after 
     receipt of an application for expedited review, shall notify 
     the applicant whether the application is complete. If it is 
     found to be incomplete, the Administrator may either reject 
     the request for expedited review or ask the applicant for 
     additional information to satisfy the guidelines developed 
     under subparagraph (A).''.
 TITLE III--DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES TO ASSURE THE HEALTH OF INFANTS 
                    AND CHILDREN AND OTHER MEASURES

      SEC. 301. DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES TO ASSURE THE HEALTH OF 
                   INFANTS AND CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, shall coordinate the development and implementation 
     of survey procedures to ensure that adequate data on food 
     consumption patterns of infants and children are collected.
       (b) Procedures.--To the extent practicable, the procedures 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall include the collection of 
     data on food consumption patterns of a statistically valid 
     sample of infants and children.
       (c) Residue Data Collection.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall ensure that the residue data collection activities 
     conducted by the Department of Agriculture in cooperation 
     with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department 
     of Health and Human Services, provide for the improved data 
     collection of pesticide residues, including guidelines for 
     the use of comparable analytical and standardized reporting 
     methods, and the increased sampling of foods most likely 
     consumed by infants and children.

      SEC. 302. COLLECTION OF PESTICIDE USE INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall collect 
     data of statewide or regional significance on the use of 
     pesticides to control pests and diseases of major crops and 
     crops of dietary significance, including fruits and 
     vegetables.
       (b) Collection.--The data shall be collected by surveys of 
     farmers or from other sources offering statistically reliable 
     data.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall, as 
     appropriate, coordinate with the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in the design of the surveys 
     and make available to the Administrator the aggregate results 
     of the surveys to assist the Administrator.

      SEC. 303. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator, shall implement research, demonstration, and 
     education programs to support adoption of Integrated Pest 
     Management. Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable 
     approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, 
     physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes 
     economic, health, and environmental risks. The Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Administrator shall make information on 
     Integrated Pest Management widely available to pesticide 
     users, including Federal agencies. Federal agencies shall use 
     Integrated Pest Management techniques in carrying out pest 
     management activities and shall promote Integrated Pest 
     Management through procurement and regulatory policies, and 
     other activities.

     SEC. 304. COORDINATION OF CANCELLATION.

       Section 2(bb) (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``means''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence 
     and inserting ``, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues 
     that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food 
     inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a).''.

      SEC. 305. PESTICIDE USE INFORMATION STUDY.

       (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, in consultation 
     with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, prepare a

[[Page H8134]]

     report to Congress evaluating the current status and 
     potential improvements in Federal pesticide use information 
     gathering activities. This report shall at least include--
       (1) an analysis of the quality and reliability of the 
     information collected by the Department of Agriculture, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal agencies 
     regarding the agricultural use of pesticides; and
       (2) an analysis of options to increase the effectiveness of 
     national pesticide use information collection, including an 
     analysis of costs, burdens placed on agricultural producers 
     and other pesticide users, and effectiveness in tracking risk 
     reduction by those options.
       (b) The Secretary shall submit this report to Congress not 
     later than 1 year following the date of enactment of this 
     section.
    TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

     SEC 401. SHORT TITLE AND REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Food 
     Quality Protection Act of 1996''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever in this title an amendment or 
     repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
     of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be 
     considered to be made to a section or other provision of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Section 201(q).--Section 201(q) (21 U.S.C. 321(q)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(q)(1) The term `pesticide chemical' means any substance 
     that is a pesticide within the meaning of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, including all 
     active and inert ingredients of such pesticide.
       ``(2) The term `pesticide chemical residue' means a residue 
     in or on raw agricultural commodity or processed food of--
       ``(A) a pesticide chemical; or
       ``(B) any other added substance that is present on or in 
     the commodity or food primarily as a result of the metabolism 
     or other degradation of a pesticide chemical.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     Administrator may by regulation except a substance from the 
     definition of `pesticide chemical' or `pesticide chemical 
     residue' if--
       ``(A) its occurrence as a residue on or in a raw 
     agricultural commodity or processed food is attributable 
     primarily to natural causes or to human activities not 
     involving the use of any substances for a pesticidal purpose 
     in the production, storage, processing, or transportation of 
     any raw agricultural commodity or processed food; and
       ``(B) the Administrator, after consultation with the 
     Secretary, determines that the substance more appropriately 
     should be regulated under one or more provisions of this Act 
     other than sections 402(a)(2)(B) and 408.''.
       (b) Section 201(s).--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     201(s) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) a pesticide chemical residue in or on a raw 
     agricultural commodity or processed food; or
       ``(2) a pesticide chemical; or''.
       (c) Section 201.--Section 201 (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(gg) The term `processed food' means any food other than 
     a raw agricultural commodity and includes any raw 
     agricultural commodity that has been subject to processing, 
     such as canning, cooking, freezing, dehydration, or milling.
       ``(hh) The term `Administrator' means the Administrator of 
     the United States Environmental Protection Agency.''.

     SEC. 403. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       Section 301(j) (21 U.S.C. 331(j)) is amended in the first 
     sentence by inserting before the period the following: ``; or 
     the violating of section 408(i)(2) or any regulation issued 
     under that section.''.

     SEC. 404. ADULTERATED FOOD.

       Section 402(a) (21 U.S.C. 342(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``(2)(A) if it bears'' and all that follows through ``(3) if 
     it consists'' and inserting the following: ``(2)(A) if it 
     bears or contains any added poisonous or added deleterious 
     substance (other than a substance that is a pesticide 
     chemical residue in or on a raw agricultural commodity or 
     processed food, a food additive, a color additive, or a new 
     animal drug) that is unsafe within the meaning of section 
     406; or (B) if it bears or contains a pesticide chemical 
     residue that is unsafe within the meaning of section 408(a); 
     or (C) if it is or if it bears or contains (i) any food 
     additive that is unsafe within the meaning of section 409; or 
     (ii) a new animal drug (or conversion product thereof) that 
     is unsafe within the meaning of section 512; or (3) if it 
     consists''.

     SEC. 405. TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL 
                   RESIDUES.

       Section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a) is amended to read as follows:


      ``tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues

       ``Sec. 408. (a) Requirement for Tolerance or Exemption.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) or 
     (3), any pesticide chemical residue in or on a food shall be 
     deemed unsafe for the purpose of section 402(a)(2)(B) 
     unless--
       ``(A) a tolerance for such pesticide chemical residue in or 
     on such food is in effect under this section and the quantity 
     of the residue is within the limits of the tolerance; or
       ``(B) an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is 
     in effect under this section for the pesticide chemical 
     residue.
     For the purposes of this section, the term `food', when used 
     as a noun without modification, shall mean a raw agricultural 
     commodity or processed food.
       ``(2) Processed food.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) if a tolerance is in effect under this section for a 
     pesticide chemical residue in or on a raw agricultural 
     commodity, a pesticide chemical residue that is present in or 
     on a processed food because the food is made from that raw 
     agricultural commodity shall not be considered unsafe within 
     the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(B) despite the lack of a 
     tolerance for the pesticide chemical residue in or on the 
     processed food if the pesticide chemical has been used in or 
     on the raw agricultural commodity in conformity with a 
     tolerance under this section, such residue in or on the raw 
     agricultural commodity has been removed to the extent 
     possible in good manufacturing practice, and the 
     concentration of the pesticide chemical residue in the 
     processed food is not greater than the tolerance prescribed 
     for the pesticide chemical residue in the raw agricultural 
     commodity; or
       ``(B) if an exemption for the requirement for a tolerance 
     is in effect under this section for a pesticide chemical 
     residue in or on a raw agricultural commodity, a pesticide 
     chemical residue that is present in or on a processed food 
     because the food is made from that raw agricultural commodity 
     shall not be considered unsafe within the meaning of section 
     402(a)(2)(B).
       ``(3) Residues of degradation products.--If a pesticide 
     chemical residue is present in or on a food because it is a 
     metabolite or other degradation product of a precursor 
     substance that itself is a pesticide chemical or pesticide 
     chemical residue, such a residue shall not be considered to 
     be unsafe within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(B) despite 
     the lack of a tolerance or exemption from the need for a 
     tolerance for such residue in or on such food if--
       ``(A) the Administrator has not determined that the 
     degradation product is likely to pose any potential health 
     risk from dietary exposure that is of a different type than, 
     or of a greater significance than, any risk posed by dietary 
     exposure to the precursor substance;
       ``(B) either--
       ``(i) a tolerance is in effect under this section for 
     residues of the precursor substance in or on the food, and 
     the combined level of residues of the degradation product and 
     the precursor substance in or on the food is at or below the 
     stoichiometrically equivalent level that would be permitted 
     by the tolerance if the residue consisted only of the 
     precursor substance rather than the degradation product; or
       ``(ii) an exemption from the need for a tolerance is in 
     effect under this section for residues of the precursor 
     substance in or on the food; and
       ``(C) the tolerance or exemption for residues of the 
     precursor substance does not state that it applies only to 
     particular named substances and does not state that it does 
     not apply to residues of the degradation product.
       ``(4) Effect of tolerance or exemption.--While a tolerance 
     or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance is in 
     effect under this section for a pesticide chemical residue 
     with respect to any food, the food shall not by reason of 
     bearing or containing any amount of such a residue be 
     considered to be adulterated within the meaning of section 
     402(a)(1).
       ``(b) Authority and Standard for Tolerance.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
     establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance for a 
     pesticide chemical residue in or on a food--
       ``(A) in response to a petition filed under subsection (d); 
     or
       ``(B) on the Administrator's own initiative under 
     subsection (e).

     As used in this section, the term `modify' shall not mean 
     expanding the tolerance to cover additional foods.
       ``(2) Standard.--
       ``(A) General rule.--
       ``(i) Standard.--The Administrator may establish or leave 
     in effect a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or 
     on a food only if the Administrator determines that the 
     tolerance is safe. The Administrator shall modify or revoke a 
     tolerance if the Administrator determines it is not safe.
       ``(ii) Determination of safety.--As used in this section, 
     the term `safe', with respect to a tolerance for a pesticide 
     chemical residue', means that the Administrator has 
     determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm 
     will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
     residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all 
     other exposures for which there is reliable information.
       ``(iii) Rule of construction.--With respect to a tolerance, 
     a pesticide chemical residue meeting the standard under 
     clause (i) is not an eligible pesticide chemical residue for 
     purposes of subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Tolerances for eligible pesticide chemical 
     residues.--
       ``(i) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term 
     `eligible pesticide chemical residue' means a pesticide 
     chemical residue as to which--

[[Page H8135]]

       ``(I) the Administrator is not able to identify a level of 
     exposure to the residue at which the residue will not cause 
     or contribute to a known or anticipated harm to human health 
     (referred to in this section as a `nonthreshold effect');
       ``(II) the lifetime risk of experiencing the nonthreshold 
     effect is appropriately assessed by quantitative risk 
     assessment; and
       ``(III) with regard to any known or anticipated harm to 
     human health for which the Administrator is able to identify 
     a level at which the residue will not cause such harm 
     (referred to in this section as a `threshold effect'), the 
     Administrator determines that the level of aggregate exposure 
     is safe.

       ``(ii) Determination of tolerance.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A)(i), a tolerance for an eligible pesticide 
     chemical residue may be left in effect or modified under this 
     subparagraph if--

       ``(I) at least one of the conditions described in clause 
     (iii) is met; and
       ``(II) both of the conditions described in clause (iv) are 
     met.

       ``(iii) Conditions regarding use.--For purposes of clause 
     (ii), the conditions described in this clause with respect to 
     a tolerance for an eligible pesticide chemical residue are 
     the following:

       ``(I) Use of the pesticide chemical that produces the 
     residue protects consumers from adverse effects on health 
     that would pose a greater risk than the dietary risk from the 
     residue.
       ``(II) Use of the pesticide chemical that produces the 
     residue is necessary to avoid a significant disruption in 
     domestic production of an adequate, wholesome, and economical 
     food supply.

       ``(iv) Conditions regarding risk.--For purposes of clause 
     (ii), the conditions described in this clause with respect to 
     a tolerance for an eligible pesticide chemical residue are 
     the following:

       ``(I) The yearly risk associated with the nonthreshold 
     effect from aggregate exposure to the residue does not exceed 
     10 times the yearly risk that would be allowed under 
     subparagraph (A) for such effect.
       ``(II) The tolerance is limited so as to ensure that the 
     risk over a lifetime associated with the nonthreshold effect 
     from aggregate exposure to the residue is not greater than 
     twice the lifetime risk that would be allowed under 
     subparagraph (A) for such effect.

       ``(v) Review.--Five years after the date on which the 
     Administrator makes a determination to leave in effect or 
     modify a tolerance under this subparagraph, and thereafter as 
     the Administrator deems appropriate, the Administrator shall 
     determine, after notice and opportunity for comment, whether 
     it has been demonstrated to the Administrator that a 
     condition described in clause (iii)(I) or clause (iii)(II) 
     continues to exist with respect to the tolerance and that the 
     yearly and lifetime risks from aggregate exposure to such 
     residue continue to comply with the limits specified in 
     clause (iv). If the Administrator determines by such date 
     that such demonstration has not been made, the Administrator 
     shall, not later than 180 days after the date of such 
     determination, issue a regulation under subsection (e)(1) to 
     modify or revoke the tolerance.
       ``(vi) Infants and children.--Any tolerance under this 
     subparagraph shall meet the requirements of subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Exposure of infants and children.--In establishing, 
     modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or 
     exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, the 
     Administrator--
       ``(i) shall assess the risk of the pesticide chemical 
     residue based on--

       ``(I) available information about consumption patterns 
     among infants and children that are likely to result in 
     disproportionately high consumption of foods containing or 
     bearing such residue among infants and children in comparison 
     to the general population;
       ``(II) available information concerning the special 
     susceptibility of infants and children to the pesticide 
     chemical residues, including neurological differences between 
     infants and children and adults, and effects of in utero 
     exposure to pesticide chemicals; and
       ``(III) available information concerning the cumulative 
     effects on infants and children of such residues and other 
     substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity; and

       ``(ii) shall--

       ``(I) ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no 
     harm will result to infants and children from aggregate 
     exposure to the pesticide chemical residue; and
       ``(II) publish a specific determination regarding the 
     safety of the pesticide chemical residue for infants and 
     children.

     The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, in consultation with the Administrator, shall 
     conduct surveys to document dietary exposure to pesticides 
     among infants and children. In the case of threshold effects, 
     for purposes of clause (ii)(I) an additional tenfold margin 
     of safety for the pesticide chemical residue and other 
     sources of exposure shall be applied for infants and children 
     to take into account potential pre- and post-natal toxicity 
     and completeness of the data with respect to exposure and 
     toxicity to infants and children. Notwithstanding such 
     requirement for an additional margin of safety, the 
     Administrator may use a different margin of safety for the 
     pesticide chemical residue only if, on the basis of reliable 
     data, such margin will be safe for infants and children.
       ``(D) Factors.--In establishing, modifying, leaving in 
     effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide 
     chemical residue, the Administrator shall consider, among 
     other relevant factors--
       ``(i) the validity, completeness, and reliability of the 
     available data from studies of the pesticide chemical and 
     pesticide chemical residue;
       ``(ii) the nature of any toxic effect shown to be caused by 
     the pesticide chemical or pesticide chemical residue in such 
     studies;
       ``(iii) available information concerning the relationship 
     of the results of such studies to human risk;
       ``(iv) available information concerning the dietary 
     consumption patterns of consumers (and major identifiable 
     subgroups of consumers);
       ``(v) available information concerning the cumulative 
     effects of such residues and other substances that have a 
     common mechanism of toxicity;
       ``(vi) available information concerning the aggregate 
     exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable 
     subgroups of consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and 
     to other related substances, including dietary exposure under 
     the tolerance and all other tolerances in effect for the 
     pesticide chemical residue, and exposure from other non-
     occupational sources;
       ``(vii) available information concerning the variability of 
     the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of 
     consumers;
       ``(viii) such information as the Administrator may require 
     on whether the pesticide chemical may have an effect in 
     humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally 
     occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects; and
       ``(ix) safety factors which in the opinion of experts 
     qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate 
     the safety of food additives are generally recognized as 
     appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data.
       ``(E) Data and information regarding anticipated and actual 
     residue levels.--
       ``(i) Authority.--In establishing, modifying, leaving in 
     effect, or revoking a tolerance for a pesticide chemical 
     residue, the Administrator may consider available data and 
     information on the anticipated residue levels of the 
     pesticide chemical in or on food and the actual residue 
     levels of the pesticide chemical that have been measured in 
     food, including residue data collected by the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
       ``(ii) Requirement.--If the Administrator relies on 
     anticipated or actual residue levels in establishing, 
     modifying, or leaving in effect a tolerance, the 
     Administrator shall pursuant to subsection (f)(1) require 
     that data be provided five years after the date on which the 
     tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, and 
     thereafter as the Administrator deems appropriate, 
     demonstrating that such residue levels are not above the 
     levels so relied on. If such data are not so provided, or if 
     the data do not demonstrate that the residue levels are not 
     above the levels so relied on, the Administrator shall, not 
     later than 180 days after the date on which the data were 
     required to be provided, issue a regulation under subsection 
     (e)(1), or an order under subsection (f)(2), as appropriate, 
     to modify or revoke the tolerance.
       ``(F) Percent of food actually treated.--In establishing, 
     modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance for a 
     pesticide chemical residue, the Administrator may, when 
     assessing chronic dietary risk, consider available data and 
     information on the percent of food actually treated with the 
     pesticide chemical (including aggregate pesticide use data 
     collected by the Department of Agriculture) only if the 
     Administrator--
       ``(i) finds that the data are reliable and provide a valid 
     basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such 
     crop is likely to contain such pesticide chemical residue;
       ``(ii) finds that the exposure estimate does not understate 
     exposure for any significant subpopulation group;
       ``(iii) finds that, if data are available on pesticide use 
     and consumption of food in a particular area, the population 
     in such area is not dietarily exposed to residues above those 
     estimated by the Administrator; and
       ``(iv) provides for the periodic reevaluation of the 
     estimate of anticipated dietary exposure.
       ``(3) Detection methods.--
       ``(A) General rule.--A tolerance for a pesticide chemical 
     residue in or on a food shall not be established or modified 
     by the Administrator unless the Administrator determines, 
     after consultation with the Secretary, that there is a 
     practical method for detecting and measuring the levels of 
     the pesticide chemical residue in or on the food.
       ``(B) Detection limit.--A tolerance for a pesticide 
     chemical residue in or on a food shall not be established at 
     or modified to a level lower than the limit of detection of 
     the method for detecting and measuring the pesticide chemical 
     residue specified by the Administrator under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(4) International standards.--In establishing a tolerance 
     for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food, the 
     Administrator shall determine whether a maximum residue level 
     for the pesticide chemical has been established by the Codex 
     Alimentarius Commission. If a Codex maximum residue level has 
     been established for the pesticide chemical and the 
     Administrator does not propose to adopt the Codex level, the 
     Administrator shall publish for public comment a notice 
     explaining the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

[[Page H8136]]

       ``(c) Authority and Standard for Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Administrator may issue a regulation 
     establishing, modifying, or revoking an exemption from the 
     requirement for a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue 
     in or on food--
       ``(A) in response to a petition filed under subsection (d); 
     or
       ``(B) on the Administrator's initiative under subsection 
     (e).
       ``(2) Standard.--
       ``(A) General rule.--
       ``(i) Standard.--The Administrator may establish or leave 
     in effect an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance 
     for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food only if the 
     Administrator determines that the exemption is safe. The 
     Administrator shall modify or revoke an exemption if the 
     Administrator determines it is not safe.
       ``(ii) Determination of safety.--The term `safe', with 
     respect to an exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, 
     means that the Administrator has determined that there is a 
     reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate 
     exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all 
     anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for 
     which there is reliable information.
       ``(B) Factors.--In making a determination under this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall take into account, among 
     other relevant considerations, the considerations set forth 
     in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of subsection (b)(2).
       ``(3) Limitation.--An exemption from the requirement for a 
     tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food 
     shall not be established or modified by the Administrator 
     unless the Administrator determines, after consultation with 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) that there is a practical method for detecting and 
     measuring the levels of such pesticide chemical residue in or 
     on food; or
       ``(B) that there is no need for such a method, and states 
     the reasons for such determination in issuing the regulation 
     establishing or modifying the exemption.
       ``(d) Petition for Tolerance or Exemption.--
       ``(1) Petitions and petitioners.--Any person may file with 
     the Administrator a petition proposing the issuance of a 
     regulation--
       ``(A) establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance for 
     a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food; or
       ``(B) establishing, modifying, or revoking an exemption 
     from the requirement of a tolerance for such a residue.
       ``(2) Petition contents.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--A petition under paragraph (1) to 
     establish a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical 
     residue shall be supported by such data and information as 
     are specified in regulations issued by the Administrator, 
     including--
       ``(i)(I) an informative summary of the petition and of the 
     data, information, and arguments submitted or cited in 
     support of the petition; and
       ``(II) a statement that the petitioner agrees that such 
     summary or any information it contains may be published as a 
     part of the notice of filing of the petition to be published 
     under this subsection and as part of a proposed or final 
     regulation issued under this section;
       ``(ii) the name, chemical identity, and composition of the 
     pesticide chemical residue and of the pesticide chemical that 
     produces the residue;
       ``(iii) data showing the recommended amount, frequency, 
     method, and time of application of that pesticide chemical;
       ``(iv) full reports of tests and investigations made with 
     respect to the safety of the pesticide chemical, including 
     full information as to the methods and controls used in 
     conducting those tests and investigations;
       ``(v) full reports of tests and investigations made with 
     respect to the nature and amount of the pesticide chemical 
     residue that is likely to remain in or on the food, including 
     a description of the analytical methods used;
       ``(vi) a practical method for detecting and measuring the 
     levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on the food, 
     or for exemptions, a statement why such a method is not 
     needed;
       ``(vii) a proposed tolerance for the pesticide chemical 
     residue, if a tolerance is proposed;
       ``(viii) if the petition relates to a tolerance for a 
     processed food, reports of investigations conducted using the 
     processing method(s) used to produce that food;
       ``(ix) such information as the Administrator may require to 
     make the determination under subsection (b)(2)(C);
       ``(x) such information as the Administrator may require on 
     whether the pesticide chemical may have an effect in humans 
     that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally 
     occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects;
       ``(xi) information regarding exposure to the pesticide 
     chemical residue due to any tolerance or exemption already 
     granted for such residue;
       ``(xii) practical methods for removing any amount of the 
     residue that would exceed any proposed tolerance; and
       ``(xiii) such other data and information as the 
     Administrator requires by regulation to support the petition.

     If information or data required by this subparagraph is 
     available to the Administrator, the person submitting the 
     petition may cite the availability of the information or data 
     in lieu of submitting it. The Administrator may require a 
     petition to be accompanied by samples of the pesticide 
     chemical with respect to which the petition is filed.
       ``(B) Modification or revocation.--The Administrator may by 
     regulation establish the requirements for information and 
     data to support a petition to modify or revoke a tolerance or 
     to modify or revoke an exemption from the requirement for a 
     tolerance.
       ``(3) Notice.--A notice of the filing of a petition that 
     the Administrator determines has met the requirements of 
     paragraph (2) shall be published by the Administrator within 
     30 days after such determination. The notice shall announce 
     the availability of a description of the analytical methods 
     available to the Administrator for the detection and 
     measurement of the pesticide chemical residue with respect to 
     which the petition is filed or shall set forth the 
     petitioner's statement of why such a method is not needed. 
     The notice shall include the summary required by paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i)(I).
       ``(4) Actions by the administrator.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall, after giving 
     due consideration to a petition filed under paragraph (1) and 
     any other information available to the Administrator--
       ``(i) issue a final regulation (which may vary from that 
     sought by the petition) establishing, modifying, or revoking 
     a tolerance for the pesticide chemical residue or an 
     exemption of the pesticide chemical residue from the 
     requirement of a tolerance (which final regulation shall be 
     issued without further notice and without further period for 
     public comment);
       ``(ii) issue a proposed regulation under subsection (e), 
     and thereafter issue a final regulation under such 
     subsection; or
       ``(iii) issue an order denying the petition.
       ``(B) Priorities.--The Administrator shall give priority to 
     petitions for the establishment or modification of a 
     tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical residue that 
     appears to pose a significantly lower risk to human health 
     from dietary exposure than pesticide chemical residues that 
     have tolerances in effect for the same or similar uses.
       ``(C) Expedited review of certain petitions.--
       ``(i) Date certain for review.--If a person files a 
     complete petition with the Administrator proposing the 
     issuance of a regulation establishing a tolerance or 
     exemption for a pesticide chemical residue that presents a 
     lower risk to human health than a pesticide chemical residue 
     for which a tolerance has been left in effect or modified 
     under subsection (b)(2)(B), the Administrator shall complete 
     action on such petition under this paragraph within 1 year.
       ``(ii) Required determinations.--If the Administrator 
     issues a final regulation establishing a tolerance or 
     exemption for a safer pesticide chemical residue under clause 
     (i), the Administrator shall, not later than 180 days after 
     the date on which the regulation is issued, determine whether 
     a condition described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iii) continues to exist with respect to a tolerance 
     that has been left in effect or modified under subsection 
     (b)(2)(B). If such condition does not continue to exist, the 
     Administrator shall, not later than 180 days after the date 
     on which the determination under the preceding sentence is 
     made, issue a regulation under subsection (e)(1) to modify or 
     revoke the tolerance.
       ``(e) Action on Administrator's Own Initiative.--
       ``(1) General rule.--The Administrator may issue a 
     regulation--
       ``(A) establishing, modifying, suspending under subsection 
     (l)(3), or revoking a tolerance for a pesticide chemical or a 
     pesticide chemical residue;
       ``(B) establishing, modifying, suspending under subsection 
     (l)(3), or revoking an exemption of a pesticide chemical 
     residue from the requirement of a tolerance; or
       ``(C) establishing general procedures and requirements to 
     implement this section.
       ``(2) Notice.--Before issuing a final regulation under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking and provide a period of not less than 60 
     days for public comment on the proposed regulation, except 
     that a shorter period for comment may be provided if the 
     Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the 
     public interest to do so and states the reasons for the 
     finding in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
       ``(f) Special Data Requirements.--
       ``(1) Requiring submission of additional data.--If the 
     Administrator determines that additional data or information 
     are reasonably required to support the continuation of a 
     tolerance or exemption that is in effect under this section 
     for a pesticide chemical residue on a food, the Administrator 
     shall--
       ``(A) issue a notice requiring the person holding the 
     pesticide registrations associated with such tolerance or 
     exemption to submit the data or information under section 
     3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act;
       ``(B) issue a rule requiring that testing be conducted on a 
     substance or mixture under section 4 of the Toxic Substances 
     Control Act; or
       ``(C) publish in the Federal Register, after first 
     providing notice and an opportunity for comment of not less 
     than 60 days' duration, an order--
       ``(i) requiring the submission to the Administrator by one 
     or more interested persons of a notice identifying the person 
     or

[[Page H8137]]

     persons who will submit the required data and information;
       ``(ii) describing the type of data and information required 
     to be submitted to the Administrator and stating why the data 
     and information could not be obtained under the authority of 
     section 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act or section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control 
     Act;
       ``(iii) describing the reports of the Administrator 
     required to be prepared during and after the collection of 
     the data and information;
       ``(iv) requiring the submission to the Administrator of the 
     data, information, and reports referred to in clauses (ii) 
     and (iii); and
       ``(v) establishing dates by which the submissions described 
     in clauses (i) and (iv) must be made.

     The Administrator may under subparagraph (C) revise any such 
     order to correct an error. The Administrator may under this 
     paragraph require data or information pertaining to whether 
     the pesticide chemical may have an effect in humans that is 
     similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring 
     estrogen or other endocrine effects.
       ``(2) Noncompliance.--If a submission required by a notice 
     issued in accordance with paragraph (1)(A), a rule issued 
     under paragraph (1)(B), or an order issued under paragraph 
     (1)(C) is not made by the time specified in such notice, 
     rule, or order, the Administrator may by order published in 
     the Federal Register modify or revoke the tolerance or 
     exemption in question. In any review of such an order under 
     subsection (g)(2), the only material issue shall be whether a 
     submission required under paragraph (1) was not made by the 
     time specified.
       ``(g) Effective Date, Objections, Hearings, and 
     Administrative Review.--
       ``(1) Effective date.--A regulation or order issued under 
     subsection (d)(4), (e)(1), or (f)(2) shall take effect upon 
     publication unless the regulation or order specifies 
     otherwise. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of 
     the regulation or order if, after issuance of such regulation 
     or order, objections are filed with respect to such 
     regulation or order pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Further proceedings.--
       ``(A) Objections.--Within 60 days after a regulation or 
     order is issued under subsection (d)(4), (e)(1)(A), 
     (e)(1)(B), (f)(2), (n)(3), or (n)(5)(C), any person may file 
     objections thereto with the Administrator, specifying with 
     particularity the provisions of the regulation or order 
     deemed objectionable and stating reasonable grounds therefor. 
     If the regulation or order was issued in response to a 
     petition under subsection (d)(1), a copy of each objection 
     filed by a person other than the petitioner shall be served 
     by the Administrator on the petitioner.
       ``(B) Hearing.--An objection may include a request for a 
     public evidentiary hearing upon the objection. The 
     Administrator shall, upon the initiative of the Administrator 
     or upon the request of an interested person and after due 
     notice, hold a public evidentiary hearing if and to the 
     extent the Administrator determines that such a public 
     hearing is necessary to receive factual evidence relevant to 
     material issues of fact raised by the objections. The 
     presiding officer in such a hearing may authorize a party to 
     obtain discovery from other persons and may upon a showing of 
     good cause made by a party issue a subpoena to compel 
     testimony or production of documents from any person. The 
     presiding officer shall be governed by the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure in making any order for the protection of the 
     witness or the content of documents produced and shall order 
     the payment of a reasonable fees and expenses as a condition 
     to requiring testimony of the witness. On contest, such a 
     subpoena may be enforced by a Federal district court.
       ``(C) Final decision.--As soon as practicable after 
     receiving the arguments of the parties, the Administrator 
     shall issue an order stating the action taken upon each such 
     objection and setting forth any revision to the regulation or 
     prior order that the Administrator has found to be warranted. 
     If a hearing was held under subparagraph (B), such order and 
     any revision to the regulation or prior order shall, with 
     respect to questions of fact at issue in the hearing, be 
     based only on substantial evidence of record at such hearing, 
     and shall set forth in detail the findings of facts and the 
     conclusions of law or policy upon which the order or 
     regulation is based.
       ``(h) Judicial Review.--
       ``(1) Petition.--In a case of actual controversy as to the 
     validity of any regulation issued under subsection (e)(1)(C), 
     or any order issued under subsection (f)(1)(C) or (g)(2)(C), 
     or any regulation that is the subject of such an order, any 
     person who will be adversely affected by such order or 
     regulation may obtain judicial review by filing in the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the circuit wherein that person 
     resides or has its principal place of business, or in the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit, within 60 days after publication of such order or 
     regulation, a petition praying that the order or regulation 
     be set aside in whole or in part.
       ``(2) Record and jurisdiction.--A copy of the petition 
     under paragraph (1) shall be forthwith transmitted by the 
     clerk of the court to the Administrator, or any officer 
     designated by the Administrator for that purpose, and 
     thereupon the Administrator shall file in the court the 
     record of the proceedings on which the Administrator based 
     the order or regulation, as provided in section 2112 of title 
     28, United States Code. Upon the filing of such a petition, 
     the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to affirm or set 
     aside the order or regulation complained of in whole or in 
     part. As to orders issued following a public evidentiary 
     hearing, the findings of the Administrator with respect to 
     questions of fact shall be sustained only if supported by 
     substantial evidence when considered on the record as a 
     whole.
       ``(3) Additional evidence.--If a party applies to the court 
     for leave to adduce additional evidence and shows to the 
     satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is 
     material and that there were reasonable grounds for the 
     failure to adduce the evidence in the proceeding before the 
     Administrator, the court may order that the additional 
     evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) shall be taken 
     before the Administrator in the manner and upon the terms and 
     conditions the court deems proper. The Administrator may 
     modify prior findings as to the facts by reason of the 
     additional evidence so taken and may modify the order or 
     regulation accordingly. The Administrator shall file with the 
     court any such modified finding, order, or regulation.
       ``(4) Final judgment; supreme court review.--The judgment 
     of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, 
     any regulation or any order and any regulation which is the 
     subject of such an order shall be final, subject to review by 
     the Supreme Court of the United States as provided in section 
     1254 of title 28 of the United States Code. The commencement 
     of proceedings under this subsection shall not, unless 
     specifically ordered by the court to the contrary, operate as 
     a stay of a regulation or order.
       ``(5) Application.--Any issue as to which review is or was 
     obtainable under this subsection shall not be the subject of 
     judicial review under any other provision of law.
       ``(i) Confidentiality and Use of Data.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Data and information that are or have 
     been submitted to the Administrator under this section or 
     section 409 in support of a tolerance or an exemption from a 
     tolerance shall be entitled to confidential treatment for 
     reasons of business confidentiality and to exclusive use and 
     data compensation to the same extent provided by sections 3 
     and 10 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
     Act.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Data and information that are entitled 
     to confidential treatment under paragraph (1) may be 
     disclosed, under such security requirements as the 
     Administrator may provide by regulation, to--
       ``(i) employees of the United States authorized by the 
     Administrator to examine such data and information in the 
     carrying out of their official duties under this Act or other 
     Federal statutes intended to protect the public health; or
       ``(ii) contractors with the United States authorized by the 
     Administrator to examine such data and information in the 
     carrying out of contracts under this Act or such statutes.
       ``(B) Congress.--This subsection does not authorize the 
     withholding of data or information from either House of 
     Congress or from, to the extent of matter within its 
     jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee of such committee 
     or any joint committee of Congress or any subcommittee of 
     such joint committee.
       ``(3) Summaries.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     subsection or other law, the Administrator may publish the 
     informative summary required by subsection (d)(2)(A)(i) and 
     may, in issuing a proposed or final regulation or order under 
     this section, publish an informative summary of the data 
     relating to the regulation or order.
       ``(j) Status of Previously Issued Regulations.--
       ``(1) Regulations under section 406.--Regulations affecting 
     pesticide chemical residues in or on raw agricultural 
     commodities promulgated, in accordance with section 701(e), 
     under the authority of section 406(a) upon the basis of 
     public hearings instituted before January 1, 1953, shall be 
     deemed to be regulations issued under this section and shall 
     be subject to modification or revocation under subsections 
     (d) and (e), and shall be subject to review under subsection 
     (q).
       ``(2) Regulations under section 409.--Regulations that 
     established tolerances for substances that are pesticide 
     chemical residues in or on processed food, or that otherwise 
     stated the conditions under which such pesticide chemicals 
     could be safely used, and that were issued under section 409 
     on or before the date of the enactment of this paragraph, 
     shall be deemed to be regulations issued under this section 
     and shall be subject to modification or revocation under 
     subsection (d) or (e), and shall be subject to review under 
     subsection (q).
       ``(3) Regulations under section 408.--Regulations that 
     established tolerances or exemptions under this section that 
     were issued on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph shall remain in effect unless modified or revoked 
     under subsection (d) or (e), and shall be subject to review 
     under subsection (q).
       ``(k) Transitional Provision.--If, on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, a substance that is 
     a pesticide chemical was, with respect to a particular 
     pesticidal use of the substance and any resulting pesticide 
     chemical residue in or on a particular food--

[[Page H8138]]

       ``(1) regarded by the Administrator or the Secretary as 
     generally recognized as safe for use within the meaning of 
     the provisions of subsection (a) or section 201(s) as then in 
     effect; or
       ``(2) regarded by the Secretary as a substance described by 
     section 201(s)(4);

     such a pesticide chemical residue shall be regarded as exempt 
     from the requirement for a tolerance, as of the date of 
     enactment of this subsection. The Administrator shall by 
     regulation indicate which substances are described by this 
     subsection. Any exemption under this subsection may be 
     modified or revoked as if it had been issued under subsection 
     (c).
       ``(l) Harmonization With Action Under Other Laws.--
       ``(1) Coordination with fifra.--To the extent practicable 
     and consistent with the review deadlines in subsection (q), 
     in issuing a final rule under this subsection that suspends 
     or revokes a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical 
     residue in or on food, the Administrator shall coordinate 
     such action with any related necessary action under the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
       ``(2) Revocation of tolerance or exemption following 
     cancellation of associated registrations.--If the 
     Administrator, acting under the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, cancels the registration of 
     each pesticide that contains a particular pesticide chemical 
     and that is labeled for use on a particular food, or requires 
     that the registration of each such pesticide be modified to 
     prohibit its use in connection with the production, storage, 
     or transportation of such food, due in whole or in part to 
     dietary risks to humans posed by residues of that pesticide 
     chemical on that food, the Administrator shall revoke any 
     tolerance or exemption that allows the presence of the 
     pesticide chemical, or any pesticide chemical residue that 
     results from its use, in or on that food. Subsection (e) 
     shall apply to actions taken under this paragraph. A 
     revocation under this paragraph shall become effective not 
     later than 180 days after--
       ``(A) the date by which each such cancellation of a 
     registration has become effective; or
       ``(B) the date on which the use of the canceled pesticide 
     becomes unlawful under the terms of the cancellation, 
     whichever is later.
       ``(3) Suspension of tolerance or exemption following 
     suspension of associated registrations.--
       ``(A) Suspension.--If the Administrator, acting under the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, suspends 
     the use of each registered pesticide that contains a 
     particular pesticide chemical and that is labeled for use on 
     a particular food, due in whole or in part to dietary risks 
     to humans posed by residues of that pesticide chemical on 
     that food, the Administrator shall suspend any tolerance or 
     exemption that allows the presence of the pesticide chemical, 
     or any pesticide chemical residue that results from its use, 
     in or on that food. Subsection (e) shall apply to actions 
     taken under this paragraph. A suspension under this paragraph 
     shall become effective not later than 60 days after the date 
     by which each such suspension of use has become effective.
       ``(B) Effect of suspension.--The suspension of a tolerance 
     or exemption under subparagraph (A) shall be effective as 
     long as the use of each associated registration of a 
     pesticide is suspended under the Federal Insecticide, 
     Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. While a suspension of a 
     tolerance or exemption is effective the tolerance or 
     exemption shall not be considered to be in effect. If the 
     suspension of use of the pesticide under that Act is 
     terminated, leaving the registration of the pesticide for 
     such use in effect under that Act, the Administrator shall 
     rescind any associated suspension of tolerance or exemption.
       ``(4) Tolerances for unavoidable residues.--In connection 
     with action taken under paragraph (2) or (3), or with respect 
     to pesticides whose registrations were suspended or canceled 
     prior to the date of the enactment of this paragraph under 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, if 
     the Administrator determines that a residue of the canceled 
     or suspended pesticide chemical will unavoidably persist in 
     the environment and thereby be present in or on a food, the 
     Administrator may establish a tolerance for the pesticide 
     chemical residue. In establishing such a tolerance, the 
     Administrator shall take into account both the factors set 
     forth in subsection (b)(2) and the unavoidability of the 
     residue. Subsection (e) shall apply to the establishment of 
     such tolerance. The Administrator shall review any such 
     tolerance periodically and modify it as necessary so that it 
     allows no greater level of the pesticide chemical residue 
     than is unavoidable.
       ``(5) Pesticide residues resulting from lawful application 
     of pesticide.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, if a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide chemical 
     residue in or on a food has been revoked, suspended, or 
     modified under this section, an article of that food shall 
     not be deemed unsafe solely because of the presence of such 
     pesticide chemical residue in or on such food if it is shown 
     to the satisfaction of the Secretary that--
       ``(A) the residue is present as the result of an 
     application or use of a pesticide at a time and in a manner 
     that was lawful under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act; and
       ``(B) the residue does not exceed a level that was 
     authorized at the time of that application or use to be 
     present on the food under a tolerance, exemption, food 
     additive regulation, or other sanction then in effect under 
     this Act;

     unless, in the case of any tolerance or exemption revoked, 
     suspended, or modified under this subsection or subsection 
     (d) or (e), the Administrator has issued a determination that 
     consumption of the legally treated food during the period of 
     its likely availability in commerce will pose an unreasonable 
     dietary risk.
       ``(6) Tolerance for use of pesticides under an emergency 
     exemption.--If the Administrator grants an exemption under 
     section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136p) for a pesticide chemical, the 
     Administrator shall establish a tolerance or exemption from 
     the requirement for a tolerance for the pesticide chemical 
     residue. Such a tolerance or exemption from a tolerance shall 
     have an expiration date. The Administrator may establish such 
     a tolerance or exemption without providing notice or a period 
     for comment on the tolerance or exemption. The Administrator 
     shall promulgate regulations within 365 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph governing the 
     establishment of tolerances and exemptions under this 
     paragraph. Such regulations shall be consistent with the 
     safety standard under subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) and with 
     section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act.
       ``(m) Fees.--
       ``(1) Amount.--The Administrator shall by regulation 
     require the payment of such fees as will in the aggregate, in 
     the judgment of the Administrator, be sufficient over a 
     reasonable term to provide, equip, and maintain an adequate 
     service for the performance of the Administrator's functions 
     under this section. Under the regulations, the performance of 
     the Administrator's services or other functions under this 
     section, including--
       ``(A) the acceptance for filing of a petition submitted 
     under subsection (d);
       ``(B) establishing, modifying, leaving in effect, or 
     revoking a tolerance or establishing, modifying, leaving in 
     effect, or revoking an exemption from the requirement for a 
     tolerance under this section;
       ``(C) the acceptance for filing of objections under 
     subsection (g); or
       ``(D) the certification and filing in court of a transcript 
     of the proceedings and the record under subsection (h);

     may be conditioned upon the payment of such fees. The 
     regulations may further provide for waiver or refund of fees 
     in whole or in part when in the judgment of the Administrator 
     such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the 
     purposes of this subsection.
       ``(2) Deposit.--All fees collected under paragraph (1) 
     shall be deposited in the Reregistration and Expedited 
     Processing Fund created by section 4(k) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Such fees shall 
     be available to the Administrator, without fiscal year 
     limitation, for the performance of the Administrator's 
     services or functions as specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(n) National Uniformity of Tolerances.--
       ``(1) Qualifying pesticide chemical residue.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term `qualifying pesticide chemical 
     residue' means a pesticide chemical residue resulting from 
     the use, in production, processing, or storage of a food, of 
     a pesticide chemical that is an active ingredient and that--
       ``(A) was first approved for such use in a registration of 
     a pesticide issued under section 3(c)(5) of the Federal 
     Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act on or after April 25, 
     1985, on the basis of data determined by the Administrator to 
     meet all applicable requirements for data prescribed by 
     regulations in effect under that Act on April 25, 1985; or
       ``(B) was approved for such use in a reregistration 
     eligibility determination issued under section 4(g) of that 
     Act on or after the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(2) Qualifying federal determination.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `qualifying Federal determination' 
     means a tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a 
     tolerance for a qualifying pesticide chemical residue that--
       ``(A) is issued under this section after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection and determined by the 
     Administrator to meet the standard under subsection (b)(2)(A) 
     (in the case of a tolerance) or (c)(2) (in the case of an 
     exemption); or
       ``(B)(i) pursuant to subsection (j) is remaining in effect 
     or is deemed to have been issued under this section, or is 
     regarded under subsection (k) as exempt from the requirement 
     for a tolerance; and
       ``(ii) is determined by the Administrator to meet the 
     standard under subsection (b)(2)(A) (in the case of a 
     tolerance) or (c)(2) (in the case of an exemption).
       ``(3) Limitation.--The Administrator may make the 
     determination described in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) only by 
     issuing a rule in accordance with the procedure set forth in 
     subsection (d) or (e) and only if the Administrator issues a 
     proposed rule and allows a period of not less than 30 days 
     for comment on the proposed rule. Any such rule shall be 
     reviewable in accordance with subsections (g) and (h).
       ``(4) State authority.--Except as provided in paragraphs 
     (5), (6), and (8) no State or political subdivision may 
     establish or enforce

[[Page H8139]]

     any regulatory limit on a qualifying pesticide chemical 
     residue in or on any food if a qualifying Federal 
     determination applies to the presence of such pesticide 
     chemical residue in or on such food, unless such State 
     regulatory limit is identical to such qualifying Federal 
     determination. A State or political subdivision shall be 
     deemed to establish or enforce a regulatory limit on a 
     pesticide chemical residue in or on a food if it purports to 
     prohibit or penalize the production, processing, shipping, or 
     other handling of a food because it contains a pesticide 
     residue (in excess of a prescribed limit).
       ``(5) Petition procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any State may petition the Administrator 
     for authorization to establish in such State a regulatory 
     limit on a qualifying pesticide chemical residue in or on any 
     food that is not identical to the qualifying Federal 
     determination applicable to such qualifying pesticide 
     chemical residue.
       ``(B) Petition requirements.--Any petition under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) satisfy any requirements prescribed, by rule, by the 
     Administrator; and
       ``(ii) be supported by scientific data about the pesticide 
     chemical residue that is the subject of the petition or about 
     chemically related pesticide chemical residues, data on the 
     consumption within such State of food bearing the pesticide 
     chemical residue, and data on exposure of humans within such 
     State to the pesticide chemical residue.
       ``(C) Authorization.--The Administrator may, by order, 
     grant the authorization described in subparagraph (A) if the 
     Administrator determines that the proposed State regulatory 
     limit--
       ``(i) is justified by compelling local conditions; and
       ``(ii) would not cause any food to be a violation of 
     Federal law.
       ``(D) Treatment.--In lieu of any action authorized under 
     subparagraph (C), the Administrator may treat a petition 
     under this paragraph as a petition under subsection (d) to 
     modify or revoke a tolerance or an exemption. If the 
     Administrator determines to treat a petition under this 
     paragraph as a petition under subsection (d), the 
     Administrator shall thereafter act on the petition pursuant 
     to subsection (d).
       ``(E) Review.--Any order of the Administrator granting or 
     denying the authorization described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be subject to review in the manner described in subsections 
     (g) and (h).
       ``(6) Urgent petition procedure.--Any State petition to the 
     Administrator pursuant to paragraph (5) that demonstrates 
     that consumption of a food containing such pesticide residue 
     level during the period of the food's likely availability in 
     the State will pose a significant public health threat from 
     acute exposure shall be considered an urgent petition. If an 
     order by the Administrator to grant or deny the requested 
     authorization in an urgent petition is not made within 30 
     days of receipt of the petition, the petitioning State may 
     establish and enforce a temporary regulatory limit on a 
     qualifying pesticide chemical residue in or on the food. The 
     temporary regulatory limit shall be validated or terminated 
     by the Administrator's final order on the petition.
       ``(7) Residues from lawful application.--No State or 
     political subdivision may enforce any regulatory limit on the 
     level of a pesticide chemical residue that may appear in or 
     on any food if, at the time of the application of the 
     pesticide that resulted in such residue, the sale of such 
     food with such residue level was lawful under this section 
     and under the law of such State, unless the State 
     demonstrates that consumption of the food containing such 
     pesticide residue level during the period of the food's 
     likely availability in the State will pose an unreasonable 
     dietary risk to the health of persons within such State.
       ``(8) Savings.--Nothing in this Act preempts the authority 
     of any State or political subdivision to require that a food 
     containing a pesticide chemical residue bear or be the 
     subject of a warning or other statement relating to the 
     presence of the pesticide chemical residue in or on such 
     food.
       ``(o) Consumer Right to Know.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act 
     of 1996, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, publish in a format 
     understandable to a lay person, and distribute to large 
     retail grocers for public display (in a manner determined by 
     the grocer), the following information, at a minimum:
       ``(1) A discussion of the risks and benefits of pesticide 
     chemical residues in or on food purchased by consumers.
       ``(2) A listing of actions taken under subparagraph (B) of 
     subsection (b)(2) that may result in pesticide chemical 
     residues in or on food that present a yearly or lifetime risk 
     above the risk allowed under subparagraph (A) of such 
     subsection, and the food on which the pesticide chemicals 
     producing the residues are used.
       ``(3) Recommendations to consumers for reducing dietary 
     exposure to pesticide chemical residues in a manner 
     consistent with maintaining a healthy diet, including a list 
     of food that may reasonably substitute for food listed under 
     paragraph (2).
       Nothing in this subsection shall prevent retail grocers 
     from providing additional information.
       ``(p) Estrogenic substances screening program.--
       ``(1) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test 
     systems and other scientifically relevant information, to 
     determine whether certain substances may have an effect in 
     humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally 
     occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the 
     Administrator may designate.
       ``(2) Implementation.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, after obtaining public 
     comment and review of the screening program described in 
     paragraph (1) by the scientific advisory panel established 
     under section 25(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act or the science advisory board established 
     by section 8 of the Environmental Research, Development, and 
     Demonstration Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365), the Administrator 
     shall implement the program.
       ``(3) Substances.--In carrying out the screening program 
     described in paragraph (1), the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall provide for the testing of all pesticide 
     chemicals; and
       ``(B) may provide for the testing of any other substance 
     that may have an effect that is cumulative to an effect of a 
     pesticide chemical if the Administrator determines that a 
     substantial population may be exposed to such substance.
       ``(4) Exemption.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the 
     Administrator may, by order, exempt from the requirements of 
     this section a biologic substance or other substance if the 
     Administrator determines that the substance is anticipated 
     not to produce any effect in humans similar to an effect 
     produced by a naturally occurring estrogen.
       ``(5) Collection of information.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue an order 
     to a registrant of a substance for which testing is required 
     under this subsection, or to a person who manufactures or 
     imports a substance for which testing is required under this 
     subsection, to conduct testing in accordance with the 
     screening program described in paragraph (1), and submit 
     information obtained from the testing to the Administrator, 
     within a reasonable time period that the Administrator 
     determines is sufficient for the generation of the 
     information.
       ``(B) Procedures.--To the extent practicable the 
     Administrator shall minimize duplicative testing of the same 
     substance for the same endocrine effect, develop, as 
     appropriate, procedures for fair and equitable sharing of 
     test costs, and develop, as necessary, procedures for 
     handling of confidential business information.
       ``(C) Failure of registrants to submit information.--
       ``(i) Suspension.--If a registrant of a substance referred 
     to in paragraph (3)(A) fails to comply with an order under 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall 
     issue a notice of intent to suspend the sale or distribution 
     of the substance by the registrant. Any suspension proposed 
     under this paragraph shall become final at the end of the 30-
     day period beginning on the date that the registrant receives 
     the notice of intent to suspend, unless during that period a 
     person adversely affected by the notice requests a hearing or 
     the Administrator determines that the registrant has complied 
     fully with this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Hearing.--If a person requests a hearing under 
     clause (i), the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with 
     section 554 of title 5, United States Code. The only matter 
     for resolution at the hearing shall be whether the registrant 
     has failed to comply with an order under subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph. A decision by the Administrator after 
     completion of a hearing shall be considered to be a final 
     agency action.
       ``(iii) Termination of suspensions.--The Administrator 
     shall terminate a suspension under this subparagraph issued 
     with respect to a registrant if the Administrator determines 
     that the registrant has complied fully with this paragraph.
       ``(D) Noncompliance by other persons.--Any person (other 
     than a registrant) who fails to comply with an order under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be liable for the same penalties and 
     sanctions as are provided under section 16 of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 and following) in the 
     case of a violation referred to in that section. Such 
     penalties and sanctions shall be assessed and imposed in the 
     same manner as provided in such section 16.
       ``(6) Agency action.--In the case of any substance that is 
     found, as a result of testing and evaluation under this 
     section, to have an endocrine effect on humans, the 
     Administrator shall, as appropriate, take action under such 
     statutory authority as is available to the Administrator, 
     including consideration under other sections of this Act, as 
     is necessary to ensure the protection of public health.
       ``(7) Report to congress.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report containing--
       ``(A) the findings of the Administrator resulting from the 
     screening program described in paragraph (1);
       ``(B) recommendations for further testing needed to 
     evaluate the impact on human health of the substances tested 
     under the screening program; and
       ``(C) recommendations for any further actions (including 
     any action described in

[[Page H8140]]

     paragraph (6)) that the Administrator determines are 
     appropriate based on the findings.
       ``(q) Schedule for Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall review 
     tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the 
     Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, as expeditiously as 
     practicable, assuring that--
       ``(A) 33 percent of such tolerances and exemptions are 
     reviewed within 3 years of the date of enactment of such Act;
       ``(B) 66 percent of such tolerances and exemptions are 
     reviewed within 6 years of the date of enactment of such Act; 
     and
       ``(C) 100 percent of such tolerances and exemptions are 
     reviewed within 10 years of the date of enactment of such 
     Act.

     In conducting a review of a tolerance or exemption, the 
     Administrator shall determine whether the tolerance or 
     exemption meets the requirements of subsections (b)(2) or 
     (c)(2) and shall, by the deadline for the review of the 
     tolerance or exemption, issue a regulation under subsection 
     (d)(4) or (e)(1) to modify or revoke the tolerance or 
     exemption if the tolerance or exemption does not meet such 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Priorities.--In determining priorities for reviewing 
     tolerances and exemptions under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall give priority to the review of the 
     tolerances or exemptions that appear to pose the greatest 
     risk to public health.
       ``(3) Publication of schedule.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of the enactment of the Food Quality 
     Protection Act of 1996, the Administrator shall publish a 
     schedule for review of tolerances and exemptions established 
     prior to the date of the enactment of the Food Quality 
     Protection Act of 1996. The determination of priorities for 
     the review of tolerances and exemptions pursuant to this 
     subsection is not a rulemaking and shall not be subject to 
     judicial review, except that failure to take final action 
     pursuant to the schedule established by this paragraph shall 
     be subject to judicial review.
       ``(r) Temporary tolerance or exemption.--The Administrator 
     may, upon the request of any person who has obtained an 
     experimental permit for a pesticide chemical under the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or upon 
     the Administrator's own initiative, establish a temporary 
     tolerance or exemption for the pesticide chemical residue for 
     the uses covered by the permit. Subsections (b)(2), (c)(2), 
     (d), and (e) shall apply to actions taken under this 
     subsection.
       ``(s) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to amend or modify the provisions of the Toxic 
     Substances Control Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 
     and Rodenticide Act.''.

     SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED MONITORING.

       For the fiscal years 1997 through 1999, there is authorized 
     to be appropriated in the aggregate an additional $12,000,000 
     for increased monitoring by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services of pesticide residues in imported and domestic food.

     SEC. 407. ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 303(g) (21 U.S.C. 333(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively,
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2)(A) Any person who introduces into interstate commerce 
     or delivers for introduction into interstate commerce an 
     article of food that is adulterated within the meaning of 
     section 402(a)(2)(B) shall be subject to a civil money 
     penalty of not more than $50,000 in the case of an individual 
     and $250,000 in the case of any other person for such 
     introduction or delivery, not to exceed $500,000 for all such 
     violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.
       ``(B) This paragraph shall not apply to any person who grew 
     the article of food that is adulterated. If the Secretary 
     assesses a civil penalty against any person under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary may not use the criminal authorities 
     under this section to sanction such person for the 
     introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate 
     commerce of the article of food that is adulterated. If the 
     Secretary assesses a civil penalty against any person under 
     this paragraph, the Secretary may not use the seizure 
     authorities of section 304 or the injunction authorities of 
     section 302 with respect to the article of food that is 
     adulterated.
       ``(C) In a hearing to assess a civil penalty under this 
     paragraph, the presiding officer shall have the same 
     authority with regard to compelling testimony or production 
     of documents as a presiding officer has under section 
     408(g)(2)(B). The third sentence of paragraph (3)(A) shall 
     not apply to any investigation under this paragraph.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' each place it occurs and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1) or (2)'';
       (4) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(3)(A)''; and
       (5) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(3)'' each place it occurs and inserting ``(4)''.
                             TITLE V--FEES

     SEC. 501. REREGISTRATION FEES.

       (a) Section 4(i).--Section 4(i) (7 U.S.C. 136a-1(i)), as 
     amended by section 232(2), is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (5)(H) and (6), by striking ``1997'' and 
     inserting ``2001''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)(C), by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)'' 
     and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) in each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, 
     the Administrator is authorized to collect up to an 
     additional $2,000,000 in a manner consistent with subsection 
     (k)(5) and the recommendations of the Inspector General of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency. The total fees that may 
     be collected under this clause shall not exceed 
     $6,000,000.''.
       (b) Section 4(k)(1).--Section 4(k)(1) (7 U.S.C. 136a-
     1(k)(1) is amended by inserting before the period the 
     following: ``which shall be known as the Reregistration and 
     Expedited Processing Fund''.
       (c) Section 4(k)(2).--Section 4(k)(2) (7 136a-1(k)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Source and use.--
       ``(A) All moneys derived from fees collected by the 
     Administrator under subsection (i) shall be deposited in the 
     fund and shall be available to the Administrator, without 
     fiscal year limitation, specifically to offset the costs of 
     reregistration and expedited processing of the applications 
     specified in paragraph (3). Such moneys derived from fees may 
     not be expended in any fiscal year to the extent such moneys 
     derived from fees would exceed money appropriated for use by 
     the Administrator and expended in such year for such costs of 
     reregistration and expedited processing of such applications. 
     The Administrator shall, prior to expending any such moneys 
     derived from fees--
       ``(i) effective October 1, 1997, adopt specific and cost 
     accounting rules and procedures as approved by the General 
     Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that moneys derived 
     from fees are allocated solely to the costs of reregistration 
     and expedited processing of the applications specified in 
     paragraph (3) in the same portion as appropriated funds;
       ``(ii) prohibit the use of such moneys derived from fees to 
     pay for any costs other than those necessary to achieve 
     reregistration and expedited processing of the applications 
     specified in paragraph (3); and
       ``(iii) ensure that personnel and facility costs associated 
     with the functions to be carried out under this paragraph do 
     not exceed agency averages for comparable personnel and 
     facility costs.
       ``(B) The Administrator shall also--
       ``(i) complete the review of unreviewed reregistration 
     studies required to support the reregistration eligibility 
     decisions scheduled for completion in accordance with 
     subsection (l)(2); and
       ``(ii) contract for such outside assistance as may be 
     necessary for review of required studies, using a generally 
     accepted competitive process for the selection of vendors of 
     such assistance.''.
       (d) Section 4(k)(3).--Section 4(k)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136a-
     1(k)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``for each of the 
     fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, \1/7\th of the maintenance 
     fees collected, up to 2 million each year'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``for each of the fiscal years 1997 through 
     2001, not more than \1/7\ of the maintenance fees collected 
     in such fiscal year''; and
       (2) by adding a new subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) So long as the Administrator has not met the time 
     frames specified in clause (ii) of section 3(c)(3)(B) with 
     respect to any application subject to section 3(c)(3)(B) that 
     was received prior to the date of enactment of the Food 
     Quality Protection Act of 1996, the Administrator shall use 
     the full amount of the fees specified in subparagraph (A) for 
     the purposes specified therein. Once all applications subject 
     to section 3(c)(3)(B) that were received prior to such date 
     of enactment have been acted upon, no limitation shall be 
     imposed by the preceding sentence of this subparagraph so 
     long as the Administrator meets the time frames specified in 
     clause (ii) of section 3(c)(3)(B) on 90 percent of affected 
     applications in a fiscal year. Should the Administrator not 
     meet such time frames in a fiscal year, the limitations 
     imposed by the first sentence of this subparagraph shall 
     apply until all overdue applications subject to section 
     3(c)(3)(B) have been acted upon.''.
       (e) Section 4(k)(5).--Section 4(k)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a-
     1(k)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Accounting and performance.--The Administrator shall 
     take all steps necessary to ensure that expenditures from 
     fees authorized by subsection (i)(5)(C)(ii) are used only to 
     carry out the goals established under subsection (l). The 
     Reregistration and Expedited Processing Fund shall be 
     designated as an Environmental Protection Agency component 
     for purposes of section 3515(c) of title 31, United States 
     Code. The annual audit required under section 3521 of such 
     title of the financial statements of activities under this 
     Act under section 3515(b) of such title shall include an 
     audit of the fees collected under subsection (i)(5)(C) and 
     disbursed, of the amount appropriated to match such fees, and 
     of the Administrator's attainment of performance measure and 
     goals established under subsection (l). Such an audit shall 
     also include a review of the reasonableness of the overhead 
     allocation and adequacy of disclosures of direct and indirect 
     costs associated with carrying out the reregistration and 
     expedited processing of the applications specified in 
     paragraph (3), and the basis for and accuracy of all costs 
     paid with moneys derived from such fees. The Inspector 
     General shall conduct the annual audit and report

[[Page H8141]]

     the findings and recommendations of such audit to the 
     Administrator and to the Committees on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate. The cost of such 
     audit shall be paid for out of the fees collected under 
     subsection (i)(5)(C).''.
       (f) Goals.--Subsections (l) and (m) of section 4 (7 U.S.C. 
     136a-1), as amended by section 237, are redesignated as 
     subsections (m) and (n) respectively and the following is 
     inserted after subsection (k):
       ``(l) Performance Measures and Goal.--The Administrator 
     shall establish and publish annually in the Federal Register 
     performance measures and goals. Such measures and goals shall 
     include--
       ``(1) the number of products reregistered, canceled, or 
     amended, the status of reregistration, the number and type of 
     data requests under section 3(c)(2)(B) issued to support 
     product reregistration by active ingredient, the progress in 
     reducing the number of unreviewed, required reregistration 
     studies, the aggregate status of tolerances reassessed, and 
     the number of applications for registration submitted under 
     subsection (k)(3) that were approved or disapproved;
       ``(2) the future schedule for reregistrations, including 
     the projection for such schedules that will be issued under 
     subsection (g)(2)(A) and (B) in the current fiscal year and 
     the succeeding fiscal year; and
       ``(3) the projected year of completion of the 
     reregistrations under this section.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] 
will each control 20 minutes.
  Mr. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1627, the Food Quality Protection Act, represents 
nearly a decade of effort to modernize the Federal pesticide regulatory 
system. Today the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on 
Commerce will accomplish what many thought simply could not be done; 
that is, successful consideration on the floor of a pesticide reform 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has been cosponsored by over 240 Members. This 
bill was made possible by a recognition from all sides of the debate 
that the proper use of safe pesticides is a critical element in 
protecting public health and ensuring a safe, abundant, and affordable 
food supply for our American consumers. To that end, H.R. 1627 does 
provide wide latitude for the Environmental Protection Agency to adapt 
its regulatory system to meet the constantly improving scientific 
information that is available.
  H.R. 1627 reforms the outdated Delaney clause to allow modern 
science, rather than arbitrary rules, to be used in evaluating 
pesticide risks and benefits. Just as important, because the new 
standard will be narrative rather than specific, this legislation will 
allow the regulatory process to be adjusted as scientific risks and 
benefit assessments simply progress.
  H.R. 1627 also provides additional incentives to register new, safer 
pesticides through new authorities that allow the EPA to streamline the 
pesticide registration procedures, including antimicrobial pesticides.
  In addition, the bill provides several incentives for interested 
parties who wish to pursue the registration of so-called ``minor use'' 
pesticides to ensure their availability in critical public health and 
agricultural use situations.
  This bill requires the Federal Government to fully consider any 
special risk to infants and children in regulatory actions. 
Specifically, when there is not enough reliable data on the risks to 
infants and children submitted to support the setting of a food 
tolerance, the bill provides the EPA administrator the flexibility to 
adjust a pesticide food tolerance to ensure that infants and children 
are indeed safe.
  In the National Academy of Sciences report, Pesticides in the Diets 
of Infants and Children, the NAS highlighted the EPA's current practice 
of applying an additional tenfold safety factor to the established 
thousandfold safety margin in order to ensure safety for fetal 
development. In addition, the bill does provide the EPA the additional 
flexibility to apply a safety factor of less than ten-fold if the 
administrator determines such a level will be safe for infants and for 
children.
  To further protect infants and children, the bill requires the EPA, 
the Department of Agriculture, and the FDA to coordinate their efforts 
to collect accurate dietary information on the eating patterns of U.S. 
consumers of all ages to ensure the EPA has reliable data from which to 
make rational science-based regulatory decisions.
  H.R. 1627 also provides the EPA the resources necessary to continue 
the long-delayed reregistration of existing pesticides. Over the next 5 
years the EPA administrator is authorized to collect up to $76 million 
in reregistration fees from the pesticide industry to help the agency 
meet the task of completing the reviewing of the data of pesticides 
registered prior to 1985. To ensure these funds are used only for the 
reregistration program and to enable Congress to meet its oversight 
responsibilities relative to the program goals, this legislation 
requires a stringent annual financial and performance audit of the 
monies collected and appropriated for the reregistration program.

  Everyone involved in this legislation had made significant 
compromises to reach the goal of passing a valuable reform, a critical 
reform of pesticide law. As we near the finish line, it is important to 
commend everyone involved on both committees in Congress and many 
others for the hard work that certainly brings us to this point.
  I personally would like to mention the contributions of our former 
colleague and the former Secretary of Agriculture, the late Edward 
Madigan; our former colleague, the late Mr. Bill Emerson of Missouri; 
the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture, the 
gentleman from Texas Mr. Kika de la Garza, the godfather of this entire 
effort; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. George Brown; the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Stenhom, who has been a valuable help to us down through the 
years; the gentleman from California, Mr. Condit; the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Bliley; Mr. Bruce, a former colleague from Illinois; Mr. Lehman, a 
former colleague from California, and Mr. Rowland, a former colleague 
from Georgia.
  The ultimate success of this reform will rest with the 
professionalism and the common sense of the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Congress will be watching closely as we try to implement these 
reforms. We will, to ensure that science, not emotion, is the basis of 
the pesticide regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming. I am speaking of the 
amendment to FIFRA and the food and drug law. Today we have a package 
before this House that makes amendment to how we regulate pesticides, 
and it is on the suspension calendar. It is hard to believe that we 
have come all this way.
  Mr. Speaker, let me echo appreciation to all of those Chairman 
Roberts has mentioned as having worked on this effort. I would like to 
add only our former colleague from Iowa, Mr. Berkley Bedell, who 
diligently worked on this issue and had it almost to the brink of 
passage at one time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to the present bill. However, I 
have concerns about how it will be implemented. One of the biggest 
hurdles, if not the biggest, to getting where we are today has been the 
infamous or famous Delaney clause.
  Whatever one's perspective might be, the Delaney clause was a 
political outgrowth of the public's fear in the 1950's of the disease 
that was being increasingly diagnosed: cancer. Americans were facing 
this mysterious killer more frequently. Interestingly, at the same time 
medicine was improving and physicians were diagnosing more cancer. 
Today we have the capability to measure to parts per trillion. There is 
no justifiable reason for a test based on zero tolerance like we have 
with the Delaney clause.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that all of the areas that have 
been covered by the chairman of the committee, minor use crop 
protection, antimicrobial pesticide registration reform, and public 
health pesticides, were all very diligently and studiously worked on by 
members of the Committee on Agriculture.
  I would like to commend our friends from the Committee on Commerce, 
the chairman, the ranking member, and the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for all the work they have 
done, and for their diligence in seeing that the needs of society are 
met to the extent that it is possible.

[[Page H8142]]

  I have always maintained, Mr. Speaker, that Americans enjoy the 
safest, least expensive, and most abundant food supply in the world and 
that legislation is the art of the possible. We are here with that, 
with what is possible. It is not perfect. This is what could be agreed 
upon. Probably in the future it might be further looked at, but for now 
it is the extent of what is possible, considering all of the areas of 
concern. To all of those from the Committee on Commerce, we commend 
them and appreciate their work and cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, commending my colleagues from the Commerce Committee on 
the work that they have done, I yield half of my time, 10 minutes, to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and I ask unanimous consent 
he be permitted to control that time. He was chairman of the 
subcommittee and did tremendous work, and now is the ranking member of 
that committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, without whose effective 
leadership we would not be here today passing a critical reform on the 
Suspension Calendar.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks 
and for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today this House has a great opportunity to strengthen 
America's food safety laws and improve the safety and quality of its 
food supply. H.R. 1627, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, is a 
landmark bipartisan agreement that will bring Federal regulations of 
the Nation's food producers into the 21st century.
  As everyone knows, reforming America's food safety laws has been an 
issue in Congress for more than a decade. For as long as I can recall, 
Republicans and Democrats alike have tried to replace the outdated 
Delaney clause with a modern, workable safety standard. The Delaney 
clause is a holdover that reflects the science of the 1950's.
  In fact, the Delaney clause has been criticized almost since its 
inception in 1958. How long was that? Well, consider in 1958 ``At the 
Hop'' by Danny and the Juniors, was one of America's favorite songs; 
``Gunsmoke'' riveted millions of families to their black and white TV 
sets; and a gallon of gasoline cost 30 cents.
  Perhaps more telling of all, 1958 was the year Fidel Castro came to 
power in Cuba. Like Castro, the Delaney clause has cast a long and dark 
shadow over the years. By establishing a counterproductive standard for 
food safety, the clause has frozen science for 40 years.
  In 1958 our knowledge of carcinogens was in its infancy. Our ability 
to identify trace amounts of pesticide residues was primitive by 
comparison to today. We had not even begun to think about risk 
assessment. Where before we could detect pesticide residues in 
measurements of parts per million, today we do so in parts per billion, 
and in some cases, parts per trillion.

                              {time}  1230

  We know more about cancer today than we did then and about the 
relative risks of trace amounts of carcinogens. In fact only one thing 
has remained constant since 1958, the Delaney clause itself. But 
despite bipartisan consensus that the Delaney clause needed reform, 
Congress was never able to achieve agreement on how best to do so until 
now.
  After weeks of bipartisan negotiations, the Committee on Commerce 
reported out a strong bill that makes much-needed improvements to the 
regulation of pesticides. Under the legislation before us today, the 
Delaney clause will be replaced with a unified safety standard. The 
standard will protect our food quality standards by allowing for the 
approval of pesticide tolerances when there is a reasonable certainty 
no harm will come to the consuming public.
  For the first time, we will be able to address the issue of food 
safety comprehensively, taking into account the safety of the consuming 
public, preservation of the food supply and economic benefits as well. 
The legislation establishes strong protections for infants and 
children, adopting the recommendations of the National Research 
Council's report.
  I would like to thank particularly the staff on the minority side, 
Kay Holcombe and Phil Schiliro, to the administration's Dr. Goldman, 
Jim Adolia and Bill Schultz, and my staff, Howard Cohen and Eric 
Berger.
  This legislation before us today contains amendments to the Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act exactly as reported by the House Committee on 
Commerce. I feel confident that our efforts today will improve the 
safety, abundance and affordability of the Nation's food supply.
  We would not be here without the cooperation of everyone, 
particularly my friends, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the 
ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Hollywood, 
CA [Mr. Waxman], the ranking member of the subcommittee, whom I 
sometimes have a slight disagreement with, and to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment of the Committee on Commerce, who has worked long and hard 
on this issue.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems like some of the best decades of my life have 
been spent working on FIFRA, and I am very happy to see this day arrive 
today. I can remember quite well when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de 
la Garza], who had been wrestling with this problem as chairman of the 
appropriate subcommittee, turned that subcommittee over to me and to 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], our ranking member, and we 
worked diligently for many years in an effort to reach the position 
where we are today. We had the support of Presidents of both parties, 
and yet we were never able to succeed.
  I recite this because I think we should appreciate that this bill, 
along with a few others such as the telecommunications bill, have come 
to fruition only after generations. This may be an example--these two 
bills, telecommunications and this--of the benefits and the 
productivity of working together on a bipartisan basis to solve real 
problems in the most constructive possible way. I think we have done 
that here.
  I have to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts], my good friend, who never gave up, who continued to 
persevere. While he has praised my role, it is his role that is really 
the one that is most significant. I gave up years ago, and he kept on 
working until we have reached this day of success.
  Of course I must also praise our colleagues on the Committee on 
Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman]. The Committee on Commerce will be 
recognized as the source of the most important and productive 
legislation we have passed in this Congress and, despite my occasional 
arguments with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], I praise him 
for this.
  This is a day that many people thought we were not going to see. But 
today, we are going to pass a bipartisan bill to reform our pesticide 
laws. H.R. 1627 replaces the Delaney clause with a commonsense 
alternative that is not only scientifically defensible, but will result 
in comprehensive protection of public health.
  H.R. 1627, is a good bill. Each of the diverse array of interest 
groups who have followed this legislation would probably wish to have 
something included in, or excluded from it. So, from each of their 
perspectives. H.R. 1627 would not be considered a perfect bill, but 
they believe H.R. 1627 represents a significant improvement over 
current law. The bill is the result of a great deal of hard work by the 
Agriculture and Commerce Committees and the administration to fashion 
these compromises and achieve consensus.
  Chairman Roberts and I have worked on pesticide legislation together 
for many years. I would like to commend him for his efforts and for 
conducting an inclusive, bipartisan process

[[Page H8143]]

during the consideration of this legislation by the Agriculture 
Committee. This is the way the legislative process should work.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 1627, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is quite a historic moment, for today 
we consider in the House a piece of legislation that literally has been 
pending before Congress for over a decade. This bill overhauls the way 
the Government regulates pesticides, and at long last deals with the 
thorny issue of differing standards for different kinds of food 
products, and with the scientifically outdated application of the 
Delaney clause.
  It is an amazing compromise that has been reached, which has brought 
together some of the most staunch and bitter rivals in this debate--
consumer and environmental groups, the food industry, American 
agriculture, and the Federal Government agencies who oversee pesticide 
use and safety--the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  This bill represents the product of that successful negotiation. It 
meets the need of the agriculture and food industries for proper, 
consistent regulation of pesticides, without arbitrary standards such 
as the outdated and inappropriate Delaney clause.
  In accomplishing that goal, the bill delicately strikes the essential 
balance between this legitimate need and consumer desire to continue 
the already high level of safety of American food.
  Specifically, the legislation adopts the widely held view that 
special attention must be paid to dietary habits and health needs of 
special populations, such as children. At the same time, it provides 
flexibility to use methods and numbers that are appropriate and 
supported by valid information.
  Significantly, the bill recognizes the importance of pesticides to 
the food supply, and builds this benefit into the evaluation of how 
pesticides are used.
  No one group or individual will consider this to be perfect 
legislation, nor does it fulfill the full agenda of any one party. Its 
development required significant concessions from every quarter; it 
demonstrates that worthy goals are achievable through compromise. We 
are pleased that bipartisan negotiation produced good legislation.
  I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues from California, 
Michigan, Texas, and New York--Mr. Waxman, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Hall, and 
Mr. Towns.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and also the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the subcommittee. I also want 
to commend the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] is the valuable 
ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture and has long been 
interested in this. Those gentlemen and many others, along with the 
staff, have made an outstanding contribution to the solution of the 
problems before us today. I commend them and I thank them for the 
outstanding job which they have done.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this 
time to me. I, too, would like to make a few brief points concerning 
the legislation before us today.
  The Food Quality Protection Act is more than just an important reform 
initiative. It is, as others have already said, the culmination of 
intensive bipartisan negotiations and, as we have heard here today, has 
the strong support of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The high level of support for this bill is actually not very 
surprising when we stop to think about it. Food safety reform has been 
a primary focus of Congress for more than a decade. That is because for 
farmers, for processors, manufacturers and of course for consumers the 
zero risk standard of the Delaney clause has served to freeze 1950 
science into law.
  When the Delaney clause was enacted in 1958, the body of scientific 
knowledge on cancer was very limited. Of course we have made tremendous 
strides, thank God, in detecting and fighting cancer but our pesticide 
regulations have not been allowed to keep pace with scientific 
advances.
  As a result, it is essential that we adopt a modern consistent 
standard for determining the safety of our food supply. H.R. 1627 has 
the support of the Food Chain Coalition which includes the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the American Meat Institute, Grocery 
Manufacturers of America, the Independent Bakers Association, the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Farmers Union, the 
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and, of course, so many 
others that I have not mentioned.

  The legislation before us is a long-overdue step forward in the 
Nation's efforts to produce the best food supply possible. It 
establishes a unified general risk-setting standard for pesticides 
based on a standard of safety which is defined as a reasonable 
certainty of no harm.
  It contains requirements for tolerance setting which are directly 
responsible to the recommendations of the National Research Council's 
report on ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.''
  It allows the use of benefits in specific situations, such as where 
the risk of not using the pesticide is greater than the risk of using 
it, and where the pesticide is needed to avoid a significant disruption 
in the domestic production of an adequate, wholesome, and economic food 
supply.
  It retains the national uniformity for Federal pesticide residue 
tolerance except in limited cases.
  It gives the administrator the authority to require data or 
information to determine whether a pesticide chemical may have an 
effect similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen 
or other endocrine effect.
  It provides for a consumer information booklet to be distributed by 
EPA to large retail grocers.
  It establishes limited civil penalties as an alternate to the current 
heavy-handed enforcement tools of seizure, injunctions, and criminal 
action.
  I am very pleased, as my colleagues might imagine, Mr. Speaker, with 
the bipartisan spirit that has helped craft this legislation. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] for their great contributions to this effort 
and, most important, the staffs who worked long and late hours to get 
us to this point. This is a reform measure of which we all have reason 
to be proud.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1627 and want to 
commend Chairmen Bliley and Roberts, subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis, 
and John Dingell for their efforts to resolve this issue and bring this 
important legislation to the floor.
  In the last 2 weeks, we have worked together to resolve a problem 
that has frustrated Congress for nearly two decades. And in reaching 
this agreement, we have found a way to reconcile fundamentally 
different positions into a strong bill that will benefit all Americans.
  The starting point for this compromise is the repeal of the Delaney 
Clause and the creation of a single health-based standard that will 
apply to all foods. This reform gives industry needed regulatory 
flexibility while providing important health protections to American 
families.
  In passing this legislation we are ensuring that pesticides will 
present no danger to our children. H.R. 1627 requires the Environmental 
Protection Agency--when establishing safety tolerances that apply to 
all Americans--to consider any special impacts a pesticide may have on 
infants and children and ensure that any aggregate exposure to a 
pesticide chemical residue present a reasonable certainty of no harm to 
them. This provision cannot be waived for eligible pesticide chemical 
residues.

[[Page H8144]]

  H.R. 1627 also establishes an estrogen screening program and a right-
to-know initiative that will provide vital information to consumers.
  I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that H.R. 1627 is supported 
by a number of environmental and public health groups, including: the 
American Preventative Medical Association; the American Public Health 
Association; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Citizen Action; 
Citizen Health; Consumers Union; the Environmental Defense Fund; the 
Environmental Working Group; the National Audobon Society; the National 
PTA; the National Wildlife Federation; the National Resources Defense 
Council; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Public Voice; and World 
Wildlife Fund.
  This is not a bill of winners and losers. It is a bill of winners. 
Industry wins because it receives regulatory relief and health and 
environmental public interest groups win because important health 
safeguards are guaranteed. Most importantly, H.R. 1627 is a major 
victory for common sense and for all Americans.
  This compromise is only possible because a lot of hard work has been 
done by congressional staff and administration officials. And I want to 
commend both industry and environmental groups for their willingness to 
put aside long-held positions and find common ground in this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to mention that while this bill is originating 
in the House, there has been an enormous amount of work that has been 
done on this legislation in the other body, and I particularly want to 
single out the work that has been done by Senators Kennedy, Leahy, 
Lugar,  and Kassebaum. They have struggled with this issue and we hope 
they will now, after we pass this bill, join with us in putting the 
finishing touches on the work for which they have endeavored for so 
many years.
  Our colleagues deserve commendation, particularly Chairman Bliley, 
Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Dingell and others who will be addressing us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, this culminates over a decade of work by 
many Members of Congress, and without their leadership this would not 
be happening today. I want to single out a few people: the gentleman 
from Kansas, Chairman Roberts, the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman 
Bliley, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Dingell, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, and 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. Without their hard work, we 
could not have accomplished what we are accomplishing here today.
  I strongly believe that the resulting legislation represents the best 
approach for needed reform in food safety. This action sends a strong 
message that many Members of Congress are serious about this essential 
reform and we must not miss this opportunity to move forward.
  The Delaney Clause, while well-intended 34 years ago, has become a 
problem that must be replaced by sound science and negligible risk. 
H.R. 1627 will finally replace the inconsistent standard that now 
governs pesticide residue with a single modern standard applied 
uniformly to pesticide residue in all foods. We cannot tell farmers 
that a minimum level of certain pesticide residue is safe on fresh 
market produce but not safe enough on such products sent to be 
processed.
  This is an historical day. A lot of people have worked very hard, and 
I am delighted and honored to be a part of this solution.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh], a former member of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
and a gentleman who has worked long and hard on the Delaney Clause.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a moment to 
congratulate everyone, both sides of the aisle, Republicans and 
Democrats, chairmen and ranking members, who worked to find a 
reasonable solution to this problem. This is a problem that the 
country, our producers, our processors, our consumers, it has bedeviled 
them for a long, long time, and this approach to legislation is 
remarkable. The result is remarkable. It is good for everyone.
  I carried the rider last year on the Delaney Clause that would have 
prevented the EPA from delicensing chemicals that did not meet the 
standard that the court required them to meet. That was a strong 
measure. We backed away from that to provide some pressure to the 
legislative process. The Committee on Commerce responded, and I think 
it is a terrific solution, and I congratulate all of you.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, we do a lot of bills around here that 
never are signed into law, but let me say that here is one that will be 
because it is a compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that, as a member of the Commerce 
Committee, this is the second major bill from the Commerce Committee--I 
know Agriculture has a major role--the first one being 
telecommunications and now this one, that is going to be signed into 
law. Credit goes to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 
Roberts, the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, and the gentleman 
from Michigan, Mr. Dingell.
  I have been in Congress 14 years. We started working on this bill, 
someone said 10 years ago, I think the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit]. It seems to me the first year I was here we started working, 
never could come together, always major divisions. The Delaney Clause 
is like an institution. It is like a building that you cannot take 
down.
  It has been modified. It is a good compromise and, Mr. Chairman, I 
commend those that worked hard on this. It shows that we can get 
something done if we just work together and compromise and forget that 
there is an election and a presidential election, which I know is very 
difficult to do these days. I do want to commend the authors of this 
bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and of course the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and the majority and minority 
staff, as well as the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], and of 
course the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], for their 
outstanding job in bringing us to where we are today.
  If we do not change the Delaney Clause, fruits and vegetables will 
become less abundant and poorer in quality. Consumers, particularly 
low-income consumers, will not have access to fruits and vegetables 
that are affordable and readily available. If we urge Americans to 
improve their health by changing their diets, then we must ensure that 
the elements of a healthy diet, like fresh fruits and vegetables, are 
both economical and available.
  The measures before us today will ensure continued access by all 
Americans to safe, abundant, and affordable foods. The bipartisan 
support of H.R. 1627 has resulted in a balanced approach to reform of 
the Delaney Clause in a very positive way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. Failure 
to do so only harms the American consumers, and I think that we do not 
want to harm them, we want to help them. This bill is help for them.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
We have no further request for time on this side.

[[Page H8145]]

  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe this: I would like 
to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] very much for his 
very kind comments. George Brown has provided more expertise on FIFRA 
than perhaps any other Member.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] mentioned the gentleman 
from Iowa, Mr. Berkley Bedell. I can remember well when we passed a 
FIFRA reform on the House side. It did not pass the Senate. We had 
adjourned, and Berkley Bedell had me in tow over on the Senate side 
trying to find real live Senators to try to get this done. So this one 
is for Berkley.
  I would like to also thank my staff. There are no self-made men or 
women in public office. It is your friends and staff who make you what 
you are, more especially Mr. Bill O'Conner, who worked long and hard 
for Mr. Madigan both when he was the ranking member of the committee 
and the Secretary of Agriculture.
  I would like to mention Mr. Gary Mitchell, who is our staff director, 
who had the FIFRA responsibilities when I was the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  And, more especially, Mr. Dale Moore. Dale is a former rodeo rider, 
and every time we let the FIFRA horse out of the chute, we could not 
even saddle him, let alone ride the full 10 seconds to finally get 
something done. So in this particular case where it is a rodeo of 
achievement, if you will, I especially want to thank Dale.
  It is rare during an even-numbered year when we have had great 
controversy and strong differences of opinion in this Congress, that we 
have a situation where the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, the 
gentleman from Florida, Mike Bilirakis, and the gentleman from Kansas, 
Pat Roberts, stood with the gentleman from Texas, Kika de la Garza, the 
gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, and the gentleman from 
California, Henry Waxman, representing the environmental community, the 
agriculture community, industry, and the administration.
  We have done something and we are proud of it. We have 55 different 
organizations who have signed on with this reform. It is good reform. 
It is the kind of thing that we should do more of.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record report language to accompany 
H.R. 1627 regarding the use of registered pesticides to protect public 
health and safety, and a letter from the Environmental Protection 
Agency on the same matter; as well as report language developed to 
address a concern related to the Endangered Species Act:

                 Report Language to Accompany H.R. 1627


    Use of Registered Pesticides to Protect Public Health and Safety

       The Committee is aware of the potential for situations in 
     which public health and safety may be compromised by efforts 
     to protect endangered species. There are commercial 
     facilities which are part of this nation's food production 
     and distribution system, such as processing plants, 
     warehouses, grocery stores, restaurants, etc., which are 
     located in critical habitat areas where the use of pest 
     control tools may be prohibited or severely restricted. While 
     the Committee recognizes the importance of preventing the 
     destruction of endangered species, it is concerned that 
     unwarranted actions to protect a species could result in the 
     unchecked spread of rodent-, insect-, or other pest vector-
     borne diseases that could pose serious threats to consumer 
     and food safety.
       The Committee strongly believes that preserving the safety 
     and wholesomeness of this nation's food supply is paramount. 
     Managers of food processing and handling facilities, and 
     public health officials, must be able to take the steps 
     necessary to control pests that may pose a threat to public 
     health. The managers of these facilities generally rely on 
     certified commercial applicators or persons under their 
     direct supervision who are trained to apply rodenticides and 
     other pesticides in safe manner, which helps ensure that 
     these products are only used when and where necessary.
       One of the overriding goals of H.R. 1627 is to eliminate 
     the statutory and regulatory paradoxes that inhibit the 
     efficient, science-based administration of FIFRA and the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Committee believes 
     this goal should be considered when reforms to other 
     statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act, are undertaken 
     to make certain that the safety and wholesomeness of a 
     consumer's food supply, especially for infants and children, 
     is adequately protected.
       The Committee recognizes this concern can be addressed 
     rationally in many cases through the cooperative efforts of 
     federal and state regulatory officials, and is encouraged 
     that federal and state agencies are examining this issue. For 
     example, the California Environmental Protection Agency's 
     Department of Pesticide Regulation states, ``A categorical 
     exemption for food processing plants and other industrial and 
     institutional use could probably be made with little, if any, 
     impact on listed species. In particular, the use of toxicant 
     inside of buildings or immediately adjacent to buildings does 
     not seem to pose a hazard to listed species.''
       The Committee expects the EPA to investigate this issue and 
     any related situations where competing regulatory actions by 
     the Agency, other federal agencies, or state agencies pose a 
     threat to consumers or the U.S. food supply, and to act 
     quickly to remedy these situations. In addition, if the EPA 
     is unable to address the situation in an efficient and fair 
     manner, the Agency should promptly notify this and any other 
     committee of appropriate jurisdiction. If resolution is 
     prohibited because of competing or inconsistent provisions of 
     law, the Committee also expects the Agency to provide 
     legislative proposals that may be needed to ensure that the 
     Administrator has sufficient statutory authority to address 
     these situations in a common sense, science-based manner.
                                                                    ____

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1996.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your request regarding 
     clarification of the effect that endangered species 
     protection measures may have on the use of pesticides to 
     control pests in food processing or handling warehouses. We 
     understand that some are concerned that endangered species 
     protection measures could inappropriately restrict, within 
     areas designated for the protection of endangered species, 
     use of certain pesticides. Specifically, a concern was raised 
     that use of pesticides that are important to control pests 
     which may damage or contaminate food items may be unduly 
     limited by endangered species protection measures in the 
     State of California.
       We believe that the federal, state and local agencies in 
     California responsible for endangered species protection 
     recognized this concern and have worked with all stakeholders 
     to appropriately resolve this situation. Furthermore, the 
     information available to us indicates that pesticide labels 
     and the state-initiated endangered species plans do not 
     unnecessarily restrict responsible pesticide use and do 
     provide for both safe and effective use of pesticides in 
     these situations.
       Obviously, we understand that controlling pests in food 
     storage and processing facilities can be a significant public 
     health concern, and we will continue to work with the 
     appropriate state and federal officials to make sure that 
     important public health protection measures are not 
     unnecessarily restricted.
       In addition, we stand ready to work with you, members of 
     your committee, and the state, local and Federal authorities 
     to resolve legitimate concerns that may arise regarding this 
     issue. Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                            Lynn R. Goldman, M.D.,
     Assistant Administrator.
                                                                    ____



                                         Food Chain Coalition,

                                                    July 23, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bliley: Last week, representatives of the 
     Administration, industry and the environmental community 
     reached compromise agreement on H.R. 1627, ``The Food Quality 
     Protection Act,'' after several weeks of negotiations. This 
     bill represents the best opportunity in a decade to modernize 
     the Delaney Clause and strengthen our nation's food laws.
       The House of Representatives is expected today to consider 
     H.R. 1627, and the Senate has indicated the intention to 
     quickly follow suit. As Americans working to produce, process 
     and market our nation's food supply, we urge your support for 
     this critically important bill.
       There is virtually unanimous agreement that an overhaul of 
     the outdated Delaney clause for pesticide residues is long 
     overdue. With the very limited number of legislative days 
     remaining this year, the need for action to accomplish that 
     objective is now more urgent than ever.
       EPA recently proposed disallowing the use of five 
     pesticides on a number of crops under the Delaney Clause, 
     even though the agency has repeatedly stated its belief that 
     those pesticides pose no significant health risk to 
     consumers. By April 1997, EPA is due to determine whether to 
     disallow up to 40 additional uses; without corrective action, 
     farmers could lose the use of a number of safe and effective 
     crop protection tools that keep the American food supply 
     abundant and affordable.
       The compromise version of ``The Food Quality Protection 
     Act'' has received bipartisan praise from both the House and 
     Senate, with key Republican and Democratic leaders stating 
     that it is their goal to see this legislation signed into law 
     by the President this

[[Page H8146]]

     year. We urge its prompt adoption by the House.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural Council of California; Agri Bank; Agri-Mark, 
     Inc.; Agway, Inc.; American Bakers Association; American 
     Crystal Sugar Company; American Farm Bureau Federation; 
     American Meat Institute; American Feed Industry 
     Association; Apricot Producers of California; and Atlantic 
     Dairy Cooperative.
       Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers Association; Blue Diamond 
     Growers; California Tomato Growers Association, Inc.; 
     California Pear Growers; Chemical Specialties Manufacturers 
     Association; Chocolate Manufacturers Association; Gold Kist, 
     Inc.; Grocery Manufacturers of America; and Growmark.
       Harvest States; Independent Bakers Association; 
     International Apple Institute; International Dairy Foods 
     Association; Kansas Grain and Feed Association; Kraft Foods, 
     Incorporated; Land O'Lakes; Michigan Agribusiness 
     Association; Milk Marketing Inc.; National Agricultural 
     Aviation Association; and National Cattlemen's Beef 
     Association.
       National Confectioners Association; National Council of 
     Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; National Food 
     Processors Association; National Grain and Feed Association; 
     National Grain Trade Council; National Grange; National Grape 
     Co-operative Association, Inc; National Pasta Association; 
     and Nebraska Cooperative Council.
       North American Export Grain Association; Oklahoma Grain and 
     Feed Association; Produce Marketing Association; Pro-Fac 
     Cooperative; SF Services, Inc.; Snack Food Association; South 
     Dakota Association of Cooperatives; and Southern States 
     Cooperative.
       Tortilla Industry Association; USA Rice Federation; United 
     Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; Upstate Milk 
     Cooperatives, Inc.; Utah Council of Farmer Cooperatives; and 
     Wisconsin Agri-Service Association.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to point out that what we are doing 
here today is what the American people expect of us, to work out 
compromises, not to go to any extreme but to look for a middle ground. 
I want to particularly thank the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for this leadership, and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], as the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  We do have on occasion, a difference of opinion. We have a different 
starting point as we look at the role of government; but they were good 
enough to look at this as a practical matter, to try to think through 
how we could make a constructive proposal work so that we could get an 
idea passed into law.
  I want to thank all the staff of our committee, Howard Cohen, Eric 
Berger, Kay Holcombe; Greg Dotson, and Phil Schilirop; and the people 
in the administration, as well, Lynn Goldman, Jim Aidala, Larry 
Elsworth, Bill Schultz, and Phil Barnett.
  I would point out that President Clinton put this issue on the agenda 
when he proposed that we do something on this very matter. The bill we 
are sending to the Senate and then hopefully on to him in many ways 
tracks what he proposed and in many ways improves and changes it.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill. It is a good compromise. The 
American people should look upon this with favor. I ask our colleagues, 
as well, to give their support to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me add my commendation to all of the staffs from the 
committees, including the hard work done by the members' staff of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, when I became a subcommittee chairman three decades ago, 
the first major bill that was referred to our subcommittee was FIFRA. I 
did not know what the word stood for at that time, and I have worked 
with FIFRA since then. As Members know, I will not be returning the 
next session of Congress, and I think probably with this unanimity and 
all this good will, that it may well be the crown of my retirement that 
we hopefully go through the Senate and finish with a FIFRA bill as I 
leave this Congress.
  We worked diligently. There have been many, many long hours of hard 
work. There have been discussions, heated and otherwise, but to arrive 
at this point on a suspension calendar is something worthy to be 
remembered. It is historic, and I am so proud to have been a small part 
of this endeavor. It will be something that I can go home with and 
point to with pride.
  With that, I ask all of the Members to give us their support and 
their vote on this legislation.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is long overdue. I 
am delighted that this legislation has not only passed two House 
committees but will pass the full House of Representatives today. There 
have been times that I never thought we would be able to get to this 
point. Those in the agribusiness industry know first hand what a truly 
historic agreement this is. I applaud the Agriculture Committee and the 
Commerce Committee for completing action on this legislation and 
bringing it to the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, almost 4 years ago, I formed the Fifth District 
Agricultural and Rural Advisory Committee. Made of those who daily work 
in their agribusiness and farm communities, this committee listed 
reforms of the Delany clause as one of their top concerns. The efforts 
of the 104th Congress to bring common sense to this matter without 
endangering the supply of food in the United States is to be commended.
  H.R. 1627, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
[FIFRA], reforms the outdated Delaney clause and allows sound science 
to prevail. It offers a framework of standards that allows the EPA the 
flexibility to consider pertinent public health factors when setting 
pesticide residue levels.
  Mr. Speaker, most would agree that the United States enjoys the 
safest food supply in the world. The abundance and affordability is in 
large part due to the prudent use of pest control. Pesticides are 
necessary tools that when used in a responsible manner contribute 
significantly to the health of individuals and the environment. It is 
this bill, H.R. 1627, that takes into consideration both the individual 
and the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, technology today makes zero risk a much outdated policy. 
This legislation provides a commonsense answer to ensuring consumer 
access to a healthy, abundant, affordable, and most importantly--a safe 
food supply. I congratulate Mr. Roberts and Mr. Bliley on this historic 
agreement.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1627, the 
Pesticide Regulation Reform Act. I want to congratulate my colleagues 
who have worked so hard to produce a bill that helps our farmers while 
protecting public safety, and has considered the concerns of consumer 
and environmental groups as well.
  Fixing the provision known as the Delaney clause is important. When 
this provision was written, only the largest percentages of carcinogens 
could be detected in the food supply. With modern technology now being 
able to detect trace quantities in the range of parts per trillion and 
beyond, updating this law is critical. EPA itself has tried to use a 
more workable, scientific standard, but the courts have ruled 
otherwise.
  This legislation will help our farmers by using less intrusive, 
modern standards. In using more common-sense tolerance standards, we 
not only protect consumers, but may reduce the cost to farmers of 
getting their goods to market. This is also good for consumers. In 
addition, the bill observes the special needs of infants and children 
who may be more susceptible to the presence of pesticides in food.
  Finally, the legislation achieves balance in considering the benefits 
of risk analysis and recognition of the public's right of access to 
information on Government policy. Informed consumers are happy 
consumers, and this bill gives badly needed aid to our farmers while 
helping to keep consumers aware of changes in agricultural regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, America's farmers have made great sacrifices this year, 
not only in sharing budget cuts but in widely accepting the recently 
passed farm bill. This legislation is a small step in recognizing the 
farmer's contribution to a balanced budget and fiscal stability for our 
country.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is concerned that H.R. 1627 
did not include even a modified version of a provision that was 
included in the original House Agriculture Committee bill per this 
Member's request, which was subsequently deleted from this bill.
  This Member has severe reservations and regrets and faults the 
administration--specifically Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator Carol Browner, Department of Agriculture Secretary Dan 
Glickman, and Department of the Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt--which 
in a letter to the House Agriculture Committee chairman, the 
distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], attempted to 
intimidate the committee into deleting this Member's modified 
provision. This Member protested this deletion strenuously and by all 
legitimate means.
  Specifically, this Member's provision would have allowed Indian 
tribes to enforce FIFRA regulations for the entire area of a 
reservation only if at least 50 percent of the lands in the reservation 
are owned by the tribe or Indians. This provision is needed to address 
legitimate

[[Page H8147]]

concerns raised by non-Indian landowners who own land within 
reservation boundaries. Non-Indians own more than one-half of the land 
in two Indian reservations within this Member's congressional district. 
In fact on one reservation in this Member's district, non-Indians won 
about 84 percent of the land. This provision is very important to 
constituents in this Member's district to assure that the relations 
between members of Indian tribes and non-Indians owning land within 
reservation boundaries are not further exacerbated.
  Where we have more than one-half of the reservation owned by non-
Indians--and the one case mentioned previously where about 84 percent 
is owned by non-Indians--it is reasonable that non-Indian lands have 
FIFRA enforcement by State government just as States enforce FIFRA for 
the rest of the State. That is what the language suggested by this 
Member would have done. The way it is now, non-Indian property owners 
will have enforcement conducted by a governmental body--the tribal 
council--for which they have absolutely no role in electing. Many of 
the Member's constituents have made it absolutely clear that this 
regulation of private property by officials employed by a tribal 
government will exacerbate Indian/non-Indian relations. This Member's 
language would have avoided that problem by preserving the tribal 
council's role in enforcing FIFRA regulation on Indian owned or tribal 
lands on reservations if they own more than 50 percent of the 
reservation land.

  Mr. Speaker, nevertheless, the critical advances in this legislation, 
especially as they relate to the Delaney clause, argue overwhelmingly 
for the support of this legislation.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today's long-overdue passage of H.R. 
1627, the Food Quality Protection Act, is further evidence that this 
Congress not only talks about regulatory reform, but acts on it.
  Food processors and farmers in my district want to preserve the 
safety of our Nation's food supply. They also recognize that our 
technology has outgrown the regulatory demands of the Delaney Clause. 
For decades, they have urged Congress to update this law. I am pleased 
that today we have.
  I hope passage of H.R. 1627 will allow the House to move forward in 
passing another reform bill that enjoys bipartisan support--H.R. 3338, 
the Antimicrobial Pesticide Registration Reform Act.
  This bill allows for a separate regulatory definition for 
antimicrobial pesticides. Under current conditions, the EPA treats 
antimicrobials--substances like bleaches and cleansers that limit the 
growth of microogranisms--like more traditional pesticides, even though 
their uses differ significantly. This has caused unreasonable and 
unnecessary delays in getting improved products to market.
  I urge the House to continue to demonstrate its commitment to 
commonsense regulatory reform by acting on H.R. 3338.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1627, a commonsense 
environmental measure that is good for American consumers and American 
farmers. The bill reforms the out-of-date Delaney clause that was 
passed in the 1950's to protect the food supply from cancer-causing 
products.
  The bill before us actually strengthens the objectives of the 1950's 
law. It strengthens regulations of raw food, while bringing balance to 
current standards for processed food. Why do we need the changes in 
this bill? Well, in the 1950's, testing equipment could detect cancer-
causing residues to the range of one part per million. With today's 
testing equipment, we can detect parts per trillion. What does all that 
mean? That means with today's testing equipment, we can detect a glass 
of beer in Lake Michigan. And since the 1950's Delaney clause says that 
no traces of cancer-causing residues can exist in the food supply, and 
traces can be found in parts per trillion now, the EPA simply cannot 
enforce this impossibly high standard.
  Now that we can detect residues to such minute levels, we have to 
give the EPA enforceable standards to protect our food supply. And our 
bill does just that. We tell the EPA to establish a reasonable 
certainty standard so that it can take advantage of the latest 
scientific advances to maintain our food safety, while not being bound 
by those very advances to impossible-to-enforce laws.
  What will our bill result in? Safer and newer pesticides for our 
farmers. Better harvests, because farmers will not be limited to, and 
be forced to overuse, fewer pesticides to protect their crops. Safer 
food for Americans, because the EPA will finally have an enforceable 
food safety law. I urge support for H.R. 1627.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the motion 
of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1627, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________