[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1367-E1368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1996

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 23, 1996

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent during 
the legislative session on Tuesday, July 23. President Clinton was my 
guest in my congressional district. The President made import 
announcements concerning privatization efforts at McClellan Air Force 
Base, and my proper place on Tuesday was with my constituents and the 
President.
  But I very much wanted to be present for the unanimous vote on the 
Food Quality Protection Act, H.R. 1627. Had I been present, I would 
have supported a unanimous House in voting to approve this important 
legislation.
  H.R. 1627 is a significant leap forward on an issue critical to the 
future of agriculture production in the United States.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1627 in this Congress and 
similar legislation in past congresses, and I have recently supported 
efforts to move this legislation forward during this session.
  Many people thought that was an impossibility for several reasons. 
They said the 104th Congress is too partisan. They said the issues were 
too complex. They said no balance could be found between the health and 
safety of our people and the needs of our growers and others in 
agriculture.
  But I felt all along that there was common ground. I felt we could 
set strong health standards and provide consumers with the information 
they need to make informed choices. I felt we could update the Delaney 
clause while preserving food safety for our citizens.
  The unanimity of both the Commerce Committee and now the House 
demonstrates that we could indeed achieve that balance. This 
overwhelming support is indicative of a spirit sometimes lacking in our 
deliberations on other important issues, and I hope the spirit is 
catching.
  The compromise legislation replaces the zero residue standard for raw 
and processed foods with one that protects consumer health. Safety 
standard would ensure that pesticide residues on both raw and processed 
foods pose no reasonable risk of harm.
  Yet our growers have assurance that they can continue to use 
pesticides critical to domestic food production. And there will be more 
leeway for our companies who are developing the products of the future 
that will help us continue to produce the most abundant and affordable 
food supply in the world.
  In addition, by creating a reasonable health-based national standard, 
uniformity is achieved that will facilitate commerce across our 
country. Manufacturers, suppliers and others engaged in supplying 
pesticides for agricultural production can do so with full knowledge of 
all applicable standards and regulations.
  Perhaps most importantly, this bill protects our children. By 
treating our children and their eating habits as the special cases they 
are, even stricter safety rules are permitted to protect kids during 
critical stages of development.
  In short, this bill is a ``win-win'' situation for our farmers and 
others involved in food production, and for all Americans who depend on

[[Page E1368]]

the supply of safe, expensive, and abundant raw and processed foods 
from day-to-day.
  I commend Chairman Bliley, ranking Democrat John Dingell, 
Representative Henry Waxman and other members of the Commerce Committee 
for putting this compromise together. I will do everything I can to see 
that their efforts are not in vain, and see this bill through passage 
by the Senate and signing by the President.

                          ____________________