[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1008-E1009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      H.R. 1592, THE REGULATORY FAIRNESS AND OPENNESS ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. RICHARD W. POMBO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 18, 1999

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to 
reach an agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This bill 
eliminated the famous Delaney Clause for residues in raw and processed 
foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of 
``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food, agricultural and consumer 
interests, as well as the pesticide industry saw the passage of FQPA as 
an opportunity to assure that sound science is paramount in EPA's 
determinations on the use of chemicals on crops, in homes and for 
public health concerns. FQPA required the EPA to establish scientific, 
rational, sound and reasonable standards.
  Mr. Speaker, sound science is what the authors intended and expected. 
This is what Congress wanted--sound science as the rule's foundation. 
Further, the new law provided an additional safety factor to protect 
infants and children, and new ways of assessing pesticide benefits and 
risks. This is something Congress fully supported and continues to 
support. Despite strong congressional support, implementing the law at 
the regulatory level has been a very difficult and unnecessarily 
complex process.
  In fact, only a few months after the law was passed, the FQPA 
implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their 
concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's 
agricultural industry so substantial that Vice President Gore sent a 
memorandum to both the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental 
Protection Agency on April 8, 1998. This memorandum laid out the White 
House's plan for putting FQPA's implementation on the right track.
  The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic 
principles: sound science in protecting pubic health, regulatory 
transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and consultation 
with the public and other agencies. America's agricultural and urban 
pest control community supported the Vice President's approach.
  Mr. Speaker, now, a year after the White House got directly involved 
in FQPA's implementation process, it remains derailed. It has become 
clear to me that Congress must again revisit this issue. It is my 
humble hope, we can revisit FQPA the way we left it, in a bipartisan 
spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically 
inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause. What Congress and the Nation 
got was much worse. In fact, the EPA has failed to provide 
scientifically sound guidance to the regulated community. The EPA's 
approach follows a path toward great economic harm for agricultural 
producers and pest outbreaks causing diseases concerns for urban and 
suburban communities it is an approach that is without a scientific 
foundation.
  Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others 
are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, 
workable implementation of the bipartisan law. Americans want and 
deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. 
Americans want and deserve rules that follows the Vice President's 
stated goals. Americans want and deserve rules that fit FQPA's 
requirements.
  In order to achieve these results, I along with Mr. Towns, Mr. Condit 
and Mr. Boyd have introduced ``The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act 
of 1999.'' This legislation maintains the strong safety standards 
established by FQPA. This bill simply establishes a scientific-based 
process for implementing the law which will be based on sound, peer 
reviewed science and open for public review. Further, it ensures that 
agricultural producers across the country, who are already facing tough 
times, will not be adversely impacted by loss of crop protection tools 
because the EPA failed to use good science in reviewing crop protection 
tools under the new standards of FQPA. It will also ensure the 
consumers' food supply and food quality will not be affected by 
incomplete and faulty data.


               My legislation Accomplishes the Following

  The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 lays out the 
problems that the EPA has faced over the last few years in implementing 
the law. In many cases, the EPA simply does not know what to do because 
the scientific protocols for assessing certain crop protection products 
under the new law have not been developed. Further, it highlights the 
extreme negative consequences if the law is implemented improperly. For 
example, organophosphate insecticides are used on 70 percent of the 
acres treated in the United States and are used to control of vector 
insects that spread diseases. If the EPA continues on their current 
path, many of these products could be lost. Farmers will be left 
without replacement products and exposed to major losses due to pest 
outbreaks. Consequently, this will lead to either a shortage of quality 
produce or increase in import from countries where their farmers do not 
follow our stringent guidelines. It will also limit the ability of 
agencies to control vector insects, thus causing health risks for 
millions of Americans.
  This legislation will require the EPA to perform a simple 
``transition analysis'' on products before releasing any information 
about the safety of the product to the public or making final tolerance 
decisions. If the transition analysis determines that the Administrator 
is using assumptions when existing data makes the use of the assumption 
unnecessary or is using worst case estimates, anecdotal, unverified, or

[[Page E1009]]

scientifically implausible data, the Administrator cannot make final 
re-registration decisions on those products until sufficient time has 
been provided to allow the data to be developed, submitted and 
subsequently evaluated by the Agency.
  The Administrator is required to issue rules to implement the FQPA 
properly within one year of enactment of this bill. Further, the 
Administrator is required to issue guidelines specifying the kinds of 
information that will be required to support the issuance or 
continuation of a tolerance or exemption from the requirements for a 
tolerance and shall revise such guidelines from time to time.
  My bill provides protections, especially to small acreage farmers to 
ensure that they will not be left without crop protection tools. This 
legislation requires the Administrator to report to Congress priorities 
for registering new products that will replace products that are being 
removed from use and expedite the registration process. This will allow 
the farmers to continue to provide a safe, reliable food supply.
  The USDA and EPA are required to assess the potential negative trade 
effects of implementing FQPA. The program will monitor the competitive 
strength of major United States agricultural commodity sections in the 
international marketplace. Such commodity sectors include fruits and 
vegetables, corn wheat, cotton rice, soybeans and nursery and forest 
products.
  Mr. Speaker, FQPA must be implemented properly or grave results will 
occur. My bill gives this Congress a chance to do something good for 
the American people and the American Farmer. I urge my colleagues to 
cosponsor this legislation.

                          ____________________