[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 55 (Monday, May 6, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E719-E720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 2, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2646) to 
     provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
     fiscal year 2011:

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, section 7504 of H.R. 2646, the Farm 
Security Act amends the Plant Protection Act with respect to certain 
treatments or applications of methyl bromide. This section requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to undertake specified activities upon the 
request of State, local or tribal authorities and to publish a 
registry. The section also requires a program to identify methyl 
bromide alternatives.
  I was pleased to work with the conferees on this section to ensure 
that the section does not modify or alter the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency or provide any authority to the 
Secretary of Agriculture under the Clean Air Act or regulations 
promulgated under the Clean Air Act. In this regard, I believe the 
final legislative language is consistent with an exchange of 
correspondence between the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House 
Agriculture Committee concerning the original House provision which 
served as the basis for the final language contained in section 7504. I 
am inserting this exchange of correspondence below to further explain 
the intent and effect of section 7504.



[[Page E720]]


         House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce,
                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2001.
     Hon. Larry Combest,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, 
         Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Combest: As reported from the Committee on 
     Agriculture, H.R. 2646 contains legislative language 
     regarding methyl bromide.
       As you know, methyl bromide has been specifically regulated 
     as an ozone depleting substance (ODS) under the Montreal 
     Protocol, ratified by the United States in 1987, and under 
     Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established by the 1990 
     Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA). Under current 
     provisions of both the Montreal Protocol and the CAA, methyl 
     bromide is scheduled for complete phaseout in the United 
     States by 2005. Title VI of the CAA, which serves as a 
     supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal 
     Protocol, has been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce since its enactment and 
     signature into law on November 15, 1990.
       Both the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act currently 
     provide for specific exemptions from the 2005 phaseout date 
     for methyl bromide. Within the Montreal Protocol, quarantine 
     and preshipment exemptions for methyl bromide are defined 
     within the terms of the treaty as well as subsequent 
     Decisions of the Parties which, among other requirements, 
     limit preshipment applications of methyl bromide to 21 days 
     and provide that Parties utilize alternatives to methyl 
     bromide whenever possible. The Montreal Protocol also 
     provides for a ``critical use'' and ``emergency use'' 
     exemptions for methyl bromide, although formal procedures and 
     process to implement this exemption have not yet been 
     established. Within the Clean Air Act, sections 604(d)(5) and 
     604(d)(6) provide that, to the extent consistent with the 
     Montreal Protocol's quarantine and preshipment provisions, 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) shall exempt certain uses of methyl bromide for 
     purposes of complying with federal, state and local 
     sanitation requirements and critical uses. Section 604(d)(5) 
     has been implemented, in part, through interim final 
     regulations promulgated by EPA on July 19, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 
     37,752).
       Section 762 of H.R. 2646 requires that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, upon request of a State, local or tribal 
     authority, determine whether treatments or application of 
     methyl bromide shall constitute an ``official control'' or 
     ``official requirement'' under the Plant Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7701 et. seq.). I am concerned that although section 
     762 does not amend the CAA nor affect any provision of the 
     Montreal Protocol, the use of the terms ``official controls'' 
     or ``official requirements'' may cause some confusion because 
     these terms are the same terms used in Decisions of the 
     Parties to the Montreal Protocol respecting quarantine and 
     preshipment applications provided for in Article 2H of the 
     treaty.
       This letter is therefore intended to clarify the 
     understanding of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
     Committee on Agriculture that section 762 does not affect any 
     current provision of the Clean Air Act or the Montreal 
     Protocol and therefore has no substantive legal effect upon 
     the operation of sections 604(d)(5), 604(d)(6) and 604(h) and 
     related provisions within the CAA affecting the phaseout of 
     methyl bromide and the determination of what uses may qualify 
     or not qualify for exemptions or exceptions to the current 
     phaseout schedule for this substance. It is my understanding 
     that section 762 does not in any way transfer authority 
     between the EPA and the Department of Agriculture regarding 
     which governmental body has authority to make determinations 
     regarding exemptions that are available under section 
     604(d)(5) for sanitation and food inspection and under 
     section 604(d)(6) for critical uses. Further, it is my 
     understanding that should section 762 or any other provision 
     affecting the status, phaseout or exemptions available for 
     the use of methyl bromide arise during any House and Senate 
     conference on H.R. 2646 or the related Senate legislation, 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce will be assured of 
     representation at the conference and effective control in the 
     House of Representatives over any and all legislative 
     provisions affecting methyl bromide that fall within its 
     jurisdiction.
       Thank you for your assistance and agreement in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                            W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
                                                         Chairman.

                                  ____
                                  

         House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
           Longworth House Office Building,
                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2001.
     Hon. W.J. (``Billy'') Tauzin,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Tauzin: Thank you for your letter of 
     September 28, 2001 regarding section 762 of H.R. 2646, 
     provisions regarding certain determinations concerning 
     official uses of methyl bromide under the Plant Protection 
     Act.
       As you are aware, section 762 does not amend, or in any way 
     affect authorities contained in the Clean Air Act and the 
     Montreal Protocol regarding the phase-out of methyl bromide 
     and available exemptions to the otherwise applicable 2005 
     phase-out date. In addition, Section 762 does not transfer 
     any authority over methyl bromide between that which 
     currently exists within the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and the Department of Agriculture. Finally, you have my 
     assurance that I will support the appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees from your Conunittee should 
     this or any other matter falling with the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce arise in a House/Senate 
     conference on H.R. 2646 or similar legislation.
       I look forward to your continued support for H.R. 2646.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Larry Combest,
                                                         Chairman.

     

                          ____________________