[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9496-S9498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dayton, 
        Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1579. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodentcide Act to permit the distribution and sale of certain 
pesticides that are registered in both the United States and another 
country; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with my 
colleague Senator Dorgan, a bill that addresses a persistent inequity 
in the agriculture industry.
  Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement--in 
fact, even before then--Montana farmers have battled against false 
barriers to trade that harm their ability to compete in a global 
market. While most inputs to production agriculture--fertilizer, seed, 
equipment--can move easily across the U.S.-Canadian border, pesticides 
remain segmented. The pesticide industry has a vested interest in 
preserving these borders, because the barriers allow for price 
distortions that harm producers on both sides of the border.
  The legislation I am introducing today is designed to tear down these 
barriers, and begin the process of harmonizing the pesticide 
registration process. The bill establishes a process by which 
interested growers can petition the Environmental Protection Agency to 
require a pesticide to be jointly labeled, if the product is already 
registered in both countries. See--there's the problem. We are talking 
here about the exact same chemical, produced by the same company, but 
priced at very different levels. Because the products have two 
different labels, the lower-price chemical remains out of reach of U.S. 
growers. When Montana farmers have to compete against Canadian growers 
who are getting their pesticides at a substantially lower price, that 
is an example of free trade gone wrong. In addition, this bill gives 
EPA the authority needed to require a joint label on a new product that 
is being introduced into the market.
  It is important to note that this legislation is not restricted to 
Canada, so as not to violate U.S. trade agreements. The bill authorizes 
EPA to enter into negotiations to harmonize regulatory processes and 
requirements with other countries, as appropriate. The United States 
and Canada have been working for over a decade to streamline their 
registration processes, harmonize the requirements, and develop 
protocols for work sharing and joint reviews. A lot of groundwork has 
already been done between the U.S. and Canada, so we can move quickly 
towards development of a joint label between our two countries.
  And there is no reason not to. Again, we are talking about the exact 
same product, being sold at two different prices to growers who have to 
compete against each other in the world market. NAFTA was supposed to 
tear down borders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and yet this 
barrier remains. It is an irritant to Montana growers who are farming 
along the border.
  It is also a problem for Canadian growers, and I look forward to 
working with Canada to resolve this issue in a mutually beneficial way. 
There are times when pesticides are cheaper in the U.S., and U.S. 
growers often have access to a wider variety of products. So there is a 
shared interest in tearing down this barrier to free trade.
  A recent study done by Montana State University underscored this 
point. For 13 pesticides widely used in Montana and Alberta, seven were 
less expensive in Canada, five were less expensive in the U.S., and 
one, glyphosate, showed little or no difference in price. False 
barriers that prevent pesticides from moving across the border are 
creating significant price distortions in the market, and those 
barriers need to come down.
  Certainly, there are a number of factors that impact pricing, but 
there can be no doubt that trade barriers allow price differentiation, 
and that's not right. There will always be some price fluctuations--
they exist now, between

[[Page S9498]]

states, even between communities in the same state. But for a person 
farming along the Montana-Alberta border, who can see his competitor 
across that border and knows that his competitor's input costs are 
lower for no other reason than a trade barrier that should have been 
eliminated, that's going to bother him. If the guy one town over has 
better prices on pesticides, I can drive to get those, or negotiate 
with my local dealer. But if the guy across the border has better 
prices, I have no options, no bargaining power. That's just not right.
  This is not an anti-industry bill. Growers need the crop protection 
industry, and it is important that the research and innovation in that 
sector continue. This bill will help to streamline regulatory processes 
and reduce the obstacles to registration, by requiring only one label. 
It simplifies distribution systems, by allowing companies to have just 
one label for the same product, even when it is being sold in two 
countries. So while this bill will address the sort of price 
distortions that farmers on the northern border find unfair, it also 
reduces cost to industry, and will ideally result in smoother 
registration processes.
  In fact, representatives of the crop protection industry have said 
that the solution to trade barriers along the northern border is a 
joint label, and have testified in support of regulatory harmonization 
before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Since the passage of NAFTA, a 
technical working group on pesticide harmonization has worked 
diligently on the development of joint registration and labeling 
procedures, and has enjoyed the cooperation of the industry in those 
discussions. This bill accomplishes what both the industry and the 
producers have said is needed: regulatory harmonization between two 
nations, joint registration, and joint labeling.
  This legislation is supported by the National Association of Wheat 
Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the U.S. Durum 
Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the Montana Grain 
Growers Association, and the North Dakota Grain Growers Association. It 
is time these barriers be eliminated. If we are going to have free 
trade in grain, then we need free train in the input costs for 
production agriculture. This bill accomplishes that. I ask Members to 
take a close look at this bill, and consider it seriously. Our growers 
deserve an end to the practice of artificially inflating the price of 
pesticides simply to take advantage of false barriers.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan 
legislation to remedy a long-standing and glaring inequity in our so-
called free-trade system. There are significant and costly differences 
in prices between agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar--
and in some cases, identical--chemicals sold in the United States. This 
disparity in prices puts an extra burden on American farmers, and it 
puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to competing in the 
world market.
  Currently, American and Canadian farmers use many of the same 
products on their fields. These products use the same chemicals, are 
made by the same company, and are sometimes even marketed under the 
same name; but they are often sold at a much lower cost north of the 
border.
  For example, U.S. farmers use the pesticide Garlon, which is sold as 
Remedy in Canada. It is manufactured by the same company, with the same 
chemicals. But American farmers pay $8.02 more per acre than their 
Canadian counterparts. The pesticide Puma, which is widely used on 
wheat and barley, costs farmers in North Dakota $2.82 more per acre 
than Canadian farmers pay for Puma 120 Super, which is the same 
product, made by the same company. That means North Dakota farmers paid 
nearly $7.9 million more to treat their fields with Puma than they 
would have paid if they could have accessed it at prices paid by 
Canadian farmers.
  This legislation would address that inequity by setting up a process 
that would allow American farmers to access these chemicals, which are 
lower priced, but identical to those already approved for use in the 
United States.
  Data collected by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture show 
that farmers in just my home State of North Dakota alone would have 
saved nearly $11 million last year if they had been able to access 
agricultural chemicals at Canadian prices.
  But this problem does not just affect farmers in North Dakota. 
Farmers all across the northern tier of the United States would benefit 
if they were able to access U.S.-approved pesticides at Canadian 
prices.
  I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden 
inequities of trade. For trade to benefit our country, it must be fair. 
But the pricing inequities in the Canadian and U.S. pesticide markets 
are a failure of our current trade system.
  This legislation I am introducing today, along with the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Burns, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to 
require that certain agricultural chemicals which have already been 
approved in the U.S. carry a joint label, which would allow them to 
cross the border freely.
  The new labels would still be under the strict scrutiny of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, as would the use of these products. 
The EPA would continue to insure the health and safety standards that 
govern the products we use in our food supply. This bill keeps those 
priorities intact.
  This bill is not an ending but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers and 
schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot continue 
to accept trade practices that, on the one hand, hamstring Americans, 
and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We ought not 
accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a step in bringing 
American producers back to a level playing field.
                                 ______