[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H900-H901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2571) to make technical corrections to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 2571
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT.
(a) Pesticide Registration Service Fees.--Section 33 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
136w-8) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(7)--
(A) in subparagraph (D)--
(i) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--The Administrator may exempt from, or
waive a portion of, the registration service fee for an
application for minor uses for a pesticide.''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or exemption'' after
``waiver''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E)--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Waiver'' and
inserting ``Exemption'';
(ii) by striking ``waive the registration service fee for
an application'' and inserting ``exempt an application from
the registration service fee''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``waiver'' and inserting
``exemption''; and
(2) in subsection (m)(2), by striking ``2008'' each place
it appears and inserting ``2012''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on October 1, 2007.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Senate bill 2571 provides a technical correction to the
reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act approved
by the House and the Senate and that was signed by the President on
October 9, 2007.
As my colleagues know, EPA is currently responsible for regulating
the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides. In order to facilitate
and expedite the approval process, pesticide manufacturers and other
registrants have supplemented EPA's annual budget for a number of
years. It's a win-win process for both the manufacturer and the end
user and a clear example of good government at its best.
Unfortunately, EPA has interpreted the PRIA reauthorization approved
by Congress to collect fees for chemicals that are not part of the
Interregional Project Number 4, a popular research program that
assesses tolerance levels for pest management chemicals applied on
specialty crops. These IR-4 chemicals have historically been exempt
from fees prior to the enactment of the PRIA reauthorization, and it
was not the intention of the House nor the Senate to suddenly assess
fees on all these chemicals.
This bill will simply restore the status quo for these particular
products and reassert congressional intent.
Because the program fees are being assessed on IR-4 chemicals as we
speak, it is vitally important to address this situation immediately.
While the farm bill would be the natural vehicle to make this technical
correction, EPA is currently unable to process any registration
applications without these fees being paid. Therefore, while this fix
is not controversial, it is extremely time sensitive, and the
uncertainty of the farm bill process dictates that Congress must take
action now.
Restoring congressional intent by passing this technical correction
to PRIA will prevent delays and backups of applications and stop EPA
from collecting and then reimbursing the fees for these chemicals.
It is important that we continue to encourage the type of public-
private partnerships envisioned in PRIA. I urge my colleagues to
support this technical fix and the underlying goals of the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of S. 2571. Madam Speaker, last fall we
passed Senate bill 1983, which reauthorized the highly successful
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. That act had been worked on by
a number of Members in the House and Senate, including the chairmen and
ranking members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees as well
as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Horticulture
and Organic Agriculture. In developing this legislation, we sought the
advice and counsel of the administration, the affected industry, and
the environmental community. I was very happy to have the unanimous
endorsement of all interested parties as we moved forward with that
bill.
As is not uncommon in working on complex legislation, language is
included that is subject to interpretation, and in this particular case
we included language intending to maintain an existing fee exemption
for certain chemicals that have limited uses on specialty crops.
Unfortunately, the EPA has interpreted the final language to mean that
they would not be able to continue to offer this exemption. This bill
that we are considering today would simply restore the status quo for
these chemicals, as was the congressional intent.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the
[[Page H901]]
very capable and wise gentleman from Oklahoma who has been a great
friend throughout the years that I have been here and thank him for his
assistance in this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2571.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________