[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 125 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4193-S4195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. UDALL (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Markey, Ms. Harris, Mr. Cardin,
and Mr. Merkley):
S. 1624. A bill to prohibit the use of chlorpyrifos on food, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1624
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Children, Farmers,
and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) In 1996, Congress unanimously passed the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-170; 110 Stat. 1489)
(referred to in this section as ``FQPA''), a comprehensive
overhaul of Federal pesticide and food safety policy. That
Act amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) (referred to in this
section as ``FIFRA'') and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the laws that govern
how the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this
section as the ``EPA'') registers pesticides and pesticide
labels for use in the United States and establishes
tolerances or acceptable levels for pesticide residues on
food.
(2) The FQPA directs the EPA to ensure with ``reasonable
certainty'' that ``no harm'' will result from food, drinking
water, and other exposures to a pesticide. If EPA cannot make
this safety finding, it must prohibit residues and use of the
pesticide on food. The FQPA mandates that EPA must consider
children's special sensitivity and exposure to pesticide
chemicals and must make an explicit determination that the
pesticide can be used with a ``reasonable certainty of no
harm'' to children. In determining acceptable levels of
pesticide residue, EPA must account for the potential health
harm from pre-and postnatal exposures. The economic benefits
of pesticides cannot be used to override this health-based
standard for children from food and other exposures.
(3) Chlorpyrifos is a widely used pesticide first
registered by EPA in 1965. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate
pesticide, a class of pesticides developed as nerve agents in
World War II and adapted for use as insecticides after the
war. Chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides affect
the nervous system through inhibition of cholinesterase, an
enzyme required for proper nerve functioning. Acute
poisonings occur when nerve impulses pulsate through the
[[Page S4194]]
body, causing symptoms like nausea, vomiting, convulsions,
respiratory paralysis, and, in extreme cases, death. Based on
dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles, EPA determined
that exposure during pregnancy to even low levels of
chlorpyrifos that caused only minimal cholinesterase
inhibition (10 percent or less) in the mothers could lead to
measurable long-lasting and possibly permanent
neurobehavioral and functional deficits in prenatally exposed
children.
(4) People, including pregnant women, are exposed to
chlorpyrifos through residues on food, contaminated drinking
water, and toxic spray drift from nearby pesticide
applications. Chlorpyrifos is used on an extensive variety of
crops, including fruit and nut trees, vegetables, wheat,
alfalfa, and corn. Between 2006 and 2012, chlorpyrifos was
applied to more than 50 percent of the Nation's apple and
broccoli crops, 45 percent of onion crops, 46 percent of
walnut crops, and 41 percent of cauliflower crops.
(5) Chlorpyrifos is acutely toxic and associated with
neurodevelopmental harms in children. Prenatal exposure to
chlorpyrifos is associated with elevated risks of reduced IQ,
loss of working memory, delays in motor development,
attention-deficit disorders, and structural changes in the
brain.
(6) There is no nationwide chlorpyrifos use reporting. The
United States Geological Survey estimates annual pesticide
use on agricultural land in the United States, and estimates
that chlorpyrifos use on crops in 2014 ranged from 5,000,000
to 7,000,000 pounds of chlorpyrifos.
(7) In its 2016 report, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel recognized
``the growing body of literature with laboratory animals
(rats and mice) indicating that gestational and/or early
postnatal exposure to chlorpyrifos may cause persistent
effects into adulthood along with epidemiology studies which
have evaluated prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure in mother-
infant pairs and reported associations with neurodevelopment
outcomes in infants and children.''.
(8) Chlorpyrifos has long been of concern to EPA.
Residential uses of chlorpyrifos ended in 2000 after EPA
found unsafe exposures to children. EPA also discontinued use
of chlorpyrifos on tomatoes and restricted its use on apples
and grapes in 2000, and obtained no-spray buffers around
schools, homes, playfields, day cares, hospitals, and other
public places, ranging from 10 to 100 feet. In 2015, EPA
proposed to ban all chlorpyrifos food tolerances, based on
unsafe drinking water contamination, which would end use of
chlorpyrifos on food in the United States. After updating the
risk assessment for chlorpyrifos in November 2016 to protect
against prenatal exposures associated with brain impacts, EPA
found that expected residues from use on food crops exceeded
the safety standard, and additionally the majority of
estimated drinking water exposures from currently allowed
uses of chlorpyrifos also exceeded acceptable levels,
reinforcing the need to revoke all food tolerances for the
pesticide.
(9) Chlorpyrifos threatens the healthy development of
children. Children experience greater exposure to
chlorpyrifos and other pesticides because, relative to
adults, they eat and drink more proportional to their body
weight. A growing body of evidence shows that prenatal
exposure to very low levels of chlorpyrifos can lead to
lasting and possibly permanent neurological impairments. In
November 2016, EPA released a revised human health risk
assessment for chlorpyrifos that confirmed that there are no
acceptable uses for the pesticide, all food uses exceed
acceptable levels, with children ages 1 to 2 exposed to
levels of chlorpyrifos that are 140 times what the EPA
considers acceptable.
(10) Chlorpyrifos threatens agricultural workers. Farm
workers are exposed to chlorpyrifos from mixing, handling,
and applying the pesticide, as well as from entering fields
where chlorpyrifos was recently sprayed. Chlorpyrifos is one
of the pesticides most often linked to acute pesticide
poisonings, and in many States, it is regularly identified
among the 5 pesticides linked to the highest number of
pesticide poisoning incidents. This is significant given
widespread under-reporting of pesticide poisonings due to
such factors as inadequate reporting systems, fear of
retaliation from employers, and reluctance to seek medical
treatment. According to the EPA, all workers who mix and
apply chlorpyrifos are exposed to unsafe levels of the
pesticide even with maximum personal protective equipment and
engineering controls. Field workers are currently allowed to
re-enter fields within 1 to 5 days after chlorpyrifos is
sprayed based on current restricted entry intervals on the
registered chlorpyrifos labels but unsafe exposures continue
on average 18 days after applications.
(11) Chlorpyrifos threatens families in agricultural
communities. Rural families are exposed to unsafe levels of
chlorpyrifos on their food and in their drinking water. They
are also exposed to toxic levels of chlorpyrifos when it
drifts from the fields to homes, schools, and other places
people gather. EPA's 2016 revised human health risk
assessment found that chlorpyrifos drift reaches unsafe
levels at 300 feet away from the edge of the treated field,
and the chemical chlorpyrifos is found at unsafe levels in
the air at schools, homes, and communities in agricultural
areas. The small buffers put in place in 2012 leave children
unprotected from this toxic pesticide drift.
(12) Chlorpyrifos threatens drinking water. EPA's 2014 and
2016 risk assessments have found that chlorpyrifos levels in
drinking water are unsafe. People living and working in
agricultural communities are likely to be exposed to higher
levels of chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides
in their drinking water.
(13) In 2015, leading scientific and medical experts, along
with children's health advocates, came together, under
``Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental
Risks'' (referred to in this section as ``TENDR''), to issue
a call to action to reduce widespread exposures to chemicals
that interfere with fetal and children's brain development.
Based on the available and peer-reviewed scientific evidence,
the TENDR authors identified prime examples of
neurodevelopmentally toxic chemicals ``that can contribute to
learning, behavioral, or intellectual impairment, as well as
specific neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD or autism
spectrum disorder,'' and listed organophosphate pesticides,
among them. In the United States, based on reporting from
parents, 1 in 6 children have a developmental disability or
other developmental delay. The TENDR Consensus Statement
concludes that ``to help reduce the unacceptably high
prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in our children,
we must eliminate or significantly reduce exposures to
chemicals that contribute to these conditions.''.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO CHLORPYRIFOS.
Section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if it
bears or contains chlorpyrifos, including any residue of
chlorpyrifos, or any other added substance that is present on
or in the food primarily as a result of the metabolism or
other degradation of chlorpyrifos.''.
SEC. 4. REVIEW OF ORGANOPHOSPHATE PESTICIDES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the
``Administrator'') shall offer to enter into a contract with
the National Research Council to conduct a cumulative and
aggregate risk assessment that addresses all populations, and
the most vulnerable subpopulations, including infants,
children, and fetuses, of exposure to organophosphate
pesticides.
(b) Contents of Review.--The review under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) assess the neurodevelopmental effects and other low-
dose effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides,
including in the most vulnerable subpopulations, including--
(A) during the prenatal, childhood, adolescent, and early
life stages; and
(B) agricultural workers;
(2) assess the cumulative and aggregate risks from exposure
described in paragraph (1), which shall aggregate all routes
of exposure, including diet, pesticide drift, volatilization,
occupational, and take-home exposures; and
(3) be completed and submitted to the Administrator not
later than October 1, 2019.
(c) Regulatory Action.--
(1) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply if the
Administrator becomes aware of any exposure to any
organophosphate pesticide, including exposures described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b), that does not meet,
as applicable--
(A) the standard under section 408(b)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)); or
(B) any standard under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
(2) Action.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which
the Administrator becomes aware of any exposure under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall take any appropriate
regulatory action, regardless of whether the review under
subsection (a) is completed, including--
(A) revocation or modification of a tolerance under section
408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
346a); or
(B) modification, cancellation, or suspension of a
registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this section authorizes or requires
the Administrator to delay in carrying out or completing,
with respect to an organophosphate pesticide, any
registration review under section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C.
136a(g)), any tolerance review under section 408 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a), or any
registration or modification, cancellation, or suspension of
a registration under section 3 or 6 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a,
136d), if--
(1) the organophosphate pesticide does not meet applicable
requirements established under those provisions of law; or
(2) the review, registration, modification, cancellation,
or suspension is required--
(A) by statute;
(B) by judicial order; or
(C) to respond to a petition.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Brown, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Coons,
[[Page S4195]]
Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Ms.
Hirono):
S. 1629. A bill to reauthorize the Department of Defense Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the DEPSCoR
Reauthorization Act of 2017 along with Senators Rounds, Brown, Collins,
Carper, Coons, Whitehouse, Shaheen, Cortez Masto, and Hirono.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that we have universities in
all 50 States capable of working with the Department of Defense on
advanced research topics. A truly National network of university
researchers who understand the needs of the Department of Defense puts
us in the best possible position to respond to the ever-changing
threats our armed forces face. This network will also meet the
workforce needs of our defense laboratories by training graduate
students in defense-relevant research. This bill reauthorizes the
DEPSCoR program, which is modeled on the NSF's successful EPSCoR
program for States that receive relatively low amounts of Federal
science funding. The bill will focus the DEPSCoR program on defense
research, while allowing the scientists and engineers of our defense
laboratories to work directly with university researchers from DEPSCoR-
eligible States.
Seven years ago, Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to
study the EPSCoR programs. The study concluded that it was in the
National interest to engage scientific talent in all 50 States, and
that EPSCoR programs were a valuable part of a National strategy to
maintain global scientific leadership. The report emphasized that
successfully engaging all 50 States required the involvement of
technology-driven agencies, including the Department of Defense, to
complement the basic science focus of the NSF.
Until 2009, the Department of Defense managed an EPSCoR-like program,
known as DEPSCoR. An independent evaluation of DEPSCoR, conducted by
the Institute for Defense Analyses, showed that DEPSCoR research
contributed to the DoD mission, producing high-quality research and new
technologies that were operationally deployed in areas such as missile
guidance and communications.
DEPSCoR also successfully developed defense research capabilities in
States historically underserved by Federal research and development
(R&D) funding. Since DEPSCoR stopped receiving Congressional support,
defense research in DEPSCoR-eligible States has plummeted, with the
decreases far larger than the relatively modest amounts going to
DEPSCoR awards. This shows that DEPSCoR was doing what Congress
intended the program to do: develop competitive defense researchers in
all 50 States.
The impact of cancelling DEPSCoR went far beyond research grants.
Developing university research capabilities in all 50 States is
critical to meeting DoD workforce needs. The Defense Laboratory
Enterprise is more national in scope than NASA or the Department of
Energy's National Laboratory system, with facilities in 24 States,
including DEPSCoR-eligible States. The 2016 review of DoD laboratories
by the Defense Science Board reported that these laboratories depend on
locally trained scientists and engineers. Without relevant training
provided through DoD-supported research projects at nearby
universities, these facilities may struggle to find highly qualified
scientists and engineers.
Because of these concerns, I have been working with my colleague on
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Rounds of South Dakota, to revive
this program. This reauthorization uses the lessons learned from the
previous iteration of DEPSCoR to improve the program, making it more
responsive to Department of Defense needs.
I invite our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.
____________________