[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Page 18841]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 18841]]

                  REGULATORY FAIRNESS AND OPENNESS ACT

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to signify my support for the 
introduction of the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999.
  According to data compiled in the last five years, the State of 
Washington produces more than 230 food, feed and seed crops; ranks in 
the top five for the value of the commodities produced; leads the 
nation in the production of apples, spearmint oil, red raspberries, 
hops, edible peas and lentils, asparagus, sweet cherries, and pears; is 
second in the nation in the production of winter wheat, potatoes, 
Concord grapes, and carrots; and contributes more than $5 billion to 
the State's economy annually. Not only do all these facts signify the 
importance of the agriculture industry to the State of Washington and 
the nation, but highlight the importance of having the proper tools and 
chemicals necessary to produce one of the most abundant, economical, 
and safest food supplies in the world.
  I agreed to be an original cosponsor the Regulatory Fairness and 
Openness Act of 1999 for many reasons, but the most significant reason 
comes down to common sense. I supported the passage of the Food Quality 
Protection Act in 1996 and still believe in the intent of the 
legislation. However, recent accounts from the agriculture industry 
cite concern about the practical application of reliable data and 
science to the process.
  Just this week a 25-year-old apple farmer from Orondo, Washington 
visited my office to voice her concerns over the implementation of 
FQPA. Karen Simmons explained that with the current manner in which 
FQPA is being implemented, entire classes of pesticides are threatened 
with elimination. Should these tools of agriculture be lost, an orchard 
like Karen's faces possible extinction. Karen's story is not the first 
I've heard, as farmers from Washington have been invaluable in 
expressing their concerns to me over the future of their livliood.
  Karen's account mimics the thousands of reports my colleagues and I 
have heard from growers across this country. Karen, like many farmers, 
never follows the application suggestions prescribed by the chemicals 
she uses. Not only does she not follow these recommendations for 
practical purposes, but because of the cost incurred as well.
  For example, one of the pesticides she utilizes recommends 
application up to twice a week, but Karen informed us that she rarely 
uses it that frequently. While Karen might not utilize this chemical 
often, it is imperative that she has it as a tool. Should this tool be 
eliminated altogether, Karen's crop is susceptible to infestation, 
thereby putting her entire orchard in jeopardy.
  Unfortunately, in establishing the risk cup for chemicals, EPA has 
been using application recommendations, often referred to as default 
assumptions, and not taking into consideration actual usage. This 
approach is threatening the tools growers have at their disposal. That 
is why it is imperative that we incorporate into the implementation of 
FQPA a rulemaking process, allowing growers, chemical utilizers, and 
household pest producers the ability to divulge actual usage and to 
apply practical sense to the process. How could we suggest threatening 
the livelihood of the American farmer and others, while not providing 
for them an avenue to participate, comment and clarify?
  Children's health is equally important, and, as several of my 
colleagues have suggested, improper application of the FQPA to 
household pest controls could create a host of health hazards for 
children and the elderly. For example, there is a real threat that 
current FQPA implementation could eliminate the use of some household 
insecticides and repellants. As many of you know, children and the 
elderly are susceptible to disease, often carried by cockroaches and 
other insects. Improper control of these pests could equate to serious 
health hazards across the nation, a scenario none of us predicted with 
the passage of FQPA.
  Again, I stress that the intent of the legislation is not to alter 
the importance or significance of human health, but to ensure that 
decisions regarding health risks are informed and not hasty, that the 
intent of the FQPA is carried out with the use of sound science and 
practical application, that a dose of common sense is applied, and that 
adequate time is available to make certain all decisions and tolerance 
standards are healthy and equitable.
  Without question, the United States produces the most abundant, 
desirable, inexpensive, and safest food supplies in the world. The FQPA 
must be implemented in a fashion that not only takes into account these 
very facts, but continues to consider the needs, choices and health of 
the American consumer.
  I thank my colleagues for their continuing interest in this issue, 
and look forward to working with everyone to pass the Regulatory 
Fairness and Openness Act of 1999.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a 
moment about the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act that I am pleased 
to cosponsor with a number of my colleagues who are concerned about the 
state of agriculture today. I want to thank Senator Hagel and his staff 
for their work on this legislation which refects the input of a number 
of agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation.
  When the Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, the 
idea was to update our pesticide laws so that our farmers could 
continue to provide the safest and most economical food supply in the 
world. FQPA eliminated the outdated zero-tolerance Delaney clause for 
pesticide residues and provided the EPA a framework to review and 
approve pesticides based on the best scientific evidence available 
about any health risks these chemicals may pose. What was not intended 
was to give the EPA the authority to embark on a course to eliminate 
pesticides based on unrealistic, worst-case scenarios while keeping 
important stakeholders in the dark.
  Agriculture in my state of Oregon is incredibly diverse. We have 
everything from large wheat or nursery operations to small berry farms 
and hazelnut orchards. While implication of FQPA will surely have 
implications for program commodities like wheat and soybeans, it is the 
small speciality crops grown in my state that I am most concerned will 
be the first to find what may be the only available crop protection 
tool arbitrarily axed by EPA. At a time when farms all across the 
country are in the grip of a price depression crisis, our farmers 
simply can't afford to take another hit--especially one from their own 
government.
  Despite our hopes to the contrary, it has become apparent in recent 
months that legislation is needed to steer the Environmental Protection 
Agency back towards science-based review of pesticide tolerances under 
the Food Quality Protection Act. The Regulatory Fairness and Openness 
Act that we are introducing today requires the EPA to expose its 
decisionmaking process for public comment, identify areas where 
assumptions were made, expedite data collection procedures where 
needed, and streamline the process to get economically viable 
alternative products approved. The common-sense legislation is the 
result of consultation with more than 60 agriculture and pest control 
organizations.
  Mr. President, the public has a right to know what processes are 
beingused in the implementation of the FQPA and how the EPA is arriving 
at its decisions. Our farmers have a right to know that important crop 
protection chemicals will not be eliminated on a whim by a federal 
agency. I hope colleagues agree with me that this measure of regulatory 
relief is urgently needed, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act.

                          ____________________