[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19098-19099]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                THE REGULATORY OPENNESS AND FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, last week, 20 of my colleagues of both 
parties joined me in introducing the Regulatory Openness and Fairness 
Act, a bill to amend the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure that the 
EPA used sound science in its evaluation of pesticide uses. This 
legislation is particularly relevant given yesterday's announcement by 
the EPA that they will ban two important pesticides.
  Let me begin by saying that a safe food supply is, of course, in 
everyone's

[[Page 19099]]

best interests. We all want to ensure that our children and American 
consumers continue to have access to abundant, safe agricultural 
products. It is in the best interests of consumers and agricultural 
producers that decisions on pesticide uses are based on sound 
scientific analysis--sound scientific analysis. That was the intent of 
the law which passed, with strong bipartisan support, 3 years ago. In 
1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure the 
safety of our Nation's food supply. It passed with the overwhelming 
support of the agricultural industry and was seen as a much-needed 
modernization of laws governing all pesticide use.
  As written and signed by the President, the FQPA requires the EPA to 
reassess all of the Nation's pesticides, using more data, taking more 
factors into account, and allowing greater margins of safety. The FQPA 
also requires that these standards be based on hard data and sound 
science, not arbitrary assumptions or computer models.
  Under the FQPA, next week the EPA faces its first deadline for 
announcing its evaluation of some 3,000 uses of pesticides. As EPA 
prepares for its deadline, it has not fully used the sound scientific 
analysis called for in the 1996 FQPA bill. Instead, the EPA has relied 
on theoretical computer models and worst case scenarios in many of 
these cases. The EPA frequently prefers this approach, partly as a 
result of not having the resources or the time to focus. But this is 
not what Congress intended in 1996. We did not intend for farmers to 
lose the use of safe and effective pesticides. We did not intend for 
public health officials dealing with pest control issues to lose the 
products that help them protect the public.
  The bill my colleagues and I have introduced, the Regulatory Openness 
and Fairness Act, makes sure that EPA follows what was the intent of 
Congress 3 years ago. It will lessen the chance that safe and effective 
pesticides would be removed from the market without scientific 
justification; it provides a clear and predictable regulatory process 
based on scientific data; it streamlines the process for evaluating new 
pesticides; and it provides Congress with facts on how the act, as 
applied by the EPA, affects agriculture exports.
  We cannot forget that crop protection allows our farmers to produce 
the grains, the fruits, and the vegetables that feed not just our 
Nation but the world. Unnecessary regulations have a dampening effect 
on the engine that has fueled America's economic growth. That engine is 
called productivity. If the FQPA is not implemented fully and fairly, 
based on sound science, we will unnecessarily place our agricultural 
producers at a very great competitive disadvantage in world markets. 
Production prices will increase, productivity will decrease, and 
consequently our farmers will see their exports decline. This is hardly 
the time to be placing extra, unnecessary burdens on America's farmers.
  This bill is good for both consumers and agricultural producers. 
Consumers will continue to have safe, affordable, and abundant 
agricultural goods and farmers will continue to have the tools they 
need to produce safe, quality food products and to compete in the world 
market.
  In Nebraska, we call that common sense. I am proud to join my 20 
colleagues in a strong bipartisan effort to introduce the Regulatory 
Fairness and Openness Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________