[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2753-2754]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is rare for both Houses of Congress to 
reach a unanimous agreement--fully bipartisan legislation. The Food 
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in this manner in 1996. This 
new law eliminated the famed Delaney Clause for residues in raw and 
processed foods--replacing it with a scientific, rational standard of 
``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Food and agricultural interest, as 
well as the pesticide industry, saw the passage of FQPA as an 
opportunity to assure that sound science is paramount in EPA's 
determinations on use of crop protection chemicals. It is worth saying 
it again--a scientific, rational, sound and reasonable standard.
  Mr. President, sound science is what the authors intended and 
expected. This is what Congress wanted--sound science as the rule's 
foundation. Further, the new law provided an additional safety factor 
to protect infants and children, and new ways of assessing pesticide 
benefits and risks. This is something Congress fully supported. Despite 
a unanimous Congressional vote, implementing the law at the regulatory 
level has been a very difficult and unnecessarily complex process.

[[Page 2754]]

  In fact, only a few months after the law was passed, the entire FQPA 
implementation process broke down. Members of Congress voiced their 
concern. The problems were so great and concerns from America's 
agriculture industry so substantial that Vice President Gore sent a 
Memorandum to both the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental 
Protection Agency on April 8, 1998. This memorandum laid out the White 
House's plan for getting FQPA's implementation back on track.
  The White House's plan for FQPA implementation contained four basic 
principles. It included sound science in protecting public health, 
regulatory transparency, reasonable transition for agriculture, and 
consultation with the public and other agencies. The Vice President's 
approach was supported by America's agriculture community. Everyone's 
hopes were high.
  Mr. President, today, almost a year after the White House got 
directly involved in FQPA's implementation process, it is still off 
track. It is becoming clear to me that Congress may again have to 
revisit FQPA.
  Mr. President, Congress wanted a law to eliminate the scientifically 
inadequate and outdated Delaney Clause. What Congress and the Nation 
got was much worse. In fact, the EPA has failed to provide 
scientifically sound guidance to the regulated community. The EPA 
approach follows a path toward great economic harm for both 
agricultural producers and urban users of these products--an EPA 
approach which is without scientific foundation.
  Farmers, the food industry, pest control interests, and many others 
are understandably concerned. Americans want and deserve a fair, 
workable implementation of this bipartisan law. Americans want and 
deserve rules that are based on real information and sound science. 
Americans want and deserve rules that follow the Vice President's memo. 
Americans want and deserve rules which fit FQPA's requirements.
  In order for these rules to be achieved EPA must:
  Allow development of the best scientific methodology and data;
  Base its decisions on actual pesticide uses rather than model 
assumptions; and
  Operate in an open, transparent manner to establish uniform, 
scientific and practical policies.
  Mr. President, this is simple and straightforward, and makes 
scientific common sense. This request is consistent with the intent of 
the unanimously passed law. This request is also consistent with the 
Vice President's memo of nearly a year ago.
  The requirements of the law are achievable. I have confidence that 
EPA can do this right--EPA just needs to take the time, invest the 
effort with the proper focus.
  EPA must recognize the problems that will be created if FQPA is 
improperly implemented. It is estimated that the economic impact for 
agricultural producers is tremendous. For just one class of chemicals 
being analyzed by EPA, estimates have shown a 55% yield loss in my 
state for corn if these products were eliminated. For cotton in 
Mississippi, the yield loss has been estimated at 8 percent. Crops 
across the United States would also be negatively impacted.
  However, Mr. President, FQPA is not just about farming. Poor 
implementation of FQPA could also have consequences in the public 
health area. FQPA's passage was not just about reassessing old 
products, it was more about getting new, safer crop protection products 
on the market. FQPA's passage was bipartisan & unanimous because 
Congress also wanted new products and a rational scientific process. 
One such new product intended for use on cotton is currently under 
review by EPA. This new cotton insecticide, PIRATE, is extremely 
important to Mississippi cotton producers and we need full registration 
of this product before the growing season this year.
  Mr. President, EPA must implement FQPA properly. EPA should not make 
any final decisions on important pesticide products until they have 
completely developed a clear and transparent process for implementing 
the law and have evaluated the impacts of product loss. With that 
done--FQPA will meet the expectations of Congress.

                          ____________________