[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19365-19366]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 3108. A bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act to permit a State to register a Canadian pesticide for 
distribution and use within that State; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                      Pesticide Harmonization Bill

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, during the first few months of the 106th 
Congress in early 1999, I introduced a pesticide harmonization bill--S. 
394. Today, I am introducing a revised version of that legislation. The 
need for this legislation has not changed.
  Last year, I pointed out that when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement came into effect, part of the understanding on agriculture 
was that our two nations were going to move rapidly toward the 
harmonization of pesticide regulations. However, we have entered a new 
decade--and century, no less--and relatively little progress in 
harmonization has been accomplished that is meaningful to family 
farmers.
  Since this trade agreement took effect, the pace of Canadian spring 
and durum wheat, and barley exports to the United States have grown 
from a barely noticeable trickle into annual floods of imported grain 
into our markets. Over the years, I have described many factors that 
have produced this unfair trade relationship and unlevel playing field 
between farmers of our two nations. The failure to achieve 
harmonization in pesticides between the United States and Canada 
compounds this ongoing trade problem.
  Our farmers are concerned that agricultural pesticides that are not 
available in the United States are being utilized by farmers in Canada 
to produce wheat, barley, and other agricultural commodities that are 
subsequently imported and consumed in the United States. They 
rightfully believe that it is unfair to import commodities produced 
with agricultural pesticides that are not available to U.S. producers. 
They believe that it is not in the interests of consumers or producers 
to allow such imports. However, it is not just a difference in 
availability of agricultural pesticides between our two countries, but 
also in the pricing of these chemicals.
  Just last spring, our farmers were denied the right to bring a 
pesticide across the border that was cleared for use in our country, 
but was not available locally because the company who manufactures this 
product chose not to sell it here. They were selling a more expensive 
version of the product here. The simple fact is, this company was using 
our environmental protection laws as a means to extract a higher price 
from our farmers even though the cheaper product sold in Canada is just 
as safe. This simply is not right.
  I have pointed out, time and time again, the fact is that there are 
significant differences in prices being paid for essentially the same 
pesticide by farmers in our two countries. In fact, in a recent survey, 
farmers in the United States were paying between 117 percent and 193 
percent more than Canadian farmers for a number of pesticides. This was 
after adjusting for differences in currency exchange rates at that 
time.
  The farmers in my state are simply fed up with what is going on. They 
see grain flooding across the border, while they are unable to access 
the more inexpensive production inputs available in our ``free trade'' 
environment. And I might add, this grain coming into our country has 
been treated with these products which our farmers are denied access 
to. This simply must end.
  As I stated earlier, today, I am introducing a new version of 
legislation that would take an important step in providing equitable 
treatment for U.S.

[[Page 19366]]

farmers in the pricing of agricultural pesticides. And I want to point 
out what has taken place since introduction of the original pesticide 
harmonization bill--or maybe I should say--what has not taken place.
  I wrote the chairman of the Agriculture Committee on more than one 
occasion requesting hearings about the original version of this 
legislation, but to no avail. I was disappointed, to say the least. 
Especially, as I stated, since the need for this legislation has not 
disappeared. On the contrary, it is still a hot issue along our 
northern border with Canada.
  This bill would only deal with agricultural chemicals that are 
identical or substantially similar. It only deals with pesticides that 
have already undergone rigorous review processes and whose formulations 
have been registered and approved for use in both countries by the 
respective regulatory agencies.
  The bill would establish a procedure by which states may apply for 
and receive an Environmental Protection Agency label for agricultural 
chemicals sold in Canada that are identical or substantially similar to 
agricultural chemicals used in the United States. Thus, U.S. producers 
and suppliers could purchase such chemicals in Canada for use in the 
United States. The need for this bill is created by pesticide companies 
which use chemical labeling laws to protect their marketing and pricing 
structures, rather than protecting the public interest. In their 
selective labeling of identical or substantially similar products 
across the border they are able to extract unjustified profits from 
American farmers, and create unlevel pricing fields between our two 
countries.
  This bill is one legislative step in the process of full 
harmonization of pesticides between our two nations. It is designed 
specifically to address the problem of pricing differentials on 
chemicals that are currently available in both countries. We need to 
take this step, so that we can begin the process of creating a level 
playing field between farmers of our two countries. This bill would 
make harmonization a reality for those pesticides in which their actual 
selling price is the only real difference.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. 
        Gorton):
  S. 3109. A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 
1010 Fifth Avenue in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William Kenzo 
Nakamura United States Courthouse''; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


          the william kenzo nakamura united states courthouse

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
would designate the existing United States Federal Courthouse for the 
Western District of Washington in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William 
Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse.'' William Nakamura was born in 
1922, and grew up in Seattle, Washington. He attended public schools 
and was a student at the University of Washington when he and 110,000 
other Japanese Americans were removed from their communities and forced 
into internment camps.
  For many, the disgrace of the internment camps and the injustice of 
that American policy fostered resentment and anger. Rather than succumb 
to hate, William Kenzo Nakamura chose to fight for the very country 
that had treated him unjustly. He enlisted in the 442d Regimental 
Combat Team, which went on to become the most decorated military team 
in U.S. history. While fighting in Italy, Pfc. William Nakamura was 
killed on July 4, 1944. At the time of his death, he was providing 
cover for his retreating platoon. Earlier that day, he had also gone 
beyond the call of duty and single-handedly destroyed a machine-gun 
nest.
  Following his death, Nakamura's commanding officer nominated him for 
the Medal of Honor. According to Army policy at the time, Japanese 
Americans could not receive the Medal of Honor. Instead, Pfc. Nakamura 
was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the military's second 
highest honor. This past June, Pfc. Nakamura and 21 other Asian-
American veterans of World War II were finally honored with the 
Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye, who served in the same 
unit as Mr. Nakamura, was one of those who received the Congressional 
Medal of Honor that day. I was proud to be present at the White House 
for the ceremony.
  I am pleased that both of the Medal of Honor recipients in Congress 
are original cosponsors of the bill: Senators Inouye and Kerry. I am 
also honored to have my Washington state colleague, Senator Gorton, as 
an original cosponsor. Congressman McDermott is sponsoring this 
legislation in the House, and I thank him for his efforts. Like many 
Asian-American veterans, Nakamura didn't hesitate when his country 
called. He and many others went to war and gave their lives for 
freedoms which they and their families were denied at home.
  Mr. President, we can't undo the injustice suffered by Japanese-
Americans during World War II, but we can give these noble Americans 
the recognition they deserve. The William Kenzo Nakamura Courthouse 
will serve as a permanent reminder that justice must serve all 
Americans equally. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. 
        Kennedy):
  S. 3110. A bill to ensure that victims of domestic violence get the 
help they need in a single phone call; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                          ____________________