[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11608-11610]
[From the U.S. 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 
     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

[[Page 11609]]

     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, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Cortez 
        Masto, and Ms. Hirono):

[[Page 11610]]

  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.

                          ____________________