U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–731 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–687

HEARING ON S. 1406, THE PESTICIDE

HARMONIZATION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRODUCTION AND PRICE 

COMPETITIVENESS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 23, 2004

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

ZELL MILLER, Georgia 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

HUNT SHIPMAN, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Majority Chief Counsel 

LANCE KOTSCHWAR, Majority General Counsel 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARK HALVERSON, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Hearing on S. 1406, The Pesticide Harmonization Act ........................................ 01

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Dole, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 01

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana ................................................ 02

WITNESSES 

Dorgan, Hon. Byron, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota ..................................... 03

Sharp, Adam, Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention,

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and Acting Agriculture Counsel to the 

EPA Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 05

Panel I 

Gage, Mark, President, National Association of Wheat Growers, Page, North 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 11

Gray, Jim, Pesticide Registration Coordinator, North Dakota Department of 

Agriculture, on behalf of the National Association of State Departments 

of Agriculture, Bismarck, North Dakota ............................................................ 09

Vroom, Jay, President and Chief Executive Officer, CropLife America,

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Burns, Hon. Conrad ......................................................................................... 25

Dorgan, Hon. Byron .......................................................................................... 22

Gage, Mark ....................................................................................................... 41

Gray, Jim .......................................................................................................... 35

Sharp, Adam ..................................................................................................... 27

Statements submitted by Senator Dole from Ralph Peck, Bob Stallman, 

Jake Cummins, and Rob Rynning ............................................................... 110–116

Vroom, Jay (with attachments) ....................................................................... 47

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Agricultural Policy Brief .................................................................................. 123

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 118

Conrad, Hon. Kent ........................................................................................... 120

Montana Farmers Union ................................................................................. 133

Provinces-States Advisory Group/Tri-National Agricultural Accord ............ 149

United States and Canadian Agricultural Herbicide Costs: Impacts on 

North Dakota Farmers ................................................................................. 134

(1)

HEARING ON S. 1406, THE PESTICIDE 

HARMONIZATION ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRODUCTION AND PRICE

COMPETITIVENESS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION AND FORESTRY, 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 

room SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Elizabeth 

Dole, 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Dole and Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH DOLE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON PRODUCTION AND PRICE COMPETITIVENESS,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Senator DOLE. Good morning. This meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness will come to 

order. 

Today, the Subcommittee will hear from various stakeholders 

and experts on the proposal to register Canadian pesticides for use 

in the United States. Specifically, we will focus on S. 1406 as proposed by Senator Dorgan and others. 

Senator Dorgan, Senator Burns, and other cosponsors I know 

have long sought legislation to ensure pricing parity across the 

northern border with Canada. This subcommittee has a responsibility to consider many factors associated with this issue. Certainly, 

it is important that we evaluate the true price differential data, including currency valuation and patent considerations. Our responsibility goes beyond comparing prices. We must also look at any 

new legal liability issues, and we need to look at the effects such 

legislation will have on EPA’s ability to ensure that chemicals registered for use in the United States are safe for humans and for 

the environment. 

We have not previously tasked EPA with imposing penalties derived from price comparisons, nor have we asked our courts to answer the question of who is legally responsible for damages due to 

application of a pesticide produced outside of this country. It is my 

desire to have a full exploration of these issues during today’s hearing. 

Senator Baucus. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

regret I cannot stay for the entire hearing. We are marking up in 

the Finance Committee now the Australian Free Trade Agreement. 

I deeply appreciate your holding this hearing. 

I might remind people who don’t know this, but agriculture accounts for over half of the economy in the State of Montana, and 

it has been tough. Years of drought and low prices and record high 

costs for fuel and for pesticides have contributed to quite low profit 

margins, in some cases no profit margin, and that is one reason 

why this hearing is so important. That is why it is so important 

that we harmonize the prices between the United States and Canada with respect to pesticides. 

Montana shares 445 miles of border with Canada. That is the 

longest of any State in the nation. The border isn’t everything that 

we share with Canada. We also share a similar climate. We share 

some of the same crops. When it comes to protecting these crops 

with the same chemicals made by the same companies, we face 

very different prices. 

We in Montana estimate that our farmers lose millions of dollars 

in increased pesticide costs a year. We are very pleased, frankly, 

by the study done by the University of North Dakota, which I know 

that the Senator from North Dakota will talk about more explicitly, 

but essentially, that study showed that the North Dakota producers’ total pesticide expenditures were at least 8 percent higher, 

8.3 percent higher, than they otherwise should have been. 

There is a grower in Montana named Herb Carst. He is a barley 

and wheat farmer, and this is a quote from him when he talked 

to me about this. He said, ‘‘Agriculture chemicals are one of my 

most expensive inputs, at an annual cost of approximately $50,000. 

I should be able to drive to my local dealer and purchase those 

products for the same price as my Canadian competitor. It is a barrier created through labeling.’’ He has anticipated he could save 

$4,000 if the prices were the same. 

He went up to Canada and poked around a little bit and he 

found that for the chemical Achieve, there is a difference of 5.3 percent. For Fellowmaster, a 24 percent difference. For Puma, a 29 

percent difference. The average of those differences is 19.6 percent. 

For all these reasons, I am a strong supporter of Senator Dorgan’s bill, S. 1406. There are many other Senators, as you mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, who are also cosponsors, including 

my colleague Senator Burns from Montana. 

This legislation amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act to permit the EPA in certain States to register a 

Canadian pesticide for distribution and use in the United States if 

the pesticide is substantially similar or identical to one already registered in the United States. It is very important that this legislation or something very close to it pass very quickly. The current regime is just unfair and we believe very strongly that the approach 

taken by the Senator from North Dakota is very much in the right 

direction. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this 

hearing and for also allowing me to speak at this time. 

3

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Senator Baucus. 

We will hear first from Senator Byron Dorgan, sponsor of the legislation. Welcome, Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. As 

you know from your service in the Senate, it is much harder to get 

things started than it is to get things stopped. We have been working a long while on this subject of chemical harmonization. 

As you know, the trade agreement that was done with Canada, 

including the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, offered promises of chemical harmonization, but as is usually the 

case with trade agreements, there is much more effort to negotiate 

them than there is to follow up on the details of the trade agreements themselves, and that is certainly true with this subject. 

I noted this morning that there was a new story about this issue 

and the chemical companies confidently predicted that this issue 

will go nowhere. They perhaps made that prediction based on past 

results. It has been a difficult and tortured trail to try to get this 

kind of legislation passed in the Congress. 

The cosponsors of this bill are myself, Senator Burns, Senator 

Conrad, Senator Daschle, Senator Crapo, Senator Johnson, Senator 

Baucus, a big, pretty broad, bipartisan group of Senators who believe very strongly that what is happening with respect to crossborder trade, or the absence of it, with respect to agricultural 

chemicals is unfair to our farmers. 

I might just put up a couple of charts to show you a couple of 

examples. I will, of course, do it from the standpoint of the impact 

on North Dakota farmers. These are price differentials, Stinger, 

Puma, Liberty, Glyphosphate, which is commonly called Roundup. 

You will see the price differentials there. 

The second chart, if you will put the second chart up just for a 

moment, the second chart talks about in the year 2002, according 

to a North Dakota State University study, North Dakota farmers 

paid $20 million more than they would have had they bought 

chemicals at the prices that the identical or nearly identical chemical was sold at in Canada. The point of that study is markets must 

be segregated if different prices are to be charged. The international border and trade restrictions then offer that capability to 

segregate and that is why we have these price disparities. 

If I might have that box of Liberty, that is the herbicide that—

I am told by the manufacturer that they actually have a different 

color box or a different kind of box. I assume they are putting the 

same chemical in it, however. This is used on canola acres. We 

plant a lot of canola acres in North Dakota. You can purchase this 

chemical called Liberty in Canada or you can purchase it in the 

United States. The names aren’t different and the chemical composition is not different in any significant way. 

The North Dakota cost would be $14 per acre applied and the 

Canadian cost, $9.60 per acre. That is a difference of $4.40 an acre. 

As I said, we have a substantial number of acres in North Dakota 

and it makes a big difference with respect to this price differential. 

4

In fact, our farmers are engaged in an international competition 

with respect to pricing. When you have input costs that are dramatically different, it has an impact on our ability to compete. 

Roundup is a chemical that has not as much price differential, 

$1.40 to $1.83 price differential, but we have 2.25 million acres on 

which Roundup is applied in North Dakota. That is $3.7 million in 

increased chemical costs for North Dakotans. 

The question here is, should this exist? We are having a similar 

debate with respect to reimportation of prescription drugs, not just 

from Canada but from other countries. Should we be able to reimport FDA-approved prescription drugs? It is an interesting question. Congress is coming down on the side of, yes, we should. The 

Senate has voted on that. The House has voted on it. We haven’t 

yet made that a law change because it has been opposed up the 

line by the Speaker and some others. 

In many ways, this is a similar question, and with respect to 

cross-border trade with Canada, should American farmers be prevented from accessing this chemical in Winnipeg, Canada, and 

being able to import it back into this country. The answer now is 

no. We suggest that with this legislation that this chemical be labeled and that the EPA—we don’t take this out of the hands of the 

EPA, but that we would allow the State agricultural authority, 

with the consent of EPA, to label an identical chemical and allow 

it to be imported into this country. 

Madam Chairwoman, the question has been around for a long 

while. It is long past the time to solve it. You will hear from my 

colleagues, as well. You heard from Senator Baucus today. You will 

hear from Senator Burns and Senator Crapo in Idaho. 

There is a reason this refrain comes from those of us who are on 

the border, because a farmer who farms just south of the Canadian 

border discovers that the identical product is sold just north but 

that he or she cannot purchase it and bring it south at this point 

without violating the law, and the chemical company understands 

this segregation of markets and they refuse to label it in this country. Therefore, they are able to hold up our farmers for a much, 

much higher price than is fair or is reasonable. 

We can correct that here in the Congress. This is where it should 

be corrected, and it has taken far too long already for this to have 

been done. My hope is that with your chairmanship and with the 

subcommittee, we can begin the process of marking this bill up, 

send it to the full committee, and send it to the floor of the Senate, 

where I believe you will find very strong support for the legislation. 

Thank you, and let me thank Senator Cochran, as well, for your 

willingness to hold this hearing. 

Senator DOLE. Yes, indeed. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I appreciate your concern regarding this issue, your hard work on it, and 

your excellent presentation. Thank you very much. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan can be found in the 

appendix on page 22.] 

Senator DOLE. I would like to include in the record the prepared 

statement of Senator Conrad Burns, who could not be with us this 

morning. 

5

[The prepared statement of Senator Burns can be found in the 

appendix on page 25.] 

Senator DOLE. We will hear next from Mr. Adam Sharp, who is 

the Associate Assistant Administrator of the Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Welcome, Mr. Sharp. 

STATEMENT OF ADAM SHARP, ASSOCIATE ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, 

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, AND ACTING AGRICULTURE

COUNSEL TO THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members 

of the subcommittee. I am Adam Sharp, Associate Assistant Administrator, EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. I am also currently the Acting Agricultural Counselor to 

the EPA Administrator. 

Let me ask first if I can have my full testimony, of course, submitted to the record. 

Senator DOLE. Yes. Without objection, yes. 

Mr. SHARP. Thank you. This morning, I will provide an overview 

on the long-term approaches that EPA is taking that will help address this issue as well as discuss the current legislation under 

consideration. 

First, I want to say that we have worked closely with Congressional staff over the last several years as well as with State officials and others to explore remedies that would help address price 

differences that U.S. farmers may be experiencing. As a result of 

those discussions, EPA has made significant progress on a variety 

of administrative and regulatory approaches that help facilitate 

equal access and harmonization. 

In the long term, let me describe some of our strategies and actions that EPA has taken, has been a part of over the last several 

years, as well as partnerships that we have developed with the Canadians and others in helping to establish some footholds on this 

very important issue. 

First, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, under 

the NAFTA Technical Working Group for Pesticides and through 

other international forums, EPA has been working closely with 

Canada and other trading partners to break down barriers and facilitate trade competitiveness. These partnerships have led to more 

consistent regulatory and scientific requirements, which in turn 

has increased harmonization between the U.S. and Canada. Over 

the years, EPA has achieved real success in facilitating freer trade 

in pesticides. 

For example, since 1998, the U.S. and Canada have been guided 

by a Record of Understanding. This agreement included provisions 

specific to pesticide harmonization and has encouraged greater cooperation among government regulators, growers, and the pesticide 

industry. This coordination has helped advance harmonization efforts between our two regulatory systems. 

The NAFTA TWG recently issued a 5-year strategy which put 

forward its goals for establishing a North American pesticide market. This vision promotes equal access to pesticides by offering inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:54 Nov 15, 2004 Jkt 094731 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\94731.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
6

centives, including a harmonized review process for new pesticide 

products and work sharing across national boundaries. 

To date, the vast majority of data requirements and test guidelines have been harmonized. The submission procedures and formats have also been harmonized, resulting in significant efficiencies for both registrants and also government reviewers. As a 

result, both work sharing and joint reviews of recent pesticide registration submissions and harmonization of risk assessment procedures between the U.S. and Canada have significantly improved. 

On priority pesticides, since 1999, EPA has worked very closely 

with the North Dakota Department of Agriculture, growers, industry groups, and others, trying to get a list of the products that we 

think are the priorities that the growers are telling us that they 

need and that there are real cost differences for. We came up with 

a list of 23 identified priorities. EPA has since registered 15 of 

those for growers’ use. We also have work underway to continue on 

the rest of those. 

Over the years, EPA has reached out to grower groups in an ongoing effort to reflect grower priorities in our current registration 

plans and priorities. We are focusing our resources on products 

that are most needed by growers. 

Another important piece of the TWG’s efforts is the creation of 

a NAFTA label, and some of the other folks after me are also going 

to talk a little bit about the NAFTA label. This is something we 

have been very supportive of. This label can help enable the sale 

and distribution of a pesticide across North America, thereby helping to make products available in Canada and the U.S. at the same 

time. 

The joint review program has resulted in simultaneous registration of 22 new pesticide products in the U.S. and Canada, with 12 

additional products currently under review. The governments are 

also sharing resources and scientific expertise or work sharing in 

reviewing data on several other pesticide products. 

You have our commitment to continue work within our current 

authorities to promote a level playing field for U.S. growers. We believe regulatory harmonization will continue to bear fruit and help 

create a more level playing field for pesticides. In the near term, 

EPA stands ready to continue to work with Congress and others on 

possible legislative solutions that effectively address observed differences in pesticide pricing, as long as the protection of public 

health and the environment are not compromised. 

However, there are some broad policy implementation concerns 

that the current legislation—that could have, I believe, additional 

ramifications for ourselves as well as potentially on other trade 

agreements, et cetera. 

Specifically for EPA, one of our concerns is implementation 

issues. For example, there are important questions regarding an individual registrant’s ability to assume the legal, financial, reporting, and other requirements of FIFRA. Of course, any legislation 

should not place unreasonable resource burdens on the government’s pesticide registration program or cause any unintended consequences on other priorities in regulating pesticides. 

In the long term, EPA is working to harmonize the availability 

of pesticide products between the U.S. and Canada through the 

7

NAFTA Pesticide Working Group, in cooperation with stakeholders, 

States, growers, and others. International harmonization on pesticide regulation efforts continue to be a key focus of EPA and 

these efforts hold significant promise to help alleviate some of the 

alleged pricing issues. 

In closing, I look forward to working with you, other Members of 

Congress and other affected stakeholders on this important issue, 

and I will take any questions that you have at this time. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Sharp. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharp can be found in the appendix on page 27.] 

Senator DOLE. The proposed legislation requires the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain the confidential statement of 

formula for any Canadian pesticide proposed for U.S. registration 

to determine if it is, in fact, identical or substantially similar to a 

product currently registered domestically. Now, how will EPA determine if a Canadian pesticide is substantially similar in composition to a domestically registered chemical? How will ‘‘substantially’’ 

be interpreted? 

Mr. SHARP. Right. We have talked with Senator Dorgan’s staff 

and others about technical advice on this legislation and there is 

certainly a list of issues that we have provided advice on. This is 

one of those, and for us, this is a key one. 

If the legislation passed, it would have a requirement on us to 

make a substantially similar finding, and the way the legislation 

currently is written, that burden is on EPA to make that decision. 

Our problem with that is the question that you just asked. Do 

we have any legal ability to get that information, the confidential 

business information, from a Canadian company to make that finding? The answer to that is no. We don’t have an ability to do that. 

Do we make substantially similar findings? Yes, we do, and we do 

all the time on ‘‘me too’’ types of registrations. It is a very specific 

type of registration activity that we take part of on a constant 

basis. That type of decision, a ‘‘me too’’ decision, is based on the 

confidential statement of formula that we have. If we can’t get it, 

it creates a real problem for us. 

Senator DOLE. Companies registering a product in the United 

States currently pay registration fees to help generate resources for 

EPA to conduct the necessary reviews. Now, under the proposed 

legislation, no such fee would be required, yet the EPA has to approve or disapprove the application within 60 days. How would this 

be paid for? 

Mr. SHARP. That is an unknown. I mentioned actually in my testimony the resource constraints. We have, and we are very happy 

to have, actually, the support of Congress recently in passing the 

PRIA legislation, a new fee system, and that is a terrific opportunity for us, for growers, for companies and others to be able to 

produce the results that folks have been wanting to get, which is 

a more timely assessment of products and registration of products. 

It also sets up a new fee system and a fee of scheduling for moving 

products through that system. 

This legislation would be outside that realm. I am not sure how 

it would actually fold in with the fee system or with our current 

resources. It would be potentially a resource drain on us to have 

8

to pull a priority and/or workloads from priority areas that we currently have and move them into doing this type of work. I guess 

one of our concerns has been if you move this legislation without 

additional resources, it certainly would cause a problem. 

One of the other issues that you mentioned is the 60-day time 

limit. I mentioned the ‘‘me too’s’’ a few minutes ago, of how we register products that are substantially similar within this country if 

we have the proper information. One of the challenges that we 

would have with this legislation is that currently, we have 90 days 

to make that type of finding. This would require 60 days. You certainly are even pushing the time limits down and the constraints 

even more so on the agency. 

Senator DOLE. You are saying it could divert attention away 

from registering new products? 

Mr. SHARP. Yes, it could. We currently have a priority system set 

up where we are registering newer, safer products all the time. 

Methyl bromide alternatives and others have priority standing 

within our systems and that is why we would have to shift probably resources from those to this area. 

Senator DOLE. S. 1406 allows EPA to delegate its authority to 

register a pesticide to a State, possibly resulting in a patchwork of 

pesticide registrations. At the same time, EPA is bound by NAFTA 

to work toward harmonization, as you said, at the Federal level 

and it is responsible for enforcing treaty obligations intended to result in harmonization throughout the States and territories. How 

will EPA reconcile these conflicting directives? 

Mr. SHARP. The legislation has changed a number of times. Certainly, at one point in time, and I am not sure if it is the current 

version or a prior version, but one of the prior versions has set up 

this type of a system where the delegation of registration would be 

moved from EPA to a State. That would potentially cause the type 

of situation where you would have individual States setting their 

individual standards or making individual regulatory decisions on 

products that are different from the Federal level. 

Senator DOLE. You would end up with a patchwork there. 

Mr. SHARP. Create a patchwork. That is a situation that we don’t 

currently have. We have several States that do extensive work on 

pesticides, but in this type of an arena, this type of a situation, we 

don’t have that currently and it could be troubling. I guess I look 

at it as it could actually lead to slowing down registrations. 

Senator DOLE. How will the U.S. meet its NAFTA obligation to 

protect confidential proprietary information supplied in connection 

with harmonization efforts if it has delegated authority to a State 

to compel confidential information? 

Mr. SHARP. Obviously, we have protections under FIFRA for protecting CBI information, confidential business information. One of 

the challenges that I know has come up in the past with this legislation and certainly one of the pieces of advice we have given Congress is that we would be very concerned if you moved the delegation to a State where you do have sunshine provisions and other 

types of requirements that could have that information moved out 

of the protected arena. That has been a concern for us. 

We, of course, under FIFRA have certain responsibilities, as well, 

when we are looking at information that we are making decisions 

9

on, that there are certain types of agreements made with the protection of that information and compensation and other requirements so that we can use that information. It would raise a lot of 

questions if you did move that type of an authority to a State as 

far as protection of information. 

Senator DOLE. How will EPA coordinate with Customs in processing the commerce of third party registrant chemicals? 

Mr. SHARP. This is a question that is unclear to us of how we 

would answer that if you had this legislation passed, because the 

question on coordinating with Customs, currently, we have a system in place where if you are going to import a pesticide into this 

country, there is a system set up where the importer notifies the 

EPA. We check the proper paperwork. We send back documentation that that product is allowed to come into this country. Then 

that paperwork comes with the product into this country. 

This legislation, when it talks about any person being a registrant, we are not sure what that means and who specifically 

would then be the registrant, who would be responsible for that paperwork movement and how you could coordinate it then with Customs in order to move product across the border. We have talked 

with and given our advice on this in that it is difficult for us to 

understand exactly practically how this could work for an individual to go across the border literally and purchase a product and 

bring it back, given that it does have to move across an international border. How that practically could work has been not real 

clear to us, the way the legislation is currently drafted. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharp. I appreciate 

your testimony this morning and look forward to working with you 

on this and other issues. 

Mr. SHARP. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much. 

Now, I would like to call our panel to the front, please, Mr. Jim 

Gray, Pesticide Registration Coordinator for the North Dakota Department of Agriculture; Mr. Mark Gage, President of the National 

Association of Wheat Growers; and Mr. Jay Vroom, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of CropLife America. Welcome, gentlemen. 

Let me begin with Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray, certainly the North Dakota Department of Agriculture is qualified to address some of 

these registration requirements. What principally do you view as 

your role under this proposal? 

STATEMENT OF JIM GRAY, PESTICIDE REGISTRATION

COORDINATOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE, 

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair. My role under this proposal as a State regulator would be to work with EPA. If they delegated that authority to a State, I would review that package. Otherwise, I would be a stakeholder in the process. 

Would you like for me to present the oral testimony now? 

Senator DOLE. Yes, please. 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is 

Jim Gray, Pesticide Registration Coordinator for the North Dakota 

10

Department of Agriculture, and I am here to testify in full support 

of S. 1406. I speak today on behalf of the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture, which represents the Commissioners, Secretaries, and Agriculture Directors of the State Departments of Agriculture in the 50 States and four U.S. territories. 

S. 1406 deals with the issue of pesticide price harmonization 

with Canada, a pressing issue in northern border States with nationwide impact. By granting EPA the authority to issue registrations to those parties that wish to import certain Canadian pesticides, the bill desegments the U.S. market with Canada, thereby 

eliminating significant pesticide price disparities. 

There are currently barriers in Federal statutes that prevent 

American farmers from legally importing and using Canadian pesticides without the consent of the product registrant, even if the 

products are identical in composition to pesticides already registered with the U.S. EPA. As a result, product registrants have 

been able to use the U.S.-Canadian border as a real artificial barrier to create two separate pesticide markets. Similar to the situation with pharmaceuticals, these artificially segmented pesticide 

markets can cause significant pesticide price disparities. 

Senator Dorgan presented many of those price disparities this 

morning. There is no need for me to go into those again. However, 

the price disparities are simply a symptom of this system of two 

segmented pesticide markets. 

The system of segmented pesticide markets is simply unfair to 

U.S. farmers, especially since grain from Canada treated with 

those lower-cost Canadian pesticides travels south of the border 

every day to compete with U.S. grain on the open market. We cannot continue to ask U.S. farmers to compete on such an unlevel 

playing field. 

Furthermore, the current system is a clear violation of Article 

102 of NAFTA, which states that the parties shall eliminate barriers to the trade in and facilitate the cross-border movement of 

goods and services between the territories of the parties. It is evident that existing Federal statutes pertaining to pesticide labeling 

create a clear barrier to the free trade in and cross-border movement of pesticides. 

Now, the ability to issue registrations for these Canadian pesticides without the consent of the registrants is a needed component of this bill. State pesticide regulators and farmers have tried 

to work in the past with registrants to import their pesticides from 

Canada, and so far, not one pesticide company has given its consent to purchase their products in Canada and import and use 

those products. Therefore, it is essential that a mechanism be created in which access to these Canadian pesticides is not contingent 

upon primary registrant consent and this bill provides that mechanism. 

I would also like to suggest two minor changes to the bill to focus 

efforts as well as to create a real long-term solution to this problem. Mr. Sharp this morning raised some resource concerns with 

EPA, and the issue with disparate pesticide prices between the 

U.S. and Canada is most prominent with farmers and ranchers, in 

the agricultural sector. Therefore, to focus on the most pressing 

11

needs of the agriculture user community, I recommend that the 

scope of S. 1406 be limited only to agricultural pesticides. 

Second, while S. 1406 is a real critical need to address pesticide 

price harmonization, it is not a long-term solution to the problem. 

Instead, the long-term solution to desegment the U.S. market with 

Canada is to label pesticides with joint pesticide labeling that 

meets the requirements of both the U.S. and Canada. Labeling 

products in such a way would negate the need for registrant consent for those products to cross the border. Instead, those jointly 

labeled products could cross the U.S.-Canadian border freely based 

solely on market forces. 

It is my understanding that the regulatory barriers to the creation of joint pesticide labeling have been largely resolved. However, use of joint labeling remains a voluntary option for the pesticide manufacturers. Because of this, the use of joint pesticide labeling has been virtually nonexistent. 

I suggest that language be added to S. 1406 mandating the use 

of joint U.S.-Canadian pesticide labeling in those situations where 

an identical or substantially similar pesticide is registered for use 

in both countries. However, such a requirement for use of joint pesticide labeling should become effective only when a similar mandate exists in Canada. Such language would be a logical complement to the existing bill. S. 1406 provides a real workable shortterm solution, while mandatory use of joint pesticide labeling is the 

ultimate long-term solution. 

American farmers have proven that they can produce the safest, 

highest-quality food in the world. However, to compete in today’s 

agricultural economy, they need to be able to operate on a level 

playing field with their major competition. This bill is one step in 

the creation of that level playing field. Thank you. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Gray. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray can be found in the appendix on page 35.] 

Senator DOLE. Mr. Gage? 

STATEMENT OF MARK GAGE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF WHEAT GROWERS, PAGE, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. GAGE. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my 

name is Mark Gage. I am a wheat, barley, and soybean producer 

from Eastern North Dakota and I am currently President of the 

National Association of Wheat Growers. I would like to thank the 

committee for holding this hearing today to help answer a simple 

but extremely important question. Why should I, as an American 

producer, have to pay a significantly higher price for crop protection products than my Canadian counterpart when we are both 

using the same product on the same crop? 

The National Association of Wheat Growers strongly supports S. 

1406, introduced by Senators Dorgan and Burns, as the best means 

to address this problem. I would urge the committee to favorably 

consider this legislation as part of any future deliberation. Prices 

on crop protection products between the United States and Canada 

have varied over the years for a number of reasons. However, even 

when taking exchange rates into consideration, many of these prodVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:54 Nov 15, 2004 Jkt 094731 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\94731.TXT TOSHD PsN: TOSH
12

ucts have consistently been priced lower in Canada than their identical counterpart sold in the United States. 

Considering the fact that the cost of crop protection products represents anywhere from ten to 15 percent of variable production 

costs, minor differences in these prices add a significant amount to 

the cost of doing business when competing with Canadians to sell 

our products in a global marketplace. 

As mentioned in my written testimony, a number of studies have 

shown that this price disparity exists. I would simply like to quote 

from an updated study completed in 2003 by North Dakota State 

University. The controversy between the U.S. and Canadian chemical prices is over 6 years old. With the exception of a few herbicides, very little has changed. The overall cost difference in 2002 

is about $1.56 per acre, but producers who use Liberty, Puma, FarGo, or Assert are disadvantaged by more than $3 per acre. Whether the situation is due to market manipulation or other economic 

factors is undetermined, but the cost difference exists and the cost 

for North Dakota farmers is over $20 million annually. 

Therefore, to eliminate price disparities, the U.S. and Canadian 

herbicide markets must be desegmented. This bill can best remedy 

this inequitable pricing structure by allowing the purchase of a less 

costly Canadian product to be registered for use by EPA in the U.S. 

if its identical or substantial product is already registered for domestic use. This product would remain under EPA regulation. It 

would not pose a health or environmental risk. It simply brings an 

additional degree of competitive pricing into the marketplace. 

Every competitive edge is needed in a global market. However, 

much is made of the current high commodity prices as if that 

should serve as cushion against high production cost, whether they 

are chemicals, fertilizer, or energy. Wheat is currently bringing 

$3.81 per bushel at my local elevator. My Canadian competitor, the 

state trading enterprise, can sell at the same elevator and get 

$3.81. I can’t get the Canadian price of $5.80 an acre for certain 

chemicals. 

This brings up a larger problem affecting all American agriculture. I attached to my written testimony a Wall Street Journal 

article dated June 18, 2004, titled, ‘‘New Farm Powers Sow the 

Seeds of America’s Agricultural Woes.’’ While the focus of this article is on wheat, implications for all of agriculture are very stark 

and very real. As the article notes, America’s run as a wheat powerhouse and dominant player in global agriculture is under attack 

from a crop of newly emboldened international rivals who are striking at one of the main pillars of American agricultural might, food 

exports. U.S. farmers are increasingly under pressure as they compete with commodities including Brazilian soybeans, Indian wheat, 

Chinese apples, Mexican tomatoes, and Argentine peanuts. This 

‘‘farms race’’ has implications beyond agriculture. America’s influence on issues such as international trade owes much of its domination to food. 

Madam Chairman, jump-starting America’s farms race for the 

21st century ought to be the top priority not only for the U.S. agricultural community, but also for all of America. Providing access to 

competitive production input costs is crucial, and that is why I 

13

strongly urge you to favorably report on S. 1406, the Pesticide Harmonization Act of 2004. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Gage. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gage can be found in the appendix on page 41.] 

Senator DOLE. Mr. Vroom, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CROPLIFE AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for this 

opportunity to represent the industry here this morning. I am Jay 

Vroom, President of CropLife America, the trade association that 

proudly represents the manufacturers, distributors, and formulators of virtually all the crop protection chemical and crop biotechnology products used by our most valued customer in the entire 

world, the American farmer. 

I want to express my appreciation to you for inviting me to 

present our views. My remarks will highlight some items out of our 

written testimony, which I appreciate the inclusion in the record, 

and also respond to some of the other comments that already have 

been made this morning. 

As regards the attachments to our advance written testimony, we 

have those items on posters. The first one illustrates the notations 

that have already been made this morning about the fact that the 

Canadian dollar has strengthened against the United States dollar 

and that has contributed significantly to addressing the disparities 

that have been addressed previously. 

This next chart illustrates the fact that American farmers overall 

are paying much, much less for the same or greater amounts of our 

industry products in the last 10 years or so. This is driven by the 

fact that we have more and more competitors, many of our products have gone off patent, and the fact that the approximately $1.5 

billion that have come off of our total sales earnings by industry 

in the United States really has gone straight to the bottom line of 

the American farmer. 

This chart illustrates the comparative relativity of the green line 

across the bottom, which is barely visible and represents the cost 

of pesticides as part of the American farmers’ expense over the last 

12 or so years, and the fact that it is essentially a flat line when 

cast against the larger economics of gross farm income, total farm 

expenses, and the like. 

Despite the fact that our industry sales have gone down, our industry’s investment in research and development to find newer, 

better products and defend older products’ safety has continued, 

and as Mr. Sharp has indicated in his testimony earlier this morning, the EPA has continued to register more new products of our 

industry as presented for licensing application in recent years. The 

total number of new use products adopted and approved by EPA 

has also continued to improve. 

These are important illustrations that provide a backdrop to the 

discussions that we are having here this morning around S. 1406. 

My organization has been involved and I have led it in this regard for more than 15 years around these issues related to U.S.-

14

Canada pesticide harmonization. In fact, I and my staff were involved before there was a NAFTA, when we called it the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and we were very pleased with the support that we got even in the early days of the Canada Free Trade 

Agreement during the Reagan administration. 

As the issue expanded into the controversy of price perceptions 

across the border 6 years ago, I have been personally engaged at 

every stage of the way. I have testified now at each of the four U.S. 

Congressional hearings on the price perception issue. I have engaged in attempts to dialog, compromise, fix, and respond to the 13 

separate Congressional bills that have been introduced on this subject over these 6 years. I have represented my industry at two U.S.-

Canada summit meetings convened by USDA during the Clinton 

administration, spent countless hours with our industry experts 

and grower organizations as we partner together with EPA, working in the NAFTA Technical Working Group that Mr. Sharp referred to earlier. 

Maybe most importantly, I still own my family farm in Illinois 

and I have to look my brother-in-laws and cousin in the eye when 

we talk about these very issues. After more than 30 years of working in various agribusiness segments in the United States, I take 

this role seriously. I want U.S. agriculture overall and my personal 

little part of it to prosper, to compete fairly, and succeed. 

I mentioned previously that on this U.S.-Canadian legislation we 

have offered previously to seek common ground, to consider compromise to legislative solutions. That is no longer my position nor 

the position of CropLife America. As you can see from my written 

testimony, we have done the most comprehensive analysis yet of S. 

1406 and have both more completely articulated the problems with 

the legislation that we had previously pointed out and have identified a significant host of additional concern areas. 

Most, if not all of these areas, I am confident, are unintended 

consequences in Senator Dorgan’s drafting, for he would not purposely set out to propose legislation with such negative side effects. 

They are problems nonetheless. The significant list includes five I 

would like to lift up in just a few moments. 

No. 1, the legislation does not advance the already substantial 

progress of regulatory harmonization accomplished under the 

TWG. In fact, we believe honestly that S. 1406 would seriously dilute the continued progress of the TWG and our EPA’s ability to 

advance real regulatory progress. Mr. Sharp’s comments supported 

that notion, as well. 

No. 2, we believe that S. 1406 is not in harmony with our existing NAFTA and WTO treaty obligations, and as such is probably 

not even the exclusive jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. 

No. 3, S. 1406 contravenes many crucial U.S. intellectual property laws and international trade obligations. 

No. 4, S. 1406 creates potential user safety concerns. 

No. 5, potential for crop application and mistakes and crop risks. 

On the latter two points, I refer you to several product label examples that we brought along today that are attached to our written testimony showing the comparable U.S. and Canadian labels 

for what have been portrayed by many in this debate in recent 

15

years as products that farmers use on both sides of the border and 

depend on heavily. 

Concerns of note that these labels illustrate include the fact that 

labels in the United States are in English only, while Canada requires French companion language presentations on the labels. No. 

2, U.S. products bear measurements in English units, Canadian labels are in metric units. The two countries require different warning pictograms for safety communications. Different product question toll-free numbers apply on both sides of the border, and in 

fact, you cannot access from most United States telephone exchanges Canadian 800 numbers, raising the question that if, in the 

case of an emergency, someone tried to dial one of those numbers, 

would help not be able to be provided? 

Often, products that appear to be identical are actually not. Significantly different product formulations are used in the two markets and one might be too strong and damage crops if used in the 

other market using practices that farmers in that domestic market 

were used to employing. 

Another important point Mr. Sharp alluded to. How would Customs officials figure out if the correct S. 1406 supplemental labels 

applied to the correct Canadian product container when presented 

for import into the United States? What are the security considerations that follow along that track? 

Finally, Madam Chairman, we point out that when examined 

overall and not on the basis of selective price comparisons, any previously existing significant price differentials that disadvantage allegedly North Dakota farmers compared to Canadian farmers have 

evaporated. In fact, the most recent North Dakota State University 

study that Mr. Gage just referred to, the 2003 study, shows that 

overall, North Dakota farmers were better off by over $1 million on 

the list of 35 products on the chart as opposed to what Canadian 

farmers paid. 

We do not find anything about S. 1406 that we can agree with 

or suggest a compromise for. Indeed, Senator Dorgan and others 

who have proposed such legislation in these past 6 years have 

drawn a great deal of attention to the issues of more fair product 

availability and cost and they have been heard by the marketplace 

and by those who have had the continued impact of progress 

around regulatory harmonization. The price problem, to the extent 

that it previously existed, has been extensively addressed. 

Senator Dorgan can take credit, just as President Reagan won 

the Cold War without firing a shot, of helping resolve an issue 

without having to amend U.S. law. We propose to continue to work 

with Mr. Dorgan and others on the Hill and in the administration 

to ensure continued progress around real regulatory harmonization 

and that we continue this journey of positive interchange under the 

context of NAFTA. 

I look forward to responding to your questions, particularly 

around some of the product-specific issues that have been raised. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Vroom. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom can be found in the appendix on page 47.] 

Senator DOLE. Mr. Gray——

Mr. GRAY. Yes? 

16

Senator DOLE. The legislation allows the Administrator of EPA 

to delegate functions under this subsection to a State. Do you believe that most State Departments of Agriculture have the financial 

resources and the expertise necessary to carry out such functions 

as determining that the chemical is identical or substantially similar to a domestically-registered pesticide or obtaining a confidential 

statement of formula or determining tolerances for food use chemicals? 

Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Madam Chair. The answer is yes. As a 

pesticide regulator, I review confidential statements of formula all 

the time as part of my State regulatory duties. I would urge the 

EPA, if they did delegate this authority, to delegate it only to those 

States that they are convinced have expertise and adequate resources and adequate State laws that do protect that data as being 

confidential. 

The real process of that review is to lay the Canadian confidential statement of formula side-by-side with the U.S. confidential 

statement of formula and make sure that the products have the 

same ingredients at comparable concentrations, and most State 

regulators have that technical expertise. 

Senator DOLE. What are the standards? How is an applicant to 

demonstrate that a pesticide is identical or substantially similar? 

What kind of standards——

Mr. GRAY. We would need to work with EPA on really developing 

what that definition of ‘‘substantially similar’’ means. My definition 

would be that the Canadian product only contains U.S.-approved 

active and inert ingredients at the same concentrations. To me, 

that would be identical or substantially similar. Then you get into 

questions of, what if it is 2 or 3 percent concentration different? Is 

that substantially similar? We would need some guidance from 

EPA on that. 

Senator DOLE. I note the legislation limits the liability of both 

the EPA and the individual registrant. Do you believe there are instances in which a State Department of Agriculture could be held 

legally liable for injury or damages resulting from use of a Canadian product registered under the new subsection? This assumes, 

of course, that much of the data used to support the registration 

will be furnished by the State Agriculture Departments. 

Mr. GRAY. I don’t see liability as being a major issue with this 

bill. What the bill does limit EPA’s liability is as the registering 

agency, not as the registrant. Now, the supplemental registrant, for 

lack of a better term, for this bill, and for the most part, that is 

not going to be an individual farmer going north of the border to 

purchase a Canadian product. 

I envision if this bill passes that the majority of registrants are 

going to be the major chemical distributors and dealers that are 

going to source Canadian wholesale sources of these products. 

Their liability really centers upon those stages of production that 

are under their knowledge or under their control. 

The way EPA’s enforcement viewpoint works now is that if there 

is a problem with the formulation or packaging of a product, that 

party that had the direct control over the formulation or packaging 

would have that liability. I don’t see that changing with this bill. 

17

If there is a problem with the importation or the relabeling, the 

secondary registrant would have to assume liability for that. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gage, under the proposed legislation, any person may seek 

to register a Canadian pesticide, including an individual farmer or 

farmer cooperative that might then sell it to other farmers. The 

registrant or farmer cooperative in this case is responsible for labeling the product appropriately, and I note that the proposal, for 

example, holds the farmer cooperative harmless if the product becomes adulterated. However, I do not see any protection for 

mislabeling. Do you think the farmer cooperative could be held liable for any inadvertent crop damages resulting from mislabeling? 

Mr. GAGE. As I understand the bill, when they pick up the product, it would be relabeled at that point. I do not believe that there 

would be—that there is a problem with mislabeling, and so I don’t 

foresee that problem. I don’t see a problem with—for my local cooperative in liability. 

Senator DOLE. S. 1406 does not speak to whether Canadian or 

U.S. intellectual property laws apply to Canadian pesticides sold in 

the United States. Are intellectual property laws in the U.S. and 

Canada the same, and if they are not, which intellectual property 

laws would apply to Canadian pesticides sold in the United States 

if S. 1406 is passed? 

Mr. GAGE. I really don’t know if the intellectual property laws 

are exactly the same in the U.S. and Canada. Since we are in the 

United States, I would assume that U.S. laws apply here. 

Senator DOLE. How do your growers feel about a NAFTA label? 

Mr. GAGE. We are very supportive of a NAFTA label. Ultimately, 

that will be our ultimate goal. We need remedies before that takes 

place. I know that there have been examples cited, how the agencies are working together and passing products through under that 

format now. There are things that can happen in that process that 

can throw that out of line. 

I personally know of an example of a chemical that I was told 

by a company that was under joint review, and so I was at EPA 

and I was asking how the registration process was coming on this 

because it is under joint review, as I understood it. EPA told me 

that it wasn’t under joint review. They were sharing some information, but it didn’t qualify for joint review because you have regulations on determining what qualifies for joint review. One of those 

regulations was that it had to be—the registration had to be applied for on the same day in the United States and Canada, and 

under that particular product, the company applied in Canada 

months before, earlier than they applied in the U.S. Really, it 

wasn’t under joint review, which throws that process out of whack 

and raises questions with growers. 

Why are we being penalized? We need something in the meantime when we are working toward a NAFTA label. We need this 

legislation in the meantime to equalize some of the disparities in 

prices. 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Gage. 

Mr. Vroom, the domestic companies you represent are not seeking to register Canadian product in the United States. However, 

under this proposal, they must supply EPA with information about 

18

the Canadian chemical simply because it is produced by an affiliate. The Canadian affiliate is not bound by U.S. law to provide 

this information, leaving the domestic company vulnerable to litigation in a situation that they have little control over. It seems 

that domestic chemical companies carry the entire burden with 

none of the financial benefits. 

Could the increased costs associated with this proposal result in 

the need to raise prices on products that they sell domestically? 

Mr. VROOM. Senator, there is a very real possibility of that and 

we certainly understand that the litigation question is not theoretical. Our industry faces substantial product liability litigation on 

an ongoing basis across the country, and in fact, as we look at our 

global marketplace, the United States is the most expensive to operate in with regard to the litigation overhead cost, defense, settlement of cases, and the like. 

Senator DOLE. I understand that Liberty herbicide is sold in both 

the United States and Canada, correct? 

Mr. VROOM. Yes. 

Senator DOLE. If a grower were to purchase the Canadian 150 

formulation in Canada and bring it to the United States to use on 

his corn crop, what would be the result? 

Mr. VROOM. We would anticipate that there would be a very real 

possibility of crop damage by way of misapplication of the product 

because of what appears to be a slight, but a substantial, differentiation in the product concentration. We actually have brought as 

props for my presentation copies of the Liberty boxes and labels. 

There are two here and one is on the floor. 

As you can see, they look very similar in the United States formation, which is this one, to the Canadian one, but, in fact, the 

bottles inside are different size, one being in metric and the other 

being in English units. The container instructions and language 

are also different. We feel that it would be very easy to make a 

mistake in crop application and damage the crop, and then back to 

your earlier question, whose liability is that? 

Senator DOLE. Is Liberty more or less expensive in the United 

States today than in Canada? 

Mr. VROOM. According to the experts that we have consulted, including the manufacturer of the product, if you compare the like 

product, active ingredient concentrations, the price per gallon in 

the United States today is lower. Senator Dorgan referred to 2002 

comparative data on Liberty. The 2003 data clearly show that that 

relationship has switched. 

Senator DOLE. If Liberty is now cheaper in the United States 

than in Canada on a per gallon basis, what happened in the past 

few years to effectuate this change? 

Mr. VROOM. Well, a number of factors as is the case when markets are working. In the case of Liberty, the manufacturer have 

heard from their growers and part of that was amplified by the 

work that Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy and other 

proponents of their legislation on the Hill. They have reduced their 

price in the United States by nearly a third. 

I can’t speak to their other specific reasons for changing pricing, 

but the result of generic competitors that have come into the marketplace with competing products, the impact of the change in the 

19

relationship of currency valuations, and many other factors contribute. 

Senator DOLE. Gentlemen, I thank all three of you very much for 

being here today. 

I would like to include for the record written statements from 

Ralph Peck, Director of the Montana Department of Agriculture; 

the Montana Grain Growers Association; Bob Stallman, President 

of the American Farm Bureau Federation; Jake Cummins, Executive Vice President of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation; and 

Rob Rynning, President of the National Barley Growers Association. 

[The prepared statements can be found in the appendix on page 

110.] 

Senator DOLE. Since there are no other questions, I declare this 

Subcommittee hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(21)

A P P E N D I X

JUNE 23, 2004

22


94731.003
23


94731.004
24


94731.005
25


94731.006
26


94731.007
27


94731.008
28


94731.009
29


94731.010
30


94731.011
31


94731.012
32


94731.013
33


94731.014
34


94731.015
35


94731.016
36


94731.017
37


94731.018
38


94731.019
39


94731.020
40


94731.021
41


94731.022
42


94731.023
43


94731.024
44


94731.025
45


94731.026
46


94731.027
47


94731.028
48


94731.029
49


94731.030
50


94731.031
51


94731.032
52


94731.033
53


94731.034
54


94731.035
55


94731.036
56


94731.037
57


94731.038
58


94731.039
59


94731.040
60


94731.041
61


94731.042
62


94731.043
63


94731.044
64


94731.045
65


94731.046
66


94731.047
67


94731.048
68


94731.049
69


94731.050
70


94731.051
71


94731.052
72


94731.053
73


94731.054
74


94731.055
75


94731.056
76


94731.057
77


94731.058
78


94731.059
79


94731.060
80


94731.061
81


94731.062
82


94731.063
83


94731.064
84


94731.065
85


94731.066
86


94731.067
87


94731.068
88


94731.069
89


94731.070
90


94731.071
91


94731.072
92


94731.073
93


94731.074
94


94731.075
95


94731.076
96


94731.077
97


94731.078
98


94731.079
99


94731.080
100


94731.081
101


94731.082
102


94731.083
103


94731.084
104


94731.085
105


94731.086
106


94731.087
107


94731.088
108


94731.089
109


94731.090
110


94731.091
111


94731.092
112


94731.093
113


94731.094
114


94731.095
115


94731.096
116


94731.097
(117)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

JUNE 23, 2004

118


94731.001
119


94731.002
120


94731.098
121


94731.099
122


94731.100
123


94731.116
124


94731.117
125


94731.118
126


94731.119
127


94731.120
128


94731.121
129


94731.122
130


94731.123
131


94731.124
132


94731.125
133


94731.128
134


94731.101
135


94731.102
136


94731.103
137


94731.104
138


94731.105
139


94731.106
140


94731.107
141


94731.108
142


94731.109
143


94731.110
144


94731.111
145


94731.112
146


94731.113
147


94731.114
148


94731.115
149


94731.126
150

Æ


94731.127