Date: 1988-09-20
Speaker: BE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

and the ranking minority member. Mr. MADIGAN. as well as Mr. BROWN and Mr. ROBERTSfor bringing to the floor today a bill that will revitalze the Federal Pesticide Regulatory Program. This legislation. S. 659. will provide needed reform of our pesticide law and enable the Environmental Protection Agency to get on with the essential task of reviewing the safety of thousands of pesticides on the market today. The health and environmental effects of extensive pesticide use in this country is an issue of growing public concern. Farmers and consumers alike want and need to be assured that the pesticides they use and the agricultural products they consume are safe. Such assurances can only be provided if EPA has the resources and commitment to complete timely safety reviews of all pesticidesparticularly the older chemicals which came on the market prior to the imposition of stricter safety data requirements. In 1972. Congress gave EPA the ambitious task of reviewing the safety of the reregistering all pesticides then on the market within a 3year period. Today. some 16 years later. EPA has barely scratched the surface. Of the 600 chemical ingredients of primary concern. EPA has completed reregistration for only 2. Since 1983. my Government Operations Subcommittee on Environment. Energy and Natural Resources has conducted numerous investigations of EPAs Reregistraton Program. We Identified a multitude of shortcomings and unacceptable delays in the safety review processmany of which will be corrected by the accelerated reregistration requirements of S. More recently. in 1986 and 1987. our subcommittee held hearings to review the current pesticide indemnification and disposal policies. Under present law when EPA finds that a pesticide presents an imminent public health hazard and bans its further use. the Agency is obligated to indemnify all holders of the product and pay all costs of its disposal. Our subcommittee found that these indemnification and disposal obligations have paralyzed the reregistration program. We found that Just the four emergency bans issued to date will cost taxpayers an estimated $260 million. We found that EPA had diverted funds from pesticide safety reviews to pay mounting disposal costs. In fiscal year 1989 alone. the Agency will spend more on pesticide disposal than it will on pesticide regulation. Clearly. this situation is unacceptable. As you will recall. Mr. Speaker. the current indemnification and disposal policies were the subject of considerable floor debate this summer when the House considered the fiscal year 1989 HUDindependent agencies appropriation. My subcommittee colleague and counterpart. the ranking minority member. Mr. CLINGER. and I urged the House to repeal the indemnification and disposal requirements. They are. in my view. the biggest Impediment to the revitilizaton of our pesticide regulatory program. While Mr. CLINGER and I were ultimately unable to offer our amendment last June. S. 659 changes radically the current indemnification and disposal requirements and I applaud the Agriculture Committee for addressing these issues. Quite frankly. the provisions adopted by the committee do not go as far as I would like. I continue to have some concerns. S. 659 preserves indemnification payments for farmers. I agree that farmers should not have to suffer economic loss if a pesticide they hold is banned. However. our subcommittee found that this has not been a problem in the past. We found that pesticide manufacturers and retailers. as with most other commercial products. have recalled their banned pesticides and reimbursed their customers. Is is an accepted business practice common to many industries. I am concerned. therefore. that preservation of farmer indemnification will have the unintended result of freezing decidedly dangerous chemicals in the hands of those we most want to protectthe American farmer. I am also concerned about the disposal provisions in S. 659. While the bill transfer the obligation and costs of pesticide disposal from the taxpayer to the manufacturer. as I believe it should. the EPA will continue to share a portion of the pesticide storage costs. While these costs may prove small in relation to EPAs current obligation. I do not believe they are legitimate or warranted taxpayer expenditures. I am also concerned that the costsharing provisions provide an unintended disincentive for proper and adequate disposal planning. Under S. 659. the manufacturer will pay 100 percent of storage costs while they develop a disposal plan. Once the plan is submitted to EPA. the Agency will pay 100 percent of the storage costs until the plan is approved. I am concerned that such fiscal pressures may encourage quick and perhaps incomplete preparation of a plan on the part of the manufacturer. and equally superficial review and approval of the part of EPA. I believe EPAs thoroughness in reviewing disposal plans will require close oversight. Nonetheless. these concerns do not diminish my support for S. 659. It repeals the most onerous and costly indemnification payments to pesticide producers and transfers the fundamental responsibility of disposal from EPA to the manufacturer. In short. these changes. along with other provisions in the bill. will enable EPA to proceed with the essential task of pesticide reregistration. In the end our farmers. consumers. and the pesticide industry itself will benefit greatly from restored public confidence in our Septemiber 20. 1988 Federal Pesticide Regulatory Program. I urge my colleagues to support S. 659. Mr. Speaker. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas LMr. DE LA GARZA]. the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Mr. Speaker. Is the legislative language In S. 659 regarding Indemnification and disposal that which was developed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and adopted in S. 1516.