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

and the "Godfather" of this legislation. if you will. the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations. Research. and Foreign Agriculture. my friend and colleague. Mr. BROWN of California. They deserve every credit for the progress we hope to achieve. Mr. Speaker. while this is truly landmark legislation considering the time and effort we have put into this bill. I do have mixed emotions. There are several amendments that our committee previously accepted and the House passed within the scope of FIFRA. And. I am hard pressed to proceed without addressing the issues upon which we have worked so hard. I am talking about national uniformity so that we can protect the interstate marketing of our Nations food supply and establish agreed upon health and safety standards for all Americans. I am talking about farmer liability language over and above what is inferred in this bill and I am talking about groutid water legislation. at least to the extent of the fine ground water research bill the House has already passed. But. as troubled as I am for not dealing with these issues. or the virtual truckload of "noncontroversial" and needed amendments trailing close behind. I recongize that any one of these amendments could have killed this effort. In effect. we are putting FIFRA on a series of upordown votes until enactment into law. Simply put. we take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker. it is in the best interests of agriculture. the farmer and the rancher. and the public. that we take it. At the outset. I was not convinced of the merits of this approach or procedure. However. I now believe the House Agriculture Committee and the interests of the agriculture community are better served by passing this bill and only this bill. Obviously the issues we have left on the doorstep will be back next year and will demand attention. More to the point. I believe this bill has important benefits for agriculture. If we are going to be assured of a plentiful food supply of high quality in this country we are going to need pesticides that are safe and effective. I believe that agriculture is in greatest jeopardy of losing valuable chemical tools when the EPA lacks the confidence of the American public. We in agriculture must appreciate the significance of a credible reregistration program. This bill puts the EPA on the right track. and its a bill that once and for all puts to rest the assertions that the EPA has neither the authority or the resources to regulate pesticides adequately. Then there is the issue of indemnification. Mr. Speaker. despite all of the rhetoric and the understandable emotion and frustration connected with this issue. it has not received the fair hearing it deserves. September 2. 1.988 September .0. 1988 CO Let me point out that people opposed to the very notion of indemnification offer up comparisons between things such as cars and toasters and pesticides. The common point made is that its easier to recall a toaster than a pesticide and we darn sure ought to make the manufacturer pay for it. I would expect a toaster manufacturer would and should know whether or not his product will pose any hazard to the public. The technology of a toaster. I would assume. is relatively well understood and objective assessments of safety are easily rendered. And. I believe the same is true of automobiles although that example is more complex. On the other hand. pesticides are different type of product. They are complex chemicals meant to perform complex tasks in an extremely diverse biological environment. The system to ascertain a pesticides safety is rigorous. comprehensive. complex and costly but it is also far more subjective than determining the safety of a toaster. Using a parts per billion and even trillion technology. if you run three sets of tests on mice. rats and guinea pigs to determine the cancer causing potential of a pesticide. and you fund a statistically significant occurence of benign tumors in the livers of those animals. does the pesticide get yanked off the market? Can we make a risk assessment projection? Will the public safety be protected? Will the farmer be denied a commonly used pesticide. lose a crop. and be forced out of business? Will the resulting infestation be more of a public safety hazard? I do not Intend to perjure the manner of which EPA and Industry conducts these tests and determines their significance or the comments and criticism by countless other groups and organizations. but after hour upon hour of hearings before our DORFA Subcommittee. I do know as a fact that scientists have legitimate disagreements. It Is to the point that I am not certain that the science of risk assessment Is capable of satisfying the political demands of the public. It is not pure. clear cut or objective. However. Mr. Speaker. despite these differences and inadequacy of modern risk assessment techniques to square up with precision that we demand of the process. we are nonetheless going to eliminate indemnification for pesticide manufacturers. I suspect the end result of this effort will be directly opposite of what its sponsors hope to accomplish but at least In this bill Indemnification Is preserved for farmers and end users and that is the absolute minimum requirement to this Member. Mr. Speaker. as a result. of this particular amendment. I will predict to you that the research and development we must have to bring newer and less toxic pesticides on line will be severely hampered. We certainly need hearings to monitor this situation. Having expressed my reservations. let me say again however. that I do support this bill. It is truly landmark legislation. Again. I commend the leadership of Mr. BROWN. Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. MADIGAN and others on the Committee for their help in expediting this legislation.