TESTIMONY FOR DEPUTY SECRETARY ROMINGER

FOR THE FQPA IMPLEMENTATION HEARING

AT

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

9:00 A.M., JUNE 25TH

1300 LONGWORTH HOB

Thank you for inviting Fred Hansen and me to be with you here today. The Administration appreciates this opportunity to discuss the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) with the Committee. We are also interested in your views on how we can implement the Food Quality Protection Act in a way that continues the broad-based support that existed for this law at enactment.

Although Fred has already discussed the four principles of the Administration for implementing the Food Quality Protection Act that were set forth on April 8, 1998 by the Vice-President in his memorandum to Secretary Glickman and Administrator Browner, let me repeat them:

To meet these objectives, and to ensure full public participation in the implementation of the FQPA, the Vice President, Secretary Glickman and Administrator Browner have instructed Fred and me to chair a Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) that will advise the Administration on how best to proceed with fulfilling the requirements of the law. The TRAC has met twice, and, after an admittedly rough start almost a month ago, the group, as a whole, has decided to make some adjustments to the process and its agenda. While we may not reach consensus on many of the difficult issues, both Fred and I are optimistic that the advisory group will provide valuable and concrete advice on the processes we can use to ensure broad and reasoned comments from all affected by the changes the FQPA makes. I do think this is the view and desired outcome of the majority of the TRAC membership. The USDA looks forward to continuing our work with the EPA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the membership of the TRAC to review, to discuss, and to define the policy and procedural options that are available for the Administration to exercise in achieving the requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act.

Clearly the law, with its emphasis on standards that protect children, poses new challenges and opportunities to U.S. agriculture and USDA; we are prepared to meet these challenges. I am particularly pleased that the law provides an enhanced role for the USDA to represent the agriculture sector in the regulatory process and to provide EPA with reliable, real world data to inform better the regulatory process.

Working with EPA and the agricultural community, USDA has already made changes to data collection and data support programs like the Pesticide Data Program, the National Food Consumption Survey, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service Pesticide Use Surveys. In general, the changes to these programs enhance the size, scope, and value of our data bases. Specifically, we must ensure that the data collected are relevant both to the risk assessment tools used by EPA and to policy considerations for USDA, agricultural producers, EPA, and HHS. We must also guarantee that data are reliable and can be recognized by all stakeholders as reflective of real world conditions for pesticide use and pesticide exposure.

This year, also working with EPA, the grower community, and the Congress, USDA has established a new Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) to guide the Department’s implementation of FQPA and coordinate the Department’s pest management programs and policies. The director of the Office of Pest Management Policy answers directly to and carries the authority of the Office the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. The OPMP will coordinate closely with EPA, grower groups, and the state land-grant university system to develop and provide important crop specific information that will be key to supporting growers and demonstrating critical pest control needs for commodities, as well as for supporting regulatory decisions at EPA and programming decisions at USDA.

In particular, the OPMP will be instrumental in developing important mitigation plans, such as lowering label rates and increasing pre-harvest spray intervals, for EPA’s consideration as alternatives to eliminating important uses for regulated pesticides. OPMP is also responsible for working with growers and the EPA to develop transition strategies for commodities affected when a pesticide use must be eliminated. The research needs of growers of at-risk crops with certain crop-pest profiles that require mitigation and transition strategies will be addressed under the Department’s Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP). Program managers will consult closely with OPMP in establishing program priorities.

Also, managers of the Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4) Program, which develop important field trial data to support new and important minor crop tolerance petitions, have implemented a new priority setting process to ensure at-risk, minor crops have efficacious pest management alternatives before regulatory decisions are made that halt the use of existing pesticides. The program managers are working closely with growers, registrants, and EPA to register new and safer alternatives for minor crops.

The law also provides an opportunity for USDA, growers, and EPA to review and, as necessary, refocus the USDA research agenda to meet producer needs that may

derive from FQPA regulatory decisions. The Vice President specifically asked the Secretary and the Administrator of EPA to review their respective operating plans and budgets to expedite new product approvals and expand integrated pest management strategies. Review and reassessment of the research and education agenda is an ongoing process. The Administration is committed to using the FQPA implementation process and the TRAC to assist us in developing a solid and responsive research and outreach agenda to support U.S. growers and the agricultural industry.

The Department, with your support and that of the grower community, the White House and the EPA, has implemented many reforms over the past year to implement FQPA. The President’s Fiscal Year 1999 budget submitted to Congress in February sets forth an estimate of what the Department would need to meet its responsibilities to the grower community and to EPA under FQPA. Unfortunately, after several months of working with the Congress, EPA, and U.S. growers to develop a FQPA implementation strategy and budget, we are concerned that important parts of the implementation budget are in jeopardy.

As our appropriations bill stands now, among other setbacks, the Office of Pest Management Policy will either be eliminated or, at the best, will be unable to develop crop specific mitigation or transition strategies; the Pesticide Data Program will be unable to initiate a pesticide residue monitoring program for drinking water to address aggregate exposure requirements of FQPA, will be unable to support an important acute dietary exposure program, and, more than likely, will have to negatively impact program capability by ending its long-time financial support for some state sampling operations and laboratory facilities; the Pest Management Alternatives Program will be only partially effective in meeting the needs of the most at-risk crop-pest combinations and program managers will not have the benefit of the crop specific profiles that were to be completed by the Office of Pest Management Policy and our land-grant university partners; the Department will not be able to develop large-scale areawide implementation projects; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service will be unable to initiate a new survey of pesticide use practices in the nursery crop industry and will be seriously limited in its efforts to enhance existing commodity pesticide use surveys. Planned data refinements and programs, such as these, could be the difference between retaining or losing a pest management tool for some commodities.

Finally, the President has signed the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 which will provide an additional $120 million per year for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems and $30 million per year, more or less, for research under the Fund for Rural America, both of which can and will be used to enhance the Department’s overall FQPA implementation strategy. However, we are very concerned about constraints being placed on these programs in the pending appropriations bills.

In general, the pending House and Senate appropriations bills could severely limit any further, meaningful participation by the USDA in the FQPA implementation process that could translate into unfortunate and decidedly avoidable impacts on some agricultural producers, particularly minor crop farmers. Certainly, these are problems the Department wishes to avoid, and we are committed to working with Congress to resolve these programmatic issues.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that the law provides many opportunities for USDA, EPA, HHS and all participants in the agricultural sector of the economy to further develop constructive, working relationships. I believe the FQPA implementation policy we have described here today will ensure American consumers, including children, continue to have a safe and abundant food supply produced by a strong and competitive U.S. agricultural industry. Ultimately, a law and a process that allows and requires the government to confirm clearly, unequivocally, and confidently the safety of the pest management tools used by U.S. growers is important and valuable to us all.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have.