Congressional Hearings
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT: PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH CERTAINTY THROUGH THE PESTICIDE REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.AG 8/3
Congress: Senate
CHRG-115shrg28499
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssaf00 | S | S | Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry |
[Senate Hearing 115-171]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-171
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION UNDER THE
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,
AND RODENTICIDE ACT:
PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH
CERTAINTY THROUGH THE PESTICIDE
REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 11, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-499 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JONI ERNST, Iowa MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
James A. Glueck, Jr., Majority Staff Director
Anne C. Hazlett, Majority Chief Counsel
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Joseph A. Shultz, Minority Staff Director
Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Pesticide Registration Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders With Certainty
Through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act............. 1
----------
Thursday, May 11, 2017
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.... 2
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan... 3
Panel I
Keigwin, Richard P. Jr., Acting Director, Office of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 5
Kunickis, Sheryl, Director, Office of Pest Management Policy,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC................. 7
Panel II
Murden, Dale, Past Chair, National Sorghum Producers; Past Chair,
Texas Sorghum Producers; President, Texas Citrus Mutual,
Mission, TX.................................................... 25
Black, Hon. Gary W., Commissioner, Georgia Department of
Agriculture, Atlanta, GA....................................... 27
Vroom, Jay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Croplife
America, Washington, DC........................................ 28
Ruiz, Virginia E., Director of Occupational and Environmental
Health, Farmworker Justice, Washington, DC..................... 30
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Black, Hon. Gary W........................................... 42
Keigwin, Richard P. Jr....................................... 49
Kunickis, Sheryl............................................. 60
Murden, Dale................................................. 63
Ruiz, Virginia E............................................. 69
Vroom, Jay................................................... 73
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Roberts, Hon. Pat:
Various organizations, letter of support for the Pesticide
Registration Enhancement Act............................... 78
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers
Association, letter of Support for the Pesticide
Registration Enhancement Act............................... 80
Question and Answer:
Black, Hon. Gary:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 84
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 87
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 88
Keigwin, Richard P. Jr.:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 93
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 98
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 103
Kunickis, Sheryl:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 105
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 106
Murden, Dale:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 107
Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow...... 109
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 110
Ruiz, Virginia:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 112
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 113
Vroom, Jay:
Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts.......... 115
Written response to questions from Hon. Patrick J. Leahy..... 117
PESTICIDE REGISTRATION UNDER THE
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,
AND RODENTICIDE ACT:
PROVIDING STAKEHOLDERS WITH CERTAINTY THROUGH THE PESTICIDE
REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT
Thursday, May 11, 2017
United States Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in
room 328A, Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Roberts, Boozman, Ernst, Grassley, Thune,
Daines, Perdue, Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Gillibrand,
Donnelly, Heitkamp, Casey, and Van Hollen.
Chairman Roberts. Good morning. I call this meeting of the
Senate Committee on Agriculture to order.
We are going to go out of order here just for a moment, and
I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and first of all, I want to thank you for coming to Michigan
this past weekend. You were a big hit, so do not come to
Michigan and run for office for the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stabenow. But, in all seriousness, it was a
wonderful opportunity to have both you and your staff to
Michigan, to hear from our growers, consumers, conservation
partners, and local food groups.
One of our witnesses who owns the Hopyards of Kent, which
is one of the fastest growing agriculture sectors in Michigan,
wanted to give you this product of her business as a thank you.
It is a Michigan Pale Ale from Hopyards of Kent. Please enjoy
it----
Chairman Roberts. Thank you.
Senator Stabenow. --not during the hearing, but you can
enjoy it afterwards.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stabenow. We are, in all seriousness, very
appreciative. It was a great opportunity for us to, once again,
as we did in Kansas, talk about working together to write a
Farm Bill. Which is what we do here on the Agriculture
Committee, so thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you. We had in excess of 250
people in a place to hold a hearing that held about 200.
Senator Stabenow. That is right.
Chairman Roberts. We heard from one specialty crop after
another specialty crop group----
Senator Stabenow. That is right.
Chairman Roberts. --including this young lady who and thank
you for this gift.
Maybe we should open it up and--I usually have a glass of
ethanol with Senator Grassley every morning.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. It warms me right up.
Senator Stabenow. Now we understand.
Chairman Roberts. Maybe this would sort of calm it down
after that, but thank you for this very much. Thank you for the
hearing, and thank you for all the work that you and your staff
did to make it a very good hearing.
I am going to do this.
Senator Stabenow. Yes.
Chairman Roberts. Note the Chairman was able to do this.
Senator Stabenow. Yes. Good.
Chairman Roberts. Thanks to Pam Bouma Miller, who was the
person who gave the testimony for the hops industry, and who
obviously depends on pesticides.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
Chairman Roberts. Twenty-four years ago, a Congressman
wrote, ``One of the critical tools used by producers to enhance
their ability to produce the world's most abundant, most
affordable food supply is pesticides.'' The author of those
words in 1993 was yours truly, proudly representing the First
District of Kansas, the Big First.
In that same article, I discussed reforms at that time to
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or
what we call ``FIFRA'', needed at the time to improve, among
other things, re-registration of chemistries.
Today, the Committee will cover the same issues critically
important to agriculture with regard to providing farmers and,
as a consequence, our nation's consumers with the necessary
crop protection tools to prevent, manage, and eradicate
devastating pest and plant diseases that threaten our food
supply.
In my travels throughout Kansas talking to producers, even
most recently at the field hearing that our Committee held in
Michigan, a consistent message shared with our Committee is
that farmers and ranchers in rural America want regulatory
certainty.
The hearing today will touch on that theme as well as cover
a variety of issues, including the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and pesticide registration
processes.
The Committee will hear from two panels of witnesses
consisting of government officials from the EPA and the
Department of Agriculture as well as a panel of stakeholders to
discuss these issues, what works well, and what challenges
remain.
The EPA has the primary responsibility for regulating the
sale, use, and distribution of pesticides. The EPA carries out
this responsibility through FIFRA, a licensing statute which
requires the EPA to review and register the use of pesticide
products.
Today's hearing is a reminder of this Committee's
responsibility and my personal commitment, along with the
Ranking Member, to conduct business through regular order and
in a transparent manner.
Relating to FIFRA, this Committee has legislative work
ahead of us with the reauthorization of the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act, or PRIA. PRIA, while technical in
nature, is critically important with assisting both the EPA in
carrying out administrative functions and industry that relies
upon timely pesticide registration decisions to get products on
the market and in the hands of farmers.
PRIA expires at the end of this fiscal year, and with that
deadline in mind, it is my hope that today's hearing will lay
the groundwork for our Committee action on advancing PRIA this
work period. There is widespread support for PRIA among the
registrant community, which includes agriculture and non-
agriculture use, labor, and environmental advocates.
Illustrating this, is a letter from the PRIA Coalition
addressed to our Committee expressing support for the
legislation and urging swift action.
I ask unanimous consent for this letter to be included into
the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The following information can be found on page 78 in the
appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. We know that many rely heavily on timely
and predictable registration decisions. It is important that we
get PRIA across the finish line, not only to provide certainty
to the industry, but to provide new products to growers for
crop protection and to consumers to protect public health.
As I have said before, U.S. farmers and ranchers will need
to feed a growing population all around the globe. In order to
meet that demand, it will be extremely important to provide
certainty and eliminate any regulatory barriers that might
challenge farmers from meeting this goal.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and with
that, I recognize Stabenow for her remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Well, good morning, and thank you very
much Mr. Chairman for holding this very important hearing.
Our Committee has a long history of working in a bipartisan
manner to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Act, which many of us know as PRIA.
Most recently, our Committee took action in 2012 when I
served as Chair, and today's hearing is a critical step in this
process and an opportunity to listen to expert stakeholders and
the EPA.
Today, we will hear about the importance of PRIA from the
perspective of farmers, farmer workers, and consumers.
Agriculture is a risky business. We know that. Our
producers know there are few certainties, if any, that they can
rely on in the field. From unexpected natural disasters
intensified by climate change, to low commodity prices,
unpredictable events are a harsh reality that directly affect
farmers' bottom lines and ultimately American jobs.
That said, for nearly 15 years, PRIA has served as a
valuable tool for stakeholders, the EPA, and farmworkers,
providing certainty, which is needed to fight pest and weed
infestation.
Pesticide registration fees also support important
education and training programs that keep our farmworkers and
their families safe.
PRIA also plays an important role off the farm. Products as
common as household cleaners and disinfectants to lifesaving
treatments that combat Ebola and the Zika virus and avian flu
all rely on regulatory certainty and science based decisions
provided by PRIA.
PRIA also provides the financial and staffing stability
that the EPA requires to fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities, including both new registrations and the re-
registration of pesticide products.
More important than getting products in the hands of
consumers is ensuring these products are safe for both human
health and the environment. In my opinion, any risk, however
small, of an unsafe product entering the commercial market is
avoidable if we make decisions that are rooted in science.
In fulfilling its regulatory responsibility, the EPA must
stay true to sound science and take every precaution to protect
our nation's citizens, most importantly, our children.
I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of excessive
lead in Flint's drinking water, and I believe there can be no
tolerance for exposures to products that have devastating
developmental effects on children.
I have always been committed to supporting and advocating
for smart Federal regulations that are based on the principles
of sound science. Whether it is certainty of man-made climate
change or the safety of biotechnology, we must look first and
foremost to science to drive our laws and regulations.
That is why it is extremely unfortunate it appears that
scientific inquiry is being jeopardized now at the EPA. Late
last week, in a very concerning and abrupt move, the agency
dismissed several members of its Board of Scientific
Counselors. This is a highly unusual move that has raised
strong concerns. Former Bush Administration EPA Administrator
Whitman warned that it could send an alarming message to
scientists that they must have industry ties to be taken
seriously.
In order for the EPA to meet its mission and its statutory
responsibilities in programs like PRIA and others, the agency's
decisions must be based on sound, peer-reviewed science.
Hastily dismissing numerous scientists from the agency's
technical advisory boards sends the wrong message to the public
and to all of us about the EPA's integrity and the safety of
the products they approve.
I urge the agency to reverse their decision and allow these
scientists to serve terms in line with historic norms under
both Republican and Democratic Administrations.
Mr. Chairman, science underpins everything we are talking
about here today. I am pleased to partner with you last year on
a science-based biotechnology bill, and I look forward to a
Farm Bill process that also recognizes the importance of good
data and sound science.
I am sure we will learn more about these matters today, and
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and the
Committee's effort to reauthorize the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act in the near future.
Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. I thank the Senator.
I want to welcome our first panel of witnesses before the
Committee this morning, certainly both having the experience
and the tenure so that they could wave the banner of sound
science and can be recognized anywhere.
Our first panelist is Mr. Rick Keigwin. Rick currently
serves as the Acting Director for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs. He brings to
the Committee 20 years of experience with regards to his
testimony. Mr. Keigwin has served in a variety of leadership
capacities at the agency, including in the Pesticide
Reevaluation Division, the Biological Economic Analysis
Division, and the Registration Division. I do not know of any
division that you have not served on, sir. We welcome you, and
we look forward to your testimony.
Our second witness joining Rick is Dr. Sheryl Kunickis, who
joins us today from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office
of Pest Management Policy, where she has served as Director
since 2010. In this capacity, she coordinates the Department's
role in pesticide regulatory processes and related interagency
affairs, primarily with the Environmental Protection Agency.
She also integrates the Department's programs and strategic
planning related to pest management.
We welcome both of our witnesses, and we look forward to
your testimony.
Rick, why don't you proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. KEIGWIN JR., ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Keigwin. Thank you, Chairman Roberts. Good morning. It
is very nice to be here. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member
Stabenow, and members of the Committee, my name is Rick
Keigwin, and I currently serve as the acting director of the
Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA.
Safe pesticide use makes an enormous contribution to our
society, particularly in the production of U.S. food and fiber.
Innovation in pesticide use has greatly increased U.S.
agricultural productivity and contributed to a predictable food
supply and stable food prices.
There are now more than 17,000 registered pesticide
products containing more than 1,200 active ingredients, with
uses ranging from insect repellents, household cleaners, lawn
and garden chemicals, hospital disinfectants, biotechnology
products, and a wide range of agricultural chemicals used to
provide an abundant food supply.
Working with stakeholders, EPA has developed a highly
regarded program for evaluating pesticide safety and making
regulatory decisions. Our approach to decision-making is based
on a model of transparency. Using this approach, the agency
makes decisions consistent with the information that is peer-
reviewed and protective of human health and the environment.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, or FIFRA, EPA ensures that when used properly, pesticides
provide significant benefits to society, such as controlling
disease-causing organisms, protecting the environment from
invasive species, and fostering an affordable, safe, and
abundant food supply. FIFRA's safety standard requires EPA to
weigh these benefits against harm to human health and the
environment that might result from using the pesticide.
In addition, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, EPA sets tolerances or maximum residue limits for
pesticides used on food and animal feed. The EPA may establish
a tolerance for a pesticide in food or feed only if we find
that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from exposure,
from consumption of the food treated with that pesticide, and
from other non-occupational sources.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, or PRIA, as you
mentioned, was first signed into law in 2004, and we are now
talking about PRIA 4, the third reauthorization of PRIA.
PRIA is a successful example of user fees paid by the
private sector supporting vital regulatory programs. EPA's
pesticide activities are funded by a combination of
appropriations and user fees, with one-time registration
service fees accompanying registration applications and annual
maintenance fees supporting continued registration of pesticide
products.
Under PRIA, entities seeking EPA's approval to sell or
distribute pesticide products, in most cases, pay a fee to
process their applications. The amount of the fee depends on
the type of application, the complexity of the application, and
the type of entity. So, for example, a small business pays
reduced fees, and government and government-sponsored
organizations are exempt from paying the PRIA fees.
PRIA was developed by a coalition of pesticide stakeholders
representing seven different trade groups within the pesticide
industry and public interest groups representing both the
farmworker and environmental communities. The result of this
collaboration is that there are elements in PRIA that are
important to all of the represented stakeholders in the
coalition, and EPA for the past many years has served in an
advisory capacity to this coalition and has welcomed the
opportunity to provide technical assistance to them.
Before PRIA, EPA could not process all of the applications
we received in a timely manner. Backlogs developed, and
applicants could not predict when the agency could make a
decision. With the additional resources provided by PRIA, the
agency can now process new applications in a timelier manner.
As part of our efforts to continue to improve the registration
process, EPA has integrated efficiencies throughout our review
process, enabling the agency to successfully meet the
requirements of PRIA. Since PRIA became law, the agency has
seen an increase in the approval of pesticides for us in
growing specialty groups, helping farmers meet their pest
control needs.
Further, some of these fees support improved pesticide
safety education that helps protect our farmworkers and
farmworker families.
In conclusion, the EPA has a history of working in strong
collaboration with the grower community to address potential
pesticide risks, while providing growers with the necessary
tools to meet their pest management needs. Through meetings
with growers and agricultural stakeholders, we gain a better
understanding of how farmers use these tools to grow their
crops.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be
happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keigwin can be found on page
49 in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. We thank you for your statement and more
especially for being on time.
Dr. Kunickis, please.
STATEMENT OF SHERYL KUNICKIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PEST
MANAGEMENT POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Ms. Kunickis. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow,
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on the importance of pesticides in providing
America's safe, abundant, and affordable food supply. I am Dr.
Sheryl Kunickis, director of USDA's Office of Pest Management
Policy, or OPMP. I have worked on behalf of the public for
almost 29 years. I have served as the associate deputy director
for Ag, Lands, and Wildlife at the White House Council for
Environmental Quality and served as the acting director in the
Office of the Chief Scientist at USDA. I earned a Ph.D. in soil
science from North Carolina State and an M.S. and B.S. in
agronomy from BYU.
OPMP harnesses the USDA's expertise to inform regulatory
actions under FIFRA, as well as pesticide-related provisions of
other statutes, and coordinates agricultural biotech issues for
USDA. We strive to ensure fully informed decision-making in a
number of ways: by clarifying the benefits and costs of Federal
actions on U.S. agriculture, by providing the best data on
agricultural production and pesticide use, by effectively
communicating the concerns of our stakeholders in all sectors
of the agricultural industry, and by encouraging the use of
quality science for issues related to pesticides and pest
management. To this end, I lead a highly regarded
interdisciplinary technical staff with broad expertise.
America's abundant, affordable, high-quality, and safe food
supply is exceptional and the envy of the world, despite the
uncertainties of weather, consumer markets, labor availability,
pests and diseases, and production costs. Pesticides are a
critical component of all farming systems. Whether it is use of
organic materials such as spinosad insecticide in organic
cranberry production to manage fireworms or plant-incorporated
genetically engineered Bt insecticide in controlling rootworms
across millions of acres of corn production, pesticides are
essential tools for farmers in managing pests.
We need certainty, when possible. USDA welcomed EPA's
proposed classification of glyphosate, commonly known as
Roundup, as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. USDA
publicly commented in support of EPA's conclusion, which is in
line with other major risk-based assessments conducted by
regulatory bodies across the world. Glyphosate is important to
agriculture because of its excellent crop safety in GE crops,
the broad range of weeds it controls, its flexibility, and its
economy of use.
Agriculture depends on a strong, scientifically-based EPA
to evaluate pesticides. USDA supports PRIA, as it will provide
the certainty needed for registrants to get innovative
technologies to market and for growers to know what tools they
have available to address the next pest challenge, and, of
course, the educational component is essential.
Now let us discuss the role of the Endangered Species Act
in the registration of pesticides. Since 2013, EPA and the
Services have been working on a nationwide ESA consultation for
chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. Chlorpyrifos is a broad-
spectrum insecticide. Diazinon is impregnated in cattle ear
tags to control flies, and malathion is part of the toolbox
used to combat mosquitoes, maintain the cotton boll weevil
program, and manage spotted wing drosophila, an extremely
destructive, invasive insect in fruit production.
The services analyze effects of pesticides based on the
maximum allowable use instead of actual use. We have concerns
about the impacts of potential mitigation actions on U.S.
agriculture. FIFRA, the law that directly regulates the
registration of pesticides, already requires EPA to prevent any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, a standard which
could include endangered species. This dual regulation
challenges EPA meeting its statutory obligations to regularly
review pesticide registrations. The current workload is not
sustainable. Regulatory certainty is needed to ensure the
continued safe use of pesticides, while offering necessary
protections to endangered species and their habitat.
In closing, let me reiterate that our food supply is one of
the safest anywhere in the world. The USDA Pesticide Data
Program annually tests a variety of domestic and imported
foods. In 2015, more than 99 percent of the samples tested had
pesticide residues below the tolerance level established by
EPA. These legal limits are established by our colleagues at
EPA and are but one example of the immensely important work
that EPA does to register safe and effective pesticides that
are essential to both conventional and organic agricultural
systems.
Thank you very much, and I will look forward to addressing
any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kunickis can be found on
page 60 in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. Thank you so much.
Senator Stabenow, we have two witnesses that were very
succinct and on time. I think that is--I am not sure if that is
a record, but at any rate----
Senator Stabenow. It may be.
Chairman Roberts. We thank you very much.
Mr. Keigwin, in the context of PRIA, often times the
conversation focuses only on the benefits for the registrants.
Would you elaborate, please, on the other types of benefits
that PRIA provides? I am going to mention certainty and
obviously worker protection.
Mr. Keigwin. Thank you, Senator.
So certainty for growers, I think, is very important.
Knowing that tools that are in the pipeline will become
available by a date certain, I think it is critically important
to help growers meet their pest management needs. EPA has been
very successful as part of implementing PRIA that nearly 98
percent of the time or even more frequently, we are meeting the
statutory due dates for completing our registration decisions,
and that is something that we are very proud of.
PRIA also extends funding for pesticide safety education
programs, which is also very critical to ensure that the people
that help us grow our food remain safe and that their families
remain safe, and the funds from PRIA help to support programs
either at land-grant universities or in other organizations to
ensure that they have the protections that they need.
One of the new things with PRIA 4 that I would like to
highlight is that it sparks innovation for the development of
lower-risk pesticides. One of the provisions of PRIA
establishes higher fees and longer review times for those
products that do not get classified as a reduced-risk or lower-
risk pesticide, so the result being that something that does
have the merits of being a lower-risk pesticide can be advanced
to the market more quickly.
So those would be three that I would highlight for you
today.
Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that very much.
Doctor, as the Department of Agriculture--well, number one,
you went from North Carolina State to BYU. That is a long ways.
Ms. Kunickis. I went in the other direction. I started out
at BYU and ended at North Carolina State.
Chairman Roberts. I see. You just reversed. So instead of
going West, young lady, you went East.
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. All right. Is BYU, the--are they still
the Cougars?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Then you went from the Cougars to a
Wolfpack?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Roberts. Kansas State played BYU in a Bowl that I
attended. Our cornerback tripped on the last--one of the last
plays of the game, and your quarterback threw for a touchdown.
Otherwise, the Wildcats would have defeated the Cougars. We are
into four-legged hairy animals. I think we are going to quit
right there.
Ms. Kunickis. Okay.
Chairman Roberts. As the Department of Agriculture works to
facilitate U.S. agriculture exports, it is absolutely critical
to maintain the free flow of trade. Trade has become a big
issue, not only in general, but more especially with this
Administration. We have a very key vote coming up with regards
to Robert Lighthizer to get trade moving again, make trade
great again.
APHIS works hard to keep open markets by ensuring U.S. ag
products are free from pests. Without access to appropriate
products to manage pests, my question is, is the U.S. at risk
of trade restrictions on our exports? Could you please talk
about the threat of losing existing markets if pests are
discovered in our exported animal products and the role that
pesticides play in keeping our agriculture trade open and
consistent?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes. Thank you, and that is a great, very
important question. We are absolutely delighted to have Dr.
Perdue--or now Secretary Perdue at the head of USDA. It has
been delightful to have him in office for the last, I guess,
almost three weeks.
Secretary Perdue has talked already about the importance of
expanding trade. He is committed to doing that, and we have no
doubt that he will follow up on his commitment.
Secretary Perdue is the chief salesperson, and when he
meets with folks, I expect that he will honor his commitments
with them to provide a safe and abundant food supply to those
folks that are our trading partners.
As you said, the risk there is if we cannot, if we have
pests that are in our commodities and in our food supply,
without pests we would not--I mean without pesticides, we would
not have the fumigants needed to--we would not be able to
ensure the safety of the food that goes overseas. We would not
be able to ensure that our food is pest-free.
Pesticides are absolutely essential to those who are
growing the food, for those that are shipping the food, and for
those that are eating the food. So I have no doubt that
Secretary Perdue will follow up on his promise, and that the
United States agriculture will be able to trade with a healthy
food supply as long as we have pesticides.
Chairman Roberts. I appreciate your response very much.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
both of our witnesses.
Mr. Keigwin, I first want to thank you personally for your
engagement with Michigan State University and our Michigan hop
growers that created the gift that we just gave to the Chairman
to facilitate Section 18 exemptions under FIFRA.
Most recently, I have heard from Michigan sugar beet
growers about emergency use needs under Section 18 as well.
What steps can be taken by growers, states, manufacturers, and
the EPA to make the Section 18 process more efficient, so that
growers facing unexpected risk can get needed crop protection
tools in a timely fashion?
Mr. Keigwin. Thank you, Senator, and I have had the great
fortune of meeting with Michigan growers on a number of
occasions. Your growers sponsor an annual tour to help educate
EPA employees about Michigan agriculture and what farmers do to
help grow our crops, so thank you for that.
In terms of Section 18s, we have a pretty solid record of
completing our decision-making for most Section 18 or emergency
exemptions in less than 50 days, but there are times--and I
think this situation with the sugar beet one, growers, that
came to your attention highlights the need for early engagement
between EPA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the
grower community and the land-grant universities.
Knowing early on what tools a grower might need to address
the emerging pest situation, it is hard when at the end of the
process or right when they need to apply the product for EPA to
say, ``Wait. Hold on. We might have a problem.'' So one process
efficiency would probably be for us to have earlier engagement,
maybe even before the state submits their Section 18 request to
see if there might be any issues with that particular chemical,
and to the extent to which there are, we could work
collaboratively with cooperative extension and with the state
to maybe find some alternatives that we could move through the
process more quickly to address the emerging pest management
need.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. Kunickis, when developing new integrated pest
management strategies with growers, does the USDA staff
recommend Farm Bill conservation programs to farmers as a tool
to combat weed resistance, and secondly, do you have
recommendations for how the conservation programs can be
improved to help address weed resistance as well as the
continued decline in the pollinator populations?
Ms. Kunickis. Thank you for your question.
Yes. We do engage with our conservation program folks, both
NRCS and the Farm Services Agency staff. IPM is a critical
component of those. NRCS has a conservation practice related to
IPM.
Weed resistance is front and--in front of our--is one of
the high-priority issues for our office. We have met with the
agency folks to make sure they are fully aware of the issue of
weed resistance. As we all know, resistance, weed resistance is
not just about pigweed in Georgia. It is about having weed
resistance all across the entire United States, and it is not
just about pigweed. It is in all species. So we work really
hard to work with the conservation agencies and helped to
educate their staff about the issue of weed resistance.
IPM, we coordinate across the Department and with other
Departments on Integrated Pest Management. We work with the IPM
centers that are funded by the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture. We meet regularly with them. They help us develop
the pest management strategic plans. We engage with growers on
those to make sure that those are accurate and up to date.
Thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, and we look
forward to hearing more comments from you as we move forward on
the Farm Bill with suggestions or recommendations that you
would have on conservation programs.
Ms. Kunickis. Thank you.
Mr. Keigwin, can you talk about the role of the EPA's Board
of Scientific Counselors in reviewing the safety of crop
protection materials?
Mr. Keigwin. For pesticide products and pesticide science,
our studies and our methodologies for how we conduct our
reviews have not been reviewed by the panel that you referred
to. In fact, under FIFRA, there is a separate congressionally
chartered peer review body called the FIFRA Scientific Advisory
Panel, and so our work is peer-reviewed separately, not through
the BOSC, but through the FIFRA SAP.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
witnesses for being here today. I appreciate it.
Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you highlighted the fact
that your agency has met the time frame for approval 98 percent
of the time on the more than 20,000 decisions since PRIA was
enacted in 2004, and I think that is a pretty tremendous track
record. I know there had been some extensions of timelines
beyond the target of 730 days but still a very good percentage,
so thank you for that.
But what I would like to know is what you believe can be
done to remove duplicative regulations, free up some of those
funds, or take other actions to further improve the time for
getting new products on the market, so we can make our farmers
and growers even more productive.
Mr. Keigwin. Thank you, Senator.
When Administrator Pruitt joined the agency, one of the
things that he launched straight away was his Back-to-Basics
Agenda, which is an initiative to help focus EPA's efforts on
returning to our core mission of protecting human health and
the environment.
As part of that effort, we have been beginning to reach out
to stakeholders across the spectrum to identify areas of
regulation that either may be duplicative, could be streamlined
or modified, while still protecting public health and the
environment.
In fact, last week, the Pesticide Program hosted a public
meeting of a wide variety of stakeholders. Several hundred
people participated in that meeting to help provide some
insight to us on where we might look next in terms of
streamlining, gain some additional efficiencies in our program,
and among those were opportunities to look at some MOUs with
other agencies where there might be opportunities to share our
work and share our load or rely upon the work of another
agency. So those are among the things that we are beginning to
explore now.
Senator Ernst. Very good. In your opinion, does that seem
to be a positive start? Is it being received well by your
agency and other agencies?
Mr. Keigwin. It has, and, in fact, we have had some MOUs in
place with other agencies. So this would not be a new territory
to explore, but we can build upon some of our existing
relationships and probably go further.
Senator Ernst. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Keigwin.
Dr. Kunickis, you noted in your testimony that agriculture
depends on a strong scientifically based EPA to evaluate
pesticides, and what can you do in your role to encourage that
and ensure that politics--of course, politics, in the news all
the time--that politics do not get in the way of sound science
when it comes to reviewing pesticides?
Ms. Kunickis. Thank you. I appreciate that question.
Science is the foundation of everything that we do at USDA, and
I expect that is the same for EPA.
For us, we look at what any kind of rules or proposed rules
or risk assessments that EPA does, and we look at it through
the view of our agricultural sectors to see if it is--how it
would work. Then we also look at models, the inputs, to see if
they are valid, and if they are reflective of agriculture. But
we also look at the science that is underlying the work that
EPA has done. We provide them information that we are aware of
from the agricultural community and others, and then we have
nice discussions with EPA about how we can work together to
either improve or make changes or maybe better understand why
they are doing what they are doing.
But we do look through it through scientific eyes. My
entire staff is very--they are experts in their disciplines,
and we ensure that each one of them is fully aware of what EPA
is doing and that we can speak on behalf of ag to ensure that
they are scientifically based decisions.
Senator Ernst. Well, I appreciate that, and we had the
pleasure of hosting Secretary Perdue last Friday in Iowa, and
it was wonderful to see the interaction that he had with our
farmers and growers. He did mention several times that we want
to make sure that things are scientifically based, any
decisions that are made, and the fact that he encouraged
collaboration amongst the agencies. So it was really great to
see that.
Thank you both for being here today. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of you, and we are glad we are continuing
to work together on this very important bill and this program.
One of the missions of USDA's Office of Pest Management
Policy is to promote the development of new pest management
approaches that meet the needs of our evolving agriculture
industry.
Mr. Keigwin, would EPA be able to examine the numerous
pesticide products intended for sale in the U.S. without the
resources that PRIA provides? It is called an easy question.
Mr. Keigwin. Thank you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Keigwin. We certainly want to be able to do them on the
time frames that we do the--the supplemental resources that
PRIA provides certainly help us achieve the timelines that I
was talking about earlier in my testimony.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. To get on to that timelines, I
have heard from Minnesota businesses about the importance of
having a more predictable timeline during the registration
review process. What work have you done to make the regulatory
approval process more predictable for industries and producers
and the public?
Mr. Keigwin. So an important component of the registration
review process is transparency and public engagement, and so we
do have multiple opportunities throughout the review process
for them to engage, for them to come forward to us with
information, so that we are using real-world information in
making our decisions, so that we are making the most informed
decisions that we can.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Dr. Kunickis, your name is almost as hard as mine.
Kunickis. What have you heard from farmers about the need for a
timely review, and how does your team at USDA work with EPA?
Ms. Kunickis. We hear a lot from farmers, and actually, we
reach out to a lot of the grower groups, folks that we know
across the country, to talk to them about their needs.
We work very closely with EPA. We have a great working
relationship. I keep in contact regularly with Rick right now
on a regular basis. I always ask about what is the status of
this pesticide that is in registration review, are there any
concerns, are there any data that you need from USDA that we
can provide to help inform some of the decisions that you are
going to make, and we are very interested in if there is any
mitigation measures that may be needed so that we can look and
see if they are realistic for our growers.
This afternoon, my staff and I will be at EPA. We have our
regular monthly meeting where we have a number of items on an
agenda to discuss. So we work really well together, and we
continue to look forward to working together.
Senator Klobuchar. How do you think the USDA's role in the
pesticide approval process would be affected by the resource
and staffing cuts that are suggested in that proposed 31
percent budget cut in the budget? I know that our new
Agriculture Secretary--I asked him this question, not with
regard to pesticides, but just with regard to the general ag
issues, and he did say that he hoped the Senate would fix it. I
like that answer.
But how do you think--how do you think the USDA's role
would be affected by the resource--the proposed resource and
staffing cuts?
Ms. Kunickis. Well, certainly, any cuts that would come, we
would have to--honestly, we would just have to figure out the
best way to go forward.
Our office has been--we are very well trained,
interdisciplinary, and are able to work together on different
issues, even though it may cross many disciplines.
If the cuts come, it will make it a little more
challenging. I would like to hire, and if we cannot, we do work
with other staff across USDA to fill where we have gaps. So we
will adjust. We always have. It has happened to us in the past,
and if it happens again, we will adjust. Certainly, we hope
that will not happen, but we are willing to do what we can on
behalf of our growers.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you
mention that the reauthorization bill passed by the House would
increase the types of registration actions covered under PRIA
to 212 categories, up from 189 categories in the last
reauthorization. Would the fee increase from $27.8 million to
$31 million per year cover the additional 23 categories
proposed for registration, and do you see the demand outpacing
the additional increases for maintenance fees?
Mr. Keigwin. So thank you, Senator. The maintenance fees
actually primarily go to fund the reevaluation program. The
additional categories will have their own new PRIA fees
associated with them, so they will diverge in those two
different directions.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I see. But the question was, Do
you think that fee increase--the initial question--would cover
the additional 23 categories? So you think it would?
Mr. Keigwin. So the fee increase is on the maintenance fee
side, primarily, so that is for the reevaluation program.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Mr. Keigwin. The 23 new categories will have their own PRIA
fees, and then there are fees--there is an increase in some of
the fee categories for the new registration side. So the 23
categories are new registration categories. The fee increase, I
think that--I believe you are referring to happens to deal with
the maintenance fee side to fund the reevaluation program.
Senator Klobuchar. So you think it is all----
Mr. Keigwin. I think it will certainly help us get the work
done.
Senator Klobuchar. So it is all going to be paid for? It
will not--okay. All right.
Mr. Keigwin. Coupled with appropriated dollars. We cannot
fully fund the--we cannot fully do the work----
Senator Klobuchar. But if you get the 30 percent decrease
in the proposed budget that you are supposed to at EPA, would
you be able to do all your work?
Mr. Keigwin. You know, as Sheryl said, we would have to
figure out how to do things and look for additional
efficiencies.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Perdue.
Senator Perdue. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. We have a Perdue that is not talking.
That is very unusual.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. He is trying to be nice to the other
members.
Chairman Roberts. I see. It is with great respect that I
now ask Senator Van Hollen for his questions.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Senator Perdue.
I just want to echo what Senator Ernst said, which is that
we all want to make sure that we have a pesticide regulation
regime that is scientifically based, and we all know that
sometimes the conclusions are different from USDA versus EPA. I
do want to ask you about that because, as we all know, recently
there was a headline in the Washington Post that says EPA
chief, the new EPA chief rejecting agency's own analysis,
declines to ban pesticide despite health concerns.
Dr. Keigwin, you are quoted in this story as supporting the
decision, but, Mr. Keigwin, could you talk a little bit about
this EPA recommendation to regulate, ban chlorpyrifos because,
there have been serious health concerns raised about it,
including the impact on newborns, neurological impacts, and
clearly, the EPA, when it issued its report last December
seemed to be on the way of suggesting that we need to ban this
to protect human health. We need to make sure we protect crops
from pests, so that we have a vibrant agriculture community. We
also need to protect human health, and the way EPA drew that
line, at least back in December, was that banning this was
necessary or moving in that direction to protect human health.
Can you comment on that?
Mr. Keigwin. Sure. Thank you, Senator.
So we have been studying chlorpyrifos for quite some time
and took regulatory action to mitigate some of the exposures to
chlorpyrifos back in the last decade when we removed it from
uses around the--most uses around the home, and about four or
five----
Senator Van Hollen. The indoor, the indoor use.
Mr. Keigwin. The indoor uses, like the termiticide type of
uses.
We also worked very successfully with the registrants about
four or five years ago to put in place some buffers to protect
residential areas around agricultural fields to deal with some
spray drift issues.
I think what you are referring to, Senator, is a rulemaking
that we were in the midst of that we began in 2015 when we
proposed to revoke the tolerances for chlorpyrifos, because the
science that we had at the time suggested that we potentially
could not make the required safety finding under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
We continue to do our work, and we took a revised
assessment to our FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel in the spring
of 2016. They recommended some improvements to that risk
assessment, and so in November of 2016, we issued a revised
draft risk assessment for public comment, and that public
comment period closed in mid-January.
We received almost 50,000 comments on that draft risk
assessment, and a number of those comments raised some
questions about how EPA had done the science, had concerns
about how we had derived the regulatory endpoint from an
epidemiology study, and strongly urged the agency to have that
risk assessment further peer-reviewed before we completed
regulatory action.
The decision that the Administrator made at the end of
March was--while related to the rulemaking, was in response to
a petition from the Pesticide Action Network of North America
and the Natural Resources Defense Council. That action is now
in litigation, so I have got to be very circumspect about what
I say because it is an active litigation. But, in the meantime,
we are continuing to review the science surrounding
chlorpyrifos, taking into account the comments that we received
during the public comment period.
Senator Van Hollen. So the review is ongoing now----
Mr. Keigwin. The review----
Senator Van Hollen. --and has not been stopped?
Mr. Keigwin. The review has not been stopped. It is ongoing
as part of the re-registration process.
Senator Van Hollen. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope
we will all adhere to the advice from our colleague, which is
this be done based on the science and not the politics. I hope
we can all agree with that proposition. We need to, obviously,
prevent pests from chewing up our crops, but we also need to
protect human health. So I look forward to continuing this
conversation with you.
Just if I could ask, Mr. Chairman, have any of our--where
are European partners in--are any of them in process of looking
at banning this?
Mr. Keigwin. A number of other countries have reevaluations
under way. Australia, as an example, just within the last
couple of weeks, released a risk assessment for chlorpyrifos.
Their risk assessment is different from ours, and so we are
looking at the science that the Australian government
considered and seeing what parts of that would be appropriate
for us to use here.
Chairman Roberts. I thank the Senator.
Senator Perdue.
Senator Perdue. I yield again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Gracious.
Senator Heitkamp, would you like to proceed at this point?
Senator Heitkamp. Well, I would love to. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the gracious offer.
Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you for coming.
Senator Heitkamp. I have just a quick question about wheat
for the Doctor. We are hearing more and more about pesticide
residues in wheat and lots of questions about the use of crop
protection tools on the crop itself. Much of the information as
cited as the basis for criticism of wheat production traces
back to misrepresentation of USDA's NASS data. Often the worst
case is assumed, and every acre of crop is treated.
When USDA surveys growers about the use of crop protection
tools, are you seeking to track overall use and trends, or are
you gathering more in-depth information about management
practices associated with crop protection tools, such as no
till or reduced tillage and crop rotations?
Ms. Kunickis. Thank you for the question.
I want to just say that our colleagues at the National Ag
Statistics Service do terrific work, and the survey that they
do, the ag survey, is extremely, extremely important, the data
that they provide.
I do not work for NASS, and why they ask the questions that
they do and the reasoning behind them, I am not actually sure.
I am glad to get the answers for you, but I assure you that the
information that they use is information that we use in how we
support some of the information that we provide in support of
what EPA does.
I am glad to get the information from NASS, and they can
better explain on how they come up with the questions and how
they use the data.
Senator Heitkamp. The other question that I have is, What
role does USDA play in the endangered species consultation
process during the registration review, and do you think you
have sufficient data and real-world scenarios and management
practices that reflect the use of products in the field?
Ms. Kunickis. USDA does not have a formal role in ESA
consultation. Consultation occurs between EPA and the services,
meaning Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. We are a side partner, I will say. We can
provide data, any information on crop production, any crop
production practices, how pesticides are used. We are always
available to provide that information, but we do not have a
role, a formal role in consultation.
Senator Heitkamp. Do you think you should have a formal
role in consultation?
Ms. Kunickis. I think it would be extremely helpful,
extremely helpful to have a voice at the table on behalf of our
agricultural producers.
Senator Heitkamp. I do too.
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Heitkamp. Yeah.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. I can anticipate a
Heitkamp amendment to our reauthorization process.
Senator Heitkamp. Who me?
Chairman Roberts. Senator Daines, I am going to recognize
you, and that Senator Perdue has yielded twice.
Do you want to go for a third time? That is the record, by
the way.
Senator Perdue. I like records. I will yield again, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Well, I am grateful for Senator Perdue.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and
I want to thank you for coming before this Committee and
providing your perspective and expertise on this critical
issue. I represent the State of Montana. Our number one
industry is agriculture. This is a big deal for us, and
certainly, providing regulatory certainty is an essential role
of government.
Our farmers and ranchers and businesses back home, if they
complain about anything else--I mean, it is taxes, regulations,
but it is the uncertainty of this city, what it produces in the
field here for our ag industry. Reauthorizing the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act will be an important step towards
reducing some of that uncertainty that exists today.
Pesticides play a vital role for farmers in keeping our
pest populations down, improving our yields, certainly reducing
the impact of diseases. In fact, in Montana, there is over
6,000 private pesticides applicators, and ensuring they and our
producers have access to a safe and effective pesticides in a
timely manner is simply imperative.
Dr. Kunickis, one thing I hear frequently from farmers and
ranchers in Montana is the burden of duplicative or unduly
burdensome regulations. In your testimony, you state that the
EPA is required to review the impact of pesticides under the
Endangered Species Act, despite the EPA already being required
to review the pesticides to avoid, and I quote, ``any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment,'' end quote, under
FIFRA. Would you view this as an example of a duplicative
regulation?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir, I would.
Senator Daines. Mr. Keigwin, on a similar note, does using
ESA to regulate pesticides pose any challenges for your office
and the EPA more broadly?
Mr. Keigwin. ESA consultations and the assessment processes
are new for us. We have been working with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop
sound scientific procedures for how to evaluate the effects of
pesticides on endangered and threatened species, and with the
assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, they did give
us some advice a few years ago about how to do that. But it is
a much more complex evaluation process than what we have
traditionally done for pesticides under FIFRA.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Dr. Kunickis, I do not have a lot of claim to fame, other
than I am the husband of Cindy Daines, but I am the only
chemical engineer on the Hill amongst 535 members. That is what
my training was in. I do understand the importance of utilizing
sound science in our decision-making processes, and as you well
know, there was an extended and vigorous debate surrounding the
mandatory labeling of biotechnology last year.
I got to thank Chairman Roberts and his leadership. We were
successfully able to prevent what I believe was a
discriminatory and harmful law from impacting our farmers
across Montana and across the country.
As you know, the Office of Pest Management Policy plays an
important role in developing and implementing biotech policy at
USDA in collaborating with EPA. As you work to develop and
implement rules related to biotech disclosure in advance of
next year's deadline, will you commit to ensuring that USDA's
priority will be to make determinations based on sound science?
Ms. Kunickis. Absolutely.
Senator Daines. Thank you for that. I have found in this
town that political science sometimes becomes the primary
message, and I want to always come back to the sound science
and the facts. USDA has to be focused on the safety of the food
and products with its jurisdiction, not on marketing and
mandatory labeling efforts that have no bearing on food safety
or plant pest risk.
Mr. Keigwin, what would be the implications the average
farmer or producer in Montana if PRIA were not reauthorized?
Mr. Keigwin. One of the advantages of PRIA is that it does
give growers some certainty about the availability of when new
products will become tools for them.
In the absence of PRIA, if you go back to what the
regulatory atmosphere was like prior to PRIA--I will give an
example that a grower shared with me just yesterday. A new
active ingredient before PRIA took about six years for EPA to
complete the review for. Now it takes about two years, so the
review process has been shaved rather significantly, while
still ensuring that registration is protective of human health
and the environment.
Senator Daines. Mr. Keigwin, last question. As you know,
there were instances in the past Administration where concerns
were raised regarding the consultation of communication between
EPA and USDA. What steps does your office take to consult with
the Office of Pest Management or other agencies within USDA?
Mr. Keigwin. So Sheryl and I talk regularly. This is not
just the first time today that we will be talking. We have a
meeting this afternoon. We get together at least on a monthly
basis.
Senator Daines. So do you even need two offices? Is that
what you are saying? You could----
Mr. Keigwin. I am not saying that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Keigwin. But our staffs are well integrated. She has
some former staff of mine.
I would like to get some of them back, Sheryl.
But it is a very good working relationship, and while we do
not always agree, we find a way to work through the issue in a
collaborative manner.
Senator Daines. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to both of you for your service.
Dr. Kunickis, in your testimony, you stated that it is
extremely important to the USDA that agriculture not be defined
by those who are less than well informed about agriculture. I
have to assume that you mean the 98 percent of Americans who
are not actively engaged in farming.
So my question is, Is the voice of the American consumer
not of interest to the USDA, and should the USDA ignore the
concerns of shoppers because they are not experts on pesticide
chemistry?
Ms. Kunickis. Actually, in my testimony, I was actually
referring to some of the press who just repeat information that
they hear from the Internet. Actually, a lot of what is said is
not reported correctly, and that is what I was referring in my
written testimony.
Senator Gillibrand. USDA objected to the legal and economic
risk posed to farmers by EPA's proposed rule setting lower
limits for some pesticides used on corn and some fruits. What
is USDA doing to ensure that moms and dads who pack fruit in
their kids' lunches are not less important than a chemical
manufacturer?
Ms. Kunickis. Oh, let there be no doubt that at USDA, the
safety of America's food supply is number one and number one
for our children and for all people that eat our food, eat food
that is produced for consumption. It is not an issue at all.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Keigwin, in your testimony, you mentioned Administrator
Pruitt's Back-to-Basics Agenda and how he is committed to
returning common sense as well as transparent and peer-reviewed
science to pesticide registration process. You have been in EPA
leadership for more than 20 years. During that time, have EPA
scientists ever done anything less than their very best to
conduct rigorous analysis of the risks posed by pesticides to
farmers and consumers?
Mr. Keigwin. Our scientists are among the most highly
regarded scientists on pesticide regulation, and they do
routinely seek peer review of their work.
Senator Gillibrand. Do you believe that Administrator
Pruitt's recent dismissal of as many as half the scientists of
the Board of Science Counselors in favor of industry
representatives was done to improve science?
Mr. Keigwin. Senator, I cannot respond to that in that the
work that my office does is peer-reviewed by a different panel,
the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, which is a congressionally
chartered peer review committee, and there has not been any
change to the scientific makeup of that committee.
Senator Gillibrand. You mentioned in your testimony that
Pesticide Registration Improvement Act fees cover about 20 to
40 percent of EPA's total review cost. The President's budget
would cut EPA funding by 31 percent and eliminate pesticide
safety programs. With such deep cuts, would there be any way
that EPA could conduct accurate and timely reviews of
submissions?
Mr. Keigwin. So I have not seen what the President will
ultimately propose. Obviously, a reduction in our congressional
appropriations would have an impact on the program.
Senator Gillibrand. How high would PRIA fees need to be if
these cuts happened?
Mr. Keigwin. So PRIA fees right now cover about 30 to 35
percent of the program costs. So a reduction would--potentially
would necessitate, if that were an issue on the table, for a
higher fee. There are also opportunities for us to look at
further efficiencies in our process so that we could absorb
some of the resources.
Senator Gillibrand. How would you--how would proposed
budget cuts affect research and integrated pest management?
Mr. Keigwin. So EPA does not conduct research on integrated
pest management. That is something that we rely upon our
partners at USDA to do.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for holding this hearing. It really is very, very important.
I do not have any doubt that you all work together well,
and that is a good thing. You mentioned that sometimes you do
not agree. Who has got final authority, or do you just kind of
not do anything when you run into----
Mr. Keigwin. In the ideal world, we find ways to reach
agreement, and we do that many, many times.
Senator Boozman. But we do not live in an idea world.
Mr. Keigwin. But I think the relationship that the Office
of Pesticide Programs and the Office of Pesticide Management
Policy has been such that we successfully work through our
areas of disagreement, and I think it is very rare when there
is true disagreement. Sometimes it is just a nuance or a
different way of looking at an issue, and I think I am very
proud of the fact that we have been able to work well together
to put in place the necessary protections for pesticides where
they are needed and ensure that growers have the tools that
they need to produce their crops.
Senator Boozman. No, and that is--again, that is
appreciated.
Dr. Kunickis, when I am home, traveling about Arkansas,
like most of our states, it is such a heavily agricultural
state. It does not really matter what state it is. It is
remarkable, the percentage of GDP that our states have.
But I really feel very strongly that the answers to our
problems really do need to come from the ground up. Can you
talk a little bit about how you include the rank-and-file
farmer? Do they have a seat at the table?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir.
Senator Boozman. Regarding pest management?
Ms. Kunickis. Yes, sir. We regularly--as we go through--as
EPA puts out risk assessments, we review them, and then we look
and reach out to growers all across the country, depending on
what the pesticide in review is, and we ask questions about how
are you using it, what specifically is the most important in
the cycle of pest management, which--what is the timing, what
is the--how many applications, which are the most important
applications. We reach out from probably all 50 states, looking
at all different crops. We know that apple production in one
state is very different than apple production in another, so we
reach out to growers, to grower groups, and to as many people
as we can to get the most correct apples--I mean--apples--
answers.
We also make it very clear that a one-size-fits-all
approach does not work for U.S. agriculture, and that we need
to be very site specific on getting answers for how our growers
do their agricultural production.
Senator Boozman. We talk a lot about the dangers of
pesticides, which is very, very appropriate, and we--certainly,
we are all very concerned about that and want to make sure that
things are--can you talk a little bit about some of the
benefits, though, that as a result of being able to use
pesticides in a safe way, scientifically safe, doing it right,
some of the benefits that have occurred in the nation as a
result of making such so we continue to have the safest,
cheapest food supply and feeding much of the world?
Ms. Kunickis. Oh, yes. Pesticides have made us--have given
us the ability to produce food in abundance with some of the
newer tools. The genetically engineered crops, we are able to
increase yields. We have got benefits. We have a pest-free food
supply.
If you have ever looked at a piece of fruit that has got a
pathogen on it, it is not very attractive, so fungicides are
extremely important for addressing pathogen issues.
We all know the story of opening an apple and finding a
worm. Most of the things that we eat do not have worms in it.
I had the great opportunity also to be in Michigan on one
of the tours, and it was just so incredibly important to look
at how they produce cherries and talk about the zero tolerance
for worms. Frankly, I have never even thought about looking for
worms, and yet I realize that is because we have such a high
standard and because of the pest protection tools that--or the
crop protection tools that are used safely by our growers all
across the United States.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. I think that now concludes----
Senator Boozman. Shout-out for the cherries.
Senator Stabenow. Yes, a great shout-out.
Chairman Roberts. Great.
Oh, I am sorry. Senator Thune is here. Coop, how did I
forget you? It is almost high noon, Coop.
Senator Thune. That means it is my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Thanks for having this hearing, and I appreciate the
attention to this subject. It is an important one.
If I could ask both of you sort of whether you believe the
approval process under PRIA is staying current with
biotechnology research and the development of some of the new
products?
Ms. Kunickis. Yeah. That is a great question, and it is a
very, very important question. Bottom line is technology
usually moves faster than regulation. PRIA at least gives us
some certainty as to when some of the products can get on the
market, and so for those that are producing the newer
technologies, it helps the regulatory folks to understand when
we can get those on--when we need to complete our work to get
those on the market.
But, certainly, we recognize that technology moves a little
faster than the regulatory process.
Senator Thune. Right.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Keigwin?
Mr. Keigwin. Senator Thune, I think the other thing that I
would add to what Sheryl just mentioned is that over the past
couple of years, USDA, EPA, working with our colleagues at the
Food and Drug Administration, have been going through a
systematic process of updating the system that we use to
regulate products and biotechnology.
To specifically address the point that you were making
about new products coming through the pipeline, the three
agencies worked together and commissioned a review by the
National Academy of Sciences to give us some insight on what
new tools were coming down the pike, so that, in fact, we could
be better prepared to make regulatory decisions to enable those
products to come onto the market as quickly as they can.
Senator Thune. Yeah. I agree. I mean, you cannot keep up
with sometimes what is happening out there, but we have to do
the best we can, and there are lots of wonderful things that
are happening in technology that will make us more efficient
and more productive.
So I represent South Dakota, and we are one of the top
honey-producing states in the nation, and so I wonder if you
could tell me if any progress is being made to combat the
Varroa mite, which is something that contributes to what we
call CCD or Colony Collapse Disorder, something that has really
affected the bee population in this country and, as a
consequence of that, honey production. Do you have anything on
that?
Mr. Keigwin. So one of the things that EPA has done is that
when a new tool is even in the discovery process to control
Varroa mite, we will accelerate the registration of that
product through the process as quickly as possible.
We had an example from just a couple of years ago that
there was a tool that was available to Canadian beekeepers that
was not available to U.S. beekeepers. Because of the scientific
relationships that we have developed with our colleagues in
Canada, we were able to make use of their reviews. This was a
new active ingredient for us, and we were able to complete the
registration process for that product in four months because of
our ability to rely upon the science that our colleagues in
Canada had already undertaken.
Senator Thune. Well, it is a huge problem. CCD has just
destroyed beehives all across the country, and the losses that
our bee producers are incurring continue to mount and to pile
up. So much of this is just doing this research and trying to
find solutions. So I hope you will keep up, keep up with that,
and the folks out there who are involved in the industry will
keep up with it as well.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Did you ever get Grace back on her
buckboard? You do not have to answer that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. I want to thank the first panel very
much. You have given us excellent testimony, and thank you for
the work you do. Appreciate it.
I would now like to welcome our second panel of witnesses
before the Committee.
[Pause.]
Chairman Roberts. I would like to welcome our second panel
of witnesses before the Committee.
Mr. Dale Murden, who joins us today from Harlingen, Texas,
where he and his family currently grow sorghum, cotton, and
citrus. Mr. Murden has served in a variety of capacities
throughout his agricultural career, including as the past
president of the National Sorghum Producers, the past chairman
of the Texas Sorghum Association, and the current president of
Texas Citrus Mutual. That is the grower organization for the
Texas citrus industry. Mr. Murden also spent the last 25 years
as president and CEO of Rio Farms, a 30,000-acre private
research foundation farm that grew sorghum, cotton, sugarcane,
citrus, soybeans, corn, grapes, and vegetables. No wheat.
Our second panelist is Mr. Gary Black, and I now turn to
Senator Perdue to introduce our next witness.
Senator Perdue. At the risk of losing my opportunity to
establish my all-time record of yielding, I would like to
introduce our next speaker, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I am proud to introduce Georgia's Commissioner of
Agriculture, Gary Black. Gary is a personal friend of mine, has
been for years. He is a dedicated partner and advocate for our
farmers in Georgia. Throughout a 35-year career in agriculture,
he is a farmer.
He has been very focused on Federal policies and working at
the state level and working on the impacts, food safety,
science-based environmental stewardship, and agricultural
marketing.
Agriculture in our state is the largest economy, and we
take it very seriously, that Gary Black is our number one
marketing officer for that industry. He has consistently
supported us to where we are the number one state in the
country for peanuts, broilers, pecans, and blueberries.
Commissioner Black's perspective on pesticide registration
is especially important since states are partners with the
Federal Government in this process. Over the last two decades,
the ag seed and chemical industry has been substantial and seen
a substantial increase in the cost and time of getting new
technologies from discovery and development to farmers in the
field. A large portion of these increased costs is from the
increasingly complex and onerous federal regulatory
environment. It is important that EPA and USDA work with their
state partners like Commissioner Black to ensure the process of
getting pesticides to market is done in a timely manner while
still ensuring their safety.
Thank you, Gary, for being here with us today. Your insight
is important to Georgia and our country, and I look forward to
your testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. Our third panelist is Mr. Jay Vroom, no
stranger to the Committee. Mr. Vroom is the president and chief
executive officer of CropLife America, the largest national
trade organization representing agricultural pesticide
manufacturers and distributors, a position he has held since
1989.
In addition to his current position, Mr. Vroom remains
active on several boards and organizations, including the
Agricultural Retailers Association, the National Wheat
Foundation, and the Coalition for Advancement of Precision
Agriculture, just to name a few.
Raised on a grain and livestock farm in north central
Illinois, Mr. Vroom remains active in his family farming
operation.
I now turn to Senator Stabenow to introduce our final
witness.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome to all of our witnesses. I would like to introduce Ms.
Virginia Ruiz, who currently serves as the director of
Occupational and Environmental Health for Farmworker Justice.
Farmworker Justice is a nonprofit organization that works with
migrant and seasonal workers to improve their lives and working
conditions, immigration status, health, occupational safety,
and access to justice.
Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I do have to apologize in
advance that I have to leave at this point in time. I have
other colleagues that are coming, and I greatly regret that. I
have been looking forward to hearing your testimony, but,
unfortunately, I will have to step out to another meeting.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. Mr. Dale Murden. Mr. Murden, please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF DALE MURDEN, PAST CHAIR, NATIONAL SORGHUM
PRODUCERS; PAST CHAIR, TEXAS SORGHUM PRODUCERS; AND PRESIDENT,
TEXAS CITRUS MUTUAL, MISSION, TX
Mr. Murden. Thank you, Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member
Stabenow, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to
testify today.
On behalf of the more than 700 commercial citrus growers in
Texas and the nearly 50,000 sorghum producers nationally, I
want to express our appreciation for convening this hearing.
My name is Dale Murden. I am current president of Texas
Citrus Mutual, past chairman of National Sorghum Producers, and
a past state director of the Texas Farm Bureau, but more
importantly, a lifelong farmer.
Mr. Chairman, I did grow wheat once, but unfortunately, I
had to bale it for the horses.
Citrus and sorghum growers face a broad range of
challenges, many of which are unique to their crop. However, my
testimony today will focus on issues and concerns that they
share, the viability of both crops are threatened by new and
invasive pests and the importance of access to crop protection
tools to combat these pests.
For citrus, it is the threat of HLB, or citrus greening,
which is vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid. There is no
known cure for this disease, and Texas growers have witnessed
the experience of our friends in Florida, where 100 percent of
production acres are now infected, and production has been cut
by more than half. The first confirmation of HLB in Texas was
in 2012, and we now have more than 100 groves confirmed
infected.
For sorghum, the sugarcane aphid, first confirmed in the
United States in 2014, has spread throughout the producing
regions in the United States, impacting over 70 percent of the
acres planted. Although expensive, without the necessary pest
management products, sorghum growers would see an 80 to 100
percent yield loss.
These are just two examples of significant pest threats,
but every crop faces pest and pathogen challenges. Farmers look
to researchers, crop protection industries, and regulators to
investigate, develop, and approve tools that are safe and
effective.
We need EPA to be sufficiently staffed with smart,
qualified, and dedicated people who can evaluate products in a
timely manner. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act helps
to foster and create a pathway for new and effective products
to come to the market.
Smaller acreage crops, like sorghum and specialty crops
like citrus, are rarely the primary targets of new
registrations. However, PRIA provides a level of certainty and
accountability to the registrants, giving them the confidence
to invest the resources to gain approvals for crops like the
ones I grow.
I wish to express my strong support for the swift passage
of PRIA. Farmers need the certainty that new and innovative
pest management products and the re-registration of existing
products that meet the necessary benefits to risk thresholds
continue to flow, and PRIA plays a vital role in providing
certainty.
I do want to share my perspective on a number of factors in
recent years that have undermined regulatory certainty for the
grower community. We have seen EPA publish press releases
associated with preliminary risk assessments without the
related benefits assessments, which then paints a negative
picture of these pesticide use patterns and undermines public
trust in these products. There have been instances where EPA
short-circuited the risk assessment process and instead based
decisions on the identification of hazards only.
These are significant departures from what is expected
under FIFRA and have prevented some crops, including sorghum
and citrus, from receiving access to vital tools.
FIFRA is the primary underlying statute for pesticide
registration and requires that EPA study and evaluate pesticide
products for potential impacts to the environment, non-target
organisms, and human health, yet it seems that every time a new
product is approved or re-registered, the decision is
challenged. This issue is causing significant uncertainty for
growers, and I have to believe that our system can do better. I
would encourage Congress to find a way to address this issue.
I appreciate that we have a regulatory system at EPA that
is largely transparent and encourages stakeholder engagement in
the product review process. However, the notice and comments
period often require responses that are so technical in nature
that only toxicologists and risk modelers are suited to do so.
While theoretical models are undoubtedly important, they should
not replace the need for real-world data and the results of
field studies. I believe that greater interaction with these
stakeholders that actually use the crop protection tools they
are assessing, EPA would be able to include stronger and more
realistic scenarios in the risk assessments.
Thanks again, Chairman Roberts, for holding this important
hearing and the invitation to participate. We appreciate all of
the work this Committee does on behalf of the American farmer.
Once again, I urge the Committee and the Senate to take the
necessary actions for the swift approval of H.R. 1029, PRIA 4.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murden can be found on page
63 in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. We thank you, Mr. Murden, and thank you
for that perspective with regards to what we are about affects
the producer directly.
We now have the head of the Georgia Department of
Agriculture, and we would like for you to proceed, Commissioner
Black.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY BLACK, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ATLANTA, GA
Mr. Black. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is
a pleasure to be here today. I may be the one in the room that
is most relieved that the Senator from Georgia did not yield
for the fourth time. I thank you, Senator Perdue, for you kind
introduction and dear friendship, and thank you for your
service to our state and our nation.
Mr. Chairman, I am Gary Black. I am Commissioner of
Agriculture for the State of Georgia. I have been in that role
for six and a half years. It is an elected position in Georgia.
Today, I come to you--we have submitted some very detailed
written testimony today, but when I have meetings with
constituents, I like people to just come visit with me. So for
my four minutes and 20 seconds, Mr. Chairman, and the balance
of this time, I would like to visit with you.
Chairman Roberts. Well, please proceed with your----
Mr. Black. I am today representing our directors and
secretaries and commissioners who are on the ground every day.
We work together with farmers, and we are the co-regulators
with some of our Federal agencies. Certainly, EPA is one of
those partners.
We have some overarching things, Mr. Chairman. It is
critical for Federal and State agencies to deliver a
predictable, transparent, and science-based regulatory
framework to protect human health and the environment, while
allowing the agricultural community to produce their products.
That is a tenet I think we can all agree with.
State departments of agriculture are regulatory partners
with EPA, USDA, FDA, and the many other Federal agencies. In 43
states and Puerto Rico, the state department of ag is the FIFRA
lead agency.
We have been discussing a topic called Cooperative
Federalism. It is kind of an in-depth thing that you maybe will
be hearing NASDA talk quite a bit about in the future. Where I
come from, boil it down this way, I think we ought to work
together better. I think we ought to be able to work with
Federal agencies, and I think the states ought to be included
in a more meaningful way. Maybe we can give just a little more
detail in just a moment on that.
PRIA is an essential vehicle to provide the infrastructure
resources for EPA, and states rely upon this to execute our
statutory mandate in registering, enforcing, and regulating
pesticides. We strongly support H.R. 1029 and look forward to
its passage certainly in a very bipartisan way.
We want to help our Federal partners develop a regulatory
framework that provides the necessary protections and minimizes
the economic impact and regulatory burdens to our producers.
That is an overarching key theme.
We need a well-resourced and fully staffed Office of
Pesticide Programs to deliver a scientifically sound,
efficient, and timely review of crop protection products, and I
would also add to that, the Office of Pest Management Policy,
or the programs down at USDA as well. It is important to have
that as a priority, and I believe Secretary Perdue is going to
really put some energy behind that through his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I asked my division director for plant
industry, who deals locally with EPA--I asked him, ``If you had
a magic wand and you were me, what would you say today?'' He
really is a big champion of our theme at our department
regarding how we interact as regulators with the regulated
community, and it is just a simple three-step process.
First, we should exist to help people get in business. We
have regulatory frameworks. We want the economy to thrive. We
want people to be employed. We want people to have jobs. As a
regulator, I think we can do that. We ought to be helpful.
Secondly, we should help people stay in business. We should
educate as we regulate, and that is a theme that we have
adopted at our department. We can show that it works. He said,
``I would like to see that with our Federal partners at EPA and
many other agencies as well.''
Now, we sometimes get blamed for the third leg of that
stool, and that is putting people out of business. But we do
have laws, and people must follow laws. As a regulator, you can
be assured that this is not a soft approach to regulation
because I sign administrative orders every week, but we ought
to come alongside our agricultural businesses and our farmers
and make sure that we are friends along that process.
Certainly, we are pleased to be here today, Mr. Chairman,
and I thank you for your service, and I am thankful we have an
opportunity to cooperate. We just want to make sure that the
states are at the table as we move forward. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black can be found on page
42 in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. Well, thank you, Commissioner. Thank you
for being on time, and we have noted with interest the Black
three-step program that we will be considering. I think the
Committee--I think all of us would agree with your premise, and
we thank you for your testimony.
Jay, welcome back.
STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CROPLIFE AMERICA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Vroom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. It is indeed an honor for me as president of
CropLife America, representative of our 110 member companies,
to be back in front of the Committee and specifically to talk
about PRIA today.
In short, a lot has already been said, not everything, but
a lot has already been said. The simple conclusion here is that
PRIA is the easy button for this Committee, but we also ask you
in our written testimony and otherwise for this Committee to
also work with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the
PRIA appropriations targets--for the appropriated dollars get
back up to where the law has asked for the taxpayers to partner
with us as industry fee payers to help ensure that the
resources are there for EPA to do this important job that all
the witnesses and the members of the Committee have been
talking about this morning.
We could go on and on some more about all the facts and
figures, about all the great abundance of American agriculture.
That is a given. The people watching on television and your
constituents and all the constituents of the United States
Senate really care about one thing, and that is a simple
number. I have got the world population clock here on my
iPhone. It says there are over 7.5 billion of us on this
planet.
I can remember 20 years ago, Mr. Chairman, when you helped
pass the Food Quality Protection Act. That number was below 6
billion. This population is growing rapidly, and we as citizens
of this planet depend on innovation to continue to feed us and
to protect us from disease, and that is what PRIA really is all
about, is providing the government structure and regulatory
scheme so that companies can innovate, and that those kinds of
important resulting products can be evaluated by our regulators
at EPA and with the support and guidance of USDA and that those
products can be used by farmers to produce safe and abundant
food for us in America, so we can export more food, wheat from
Kansas and all kinds of important things from Minnesota and
Georgia and elsewhere, and that we have a sound economy, and
that we can continue to grow as an economy and be world
leaders.
I just got back from Europe last week. I have been in the
developing world over the last few years as well. I can tell
you that the entire world depends on us, the United States of
America, for innovation, and PRIA is one of the foundations
that this Congress and this Committee can advance, hit that
Easy button, to ensure that innovation green light is still
there for farmers, for industry, for food consumers to continue
to depend on, because, frankly, Europe has retreated from
innovation. They are relying on us. Certainly, Africa, Asia,
everywhere else in the world, whether they want to admit it or
not, are relying on what you do in this Congress and this
Committee to help lead.
So that 7.5 billion number is growing. Over 50 million
babies have been born this calendar year, and I want to
introduce to you Max, on my other iPhone. We will celebrate his
first birthday--he is my first grandson--back on the farm in
Illinois on Saturday, and I am here because of Max and those
other 50 million babies that have been born this year that
really depend on that innovation miracle that America is
providing to the whole world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom can be found on page
73 in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. We congratulate you on your grandchild,
and we wish the best for Max and everybody else that is coming
aboard this planet. Thank you for proving time and time again
that the Malthusian theory is not correct.
Ms. Ruiz, we are now in the midst of a 15-minute vote
on the floor of the United States Senate, and we are
hopefully going to be able to come back and hear your testimony
and have a Trade Representative confirmed by the
United States Senate, an extremely important vote.
So I am going to state that the Committee stands adjourned,
subject to call of the Chair, and I plan to be back within
about seven minutes. I hope that will fit your schedule because
we certainly want to hear your testimony.
Ms. Ruiz. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. The Committee stands adjourned subject to
call of the Chair.
[Recess.]
Chairman Roberts. The Committee will come to order.
Ms. Ruiz, you are recognized for your statement. Thank you
very much for coming.
STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA RUIZ, DIRECTOR OF OCCUPATIONAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, FARMWORKER JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairman Roberts and other members of
the Agriculture Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my testimony this morning.
My name is Virginia Ruiz, and I am the director of
Occupational and Environmental Health at Farmworker Justice.
Farmworker Justice is a national advocacy organization that
supports farmworkers in the U.S. to improve their living and
working conditions, health, occupational safety, and access to
justice. Farmworker Justice has been a member of the PRIA
Coalition, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and
pesticide industry representatives since the initial passage of
the 2003 Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, and we support
its reauthorization in the form of the Pesticide Registration
Enhancement Act.
Under PRIA, money set aside from pesticide registration
fees supports worker protection activities. For more than 10
years, the PRIA set-asides have funded important programs at
EPA, including pesticide safety training for farmworkers and
pesticide handlers, the development of worker and employer
training materials on pesticide safety and implementation of
the Worker Protection Standard and the Certified Pesticide
Applicator rule, also education and training for medical
providers to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, and
support for State public health agencies to maintain pesticide
injury surveillance programs.
Farmworkers, and especially those who mix and apply
pesticides, face substantial risk of becoming poisoned by
pesticides because they work with them at their greatest
concentrations and strengths. Farmworkers and their families
come into contact with pesticides on a daily basis. The
pesticide residues that remain on their work clothes and skin
when they return home from work can also expose members of
their families and cause injury.
Pesticide exposure causes farmworkers to suffer more
chemical-related injuries and illnesses than any other
workforce in the nation. U.S. EPA estimates that up to 3,000
farmworkers suffer acute pesticide poisoning every year through
occupational exposures, with symptoms that include irritated
eyes, rashes, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and shortness of
breath. These estimates do not include those who suffer long-
term effects of exposure, such as cancer, Parkinson's disease,
asthma, birth defects, and neurological harms, including
developmental delays and learning disabilities. EPA has found
that some of the greatest risks from the organophosphate
chemicals, such as chlorpyrifos, are to agricultural
communities and workers.
Many of these acute poisonings are preventable through
basic workplace protections and worker safety education, such
as those required by the EPA's Worker Protection Standard, or
the WPS. The WPS applies to hired workers and pesticide
handlers involved in the production of agricultural crops. In
November of 2015, after more than a decade of stakeholder
meetings, study, and consideration, EPA finalized revisions to
the WPS that provide critical improvements designed to reduce
the risk of illness or injury resulting from workers'
occupational exposures to pesticides.
Also, in January of this year, after more than 40 years,
EPA updated its regulations concerning the certification of and
training requirements for individuals who apply restricted use
pesticides, which are some of the more dangerous pesticides
available on the market.
The updated Worker Protection Standard and Certified
Pesticide Applicator rule provide long overdue protections for
farmworkers, their families, and rural communities across the
U.S. from exposure to pesticides. These regulations call for
basic preventive measures that will save millions of dollars in
medical costs and lost productivity due to illness.
These common-sense measures include annual basic safety
training, posting of application and safety information,
meaningful hazard communication, functioning personal
protective equipment, adequate supervision of non-certified
pesticide applicators, and the prohibition of children from
handling pesticides.
PRIA funding is necessary to help EPA meaningfully and
effectively implement these important safety standards, but
these worker protection activities are meaningless if the
Worker Protection Standard and the Certified Pesticide
Applicator rule are weakened and rolled back.
PRIA set-asides help to provide employer compliance
assistance and worker safety training. However, these funds
must complement and not replace EPA funding for other important
pesticide safety, worker protection, and environmental justice
programs. Stable funding for the agency as a whole is vital to
provide occupational and environmental education for workers,
their families and rural communities, and to prevent adverse
effects from pesticide exposure.
Farmworker Justice requests that this Committee reauthorize
PRIA as quickly as possible and without any changes or
amendments to existing language.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this
important issue, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ruiz can be found on page 69
in the appendix.]
Chairman Roberts. Thank you very much for your very timely
comments, and when you state that PRIA should be moved as
quickly as possible and without any changes or amendments to
existing language--I am reading your statement--I can assure
you we are going to try to do just that. Thank you for your
leadership on behalf of all of our farmworkers.
Mr. Murden, you highlight in your testimony the many
challenges that sorghum producers and citrus growers face--I
think you went a little farther than my question here--from
threats like sugarcane aphid and citrus greening. Crop
protection tools like pesticides and insecticides are certainly
valuable tools with regards to dealing with these types of
threats, and as you mentioned in your remarks, there are many
challenges surrounding the use of these effective tools beyond
just the administrative challenges related to FIFRA and
agencies like the EPA and the USDA.
What are the regulatory challenges that create uncertainty
for farmers? Can you give me a rating? We have the good
Commissioner and his three-point plan, but pretty tough to list
these challenges by their problems. But give it a shot.
Mr. Murden. Well, I think for us, one that comes to mind
right now is we had labeled use pesticides that were taken
away. We do not really understand why, and the frustration we
are getting of Section 18 back has been very cumbersome and
slow, and we are trying to work through those issues right now,
some products that were safe and did work and were economical
for us. It just did not make a whole lot of sense why we lost
them in the first place, and getting them back has been a
challenge.
Chairman Roberts. You also mentioned the problem of all the
paperwork or the work that goes into responses that are called
for. Give me a couple examples, if you could.
Mr. Murden. Well, in some of those responses, I mentioned
toxicologists and things like that. I am just a farmer, and
some of the questions they ask you to respond to are just out
of my league, and you have to count on your science friends to
kind of help you out some.
You know, I think those folks need to get out of that
cubicle more and to my turnrow a little bit more often, and
they might appreciate what is going on a little better.
Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that.
Mr. Vroom, in your testimony, you mentioned that prior to
the implementation of the first PRIA, there was little
certainty for registration packages at EPA. Can you elaborate
on how PRIA has continually improved the regulatory certainty
for the registrants?
Mr. Vroom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. So we
described in our written testimony how the passage of the Food
Quality Protection Act in '96 really put a huge bind on EPA's
processes, and the biggest casualty of that additional work was
a slowdown and a virtual halt for new product approvals,
because of the burden of reevaluating under the new standards
of FQPA. It took us a full eight years after FQPA to 2004 to
get PRIA put in place.
So wait times went above four, five, even six years for new
active ingredients, and even at that time, sunk cost investment
in the new active ingredient for manufacturer was probably in
excess of $150 million. Today, it is approaching $300 million.
Within a couple of years of PRIA being enacted and having
the effect of additional resources for EPA and the clarity of
priorities of timelines, that four-year-and-more wait time
dropped to about two years. Now it has creeped back to about
three for a variety of reasons, part of which is the missed
targets of appropriated dollar support, and that is why we
think, again, getting the appropriators at the table and
helping come up with a compromise approach, just like the
compromise that is represented by the coalition that Virginia
referred to that we are both a part of--Farmworker Justice and
the pesticide industry--makes sense to get to some compromise
here on the Hill with appropriators and authorizers.
But thank you for the question.
Chairman Roberts. Commissioner Black, in your testimony,
you described the unique role the states have under Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA. It is a
unique and effective regulatory enforcement environment.
However, I am concerned that other Federal statutes not meant
to impact the states' responsibilities regarding FIFRA
registration may be burdensome.
What type of interaction have you seen between your state
enforcement responsibilities and other Federal statutes? I am
talking about the Endangered Species Act. Would you support the
modernization of this act? The answer to that is yes, but
please proceed.
Mr. Black. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir, we would support that,
absolutely, and it has been a topic of discussion for a long
time. I know you are passionate about it.
One of our--maybe the best example in the State of Georgia
is a success that winds up as a challenge. We have extensive
holdings in cotton. We have had a big problem with pigweed,
with Palmer amaranth. We began working on the new technology
with industry and with our Federal partners. EPA was involved
early in a successful way trying to help solve the problem in
Georgia. We have invited them out of the cubicles, and we have
had them experience first hand, the program with pigweed in
Georgia and why we needed Dicamba and 2,4-D technology within
our seed technology.
That worked pretty well, but now we have regulatory
decisions regarding application methods that are not rooted in
science. Tank mixes of 2, 4-D and Dicamba with this soybean and
cotton technology are not allowed. Mr. Chairman, my experts
tell me that there is no scientific basis for this decision>
The answer they have gotten is just are simply scared. The EPA
is scared of being sued because of the Endangered Species Act.
I am not sure that is exactly--getting back to our sound
science, we would love to stick to science, but the tank mix
issue with respect to Dicamba and 2,4-D is a problem that we
are experiencing right now.
Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that.
Ms. Ruiz, I do not have a question for you, other than the
fact to repeat my comments to you that the Committee is going
to work as quickly as possible and without any changes or
amendments to existing language, and I am reading to you, your
statement, so thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of you for being here and your good work that you do
all the time.
I was specifically asking in the previous witnesses here
about the timetable, and I know that PRIA has a proven track
record of providing a stable funding source. Minnesota
industries like Ecolab have been at the forefront of developing
innovative products, and the predictability--this is what we
want, right--as well as safety, that PRIA provides, allows
products like these to reach the marketplace in a consistent
way.
So what lessons can we take from the PRIA Coalition on
bringing coalitions together to address some of the
inefficiencies that we can have? I would love to take some of
this success that we have in having a bill that everyone agrees
on and having a way of doing things into some other areas.
Anyone can answer this.
Mr. Vroom. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. So, on behalf of
CropLife and others, hopefully on behalf of the coalition, we
do think that EPA has learned a lot about doing its business
more efficiently and effectively .
Since the--what now?--13-plus years that PRIA has been
there as an added resource, but also with regard to the policy
guidance that is there in the law about timeline and targets to
make decisions, whether they are yes or no, they are targets.
Mr. Keigwin got the question earlier on behalf of EPA from some
of you--I think Senator Ernst--about the 730-day target
timeline for making decisions on new active ingredients, and
the statistic that was quoted from EPA is that they meet all of
these deadlines in PRIA 98 percent of the time. There is an
asterisk on that.
So percentages can be tricky, and in our testimony, we
noted that a study that we did from 2012 through 2014, which
was a fairly representative period out of the 13 years, that
730-day target was vastly missed by 50 to 100 percent in some
of those years.
So they ask for a renegotiation of the deadline and then
count that as a met deadline when they meet the renegotiated
timeline.
An example that came up at a conference that we sponsored
with EPA a couple of weeks back, the head of the registration
and the head of the re-registration divisions openly admit that
their computer systems still do not talk to each other, and so
there is a lot of duplicated work that has to occur to
translate one computer's messaging to the other one. They are
doing a lot of the same work.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Mr. Vroom. So there is still more progress that can be made
in those kinds of areas.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Murden, in your testimony, smaller
acreage and other specialty crops, you noted are sometimes
disadvantaged in the development of new products or
registrations. In Minnesota, that means things like sweet corn
and apples and barley. Can you explain how having regulatory
certainty and accountability helps some of the smaller crops,
like the ones you grow?
Mr. Murden. Yes, ma'am. It boggles my mind how much it
takes to bring a chemical to register. I mean, some of the
money you are talking about, 250- to $280 million, is, quite
frankly, more than some of these industries are as a total. So
we need the level playing field and need all the help we can
get. I am not any less important than the corn growers.
Senator Klobuchar. Really? No.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Except in Iowa. But I am just
kidding. It's a joke.
Okay. So thank you for that. We actually are number one for
sweet corn, and that is why I brought that up. It is different.
Commissioner Black, I authored legislation that was
included in the 2014 Farm Bill that created an Ag Science
Committee at EPA to provide advice to the Science Advisory
Board. Efforts to increase this communication between the
agencies, as I just noted in the first question, are important.
Do you think the USDA outreach to EPA has been helpful, and
what do you see as ways to improve it?
Mr. Black. Yes, ma'am. I believe anytime that we can come
together across agency lines to help farm families and help
this business, that is what we should do because it should be
about service. It should be about finding solutions. We believe
state departments of agriculture have a role to play because we
are implementing federal laws and regulations We are the ones
on the ground every day working with farmers, working with
businesses and real people in real ways.
I absolutely believe in the supremacy of Federal law. We
have requirements under law. We have things that we have to
enforce. I do not think Federal Government, though, has a
monopoly on talent, skill, and experience, and there is quite a
bit of that at the state level. We would actually like to be a
part of how to improve the skill sets within the Federal
Government, so that when we have people who have
responsibilities in agriculture, that they actually have a
background to provide the service.
Senator Klobuchar. Yeah.
Mr. Black. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Senator Klobuchar. Yeah.
Mr. Black. When my Plant Industry Division director sits at
a meeting and an EPA person from our region leans over and asks
him ``Do we grow many peanuts in Georgia?''. I think that is a
problem, not that that is a bad person, but----
Senator Klobuchar. No. It is just--yes, why did that----
Mr. Black. --maybe the skill is not matched up quite----
Senator Klobuchar. Do you grow many peanuts in--no, I am
kidding.
Okay. Thank you. I know exactly what you mean, and the
Chairman has allowed me to ask one more question because I want
to make sure Ms. Ruiz gets a question in here.
In your testimony, you discuss the importance of the newly
updated Worker Protection Standards and the certified
applicator rule. Can you talk about the specific risk, the new
protection standards and rules eliminate, and why we want to
keep them in place?
Ms. Ruiz. Thank you. Yeah. The recently updated WPS
contains some fundamental safeguards to protect farmworkers,
their children, and pesticide handlers from acute and long-term
illnesses and injuries associated with pesticide exposure. The
revised WPS and CPA rules significantly increase protections
for children by requiring that pesticide handlers and
applicators be at least 18 years old. Children under the age of
18 often lack the maturity to safely handle these chemicals,
and so allowing them to do so puts not only them, but also
their coworkers at serious risk.
The WPS also includes provisions, so-called ``application
exclusion zones,'' to protect workers and bystanders from
direct spray and airborne drift from--during the pesticide
applications.
Finally, enhanced safety training required by the WPS
includes some practical measures for workers to avoid exposing
their families to pesticide residues on their skin and
clothing.
The updated certified pesticide applicator rule, whose
implementation has been twice delayed by the EPA, also includes
some critically needed safeguards that have the potential to
save children's lives.
One example I wanted to bring out--and this is something
that was cited by EPA in its rulemaking--in 2010, a commercial
pesticide applicator in Utah misapplied a pesticide, a
restricted use pesticide, at a home where two young girls
lived. He applied the wrong dose and placed it too close to the
home, and tragically, these children became ill and died from
the exposure.
There are hundreds of acute health incidents related to
restricted use pesticide exposure reported every year.
Misapplications that result in tragic events could be avoided
with strengthened certification and training requirements for
these applicators.
Senator Klobuchar. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Ruiz. Thank you.
Chairman Roberts. The Chair now recognizes the Senator who
has achieved a record of gentlemanly yields that I do not think
ever will be broken. I can assure you as long as I am in the
Chair that he will hold that record.
Senator Perdue.
Senator Perdue. I want to apologize for the Chairman's
humor this morning, but----
[Laughter.]
Senator Perdue. Mr. Vroom, you have touched on it just a
minute. I want to dial into this just a minute as a business
guy. Taking 11 years, $280 million, to bring a product to
market is not competitive. I get the gravity of this. I get the
dangers. I understand how important it is for when you say 7.5
billion folks out there who need food.
But you also say in your testimony that in that kind--the
biggest regulatory challenge to EPA's performance is
implementing the Endangered Species Act and the harmonization
with FIFRA for pesticide registration, and that we are
averaging somewhere between 950 and 1,100 days compared to the
730 target.
Mr. Vroom. Right.
Senator Perdue. Specifically, what do we need to think
about as an industry, and what can you help us with that would
speed that up and address the 11 years and $280 million of
product entry?
Mr. Vroom. Well, Senator Perdue, thank you for that
question, and, of course, there are endangered species in every
state in the Union. Some states have more than others, and some
states have more that are at the intersection or potentially or
in theory at the intersection with farming and production
agriculture than others, but it is everywhere.
We all want to ensure that we can protect the environment
and that threatened and endangered species and their habitats,
which are all very carefully described under the Endangered
Species Act that has now been in place for 45 years. We want to
respect that and ensure that those goals are achieved.
But in the 16 years since some organizations have decided
to use the courts to try to get a new interpretation of what
EPA should do under the Endangered Species Act, we have seen no
additional protections for endangered species. But it has added
15 to 20 percent resource consumption by EPA to respond to
these paper procedural matters and to the court cases.
We have, as an association on behalf of our members,
participated in over a dozen of those Federal lawsuits. Most of
them have been successfully managed. We have gone through
discovery and arguments in the courts, but at the end of the
day, we now see that those same activist organizations are
litigating over brand-new chemistries. It used to be just old
chemistries. Now it is holding up access to new chemistry
approvals to get to the marketplace.
So amending the Endangered Species Act is not easy for
Congress. We were part of a coalition that attempted to do that
10 years ago and failed. We think that a fresh look at that but
also with regard to administrative improvements that could be
done by both the Departments of Interior and Commerce, USDA,
and EPA might be another pathway or a combination along with
things that Congress might be able to assist with.
So we would like to come back to you and talk more about
those ideas because, again, it impacts more than just our
industry. It is vital for farmers. Certainly, ranchers in the
West have got lots and lots of issues with regard to endangered
species and the ability to graze animals and the like, so a
very important topic that needs a lot more time and attention.
So thank you very much.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Commissioner Black, I am impressed. ``Cooperative
federalism.'' I did not know you had five-syllable words in
your vocabulary.
Mr. Black. Thank you.
Senator Perdue. But would you expand on that a little bit
and talk about specifics in Georgia where you may have started
applying that concept?
Mr. Black. Well, Senator, thank you. Again, that is a term
that goes back to some learned folks that discussed it 200
years ago regarding what the relationship should be between the
federal government and the state government.
But let me boil it down this way to put it in my terms. It
is that we work together. All of the those stakeholders that
have a role in enforcing the law should work together and
communicate, and we should have a servant's mind about it. Our
job here is really not to be the government, to hide in the
weeds, to jump out and say ``boo,'' but that we should not be
afraid to say ``yes, if'' and guide it that way.
One example that comes to mind immediately relates to
Georgia and the nation is a product approved to control feral
HOAs. I have a call a day asking what we are doing to solve the
feral HOA problem.
Well, there is an EPA-approved product. You all have
probably seen this. It has been in the news. Some colleagues
out West approved it. We will not approve that in the State of
Georgia because it harms wildlife, and I do not understand why
they did not figure that out to start with. So that is an
example where if cooperation between the states and EPA, states
having a seat at the table during the approval process would be
helpful. We also believe this is really important at FDA, the
implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act. We are on the
ground every day. We would like for more of our federal
partners to be open to invitations to leaving Washington, and
come to the ground where the work is being done. I promise you
we will be good hosts in Georgia.
Senator Perdue. Could I ask Ms. Ruiz just one quick
question?
Chairman Roberts. Sure.
Senator Perdue. Thank you for your forbearance.
Ms. Ruiz, the 18-year-old rule for application--and I
understand the seriousness or the dangers around these
products. I am interested. Was there a comment period, and what
comments did you get from family farms about the 18-year rule?
I am not debating. I am not arguing against it, but as a person
who did a lot of work on a farm below the age of 18, I am
curious as to what impact it had and what kind of comments you
got back from small family farms.
Ms. Ruiz. For both the Worker Protection Standard and the
Certified Pesticide Applicator rules, there is an exemption for
family members----
Senator Perdue. I see.
Ms. Ruiz. --from that minimum age requirement.
Senator Perdue. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Roberts. That will conclude our hearing today,
with the exception of I feel compelled to inform Mr. Vroom
that--and anybody else that cares--I talked to a farmer this
morning out in southwest Kansas. It usually does not rain that
much in southwest Kansas. We have had 14 inches of rain in
southwest Kansas. That is incredible. I think the last time we
have had that was 1878. I remember that well.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Roberts. But the whole point of that is that with
rain, we now have the habitat for the lesser prairie chicken
which has been listed and then not listed on the endangered
species list, and I think with the habitat that we will have
enough of lesser prairie chickens, that we will have the
greater lesser prairie chicken. Now that gets a little bit
silly if you really get down to it, but it is not because of
all of the prohibitions to farmers and how they would conduct
their cropping operations and everything else with regards to
the Endangered Species Act.
So I would hope that if any of you have any ways that we
could take a look at that--and we will cooperate with the other
Committees that have that jurisdiction to see if we can get
some answers.
We are pretty close to listing farmers on the endangered
species list, given the rough patch that we are in.
With that, thank you to each of our witnesses on both
panels taking time to share your views on pesticide
registrations and issues impacting agriculture and the crop
protection industries. The testimonies provided today will be
very valuable for the Committee to hear firsthand.
Let me say to my fellow members, we would ask that any
additional questions you may have for the record be submitted
to the Committee Clerk five business days from today or by 5
p.m. next Thursday, May 18th.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
MAY 11, 2017
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
MAY 11, 2017
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
MAY 11, 2017
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown, Sherrod | B000944 | 8309 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | OH | 115 | 136 |
| Leahy, Patrick J. | L000174 | 8244 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | VT | 115 | 1383 |
| McConnell, Mitch | M000355 | 8254 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 115 | 1395 |
| Stabenow, Debbie | S000770 | 8261 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1531 |
| Thune, John | T000250 | 8257 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 115 | 1534 |
| Boozman, John | B001236 | 8247 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AR | 115 | 1687 |
| Van Hollen, Chris | V000128 | 7983 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 115 | 1729 |
| Klobuchar, Amy | K000367 | 8249 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 115 | 1826 |
| Casey, Robert P., Jr. | C001070 | 8282 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 1828 |
| Donnelly, Joe | D000607 | 7941 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 1850 |
| Gillibrand, Kirsten E. | G000555 | 8336 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1866 |
| Bennet, Michael F. | B001267 | 8302 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CO | 115 | 1965 |
| Hoeven, John | H001061 | 8331 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | ND | 115 | 2079 |
| Daines, Steve | D000618 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MT | 115 | 2138 | |
| Cochran, Thad | C000567 | 8292 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 115 | 213 |
| Heitkamp, Heidi | H001069 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | ND | 115 | 2174 | |
| Ernst, Joni | E000295 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | IA | 115 | 2283 | |
| Perdue, David | P000612 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 115 | 2286 | |
| Strange, Luther | S001202 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AL | 115 | 2357 | |
| Grassley, Chuck | G000386 | 8316 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | IA | 115 | 457 |
| Roberts, Pat | R000307 | 8275 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 115 | 968 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.