[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2] [House] [Pages 2110-2111] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2571) to make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. The text of the Senate bill is as follows: S. 2571 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT. (a) Pesticide Registration Service Fees.--Section 33 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136w-8) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(7)-- (A) in subparagraph (D)-- (i) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following: ``(i) In general.--The Administrator may exempt from, or waive a portion of, the registration service fee for an application for minor uses for a pesticide.''; and (ii) in clause (ii), by inserting ``or exemption'' after ``waiver''; and (B) in subparagraph (E)-- (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Waiver'' and inserting ``Exemption''; (ii) by striking ``waive the registration service fee for an application'' and inserting ``exempt an application from the registration service fee''; and (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``waiver'' and inserting ``exemption''; and (2) in subsection (m)(2), by striking ``2008'' each place it appears and inserting ``2012''. (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take effect on October 1, 2007. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Senate bill 2571 provides a technical correction to the reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act approved by the House and the Senate and that was signed by the President on October 9, 2007. As my colleagues know, EPA is currently responsible for regulating the sale, use, and distribution of pesticides. In order to facilitate and expedite the approval process, pesticide manufacturers and other registrants have supplemented EPA's annual budget for a number of years. It's a win-win process for both the manufacturer and the end user and a clear example of good government at its best. Unfortunately, EPA has interpreted the PRIA reauthorization approved by Congress to collect fees for chemicals that are not part of the Interregional Project Number 4, a popular research program that assesses tolerance levels for pest management chemicals applied on specialty crops. These IR-4 chemicals have historically been exempt from fees prior to the enactment of the PRIA reauthorization, and it was not the intention of the House nor the Senate to suddenly assess fees on all these chemicals. This bill will simply restore the status quo for these particular products and reassert congressional intent. Because the program fees are being assessed on IR-4 chemicals as we speak, it is vitally important to address this situation immediately. While the farm bill would be the natural vehicle to make this technical correction, EPA is currently unable to process any registration applications without these fees being paid. Therefore, while this fix is not controversial, it is extremely time sensitive, and the uncertainty of the farm bill process dictates that Congress must take action now. Restoring congressional intent by passing this technical correction to PRIA will prevent delays and backups of applications and stop EPA from collecting and then reimbursing the fees for these chemicals. [[Page 2111]] It is important that we continue to encourage the type of public- private partnerships envisioned in PRIA. I urge my colleagues to support this technical fix and the underlying goals of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 2571. Madam Speaker, last fall we passed Senate bill 1983, which reauthorized the highly successful Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. That act had been worked on by a number of Members in the House and Senate, including the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. In developing this legislation, we sought the advice and counsel of the administration, the affected industry, and the environmental community. I was very happy to have the unanimous endorsement of all interested parties as we moved forward with that bill. As is not uncommon in working on complex legislation, language is included that is subject to interpretation, and in this particular case we included language intending to maintain an existing fee exemption for certain chemicals that have limited uses on specialty crops. Unfortunately, the EPA has interpreted the final language to mean that they would not be able to continue to offer this exemption. This bill that we are considering today would simply restore the status quo for these chemicals, as was the congressional intent. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. {time} 1500 Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the very capable and wise gentleman from Oklahoma who has been a great friend throughout the years that I have been here and thank him for his assistance in this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2571. The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it. Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. ____________________