Volume 148, No. 55 covering the 2nd Session of the 107th Congress (2001 - 2002) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E719-E720 on May 6, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001
______
speech of
HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, May 2, 2002
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011:
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, section 7504 of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act amends the Plant Protection Act with respect to certain treatments or applications of methyl bromide. This section requires the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake specified activities upon the request of State, local or tribal authorities and to publish a registry. The section also requires a program to identify methyl bromide alternatives.
I was pleased to work with the conferees on this section to ensure that the section does not modify or alter the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency or provide any authority to the Secretary of Agriculture under the Clean Air Act or regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act. In this regard, I believe the final legislative language is consistent with an exchange of correspondence between the Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Agriculture Committee concerning the original House provision which served as the basis for the final language contained in section 7504. I am inserting this exchange of correspondence below to further explain the intent and effect of section 7504.
House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2001.Hon. Larry Combest,Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Combest: As reported from the Committee on Agriculture, H.R. 2646 contains legislative language regarding methyl bromide.
As you know, methyl bromide has been specifically regulated as an ozone depleting substance (ODS) under the Montreal Protocol, ratified by the United States in 1987, and under Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA), established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (1990 CAAA). Under current provisions of both the Montreal Protocol and the CAA, methyl bromide is scheduled for complete phaseout in the United States by 2005. Title VI of the CAA, which serves as a supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol, has been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce since its enactment and signature into law on November 15, 1990.
Both the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act currently provide for specific exemptions from the 2005 phaseout date for methyl bromide. Within the Montreal Protocol, quarantine and preshipment exemptions for methyl bromide are defined within the terms of the treaty as well as subsequent Decisions of the Parties which, among other requirements, limit preshipment applications of methyl bromide to 21 days and provide that Parties utilize alternatives to methyl bromide whenever possible. The Montreal Protocol also provides for a ``critical use'' and ``emergency use'' exemptions for methyl bromide, although formal procedures and process to implement this exemption have not yet been established. Within the Clean Air Act, sections 604(d)(5) and 604(d)(6) provide that, to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol's quarantine and preshipment provisions, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) shall exempt certain uses of methyl bromide for purposes of complying with federal, state and local sanitation requirements and critical uses. Section 604(d)(5) has been implemented, in part, through interim final regulations promulgated by EPA on July 19, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 37,752).
Section 762 of H.R. 2646 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request of a State, local or tribal authority, determine whether treatments or application of methyl bromide shall constitute an ``official control'' or
``official requirement'' under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et. seq.). I am concerned that although section 762 does not amend the CAA nor affect any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the use of the terms ``official controls'' or ``official requirements'' may cause some confusion because these terms are the same terms used in Decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol respecting quarantine and preshipment applications provided for in Article 2H of the treaty.
This letter is therefore intended to clarify the understanding of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Agriculture that section 762 does not affect any current provision of the Clean Air Act or the Montreal Protocol and therefore has no substantive legal effect upon the operation of sections 604(d)(5), 604(d)(6) and 604(h) and related provisions within the CAA affecting the phaseout of methyl bromide and the determination of what uses may qualify or not qualify for exemptions or exceptions to the current phaseout schedule for this substance. It is my understanding that section 762 does not in any way transfer authority between the EPA and the Department of Agriculture regarding which governmental body has authority to make determinations regarding exemptions that are available under section 604(d)(5) for sanitation and food inspection and under section 604(d)(6) for critical uses. Further, it is my understanding that should section 762 or any other provision affecting the status, phaseout or exemptions available for the use of methyl bromide arise during any House and Senate conference on H.R. 2646 or the related Senate legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will be assured of representation at the conference and effective control in the House of Representatives over any and all legislative provisions affecting methyl bromide that fall within its jurisdiction.
Thank you for your assistance and agreement in this matter.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC, September 28, 2001.Hon. W.J. (``Billy'') Tauzin,Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Tauzin: Thank you for your letter of September 28, 2001 regarding section 762 of H.R. 2646, provisions regarding certain determinations concerning official uses of methyl bromide under the Plant Protection Act.
As you are aware, section 762 does not amend, or in any way affect authorities contained in the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol regarding the phase-out of methyl bromide and available exemptions to the otherwise applicable 2005 phase-out date. In addition, Section 762 does not transfer any authority over methyl bromide between that which currently exists within the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. Finally, you have my assurance that I will support the appointment of an appropriate number of conferees from your Conunittee should this or any other matter falling with the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce arise in a House/Senate conference on H.R. 2646 or similar legislation.
I look forward to your continued support for H.R. 2646.
Sincerely,
Larry Combest,
Chairman.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up