- 5 months ago
During a House Appropriations Committee markup meeting before the Congressional recess, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) spoke about a rider that would change the labeling practice for pesticides.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Gentle lady from Maine is recognized for an amendment.
00:07Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I prefer to have the reading dispensed with.
00:12Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentle lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
00:19Thank you, Mr. Chair. You'll all be pleased to know this is the last of my amendments.
00:22So, this one would remove a rider on a pesticide labeling amendment.
00:30So, just to explain this a little bit, the EPA sets the floor for how pesticides can be regulated.
00:37And then state and local governments can and should be able to inform residents of their states of potential health risks based on the latest science.
00:45Reasonable restrictions made for pesticide usage, such as limiting how close they can be sprayed to schools or playgrounds,
00:53or whether they can be sprayed in certain communities.
00:57This amendment are allowed because of this.
01:00So, there's a floor. This allows communities and states to do a little bit more.
01:04This rider would preempt states from going beyond the current floor.
01:09It doesn't take chemicals away from farmers.
01:11It doesn't take away the opportunity to farm or to use these pesticides.
01:15And it doesn't change something that currently exists.
01:18This amendment does not take away pesticides.
01:21It just ensures that state and local governments can provide residents with up-to-date safety information.
01:27And it ensures that chemical companies can be held responsible for failing to provide relevant safety information.
01:34Now, if we all truly care about making sure that America is healthy,
01:38and why wouldn't we want to make sure that Americans have access to relevant health information on pesticides?
01:45And why would we want to give giant chemical companies a pass for being held liable if someone is harmed from their product?
01:53My state, Maine, is one of the seven states that currently does have advisories and restrictions.
02:00Over 30 state and local regulations in Maine are related to pesticides and pesticides warning.
02:06That could be preempted by this language.
02:08And I just want to make sure that states like Maine, my home state, which has a whole variety, as I've said, of these kinds of restrictions.
02:16Here's a little information on the many communities in my state that have decided to provide this information, warning, or restrictions.
02:27And people would be very upset in my state if they thought they didn't have the right to go beyond the floor.
02:33Now, we've heard some talk about this already, and I'm sure we'll hear some arguing about it already,
02:37that the language simply clarifies existing law that states can't require a different pesticide label.
02:43That's not true.
02:46This amendment would forbid the EPA itself from approving any label or policy that departs from an old risk assessment or cancer classification.
02:55It freezes the effect of these assessments.
02:58In the last review, it said non-cancer-causing EPA is barred from adding a warning.
03:04Even if there is new science or court findings or the company itself asks for it, this would ban that until a new assessment is finished.
03:12So, this is just a way to make sure people have the information.
03:16This is just a way to allow that the EPA does its job to protect us from harmful chemicals.
03:22This is just a way to make sure that that information is available.
03:26I urge you to support this amendment.
03:29It removes a rider that changes what is existing practice, and I think that it's something we should be able to agree on.
03:38I yield back.
03:39I thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, it's recognized to respond to the amendment.
03:44I thank the gentleman for yielding.
03:46Apparently, I'm going to have to explain this once again.
03:51I thought I was fairly clear with it before.
03:53Let me read to you what the FIFRA statute says.
03:57This is what it says.
03:59This is an interstate commerce thing.
04:17Now, if Maine wants to ban chemicals in its state because it thinks they're not labeled correctly, they can ban them.
04:24They can ban them today.
04:26This will not affect that.
04:28It just says that Maine shouldn't be able to do a labeling requirement, and then all the chemical companies in the world have to apply, have to abide by whatever Maine decides.
04:38They're going to sell them in Idaho.
04:39It's more likely that it won't be Maine because they probably don't have that many sales in Maine compared to, say, California.
04:47When the California EPA, their state EPA, decides they want a different labeling, they think that this chemical causes cancer.
04:57They can put that on their label.
04:58Well, then, every state is going to have to put it on eventually because a company is not going to have a different label for every single state.
05:08They will go to the most strict one that sells the most, that'll be California, probably.
05:14And that would be the standard across the country.
05:16What we have tried to do over the years is say, the EPA does this.
05:23It is not a floor.
05:25I don't know where that idea came.
05:28It is a floor.
05:29Eh, it may cause cancer.
05:30It may not.
05:31We're not going to say it does.
05:32That's not what the EPA does.
05:35The EPA does research to see if it's causing cancer or any other problems.
05:40And they can redo it.
05:42They can revisit it.
05:43They can re-examine it as many times as they want.
05:45There's nothing that prevents them from doing that.
05:49All this does is deal with the interstate commerce part of labeling.
05:55So if a state wants to say, you know what, I don't want this sold in Idaho because we think in Idaho that it causes cancer.
06:05We can do that today.
06:06All this deals with is labeling.
06:12We think we address this in the underlying on-block amendment.
06:17So I understand the concern and I understand the confusion out there that's being spread, frankly.
06:25I know the ma-ha moms have been calling and all that kind of stuff.
06:30You know, I agree with them.
06:32I think we ought to make America healthy again.
06:34I'm glad they're taking an active role in this.
06:38But they're getting so much misinformation about what this does that it's hard to find the truth out.
06:45And we're hearing a lot of it today.
06:49So I would hope my colleagues would vote against this amendment.
06:51I'll try not to talk about it again.
06:53But I hope we vote down this amendment.
07:01I thank the gentleman.
07:02Gentle lady from Minnesota is recognized to address the amendment.
07:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
07:09To be clear, I support the Pickering Amendment, and I believe what you're telling me.
07:14I need some clarification.
07:17And I'm not, I didn't talk to any of these groups that you've talked about.
07:20Okay?
07:21So I think the bill might do more, or I need to see language that doesn't include what I'm about to read.
07:30So, and I'm reading from the language that I have about the bill.
07:35And it says, none of the funds made available by this or any other act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy,
07:50take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling, or change such labeling that is inconsistent,
07:58or within such a respected different from the conclusion of what's on there.
08:05So here's where I have the problem, Mr. Simpson, is any guidance.
08:10Right now, Minnesota provides guidance from our state to our farmers and to other community members about which pesticides might be harmful,
08:23which are water-soluble, which could land up in their wells.
08:28So I agree with what you're saying, but what I have in front of me would, would, says any guidance.
08:36And then when you look at the bill on page 246, some of the money that Minnesota uses it when it has its, its, its guidance,
08:48when we go out and we talk to farmers and we talk to people who are applying it.
08:52And I worked on this when I was in the state house.
08:55The pesticide program implementation is included in that money.
09:00And it says not, no funds.
09:02So then when I read guidance, it's like, okay, that's slightly different from what I'm hearing you say
09:10and support some of what Miss Pink, uh, ranking member Pingree is saying.
09:16So I feel very caught in the middle on this because I don't want to take a vote
09:22that would put Minnesota in jeopardy from using any of the EPA pesticide money for doing guidance.
09:31And I don't see in the language here, um, there was a term I used to hate it when people used it,
09:37when we would do bills in Minnesota.
09:38I don't see any comfort language in here that would, would lead me to believe that
09:43I wouldn't be putting our guidance money in jeopardy.
09:47And so I just wanted to say that for the record, um, here, I, Mr. Simpson,
09:52I believe everything you're telling me.
09:54I do.
09:54But reading it leads me to believe I could, by, by not supporting the Pingree amendment,
10:02putting our guidance in jeopardy.
10:05And with that, I, I thank you both for listening to me and I yield back.
10:13Thanks, gentle lady, gentle lady from Florida.
10:15Ms. Wasserman Schultz recognized to address the amendment.
10:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:25I rise today in strong support of the Pingree amendment to strike this insidious
10:29industry written writer from the bill.
10:32Um, I'll, I'll, I'll point out, and I certainly trust and have Mr.
10:37and have respect for Mr. Simpson and, uh, and have worked with him on many issues
10:42and appreciate his sincerity.
10:45Um, but the fact is, is that this, this is a writer that protects chemical company profits
10:50at the expense of our health, our communities, and even our children's lives.
10:54But let's be clear about what this does.
10:57And I'm not about to say anything different than what Mr. Simpson just described.
11:01It would prohibit states and localities from issuing their own warnings about pesticide risks,
11:06even if new scientific evidence shows those chemicals cause cancer, birth defects, or other
11:11serious harm.
11:12This writer would gag the very governments that are closest to the people and best situated
11:17to quickly protect them.
11:19Everyone here knows I'm a breast cancer survivor.
11:21I find this writer not just offensive, but dangerous.
11:25And I'm not the only cancer patient, cancer survivor in the room, nor do I corner the market
11:30on concern on behalf of cancer patients.
11:33But this bill, this, this language says that even if science evolves, even if we learn more
11:41about the cancer risks that these pesticides pose, states and communities can't put warnings
11:48on this packaging to tell you that.
11:51They can't require that.
11:52They can't even warn people.
11:54And that's unconscionable.
11:56We know how this happens.
11:58Chemical companies put profits ahead of our health.
12:00Then they ask Congress to shield them from any accountability.
12:04This amendment doesn't cancel the sale of any of these chemicals.
12:09It just says that based on science, warnings have to be allowed.
12:15And that's exactly, this writer is the classic poison pill, literally.
12:21It's written by and for polluters, slipped into a funding bill that's supposed to protect
12:26our environment and public health.
12:28And let's not forget, it also strips away state and local authority.
12:32Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, actually most of us, really spend
12:36a lot of time promoting local control, states' rights.
12:40Well, here's your test.
12:42Will you side with your community's local rights or with chemical lobbyists?
12:46States always had the ability to go above and beyond federal minimums, always, when it
12:50comes to protecting their citizens.
12:52By the way, while this language might have been in the bill over the last three years,
12:58it has actually never made it all the way through the process.
13:01So it is not current policy.
13:04This writer would rip away the ability for local governments, state governments, to use
13:10science to best inform their constituents.
13:12I've walked the hard path of a cancer diagnosis and treatment.
13:19I've seen what it does to families and felt the impacts of my own family and children.
13:24And I refuse to stand by while we let corporate lobbyists write language that muzzles states
13:29and leaves families in the dark about real risks to their health.
13:32The ranking member's amendment is about protecting people, not polluters' profits.
13:37So, yes, let's rip this rider to shreds.
13:40Let's send a clear message that we will not allow corporate polluters to hide the truth
13:46about cancer-causing chemicals, and we will always fight to put public health above corporate
13:51wealth.
13:52I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the ranking member's amendment.
13:56Vote yes and stand with your constituents and local and state governments.
14:00Vote for sunlight and transparency.
14:02And vote to inform your constituents about the risk that these chemicals pose, then let
14:09them make their own decisions.
14:11I yield back to the balance of my time.
14:13Thank you, gentlelady.
14:14The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized to address the amendment.
14:19Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:20I rise also in strong support of this amendment.
14:23I associate myself with all of my colleagues, especially Ms. Wasserman Schultz' comments.
14:28I'm also a former Philadelphia trial lawyer, so this strikes at something that I care an
14:34awful lot about, which is protecting those who are harmed, particularly by companies who
14:39know better, and they want to protect themselves instead of their customers.
14:45Quite simply, Section 453 would prevent states from acting expeditiously to protect their residents
14:50from dangerous chemicals.
14:52EPA has to do an entire study from scratch in order to change their determination of whether
14:57their chemicals cause cancer, even when outside evidence is definitive.
15:02This can mean years-long delays in updating labels, meaning more people are harmed by chemicals
15:08that we already know to be dangerous, and that chemical companies are shielded from liability
15:13even when they know they are responsible.
15:16This quite simply makes no sense.
15:19One especially egregious example of this is Paraquat.
15:23Paraquat is made by Syngenta, which is owned by ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned chemical
15:31conglomerate.
15:32Paraquat has known health risks.
15:35It is banned in dozens of countries, including in China.
15:40Let me give you an idea here what it is.
15:44Paraquat is a herbicide, herbicide, widely used by American farmers despite being banned in
15:50over 70 countries, including China.
15:54Its dangers, independent research links chronic Paraquat exposure to heightened risk of Parkinson's
16:02disease.
16:03Studies show that Paraquat can damage dopamine-producing neurons essential for motor functions.
16:10Farmers who have handled Paraquat in the fields are at the highest exposure for risks.
16:16Internal documents indicate Syngenta knew as early as the 1960s, we're going back to those
16:22birthdays again, that Paraquat could accumulate in the brain, potentially causing Parkinson's-like
16:29symptoms, and they continued to market the product without adequate warnings, even as China
16:35and 70 countries banned the sale of it.
16:38What's going on now?
16:39There are thousands of farmers struggling with Parkinson's-like disorder who are suing
16:47for their own damages, but also for the right to let others know and that there be warnings
16:55on all of these labels when the dangers and the damage is known.
17:01So, Section 453 would shield Syngenta, ChemChina from liability when Paraquat causes harm.
17:11As I say, this is just one example.
17:13I don't understand how it makes any sense.
17:15Why wouldn't we want to warn?
17:18Isn't there a duty to warn?
17:21And shouldn't we allow states to do that?
17:24I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
17:27Thank you, General Lady, the gentleman from California, Mr. Levins, recognized to address
17:33the amendment.
17:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:36I, too, rise in support of the Pingree Amendment.
17:38Let's be honest about what this provision does.
17:42It blocks the EPA from updating pesticide labels, even when new science shows those products
17:48may be dangerous, and it ties the hands of states like mine in California from stepping in
17:54when the federal government won't.
17:56We're not talking about burdensome new regulations.
17:59We're talking about basic transparency, telling people when a chemical they're using or spraying
18:05might cause cancer or serious harm.
18:08I know that many of you might vote to keep this section in the bill, but I'd ask you to
18:13think hard about who benefits and who pays the price, because this provision doesn't protect
18:18farmers.
18:19It protects companies from lawsuits.
18:21It gives them cover to keep selling the same product with the same outdated label long after
18:27we know it might be causing harm.
18:30And when the lawsuits come, and they will come, those same companies will stand behind section
18:35453 and say, well, Congress told us not to change the label.
18:39That will be your name on it.
18:42It'll be the vote of this body.
18:44It'll be your legacy that that happened.
18:46And I think we all want a strong agricultural sector.
18:49I'm proud to have almost 1,000 small family farms in and around my district.
18:55We just want consistency for producers that can't come at the cost of silencing science
19:01or shielding people from accountability when they know that they are using pesticides or
19:08other sorts of harmful substances.
19:11So let's do the right thing, not the easy thing, the right thing.
19:16And I'm open to anybody telling me that what I just said is wrong on the substance, on the
19:21merits.
19:22And I hope you support the Pingree Amendment.
19:27Thank you, gentlemen.
19:28Are there any other members wishing to address the amendment?
19:32If there's no further debate, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
19:38Thank you, Mr. Chair.
19:39And thank you to my colleagues for all of their eloquent arguments about why this amendment
19:45should be adopted.
19:46Just once again, to emphasize the point here, this removes a rider, a rider that is in this
19:53bill that has been submitted in other bills, but has never become actual law.
19:57So we are not changing existing practice.
20:01We are not taking anything away from current farmers and their ability to do the work that
20:06we do.
20:06As my colleagues have said so eloquently, this is making sure that people have current and
20:11updated information about the health impacts of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, a variety
20:18of things that are regulated under FIFRA.
20:20This makes sure that that information is available.
20:23If your state chooses to add that information, if your state chooses to add more restrictions,
20:28or if the EPA wants to update that, it will be allowed to do so.
20:33Farmers have other alternatives.
20:35Many of these chemicals or pesticides or herbicides are banned in other countries, and they have
20:41alternatives that they use.
20:43There is a reason we got calls from Maha moms and organic farmers, because this is one of
20:50those areas where we converge, where we say, we want to make sure our families stay healthy.
20:56We want to make sure our communities are healthy.
20:59We want to make sure the very farmers who interact with these chemicals are also healthy and know
21:04the dangers of the chemicals that they face.
21:06There is never a time in this country where there should be information that is known by
21:11a company that not is available to everyone else who may consume or use that product.
21:16So let's make sure that information stays available, that the rights are there for our farmers and
21:22our consumers, and we remove this rider and remove this harmful language.
21:26And I yield back.
21:29Thanks, gentlelady.
21:30The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Maine.
21:34All those in favor say aye.
21:36Aye.
21:37All those opposed say no.
21:39No.
21:40Opinion of the chair, the no have it.
21:42And the amendment is not agreed to.
Be the first to comment