Baker points out that most of the provisions require reporting information to DEA. "It is not the chemical industry's job to carry out law enforcement activities," he says. "We cannot accept any obligations to look into or investigate the legitimacy of our customers' operations." DEA will have the authority to ask a company to watch for sales to a particular customer and report any transactions. Baker says some foreign sales are known to have been diverted to places like Colombia, so sales to those areas may be watched more carefully. Chemicals are not the only items coming under more scrutiny in this bill. Other sections would put tougher restrictions on equipment, especially machines that make tablets or capsules from powders. The bill also would make it unlawful to "manufacture, distribute, or import a threeneck round bottom flask . . . knowing that it will be used to manufacture a cpntrolled substance." The question of how this would
apply to research or university labs is still open. If there are any threshold levels for reporting, they will be determined later by the Attorney General. Sterling says that the reporting and record keeping would not apply to high school and college labs. Baker says research labs may be exempt as well, although some of them use large volumes of the regulated chemicals. Normally, it is just the seller or distributor that would have to keep records; users (unless there is some kind of use certificate required) would not have the same responsibilities. The Senate has not moved as far as the House on regulating chemicals that could be used to manufacture illegal drugs. There is a good possibility, however, that a new, revised antidrug abuse bill that contains a chemical diversion measure may soon be introduced in the Senate. Baker says CMA has asked that the House version be used as a pattern for the Senate provisions. David Hanson
Move to end buy up of banned pesticides fails The debate was heated. The vote was close. But in the end the House declined, 209 to 206, to seize an opportunity to put an end to federal payments for banned pesticide products. Despite several attempts, including some that were almost successful, Congress has made no major changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act in nearly a decade. And in none of those attempts did it address what is becoming an increasingly expensive burden for the Environmental Protection Agency. Under current law EPA is required to buy up existing stocks of pesticides that have been banned because they pose an imminent danger to health or the environment and then pay for their storage and disposal. In fiscal year 1988 the budget for these buyouts was $8 million. For fiscal 1989 the House Appropriations Committee raised that budget to $53 million, an increase of 560%. Critics of the program, led by Rep. Mike Synar (D.-Okla.) and Rep. Wil-
liam F. dinger Jr. (R.-Pa.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Environment, Energy & Natural Resources, decided it was time to stop the buyouts. Their chosen vehicle was an amendment to H.R. 4800, Department of Housing & Urban Development—Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1989. The amendment would simply eliminate indemnity payments for banned and suspended pesticides. However, because House rules prohibit the consideration of legislative matters, which would include the amendment, in an appropriation bill, the backers needed a waiver of the rule in order to offer the amendment. The Rules Committee did not grant the waiver, so in order to get a chance for a vote on the amendment its backers first had to defeat the rule. During debate on the rule, Synar noted that the pesticide industry is in a unique market position. No other industry that produces products enjoys this position of a fed-
erally insured policy of guarantees on its products. He pointed out that when drugs are pulled off the market, the manufacturers bear the cost of the recall, lost sales, and of disposing of the products. Synar argued that "there is simply no justification for continuing to provide this industry with special market protection. The taxpayers cannot afford it and the health of our farmers and the public cannot afford it." He pointed out that the buyout program was diverting needed resources from EPA's pesticide safety review programs and that EPA itself strongly endorsed abolishment of the indemnification program. However, Rep. Kika de la Garza (D.-Tex.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over pesticide laws, countered that this was not a question of subsidies for large chemical manufacturers. Rather, he contended, it is a question of safety. "We got involved in this situation," he explained, "so that the farmer does not dump the suspended pesticide in the nearest creek, so that the retailer does not take it to the city dump; so that the chemical manufacturer does not improperly dispose of the pesticide." Further, de la Garza argued that it isn't right to penalize a company after the fact. "After they have been told this is a legal chemical, then they are told, 'No, it is not legal and you are caught with the stock.' " Then he appealed to House tradition, pointing out that the Agriculture Committee is the proper place to handle pesticide legislation. Those arguments won the day, but by the slimmest of margins. The vote on accepting the rule passed by only three votes, and then only after de la Garza had pledged to address the matter in committee. The final word went to the retiring chairman of the Appropriation Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies, Rep. Edward P. Boland (D.Mass.), who told Synar and Clinger that "they have fought well and they will live to fight another day. I am sure that bill will be brought to the floor." Janice Long July 18, 1988 C&EN
25
