June 3, 2003

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing today and find it timely, given the important decisions that will be made in the coming months over the use of methyl bromide in this country.

Implementation of the Montreal Protocol has been successful with regard to the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances and there are indications the ozone hole is no longer growing. But methyl bromide presents us with difficult challenges. There is no doubt that methyl bromide is indeed extremely toxic and that it has a well-demonstrated negative effect on the ozone layer. The question remains as to how quickly we can move U.S. agriculture away from its use without causing undue harm.

If one reviews the hearings held in the Committee in the 104th Congress, the challenges cited then and those cited now are essentially the same. Technically and economically viable alternatives remain crucial to U.S. agriculture’s ability to move beyond methyl bromide use. While testimony that we will hear today indicates that great progress has been made, it is also evident that we still have work to do, which brings me to the critical use exemptions that the United States has submitted for review.

I understand that there is disagreement over the number of exemptions that the United States has asked for and I hope that the testimony of our witnesses will enlighten us as the appropriateness of the U.S. requests and their current status. Wherever one comes down on the question of how much is enough, however, we all recognize that a good many U.S. farmers depend on the responsible use of methyl bromide and that in many cases, viable alternatives are not yet available. Therefore some critical use exemptions must be granted.