Sections 1 and 3 of my amendment make it clear that a pesticide is misbranded within the meaning of section 2(q)(1) of the act if the directors or warnings do not adequately protect the health of farmers, farmworkers, and others who may come into contact with pesticides or pesticide residues. Section 3 provides that test data may be relied upon to support an application for registration under section 3(c) of the act only if the tests are conducted in accordance with applicable law and participation therein is based on a free, voluntary, and informed choice. Section 4 makes it clear that a pesticide shall be classified for restricted use if it might otherwise cause injury to farmers, farmworkers, or others who may come into contact with the pesticide or its residues. Section 5 makes it clear that certified applicators must be competent to take measures needed to protect the health of farmers, farmworkers, and others who may come into contact with pesticides or pesticide residues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be printed at this point in the Record. (The being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows): AMENDMENT No. 1017 On page 11, line 16, change the semicolon to a comma and insert the following immediately thereafter: "including the protection of the health of farmers, farmworkers, and others who may come into contact with such pesticides or pesticide residues; or". On page 11, line 21, change the period to a comma and add the following immediately thereafter: "including the protection of the health of farmers, farmworkers, and others who may come into contact with such pesticides or pesticide residues.". On page 17, line 16, change the semicolon to a comma and add the following immediately thereafter: "Provided, That the Administrator shall not rely on test results submitted pursuant to this subsection unless he determines that (i) the tests were conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, or local law, and (ii) participation in the tests was the result of a free, voluntary, and informed choice by each participant.". On page 21, insert the following immediately following line 9: "farmer, farmworker, or other person who may come into contact with the pesticide or pesticide residues.". On page 23, line 22, change the period to a comma and add the following immediately thereafter: "and such competence shall include the ability to undertake such measures as the Administrator may by regulation require to protect the health of farmers, farmworkers, and others who may come into contact with such pesticides or pesticide residues.". STATEMENT OF HON. BOB PACKWOOD, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my deep appreciation to you personally for holding these additional hearings on pesticide legislation. As you and I know, H.R. 10729, the House-passed bill, differs considerably from S. 745 the bill I introduced last year on behalf of the Administration, and which was co-sponsored by Senators Case, Scott, Javits and Gurney. Following House passage of H.R. 10729, many individuals and organizations xpressed to me their concern about and dissatisfaction with the provisions of che House bill. It is my understanding that my colleague, Senator Case, had a similar experience. In light of these developments, Senator Case and I joined in asking the Subcommittee Chairman to hold additional hearings on the House bill; thereby, allowing all parties to this controversy a chance to speak to the Senate Committee on H.R. 10720. It is my sincere hope in light of the Chairman's kind consideration in calling these hearings that a full record can be provided on pesticides for the Committee's use in developing legislation it will report for Senate action. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up any more of the hearing time-time that could be better used by other witneses here today. I urge the Committee to give serious attention to what these witnesses have to say about H.R. 10729. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JAMES B. ALLEN, U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., March 6, 1972. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Senate Agriculture Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for scheduling additional hearings on H.R. 10729, the House-passed pesticide control bill. While I will be unable to appear personally at the hearings scheduled for March 7 and 8, I want to express my appreciation for your consideration in giving concerned environmental organizations the opportunity to be heard on the considerable differences between H.R. 10729 and S. 745, the bill introduced in the Senate on behalf of the Administration. I would appreciate it if this letter could be made part of the record. CLIFFORD P. CASE, U.S. Senator. Senator JAMES B. ALLEN, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture Research and General Legislation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: As Secretary of Agriculture for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there are several points I should like to have entered in the testimony for the hearing on HR 10729-"Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act". It appears that if the "Act" is to an effective instrument in helping to improve the quality of living for all Americans while recognizing the basic needs of a modern and efficient agricultural industry in this nation, there must be cooperation, support, and involvement of the states. We in Pennsylvania want to be in a position to do our part in making this possible. However, for this to happen there are several things about HR 10729 which I believe need to be made very clear, and there are some things which we believe are not desirable. In the final drafting of HR 10729 in the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, it was recognized, at least in part, that to have a strong cooperative federal-state program of pesticide regulations, the program had to be jointly funded. I say "at least in part," because the provision for funding only applies to assisting state agencies. financially in the training and certification of pesticide applicators. I believe state agencies must be given financial assistance in developing and administrating the entire state program rather than only providing assistance for training and certification of pesticide applicators. Furthermore, I believe this funding should be on a basis of eighty percent federal and twenty percent state funds. It is my understanding that your committee proposed a revision to Section 24 (c) that would greatly improve federal-state cooperation regarding registration of intra-state products. I believe it is most important that you adopt this recommendation of your staff. I trust there will be sufficint flexibility in the provisions under Section 4 to establish restrictions which are suited to the degree of hazard and adverse environmental effects that could be caused by misuse of the pesticide when determining how a private applicator is to be certified to use a Restricted Use pesticide. What I am saying is-let us not develop a massive "paper-shuffling" program by requiring every farmer to be licensed who applies pesticides only to his own farm or land he leases for his own use. Make the program flexible enough to meet the requirements for certification of a private applicator, by, for instance, simply signing of a pesticide register certifying the farmer has read the instructions and will apply the pesticide in accordance with such instructions. Another important aspect in implementation of H.R. 10729 will be the selection of the pesticides that will be placed on the restricted use list. A recommendation from the Association of American Pesticide Control officials should certainly be heeded which states "restricted use pesticides should be limited to pesticides of national significance which have had a historic pattern of hazard to the user because of acute dermal or inhalation toxicity or which have caused substantial 76-194-72--25 adverse effects on the environment due to their persistence, mobility, or their characteristic of biological magnification." Finally, section 18 is of concern to us because of our federal-state cooperative plant and animal pest control programs. If a new plant or animal pest is found in Pennsylvania, for which no pesticides have been registered in the United States-we do not want to wait until the President of the United States can provide the executive order that would exempt the United States Department of Agriculture from the provision of the act so that they could cooperate with Pennsylvania in an attempt to eradicate the pest with whatever pesticide will provide good control. A pesticide may be registered in the country where that particular pest is a native insect-but that registration would not do us any good in the United States under HR 10729. Therefore, we urge that Section 18 of HR 10729 be drafted to grant exemption to provisions of the bill so that the Secretary of Agriculture may initiate action to cope with this kind of a problem. Sincerely yours, JAMES A. MCHALE, Secretary of Agriculture. ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, Senator JAMES B. ALLEN, DEAR SIR: We understand that your Senate Subcommittee will review the merits of H.R. 10729 "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971" which passed the House of Representatives last November. This Bill, as originally reviewed by the House, was grossly inadequate to our way of thinking and presented many points which were, to say the least, questionable. Initially, we found that this Bill would preempt states' rights to establish regulations more restrictive than those enumerated in the Federal Act and would have interfered with the right of the public for judicial review. Although some corrective amendments were agreed upon by the House, many important controls were excised and the Bill remains largely ineffectual. An area of immediate need which is conspiciously absent in this proposed legislation is for a centralized location and prescribed procedure for disposal of "empty" containers and unused pesticides. Strategically located pesticide container dumps should be set up at various locations in areas of significant use throughout the country. In summary, doctrines expressed throughout this Bill are apparently slanted and few, if any, environmental safeguards are actually established. To serve any useful purpose in regulating environmentally dangerous chemicals, this Bill should be severely amended. We understand that adequate amending language and substitute legislation (such as H.R. 11169) has been prepared and is available from sources within the Congress. Yours very truly, ANDREW H. HULSEY, Director. STATEMENT OF LOU F. JONAS, PESTICIDE POLLUTION COMMITTEE, IDAHO ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, SHELLEY, IDAHO In regard to H.R. 10729, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971, we have these comments and suggestions to make: 1. The world, in general, and the United States, in particular, need a revamping of our philosophy on pesticides. (a) Much more research is needed to prove each new synthetic product is safe for human and environmental health, as would have been helpful in the case of Thalidomide. (b) We need a shift in emphasis away from synthetics to natural control of pests since the long-term effects of the synthetics are not known. In this case, we might mention the analogy given by Dr. Barry Commoner, in which he compares our environment to a watch. The chances are not very great that we could improve the watch's performance by removing the back, taking a pencil, and with our eyes closed poke the pencil into the watch's works. The watch has been designed through much trial and experiment to give a good performance so that the likelihood of our improving it by adding some thing new (the poke from a pencil) is very small. This is even more true in the case of the ecosystems which form our environment. These have been formed over countless centuries through trial and error. Anything which didn't fit into the system without a detrimental effect was discarded due to its very unfitness. Unfitness plays a minor part nowadays in our tubularvisioned, profit-oriented technology. (c) There is much propaganda available from agribusiness interests and bureaucrats and pesticide manufacturers, seeking to convince us that pesticides and artificial fertilizers are essential for the production of enough food for the world's population. There is much real evidence to contradict this. We can furnish the names of several farmers wo have found that they can produce more and better crops by using natural methods which fit in better with the natural ecosystem. They have gone to these methods because the chemical way was costing too much. (d) As Doctor Commoner says in "The Closing Circle," the fault in our technology lies in its one-track approach to problems. The main criterion for them is: Will it accomplish this one goal? The question as to any undesirable side effects is seldom considered. "In popular imagery the technologist is often seen as a modern wizard, a kind of scientific sorcerer. It now appears he is less sorcerer than sorcerer's apprentice." (e) We feel that many farmers would like to end their addiction to the use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides. (Both these are ideal from a salesman's point of view since they kill off their competitors. E.g., the beneficial bacteria which fix nitrogen in the soil seem to either die off or mutate into non-fixing forms when a large supply of inorganic nitrogen is in the soil.) 2. The House version of the pesticide act is a step backward since it puts the burden of proof on the EPA to show that a pesticide is dangerous and forces the EPA to take the financial risks which are normally taken by those who profit from the sale of their products. (a) As Congressman Thomas Foley commented, Section 3 (c) (1) (D) enables an applicant to restrict the use of research data provided by him to the Administrator. Foley feels that this is clumsy, inefficient, and an expensive way to provide stimulation for research investment. Section 11(a) prohibits the Administrator from requiring the maintenance and filing of records by private pesticide users, even when restricted use pesticides are involved. We agree with Mr. Foley that this is one of the amendments which make effective administration of the act very difficult. This amendment, as Foley suggests, will pre-empt the authority of states to restrict "general use" pesticides under special circumstances. (b) Hon. John Dow stated that even though there were months of testimony before the Agriculture Committee on pesticides, there were very few entomologists to relate the negative aspects of pesticide application. Nor did they hear that some authorities put the number of citizens poisoned by pesticides at 50.000 annually. We would be very interested in learning why there was such an unbalanced approach to testimony. Dow cities (c) (1) (D), which states that the applicant for registration of a biocide has the power to limit the amount of information he will present. He feels, as we do, that the responsibility for the protection of our environment should rest upon manufacturers, as well as on the EPA. Thus, he feels that the burden of proof of safety of a chemical from the manufacturer makes more sense than forcing the Administrator to prove the substance is dangerous as happened in the case of Agene, the flour bleach, which was discontinued after it had been in use for many years because someone discovered it caused running fits in dogs. Dow also pointed out that private citizens will be prevented from being heard at judicial reviews, which will be limited to "any party at interest." But we found one of the most amazing parts of this unique bill to be Sec. 3(c) (5), which states, "The Administrator shall not make any lack of essentially a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide." We are curious as to why a biocide should be used if it isn't essential. Perhaps "essential" has a different meaning in industrial and governmental circles. (c) Congressman John Melcher points out that chemical residues on imported foodstuffs would not be controlled at all by this bill. He felt that the testimony from Food & Drug Administration officials was not reassuring, that the testing for chemical residues was haphazard. The committee had approved a section in the bill which would have applied the same standards to imported food as to food produced in this country. The State Department objected, saying it would interfere with good relations with other countries. (We wish to know what brings about good relations: lots of foreign aid or maneuvering by State Department officials?) The Department of Agriculture objected since it would interfere with agricultural trade. (And trade is more important than a healthy citizenry and environment?) The Environmental Protection Agency, in sympathy with the two Cabinet Departments, also objected according to Melcher. 3. We feel that the manufacturers and bureaucrats could benefit in a course in "Wisely Applied Technology." Some progressive international industrialists and economists belonging to the Club of Rome have pointed the way. With the help of the MIT Megacomputer and computer expert Dennis Meadows, they showed that the present short-sighted, narrow approach of most technologists cannot lead anywhere but to the end of civilization. Why can't we use our very excellent technology in a constructive way? We could construct realistic models of social and biological systems as suggested by Jay W. Forrester, Professor of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Technology Review 73 (3) Jan., 71.) As he says, "Computers are often. . . used for what the computer does poorly and the human mind does well. At the same time the human mind is being used for what (it) does poorly, and the computer does well." We can understand why the operators of a several-billion dollar industry, like the producers of biocides, would be interested in increasing profits, but how do they feel about their descendants? Surely, some of them must have some children! STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Senator JAMES B. ALLEN, DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: Many persons in Oregon-in our state government, at our universities, in industry, and our farmers-have been following closely the progress and development of HR 10729, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act. Many have expressed their concern with respect to certain provisions of the bill which was passed by the House of Representatives and which you now have before your Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation. I wish to bring these concerns to your attention and that of the other members of your committee. The area of most concern to our people is that relating to registration of pesticides and the apparent move toward federal preemption of a state's authority to register pesticides for use within that state. Section 24 (c) of HR 10729 is the specific section which causes the most concern. I quote from the bill : "(c) A state may assist the Administrator in the registration of pesticides formulated for intrastate distribution to meet specific local needs if that Stateis certified by the Administrator as capable of exercising adequate controls." This wording limits a state's authority in registration of pesticides to only those formulated and distributed within the state itself. A state is apparently prohibited by this wording from exercising any registratoin authority over pesticides which are moved in from a manufacturer or formulated in another state. We support a state's need to exercise authority over pesticides formulated and distributed for use within the state. Also, we strongly support the need of a state to control interstate pesticides, as well. We are firmly convinced that the Federal Government through the Environmental Protection Agency cannot effectively handle registration of all pesticides and their many labels and uses within all states. An effective federal program of control of pesticides must be a cooperative program between the Federal Government and the states and cannot be achieved without the involvement, cooperation, and assistance of states. Who better than officials in a state are familiar with their local conditions of soil, climate, crop production, and the need for pesticides. It does not seem logical that this understanding of a state's needs and the exercise of control can be best performed at the federal level. We, therefore, urge that you give consideration to amending Section 24(c) of HR 10729 to permit states to determine their need for pest control, to deter |