pound made public so that the scientific community can examine the data and bring to bear all of the information, if any, about this particular compound. There may not be much or any knowledge about some compounds' effect on the environment when the application is made. That has frequently happened with prescription drugs that are introduced into the marketplace and wide usage subsequently discloses some ramifications that were not anticipated nor discovered in the protocol of the tests that were engaged in, no matter how comprehensive they were. This amendment says, that the tests that were made and the experiments that were gone through will be made public, particularly the scientific community. If, then, there is some expertise available in the United States, the EPA would have the benefit of that expertise, which they can't conceivably have in their agency anyway. Senator ALLEN. Well, they could call on the National Academy of Sciences for technical advice. Senator NELSON. Yes; they could, but Academy doesn't have all of the scientific knowledge either. The National Academy and the whole scientific community ought to have a look at it, I think. Senator ALLEN. Well, the reason I presume to interrupt you, I thought I would ask these questions as we went through each one of these amendments if you do not object. Senator NELSON. NO. Senator ALLEN. Thank you. How long do you think it would take in the average case, where an attack was made upon a proposed registration, to determine the matter and have a final determination. Would you have any thought about how long it might be? Senator NELSON. No, and I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it would depend upon the nature of character of the compound. I don't that that is a serious question. I think the delays in putting compounds into the marketplace hasn't been a problem. I think the problem has been the lack of careful evaluation prior to the introducing of compounds in the marketplace. Chemical companies are searching for new products to do the things that products in the marketplace already do and may do better. To slow up the process of introducing chemicals into the environment is, in my judgment, a positive step in the right direction. We ought to be on the conservative side, that is, we ought to be saying, let's go slowly in the introduction of a chemical into the environment rather than, let's go rapidly and wait for the consequence. Senator ALLEN. Thank you. Senator NELSON. We have the same chaotic situations involving prescription drugs. They are putting compounds into the marketplace almost monthly that do the same thing that other compounds do and do not do it any better. We have 50 years or 20 years or 10 years of experience with a chemical compound that is successful and then we permit the introduction into the marketplace of a compound that is no more effective. There is no necessity for it being put into the marketplace at all and run the risk of undesirable side effects that nobody anticipated. Recently news stories mentioned a drug that resulted in deformities in some children. There was no necessity for putting that drug in the market in the first place. What I am saying is that if a compound is now in the marketplace and we know its ramifications, I would go very slowly before introducing another one, the consequences of which we do not know. The Third Amendment provides that the administrator in considering an application for the registration of a pesticide may refer to any available test data on the chemical compound or formula submitted by an applicant. Senator ALLEN. Would that move some pesticides from the general use category over to the restricted use category? Senator NELSON. Yes, if there was good reason to believe that the pesticide is likely to be used for some purpose other than the one specified on the label. Senator ALLEN. Could you give the committee an example of such pesticide. How would the EPA know that it is going to be used or likely to be used for a purpose other than the label indicated? Senator NELSON. Well, you may have a chemical that is or has a very important specific purpose and studies indicate that it might be used for other general purposes with significant effect, but to do so would be damaging to the environment. And that chemical should not be used for that purpose. But if it were likely to be used for the other purposes, even though it was very effective, then you would want to put it on the restricted list. Senator ALLEN. Well, you would have no quarrel with the House approach of the two categories rather than the three categories of pesticides, is that correct? Senator NELSON. We just address ourselves to the two. Senator ALLEN. Yes, but now the permit only classification that S. 660 had in it, you don't object to the House lumping them all into two categories only, general and restricted use? Senator NELSON. No, I don't think so. There may be some quarrel about that by some who have looked at it more carefully than I have. In the fifth amendment, the essential provision in the first part of this amendment is to give interested Mr. Chairman, I see it is a quarter to 11. I think the rest of the statement is self-explanatory. I don't want to impose upon the time of the other witnesses. I would be happy to submit the balance of my statement for the record. Senator ALLEN. That would be fine. Possibly Senator Curtis would like to ask some questions. Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was late. I didn't get to hear the statement. Senator ALLEN. Senator Nelson, do you feel that the House bill with the changes that you suggest, can properly be used as a vehicle for an effective pesticide control bill? Senator NELSON. I think the House bill with these amendments would form the basis of a very practical, very useful procedure for managing the introduction of pesticides into the marketplace and controlling their use. I am sure that all kinds of improvements can and would be made in it after some experimentation with it, but I think the bill with these amendments would form a very practical structure for attempting to manage a very serious problem. Senator ALLEN. Well, without the amendments that you suggest,do you feel that the House bill is sufficiently affective to accomplish the desired result? Senator NELSON. I do not. I think without these amendments, I think it is a weak bill in terms of the dimensions of the problem. You might have said it was a good bill, as a beginning, 10 years ago. But with what we now know, and with the disastrous implication of the continued introduction of these chemicals into the environment, I think the House bill is inadequate and that with these amendments it would be a very good bill and one that can be administered in a very practical way. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, I believe I noticed in the paper this morning where you and Senator Hart were quoted with respect to the House bill, I believe I am correct in saying that Senator Hart's expressed opinion was that the House bill was worse than nothing. Do you share that opinion? Senator NELSON. No, I don't. Although I do know that thoughtful and knowledgeable people in the Congress and outside of the Congress and in the environmental field have said that, but I don't think that that is correct. I don't think it is worse than nothing. I think it is a step in the right direction. I just don't think it's a big enough step. Senator ALLEN. Well, as to the other amendments that will be in the record, does one of these amendments give members of the public the right to intercede against the EPA if it is not satisfied with its actions. Is there an amendment of that sort? Senator NELSON. That is No. 10. Senator ALLEN. Just how does the amendment approach that particular problem? Senator NELSON. This would allow a citizens suit for injunctive relief-not for damages-in order to enfore compliance with the law. That section is section 17, citizens civil actions, as provided in subsection "B", any person may commence a civil action for injunctive relief on his own behalf, and so on. This simply makes a provision that a citizen may bring an action to enforce compliance with the law through injunctive relief. This, as you know, has been a very important instrument under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act. One of the most significant parts of the act has been the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency, and others, are allowed to go into court and raise the question of whether the environmental impact of a proposed action could be of such consequence that it required the filing of an environmental impact statement. And citizens groups are able to get into court to argue about the adequacy of the statement. This amendment, in effect, does the same thing in terms of giving the citizen the right to bringing suit to enforce compliance with the act, a legal question which the court decides. Senator ALLEN. In other words, it would go a little bit farther than stopping an affirmative action. It would compel an affirmative action, would it not? Does it have the implication not only to stop something but to start something that hasn't yet been started? Senator NELSON. Well, yes, in the sense that if the Administrator was not in fact, enforcing a specific provision of the law, then the citizen would have standing to go to court and say in court that the Administrator is not enforcing this provision of the law. Senator ALLEN. Well, now, is that a new approach to the same problem or is it the same method? It goes a little bit farther than the present system of stopping an affirmative action, does it not? Senator NELSON. Well Senator ALLEN. In other words, that would require specific psrformances. Senator NELSON. In a sense. Senator ALLEN. As distinguished from cease and desist, shall we say. Senator NELSON. Yes, as the chairman knows, of course, the question of bringing suit to require a public official to execute his duty is an old and standard practice procedure that has been undertaken in practically every State in the United States any number of times for more than a century. Senator ALLEN. I was somewhat interested in the memorandum that you alluded to and perhaps quoted from. Just what was this memorandum? I have not seen any such memorandum or been advised of any such. Senator NELSON. I will submit it for the record. I, quite frankly, do not think, speaking for myself and not having spoken with anybody at EPA that this represents the official position of the EPA in any event. It was a memorandum prepared by Mr. Howard Cohen, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs Environmental Agency, and distributed to the Regiosnal Administrators of EPA at a briefing January 12, 1972. It has four or five pages here on the Pesticide Control Act. I quoted a bit from it. I will submit it to the committee. I don't know whether you wish it for the record. Senator CURTIS. Does it deal with any subject besides pesticides? Senator NELSON. Yes. Senator CURTIS. What other subjects does it deal with? Senator NELSON. Well, the Interstate Environmental Compact Act of 1971, toxic substances legislation, and other matters. Senator CURTIS. Where did it come from? Senator NELSON. Well, the New York Times got a copy of it. It was submitted by, as I said, Mr. Cohen and distributed to the Regional Administrators EPA at a briefing on January 12, 1972, and there is this section on the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, H.R. 71029 and Senator CURTIS. What is your objection to it? Senator NELSON. As I stated in my testimony, it outlined a political strategy supporting the House bill and opposing the strengthening of the House bill. Senator CURTIS. And how do you find the strengthening? Senator NELSON. A debate was made for strengthening it on the House side and it was anticipated, of course, the amendments to strengthen the authority in the bill would be offered on the Senate side. This document was drafted, I assume, by Mr. Cohen as a strategy for handling the issue. It is just another case of putting out on paper something he should have kept in his head. Senator CURTIS. What other objections do you have to it? Senator NELSON. I object to it because here was an official of the EPA attempting to prevent passage of stronger pesticide legislation. That is all. I happen to favor a much stronger act and I think the respresentatives of the EPA should too. Senator CURTIS. Because it advocated the type of bill that you disagreed with? Senator NELSON. Yes. Senator CURTIS. Are there other people who disagree with you on this? Senator NELSON. Lots of them. Senator CURTIS. What groups are supporting your amendments? Senator NELSON. I don't know. I would think, however, that the amendments proposed here are amendments that have been discussed and worked on by a number of environmental groups. I would guess that all of the environmental organizations would be in general agreement at least with the amendments I have proposed. I think quite frankly that anybody who is knowledgeable about pesticides and not in the business of producing, because there are some knowledgeable people there, anybody who is knowledgeable about pesticides would support these amendments or most all of them. Senator CURTIS. Are there any knowledgeable people in the agency? Senator NELSON. I think so. Senator CURTIS. Are they supporting them? Senator NELSON. I don't know that. They are going to testify here later. Senator CURTIS. And what agricultural groups are supporting those? Senator NELSON. I don't know that. Senator CURTIS. Are there any? Senator NELSON. I don't know that. As you probably know, the bill that I introduced along with 27 other Members of the Senate, including the chairman, on establishing pilot projects for the experimentation in various kinds of crops in various regions of the country with integrated pest control, this had substantial support from the agricultural community. But as to these specific amendments, I don't know whether the Farm Union or the Grange or the National Farmers Organization or any of the co-ops in the agricultural field have a position one way or another. Senator CURTIS. They are the people who are going to have to use it. They are the people who use pesticides. Senator NELSON. Yes, that is correct and misuse them mostly. That is the problem. The chemical companies have been the educators of the agricultural people in the Agricultural Departments in every State in the Nation including my own. And unfortunately the chemical companies have been the "educators" of the world and the farmers in the use of pesticides. They have persuaded the farmers to engage in massive, indiscriminate, irrational application of pesticides onto the land and into the atmosphere to the detriment of the farmers themselves and, just as important, to the detriment of all of the rest of the country. This is recognized, I think, by everybody who has studied in the field, as a serious nationwide and worldwide problem. So, though the farmers use pesticides they don't have, or shouldn't have, any right, in my judgment, to use a product indiscriminately, unnecessarily, that has detrimental ramifications throughout the environment. I don't blame the farmers. They had no notion what these chemicals would do except that they killed a lot of bugs and killed them fast and it looked like a profitable investment to do what the chemical companies said to do. They did it, and did it for a quarter of a century. And there has been no more successful lobby for the use of |