Mrs. KANTOR. I am not exactly certain of the present state. I do know that under the Senate Agriculture Committee version and as passed by the House, it is within the discretion of the Administrator of EPA whether to require that these test data are submitted to EPA. While it is required that the manufacturer conform to these tests, although he does no have to have tests performed specifically on workers, section 3 (c) (1) (d) that I mention in my written statement, in the registration process the manufacturing company need not furnish test data unless specifically requested by the Administrator.

Senator HART. And one of those Nelson-Hart amendments does require that.

Mrs. KANTOR. That is correct.

Senator HART. Do you in addition to your specific support for the Stevenson amendments, support the other amendments that are pending?

Mrs. KANTOR. Yes, in fact, I consider the Hart-Nelson amendments really to be the priority ones that are essential to have any effective control of pesticides. In my opinion, it is more of a promotion of pesticides bill unless you include those amendments. It is simply that I am here on behalf of farmworkers and I feel they are too often neglected. Fortunately we have spokesmen like you to impose controls on producers and manufacturers, but most definitely I consider them essential.

Senator HART. Mr. Berman, was there something you wanted to add?

Mr. BERMAN. No; I think that was one of the points that Senator Nelson dealt with, that we are dealing with farmworkers in Iraq, and they are the people who are growing food, and if we have to wait for that kind of situation to occur in this country in order to get strong legislation, then I think we are in very serious trouble. Senator HART. I hope we won't have to wait for that.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. KANTOR. Thank you.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF VALERIE KANTOR, MIGRANT LEGAL ACTION PROGRAM

The Migrant Legal Action Program, and the farmworkers it represents, are grateful for the opportunity to again urge Congress to enact provisions for the protection of farmworkers and others from the dangerous and deadly effects of pesticide poisoning.

The Migrant Legal Action Program is a federally funded, non-profit corporation organized to work for charitable and educational purposes, for the special benefit of poor and distressed migrant and seasonal farmworkers. We testified before the Senate Agricultural Research and General Legislation Subcommittee in March when it was considering H.R. 10729,, as did several other farmworker representatives having firsthand knowledge of the dangers of pesticides to field workers. At that time we included in the record some of the most recent studies that had been done by private doctors on pesticides and farm labor families.

Not included in the hearing record of the Agriculture Committee were the public studies that were subsequently discovered to be in the possession of the Environmental Protection Agency, which would have further documented the problem, as well as the need for very carefully considered legislation on this topic. Perhaps if the Agriculture Committee had had the benefit of EPA's knowledge from these studies, more serious consideration would have been given to the amendments proposed regarding farmers, farmworkers and others who come into direct contact with the economic poisons or their residues.

However, EPA was silent on the issue of dangers to man, and the Committee on Agriculture dismissed the recommended amendments without even a mention of farmworkers or field workers at any point in the bill as reported out of the Agricultural Committee or in the report accompanying that bill.

The report at page 14 cavalierly states: "The bill provides complete safeguards to protect farmers and others coming into contact with pesticides or residues." The various amendments offered were rejected by the Committee's rationale that "by specifically mentioning particular areas protected by the general provisions, there might be some suggestion that the general provisions should be construed to cover less than actually intended," citing the definition of "environment" in Section 2(j) as including all men, whether or not they come into contact with pesticides or pesticide residues.

It is obvious to anyone who has dealt in farmworker issues that farmworkers are usually not included within a definition of "all men" any more than they were considered by the Committee on Agriculture who omitted any mention of them in their bill or report; or any more than the chemical companies consider farmworkers as human guinea pigs when they conduct experimental tests on them in California and elsewhere.

On the same basis, if it appears so certain that the labelling and classification of pesticides under the Committee bill will protect farmworkers, farmers, and others coming into contact with pesticides or residues, why then did the Committee include at page 82, line 22, in discussing classification for restricted use : "Injury to the applicator" to amplify "substantial adverse effects on the environment."

The third amendment offered by Senator Stevenson to this bill proposes the inclusion of the following language after applicator, "farmer, farmworker, or other person who may come into contact with the pesticide or pesticide residues." How does the Committee justify the inclusion of one special interest group, "the applicators," without including specifically those who are in the field at the time it is being applied or those who come into the field after the pesticide is applied, or those who are in an adjacent or neighboring field at the time of application? There can be no moral or legal rationale for failing to include farmer and farmworker injuries in the determination for classifying a pesticide for restricted or general use.

At this time, I urge the Commerce Committee to remedy this gross inequity by including the suggested Stevenson language at this point, or making it abundantly clear in the definitions or legislative report accompanying the bill, that all those who come into contact with the poison at any stage of operation—and we should not limit ourselves solely to the interests of farmworkers, even though they have been abused more than any other workers by the use of pesticides-but it should be made clear that the Committee is concerned with the dangers to humans at all stages of exposure to these poisons.

This would start with proper labelling in any facility whether for the manufacture, formulation, mixing or application of a pesticide and continue through the monitoring stage of any work environment where employees are engaged in the manufacture, formulation, application, or exposure to these pesticides.

The EPA has dealt with establishing tolerance levels for various pesticides based on the dangers of non-washable residues to the ultimate consumers of food products. However, the EPA has not publicly concerned itself with the tolerance levels for these various poisons on people who are exposed to them in great concentrated quantities over a sustained, prolonged period of time.

While we can look in years ahead to put pressure on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for enforcing regulations [that are yet to be developed] concerning field reentry times and the whole gamut of occupational exposure in the work or field environment. FIFRA or the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, is the only vehicle for regulating the manufacture, production, registration, and use of pesticides.

I cannot stress too vehemently the absolute necessity for considering the dangers and results that these poisons pose to those who come into contact with them on a daily basis. And this consideration must play a determining factor in the registration criteria and in the classification process, as well as in the strictures regarding labelling and usage.

We are unable to explain the disregard of these amendments by the Agriculture Committee, and we are not satisfied that we should abandon our efforts to call this to the attention of Congress.

I have in front of me the Table of Contents from three days of hearings held in 1969 by the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. These hearings were concerned exclusively with Pesticides and the Farmworker, and the report totals over 800 pages of testimony, with specific examples of pesticide poisonings to farmworkers in Texas, Washington state, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, Colorado, Mississippi, South Dakota, Maryland, Connecticut, Arizona, Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Nebraska, and California, among others.

Since the time of those hearings further atrocities and more lives have been lost-not only through accidents-but for the most part through unregulated, direct exposure to these poisons.

In view of this public record, together with the revelations contained in the documents in the possession of the EPA, this Committee should be extremely cautions in its deliberations on this measure.

To me, the most serious shortcoming of the entire bill is the amount of regulation and determination that is left entirely to the sole discretion and interpretation of the Administrator of EPA.

"In the Registration process, the manufacturing company need not furnish test data UNLESS requested by the Administrator;" § 3(c) (1) (D), p. 78, lines 11-12).

"The Administrator has complete discretion to determine whether a pesticide is to be classified for general or restricted use or both; or if a classification of a pesticide should be changed or restricted in any way;" (§ 3(d) (1) and (2)). I urge this Committee to insist on adequate protections for those who are exposed directly to the dangers of these poisons, along the lines indicated by the Stevenson and Hart-Nelson proposals, because it is our opinion that the dangers are too great to relegate to a passing inclusion within the definition of "environment" and too serious to leave to the complete discretion of the administrator of the EPA.

Senator HART. Next, we will hear from individuals who themselves represent organizations that long have been involved in the environmental protection effort, and we have suggested that they come up together and join at the table here. For the Sierra Club, Mr. William Futrell, who is a member of the board; and for the Environmental Defense Fund, Mr. William Butler; for The Health Research Group, Ms. Anita Johnson; for the National Audubon Society, Ms. Cynthia Wilson; and for the National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Joel Pickelner.

Let me order printed in the record all the statements given.
You may proceed, Mr. Futrell.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM FUTRELL, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SIERRA CLUB; WILLIAM BUTLER, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; ANITA JOHNSON, HEALTH RESEARCH GROUP; CYNTHIA WILSON, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY; AND JOEL PICKELNER, THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. FUTRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Presently, I am Associate professor of the School of Law of the University of Alabama, teaching courses in environmental legislation and law. The Sierra Club appreciates the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee is giving attention to this legislation.

This particular proposal has had a long and arduous history starting with the hearings on H.R. 4152, and Senate 745 at the beginning of 1971.

Those bills held out the hope that the promise of the Mrak Commission report, would be enacted into law and that we would indeed see in 1972 the passage of effective pesticide regulations. The bill

that came out of the House of Representatives was disappointing. It was the subject of debate on the floor of the House and a rather close vote resulted on various amendments offered there.

During the last months, the Senate Agriculture Committee has given its attention to the bill and now the fact that the Commerce Committee is giving its attention to this matter is particularly gratifying in that representatives from this committee will attend the joint conference on a final reconciliation of the House bill and what we hope will be the stronger Senate bill.

We had the opportunity to appear before Senator Allen's Subcommittee on Agricultural Research. Our remarks there focused on the provisions of the House bill, concerning judicial review and the indemnities provisions. The Senate Committee on Forestry and Agriculture has corrected these difficulties with the House bill.

These Senate changes are important and should be defended in the conference. The judicial review provision had used a new standard called "party at interest.'

This term was unclear and suggested that only a party to the agency hearing, such as the pesticide manufacturer, might seek judicial review. At best, the language was suggestive of litigation and would have had to have been defined in costly court action by environmental groups.

We are pleased that the Senate Agriculture Committee struck this term and substituted instead the tested term from the present Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act, "party adversely affected," which has been interpreted by a series of cases.

An important way in which this bill can be strengthened is to add a provision allowing citizens suits. The Michigan Environmental Protection Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act of 1970 are examples of citizens suit legislation. I do not have to describe to you the effect of the Michigan statute nor, after the recent hearing on S. 1032, describe the citizens suits.

The need for the citizens suit remedy is even greater after the Supreme Court's recent unfortunate decision in the Mineral King case. Certainly, the predictions that had been made to the effect that Michigan courts would be clogged with a huge backlog of citizens suits making them unavailable for any other type of business has not come to pass.

The opportunity for a citizen to get a hearing on those matters which concern him and threaten his health and environment should be a certainty. The availability of a court of law to hear the controversy should be one of his rights. As a lawyer and law professor, I believe that access to the courts is one of the most effective means for people to participate directly in environmental decisions. It may be the only way to do so effectively.

We hear much of the fact that the courts will be clogged with these types of cases if a citizen's suit provision is enacted. The contrary is the case. The burden of environmental litigation is heavy, both in monetary expense and in the disruption of the lives of those who bring the lawsuits.

I know this from the personal experience of my friends who have been plaintiffs in environmental litigation.

Next Monday the Tennessee-Tombigbee lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers will go to trail in Aberdeen, Miss. The individuals who brought this suit have suffered; at least one has had his job terminated, and all have received an inordinate amount of public and private abuse because of their association with the lawsuit. The lead plaintiff's cause has been taken up by the grievance committee of the American Association of University Professors, but those in the community know the burden that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have undertaken to redress the environmental grievance.

I recently met with the citizens group which is bringing a lawsuit to stop the building of an interstate highway through Overton Park in Memphis, Tenn. Theirs is a story of a several year long struggle to raise funds, of official indifference and hostility, and of dogged perseverance. The experience of people such as these bears out the observation of the court in the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference case that "the experience with public actions confirms the view that the expense and vexation of legal proceedings is not lightly undertaken." Standing was not an issue in either the Tennessee-Tombigbee or the Overton Park cases. Both involved specific pieces of real estate and local persons served as plaintiffs, and because of these local connections, the environment had champions who undertook the legal battle. The possibility of widespread environmental degradation is just as likely from pesticide abuse as from the misplacing of a highway or a large canal. Highways are tangible projects with a specific locus. The victims of pesticide programs have no specific geographical locus. Yet there are thousands of Americans who are deeply concerned over such questionable pesticide programs as the recent Gypsy Moth and fire ant eradication projects. Provisions for citizens suits are particularly appropriate in the pesticide regulation field. Without a citizen suit provision, a reluctant court might be hesitant to uphold a local citizen's right to challenge a multi-State massive campaign for the aerial spreading of poisons.

Citizen initiatives in the courts have already made great contributions in the pesticide regulation field. Without environmental lawsuits, it is doubtful if the agencies involved would ever have undertaken the examination of the role of DDT which is still continuing under court order.

If ever environmentalists needed access to the courts they need it in the pesticide regulation field. A special case can be made for legislation enabling citizens suits in the pesticide regulation field just as was done in the air pollution field.

Chemicals broadcast in the environment are as pervasive and as ambient as particulate matter in polluted air. The field of pesticide pollution needs the same strong tool provided for air pollution control-the citizens suit.

If you talk to lawyers who try air pollution suits, like Mat Walker in San Francisco, they will tell you that the citizen's suit as a backdrop, as the remedy in the arsenal remaining behind the local attorney, who tries these citizen air pollution suits, is a very real tool and is a stimulus to the district attorney and to the State attorney doing his duty in this field.