developing programs and legislation to insure continued safe use of agricultural chemicals. "We oppose a complete ban on the use of any agricultural chemical or drug unless it can be demonstrated positively by prolonged and responsible research that the use of such product represents a clear and present danger to health or that such use would seriously jeopardize our environment. "We recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency establish an agricultural advisory committee, including representatives of farmers and ranchers, to advise in determinations affecting environmental matters relating to agriculture. "We support expanded biological pest control research to determine where biological pest control measures can provide a practical and feasible substitute for chemical controls. "The use of antibiotics, feed additives, and hormones is essential to efficient modern-day production of high quality animal products, and substantial safeguards are employed by producers to eliminate harmful residues. We oppose proposals to ban use of such materials in livestock and poultry production. "Farm Bureau, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the state departments of agriculture should assist farmers and the public to obtain a better understanding of the significance of agricultural chemicals and the laws and regulations covering their usage. "ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION "State and County Farm Bureaus should take the initiative and provide leadership in representing the interest and responsibility of agriculture in all issues encompassed by the term "quality of environment." "Existing federal laws already provide that state laws relating to water and air quality, solid waste disposal, and environmental quality, including noise and radioactive materials, must be consistent with federal laws and must provide for adequate enforcement. If complete federal domination of this field is to be avoided it is urgent that Farm Bureau take leadership in the counties and states to construct and enforce adequate programs. "The capabilities of the membership and leaders of Farm Bureau at local, state, and national levels should be used to assist citizens, organizations, legislators, and public officials to understand the interrelationship of a productive agriculture to decisions involving controls and regulations relating to the environment. "As a farm organization we accept our responsibilities to: "(1) Advise farmers and ranchers of environment problems related to agricultural operations. "(2) Report the findings of responsible research regarding possible solutions to agricultural pollution problems. "(3) Provide State Farm Bureaus information as to provisions in state legislation relative to environmental protection. "(4) Bring to the attention of farmers and ranchers the hazards associated with the careless, excessive, or improper uses of agricultural chemicals and pesticides. "(5) Counsel with private interests and government agencies on environmental problems as related to agriculture. "(6) Assist and encourage the appropriate state agencies in developing responsible, reasonable, and economically feasible regulations and standards based upon reliable research for: "(a) The use of agricultural chemicals and pesticides. "(b) The construction of agricultural waste disposal systems or facilities. "(c) The management of soil, water, and related natural resources to minimize detrimental effects upon the environment. "(7) Support adequate appropriations for research concerning sources, causes, and practical and reasonable means of preventing, controlling, or abating any possible pollution from farming operations. "Farmers and ranchers have made sincere efforts to comply with--and have committed heavy capital expenditures to meet-federal and state guidelines or standards relative to water, air, and solid waste. These efforts are frustrated and often nullified by the imposition of poorly developed standards and regulations. "Federal and state statutes and regulations should be so written as to give assurance to the owners of approved agricultural, industrial, or municipal air, 85-424-72—12 water, or solid waste treatment facilities and systems that will allow an orderly amortization of the investment made in such facilities or systems, as allowed by laws and regulations under the Internal Revenue Code. "Owners and operators of such approved waste treatment facilities, or systems, should be further protected from harassing environmental lawsuits that concern the design or the adequacy of treatment of such when operated in an approved manner to handle up to the maximum load of waste for which they were designed and approved by the federal, state, or local regulatory agency of government." These resolutions constitute a firm commitment, sincerely made. This policy presupposes that public officials making decisions relative to the use of pesticides, other materials and practices used in the agriculture of the 70's and 80's understand that modern agriculture is far from the agriculture of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and early 60's. The technology of materials, cultural practices, equipment and use of manpower is constantly changing, thus making the food supply of this country and the level of agricultural exports increasingly dependent on fewer and fewer people. The four percent of our people who live on farms and ranches provide food for the 96 percent who live off the farm and millions abroad. These domestic and foreign consumers are dependent on the capacity of the American farmer to adopt new methods, meet large demands for capital, adjust to less help on the farm and meet higher demands for quality in both fresh and processed foods. The capacity to do this has taken America over the threshold to an abundant supply of food of the highest quality and safety in the history of any nation. Some people place these attainments very low in their priorities as they live comfortably in this abundance, little appreciating or understanding the narrow margins on which this capability rests, the close relationship of supply to weather and the fragile margin which stands between our food supply and the incessant efforts of the forces of nature-insects, disease, and ever present weeds-to take over the fields, meadows, and ranges. As structured by Reorganization Plan No. 3, the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for decisions that greatly affect the capacity of the American farmers and ranchers to continue their proven capacity to feed this nation. Decisions must weigh the needs of Americans for adequate supplies of food at reasonable prices against the needs of the same citizens for a quality environment. We have confidence that those making these decisions will understand fully that while there are situations in nature that are fragile, there are equally fragile situations in a productive agriculture wherein an unwise decision-whether due to a lack of information or to misinformation-will have wide and serious consequences. It is extremely important that there be greater understanding of the reasons pesticides are used. Pesticides not only determine the essential economic factor of our ability to have certain products; pesticides also are essential to managing the pollution of all types of vermin and disease organisms within our homes, schools, public places, business offices-in fact, every element of our daily living. People need housing and they want forests. The same people want nearly 5000 products that are derived basically from wood fibre. Forest fires are spectacular and devastating but fire losses are not comparable to insect damage even with current methods of pest and disease control. To yield the forest environment to the full mercy of pests and diseases, to surrender farm production and food quality to the first call of their natural enemies is to callously ignore the importance of meeting human needs for food, fibre and shelter and to risk the progress now being made in increasing the wildlife and recreational potential of the resources available to this and future generations. This Subcommittee has under legislative study H.R. 10729, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972." This bill proposes to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In its place, H.R. 10729, as proposed in the title, places substantial emphasis on environmental considerations and control of the use of pesticide materials. This bill uses a substantial part of the language of the present law with changes to grant greater authority to the Environmental Protection Agency and shorten the time involved in procedural matters as the Administrator considers suspension, cancellation, stop sale orders and the recall of pesticides already registered for sale in interstate commerce. A major objective of the bill is to impose disciplines on the users of pesticides whether in agriculture, forestry, recreational areas, gardens, industrial or home use. The careful handling and effective use of pesticide materials by thousands of farmers, ranchers and woodland managers on millions of acres of land across America is given little credence. The use of research data gathered from experiments unrelated to normal usage, coupled with emotional interpretive commentary, places before this Congress the serious problem of how best to develop constructive legislation placing workable disciplines on the use of pesticides. It is our purpose to assist this Committee in this effort. We recommend that this Subcommittee study in depth the present and future prospects of pesticides manufacturers continuing both the production of presently registered pesticide products and the research and developmental work that is necessary to bring new products to market. There is little purpose in writing a body of law regarding the use of pesticides if the manufacturers are going to find the possibility of recovering their investments seriously impaired. The manufacturers are well able to speak for themselves, but their decisions in this regard are critical to the farmers and ranchers who use their products. This bill requires the Administrator of EPA to classify the use of all pesticides into two classes: (a) for general use, and (b) for restricted use. It will be appreciated that this legislation has been of deep interest to farmers and ranchers and, as a general farm organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation has endeavored to participate constructively in the legislative developments. Very extensive and constructive hearings have been held both by the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the U.S. Senate. As a part of this testimony there is attached a communication dated October 1, 1971, signed by Mr. Marvin L. McLain, then legislative director of the American Farm Bureau Federation, to all members of the House of Representatives in support of H.R. 10729 as reported by the House Committee on Agriculture. We had previously testified before the Senate Committee on Agriculture relative to this legislation, but on March 3, 1972, we filed a letter with the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, chaired by the Honorable James B. Allen of Alabama, in support of H. R. 10729, recommending that the Subcommittee and the full Committee report the bill essentially as passed by the House of Representatives. A copy of this letter is attached. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to express these views relative to legislation that is of vital interest and concern to the farmers and ranchers who have so ably provided food and fiber for America and millions abroad and who look forward to fulfilling these basic needs of people both presently and in the future. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, To All Members, U.S. House of Representatives: The House Agriculture Committee held very extensive hearings on this legislation and gave it careful consideration in executive sessions. This resulted in many changes in the earlier bill submitted by the Administration and introduced as H.R. 4152 on February 10, 1971. Chairman Poage and Ranking Minority Member Belcher co-sponsored H.R. 10729. A majority of the members of the House Agriculture Committee of both parties support the bill. Mr. Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has a letter in the Committee Report supporting the bill. Farm Bureau has worked closely with the Committee for many weeks in developing this bill. While the bill is a compromise of many views, it is a good bill. We congratulate the members of the House Agriculture Committee for their good work. Farm Bureau supports H.R. 10729 as it came from the Committee. We urge you to support it. Sincerely yours, MARVIN L. MCLAIN. Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: As you know, the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, of which you are chairman, held hearings in March of 1971 on S. 745, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971.” The Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives held extensive hearings on H.R. 4152, a similar bill carrying the same title. After careful consideration the House Committee on Agriculture reported a clean bill, H. R. 10729, carrying the same title, namely, "The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971." The American Farm Bureau Federation by a letter dated October 1, 1971, advised each member of the House of Representatives of its support of H. R. 10729 as reported by the Committee. This legislation was considered by the House of Representatives on November 9, 1971. One amendment was accepted and the bill given endorsement by the members of the House by a roll call vote of 288-91. Under date of November 6, 1971 we wrote to each member of the subcommittee and the full committee as follows: “We assume the provisions of the House-passed bill, H. R. 10729 will now be considered by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry along with S. 745, the bill that was the subject of hearings by the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation. "We believe provisions of H. R. 10729 have been carefully considered, and we respectfully request the subcommittee and the full committee report to the Senate the language of the House-passed bill.” Your subcommittee has announced plans to hold public hearings on the House-passed bill, H. R. 10729, on March 7 and 8. It is fully understood that there may be a need for minor technical or clarifying amendments to H. R. 10729 but we wish to reiterate our recommendation that the subcommittee and the full committee report H. R. 10729, essentially as passed by the House, or a committee bill carrying essentially the provisions and language of H. R. 10729 with only minor technical or clarifying amendments. We request that this letter be made a part of the hearings on H. R. 10729. Sincerely yours, MARVIN L. MCLAIN, (Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SCOTT, MASTER OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National Grange supports H.R. 10729 as amended by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In our judg ment, the bill as passed by the House and improved by the Senate Agriculture Committee is a major improvement over the legislation as it was first introduced by the Administration. The bill is basically sound and is a substantial improvement over present law. We supported passage of the House Agriculture Committee bill before the House. We were opposed to all the Hart-Nelson amendments that were presented to the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee. There was one exception, however. We did support the striking of the indemnity section (Section 15) unless it was amended to cover any crop loss suffered by a producer which is the result of the concellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Administrator of E.P.A. Since that time the full Senate Agriculture Committee has approved H.R. 10729 with amendments. We have studied the Committee Report and are in agreement with the amendments added by the full Committee and believe that only minor amendments are necessary in order for the Administrator of E.P.A. to properly control the use of pesticides in protecting human health and the environment. The delegates at the 105th Annual Session of the National Grange adopted the following resolution which fully explains our position : INDEMNIFICATION TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS "Be it Resolved, That the National Grange recommends that agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to the confiscation of any agricultural commodity because of contamination by the application of pesticides and/or from any other source, by the appropriate regulatory agency, Congress or persons responsible for the contamination, if such contamination is due to no fault on the part of the producer; and be it further "Resolved, That agricultural producers be indemnified for financial losses sustained due to crop losses which are the result of the cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure of a previously approved and registered pesticide by the Environment Protection Agency, if such cancellation, suspension and/or stop-sale and seizure regulation is issued after the start of the growing season of the crop in question. Such indemnification shall be made by the regulatory agency issuing the regulation or by the United States Congress; and be it further "Resolved, That no language be permitted in any pesticide legislation now pending or proposed in the future before the Congress that would foreclose an agricultural producer from seeking indemnification from the courts or from the U.S. Congress." We were concerned about Sec. 15, pertaining to indemnification, particularly if the section could not be amended to cover crop or livestock losses sustained by producers when a pesticide was suspended, cancelled or otherwise denied a producer, if such cancellation came during the middle of a crop year. Sec. 15 was not amended as we requested, so therefore we support the deletion of this section. Furthermore, the committee report set out guidelines for the Administrator to follow in such situations and we do not believe this section is any longer necessary in order to indemnify dealers, distributors and users for any product they may have on hand at the time of cancellation. The National Grange will support needed minor technical or clarifying amendments to H.R. 10729 as reported by the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee. In addition, we support the following proposed amendments: 1. A provision on page 78, lines 14 through 20, prevents data submitted by an applicant to substantiate claims for registration from also being considered (177) |