information on pesticides and some requirement that they be informed and recognize what they are doing with any imported pesticide would be good.

This amendment is not a difficult requirement. It is not a tough administrative thing to notify the countries in the world and notify the U.N.

Senator HART. I think I am inclined to go with you that we should beef up the export control to the very maximum possible within the reach of 51 votes.

I don't want you to leave until I read something from your statement. It will appear in the record, but in his book, "The Diseases of Occupation," the English physician, Donald Hunter, states in a work published in 1940:

Work published shows that either mercury compounds are so dangerous that they should never be manufactured again. The warning remains unheeded and the grim record occurring in many countries is a sad monument to the greed and stupidity of men.

Now in two sentences this Dr. Hunter describes, I think, all of it. You and I and the rest of us in this room, I suspect were not aware in 1940 that this was clear, but many in positions of responsibility surely were, and it is now 32 years later and the greed and stupidity level has not been reduced appreciably, and it is a crime that it takes the equivalent of a thalidomide disaster to compel us to do that which reason makes clear should be done long before that kind of emotional shocker come along.

Senator NELSON. I did not emphasize that because I thought the chairman would take judicial notice of the greed and stupidity of men. Senator HART. We ought to remind ourselves periodically that we are subject to both of those weaknesses.

Senator NELSON. This bill, especially with the amendments we have proposed, is a very dramatic step forward. What is not widely recognized unless one follows this sort of thing is that the educators on the use of the pesticides in this country are the producers of the product, and they have a selfish self-interest in excessive use of their chemicals. They have educated the Agricultural Departments of our Federal Government, and the agricultural departments of our State governments. They have educated the entomologists in the universities and they have educated the farmers and the farm agents. Almost all the information on these pesticides comes from those who wish to promote their use.

This bill, for the first time, would institute some controls and require prior submissions of evidence of any side effects and the environmental effects. It will take a step which should have been taken a long time ago in controlling the introduction into the marketplace of pesticides and in controlling their use once they are introduced into the market place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HART. Thank you again, Senator. If your schedule permits, we would like you to stay with us.

Senator NELSON. I have another meeting. Thank you.

Senator HART. Mrs. Kantor, the Judiciary Committee to which I made reference earlier, which was going to try to respond to another

piece of legislation, has not been able to get a quorum. As a consequence, I have no time problem here, and we will welcome hearing you, I will order your statement printed in the record in full. If you want to footnote anything, or add to it, you may do so.

Mrs. KANTOR. I just want to add three additional points to the testimony Mr. Krebs gave. I am sitting here promoting the self-interests of farmworkers. But I want to emphasize that even though we are here on behalf of organizations that do represent farmworkers, I think the real dangers are most serious to anyone exposed daily, over contined periods of time, to very concentrated doses of these poisons.

That includes workers, farmers, and applicators at every stage of the game. The three points that I really think need to be made, commenting on the version of the bill as reported out by the Committee on Agriculture, are, first, the Agriculture Committee's complete failure to really seriously consider the worker protection amendments that were proposed in March before that committee.

They seem to very cavalierly dismiss these by saying, "Well, of course, men are included in environment." I think in view of the testimony here and in view of three volumes of hearing testimony that Senator Mondale compiled in 1969, that documented tragedies of quite large proportions of pesticides poisoning of farmworkers in over 30 States. That was in 1969 and we know now that EPA has had considerable additional information within its possession since 1969. Perhaps if EPA had shared this information with the Agriculture Committee at the time it was deliberating on this bill the Agriculture Committee might have been more prone to including these important amendments in that bill.

Perhaps it was because EPA never even mentioned the subject of danger to humans at the exposure stage, as opposed to the ultimate consumer stage, that the Agriculture Committee did not takes these seriously. I feel the main shortcoming of the bill as reported by the Agriculture Committee to you is that too much is left to the sole discretion of the Administrator of the EPA.

I think with the addition of your amendment, and Senator Nelson's and Senator Stevenson's proposals included within the language of the bill, that that would provide sufficient legislative history and an indication of the committee's concern that there are very serious dangers that must be dealt with not only at the handling and usage stages, but which must be considered in classifying whether a pesticide is for restricted or general use. In addition, the dangers to human beings would have to be considered as factors in the experimental use permits which Mr. Krebs spoke of, and in testing on farmworkers directly, as is usually done under an experimental use permit.

These dangers have to be written into the law or we will be faced. with more difficulties. In view of the present and past record of the EPA, I, for one, am not willing to sit back and abandon our efforts and leave the welfare of farmworkers to the sole discretion of the director of EPA.

Instead, I think he has to have a law that mandates requirements in the whole process of whether pesticides are registered.

Senator HART. It is true, isn't it, that the EPA does now require. testing on the effects of the pesticides, the effects that they may have on farmworkers when application is made?

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