Senator ALLEN. I notice from your testimony you suggested there is a measure of dual control as between the agencies. It is possible to have one agency telling you to do one thing and another agency telling you you can't do that, but you have got to do something entirely different.

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir, and that is very real. This is not imagined. I am on the school board at home and I have had quite a bit of experience with HEW, and we are no longer fighting the argument with integration and segregation. That is over. But we are having a terrific time keeping some intelligence on whether education is possible or not. I deal with two different sets of people, one is the civil rights people and the other is the education office. There is a great lack of communication between those two sets of people. You can envision even greater confusion here.

Senator ALLEN. Your concern, then, is for the public generally and for the farmer in particular?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. And you have no particular interest in the pesticide industry, other than you would like to keep proper pesticides available for use by farmers?

Mr. MANN. That's right.

Senator ALLEN. At the lowest cost possible?

Mr. MANN. That is right. And we are going to buy just as little pesticide as we possibly can, because everytime we buy it we have to pay for it and that cuts into our income.

Senator ALLEN. Well, do you know of any of these pesticide companies that are retiring from business or retired from this activity in business?

Mr. MANN. I think Dr. Brown here could probably comment on that better than I could. We do know that their research budgets are being cut back. In fact, I have heard one company is spending a large part of its research budget this year in trying to defend its currently registered pesticides and to counteract the unfavorable publicity they are getting caught with. Here we are, as farmers, losing the benefit of any research that might be done while they are arguing with the headline makers. Dr. Brown, would you like to comment?

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. BROWN, MANAGER, PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, MEMPHIS, TENN.

Dr. BROWN. Well, I think there are several that have eliminated research and development on agricultural chemicals or pesticides. I can't name them all, but one was in your home State of Arkansas. Lon, I refer to Olin Industries. Quite a few companies have cut back drastically.

I can name several of these, but there seems to be a wave of this going through the chemical industry.

As Lon pointed out, the Department of Agriculture, in the insect control research area has cut back in their research on conventional pesticides. About 16 percent of their research effort was on conventional pesticides in 1969. I think, as pointed out by Dr. Bayley's group this morning, about 50 percent of the effort is going for biological and other methods of control. The balance is on basic research.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, once the Environmental Protective Agency established a classification, would there be any appeal from those classifications?

Mr. MANN. I think there would be an appeal, but it might take so long and you get bogged down in it for all practical purposes, and you have lost your battle before you start.

Senator ALLEN. It certainly wouldn't be an appeal in time to save that crop out in the field?

Mr. MANN. No. You can lose a crop with just missing one or two key poisonings, because timing is so important. If you don't knock down the infestation before it builds up you can certainly see how it would multiply from each generation on down. You can actually lose a crop by missing one application. Getting 10 days of rain or something in my part of the country, which provides ideal breeding conditions to just skyrocket the population-weevils in particular, or tobacco budworms even-could be disastrous if you have to depend on written permits for each application.

Senator ALLEN. Do you think that the departments are giving adequate notice to users of denial of registration of pesticides?

Mr. MANN. No, sir; I think that could be improved on quite a bit. We point out in our testimony here that by the time you find out about it, why, it is probably old news or something like that. They notify the companies putting out the chemical, but they don't notify the people that are using it.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, the EPA then, has issued a notice or ruling to the effect that they do not have sufficient evidence to ban DDT; isn't that right?

Mr. MANN. I believe they have given us an extension on that while more investigation is being done, but it certainly still is kind of sitting under the hammer as it looks to me.

Senator ALLEN. What sort of classification would you feel that DDT would fall in?

Mr. MANN. Senator Allen, there is not a single case on record of DDT killing a single human. On the basis of that, I would think it would be regarded as one of the safer chemicals.

Senator ALLEN. It would be a general use chemical.

Mr. MANN. Yes, it should be.

Senator ALLEN. You would be surprised to find it in the restricted or permit only classification?

Mr. MANN. Yes. I understand there is a gentleman out in California that is eating DDT now as part of a diet. It made his hair grow longer and it has helped his teeth. I don't know what all has happened. I am not advocating this. I am just reporting to you. Senator ALLEN. Maybe he will succeed the sword swallower and the glass swallower at the side show.

Mr. MANN. We don't have any research on that now.

Senator ALLEN. You feel that the proper approach would be to improve the basic law and its administration rather than to embark upon a wholly new and untried method?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir; I certainly do, plus the fact I understand EPA was set up in December and since then they have acquired 6,000 employees. They are scattered in several different buildings around town. From my own personal knowledge and experience in trying to

contact various people in EPA. I think it only logical that they should be given time to kind of get their feet on the ground and operating within the existing framework of regulations. Senator ALLEN. Have you set up any permit issuers yet? Mr. MANN. I don't know.

Do you know, Dr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Not that I know of.

Senator ALLEN. Is there anything further that

Mr. MANN. No, sir. We have communicated with the EPA people and they seem very desirous of getting all the knowledge they certainly can. We are certainly impressed with their attitude in that respect. We met with Mr. Ruckelshaus. I really felt fortunate. I think he has got a hard job to administer, but I think he is trying to do a good job.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, if Congress goes the route of either enacting S. 660 in some form or S. 745 in some form, do you feel that either or both of these do need some clarified amendments?"

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir; we pretty well hit on the points in our comments on both bills.

Senator ALLEN. But your preference would be-and you think it would be the best interest of the farmer-to come forward with a new bill keeping the present setup and putting in needed changes?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir; and I think that the public can be protected under that arrangement. I don't think we will just be looking out for the farmer's interest. I think it can be a good all-around vehicle for looking after both the farmers' interest and the environmental interest of the public.

Senator ALLEN. I notice that you stated that you did approve the Federal regulation on an intrastate as well as an interstate basis? Mr. MANN. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Do you feel that the use of pesticides and the going into commerce are the problems that would make it a matter that should be regulated on a national basis?

Mr. MANN. Yes, sir. We would be very happy to see that, whether it crosses the State line or not, we would be happy to see the same uniform advocation of the control on that.

Senator ALLEN. Well, now, to what extent will the proposed legislation take over the functions of the State departments and agencies? Mr. MANN. I don't know.

Jim, can you help me on that?

Mr. BROWN. We are not proposing that Federal agencies take over completely the regulation of pesticides. We think there ought to be some uniformity in it.

I would suppose that States would continue to have their own registration, State registration, as currently is the practice. Materials that are shipped into a State, even though registered under FIFRA, have to also be registered in that State by the State Department of Agriculture to be sold. I would presume this would continue.

Senator ALLEN. Are you going to have two sets of regulations, then? Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Senator ALLEN. Well, would you have to get two separate permits, get two permits for the use of certain pesticides?

Mr. BROWN. I don't know about the use permit. This has not been spelled out. According to 745, I guess there would just be one permit. There would be some arrangement between the EPA and the State agencies. There would be, so far as the registrant or manufacturer is concerned. He would be required to have two registrations, one in the State and Federal registration as well. The total number will depend on how many States a product is marketed in.

Senator ALLEN. Well, it was testified this morning that the requirement for the permit would not place any great burden on the farmer. Would you concur in that judgment?

Mr. MANN. That may be an oversimplification of the situation. You really don't know about that until you get into the business of it. I go back to my school business. I have got involved in some things that looked relatively simple to start with, and before the dust settled we were so wrapped up and tied up that we couldn't exercise normal intelligence in approaching some problems.

So many of these things, if they are administered properly, that is fine. But if they aren't, you just go from bad to worse.

Senator ALLEN. I believe that is all, Mr. Mann, unless you have something further to add, Mr. Rickenbaker or Dr. Brown, if either one of you care to make some comment we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. RICKENBAKER. No.

Mr. BROWN. No.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming before the committee and giving us the benefit of your views. We were delighted to have you with us.

(The attachments to Mr. Mann's statement are as follows:)

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA,
Memphis, Tenn., October 28, 1970.

Subject: F. R. Notice-Comments on Toxaphene/Strobane-T.

Mr. G. G. ROHWER,

Acting Director, Pesticides Regulation Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ROHWER: Enclosed is a statement of the National Cotton Council in which we document the reasons why we consider it to be essential that Toxaphene/Strobane-T continue to be registered for use on cotton. Two (2) additional copies are being sent under separate cover.

The Council is the central organization of the raw cotton industry, representing not only cotton growers but six other segments of the industry as well.

Cancellation of Toxaphene/Strobane-T would have very serious consequences to cotton producers and other segments of agriculture. Therefore, we hope that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will give careful consideration to the facts set forth in our statement and in the accompanying documents, and that a decision will be made to keep Toxaphene/Strobane-T registered for use on cotton. Sincerely yours,

GEORGE S. BUCK, Jr.,
Director of Research.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUED REGISTRATION OF TOXAPHENE AND STROBANE-T FOR USE ON COTTON, OCTOBER 28, 1970

The statement is presented by the National Cotton Council in response to the announcement by the Pesticides Regulation Division, United States Department of Agriculture, requesting comments on the need for Toxaphene, Strobane-T and five other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in order to determine if certain uses are essential and if there are no effective and safe substitutes (Federal Register 35 (No. 148): 12293, July 31, 1970).

The "F. R. Notice" calls for separate comments on each chemical. However, we feel it is most appropriate to cover Toxaphene and Strobane-T in the same submission since they are essentially the same chemicals, manufactured by different producers and sold under different names. The basic producer of Strobane-T previously manufactured a pesticide called Strobane. It was similar to but not quite the same as Toxaphene. Also, it was used for the same purposes in cotton. The patent on Toxaphene expired, and in 1960 the manufacturer stopped making Strobane and started making Strobane-T in its place.

The Council, which has its headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee, is the central organization of the raw cotton industry representing cotton producers, ginners, crushers, merchants, warehousemen, cooperatives, and cotton manufacturers. At its Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 2 and 3, 1970, the Council delegates-representing all of these segments of the industry-unanimously reaffirmed its previous decision to:

"Oppose legislation or regulatory measures that restrict the sound development and use of agricultural chemicals."

It is our intent to show herein that continued registration of Toxaphene/ Strobane-T for use in controlling cotton insects is vital to cotton growers at this time and to the cotton industry in general.

The importance of Toxaphene/Strobane-T for controlling insects in cotton can be illustrated by: (1) its extent of use in terms of pounds or acres treated, (2) the array of cotton insects for which it is effective and recommended, and (3) the impact which its cancellation would have on cotton production costs, crop losses to insects, and other problems.

EXTENT OF TOXAPHENE/STROBANE-T USE ON COTTON

The use of Toxaphene/Strobane-T for controlling cotton insects constitutes the major farm use of this insecticide. However, accurate figures on current amounts of Toxaphene/Strobane-T used on cotton in most states are not easy to obtain. Better estimates are available on the national level.

A comprehensive survey was published by the Economic Research Service, USDA, in April 1970. It is entitled "Quantities of Pesticides Used by Farmers in 1966," Agricultural Economic Report No. 179 (Exhibit A). For the purpose here, we combine the statistics given in Economic Report No. 179 for Toxaphene and Strobane (Strobane-T's predecessor). However, in most cases the statements below would apply if Toxaphene alone were considered. On a poundage basis, Toxaphene/Strobane-T was the most widely used insecticide for all crops in the U.S. in 1966. On the same basis, at 29.361,000 pounds, it was the most widely used one for U.S. cotton, and such use constituted about 89 percent of the total crop use.

On an acreage basis the use of Toxaphene/Strobane-T in cotton was second only to DDT. The cotton acreage treated in 1966 was 4,106,000, which constituted 43 percent of the harvested acres of cotton and 73 percent of the all-crops treated acreage.

Using data from the same report, one can calculate that Toxaphene/StrobaneT made up about 45 percent of the pounds of all insecticides used on cotton and that its use on cotton constituted about 20 percent of all insecticides used on all crops.

Exhibit A gives a breakdown of the use of Toxaphene/Strobane-T on all crops by regions, but it doesn't give estimates of use on given crops within regions. The use on all crops on a poundage basis was: Appalachian, 2,530,000; Southeast, 13,786,000; Delta, 9,137,000; Southern Plains, 4,982,000; Corn Belt, 403.000; Mountain, 1,420,000; and Pacific, 560,000. This list includes only those regions in which some major cotton-production area (s) occur.

Appropriate specialists at the land-grant universities in the 14 major cottonproducing states were contacted for estimates of Toxaphene/Strobane-T use in their respective states. At the time this statement was being prepared, not all of the states had responded. The roughness of these estimates is recognized, but they do reflect the importance of Toxaphene/Strobane-T.

Alabama.-The Extension Service in Alabama surveyed the county agents in the 49 major cotton-producing counties in that state. The county agents' estimates of the percent of cotton insecticide applications in 1969 which contained Toxaphene are shown in Exhibit B. The average of the estimates for these counties shows that 47 percent of the cotton insecticide applications contained Toxaphene. Arizona.-Exhibit C provides estimates of total sales of various chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides for the years 1965 through 1968. The combined total