Mr. Chairman, in closing, I call the attention of the Committee to a statement that was released March 15 by the National Planning Association, 1606 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., on the subject of chemical pesticides in agriculture. I understand that copies of the statement are being made available to the Committee. You may want to make the statement a part of the record of hearings of the Committee. It is significant that the statement should point out that "the United States has encouraged pumping capital and technology into agriculture at a breakneck' speed since World War II." A significant part of this capital is in the form of chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers. The statement points out that "the result is excess capacity with production out-running markets." Obviously beneficiaries of such productive capacity are the consumers of farm products and the manufacturers and distributors of products which add to agricultural technology. Farmers have sought-indeed they have had to seek advances in technology to stay in business. But we want to point out that national policy has helped to bring about the capacity to produce greater quantities of food and fiber than can be used without adverse effect upon market price. We would point out therefore the continued strong need for maintenance of federal price support and commodity loan programs to prevent farmers from being penalized from increasing production through adoption of the new products of scientific technology. The temptation for large, corporate industrialized farm operations to lean heavily on chemical productive aids, we believe to be much greater than on family-controlled and operated farm units. In the broader national concern with environmental problems reaching beyond the question of use of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals, we make the case that the family farm is far and away the superior means to producing our national needs for food and fiber. We, therefore, urge all agencies of government concerned with matters relating to the ecology to commit themselves to protecting our family farm system of agriculture. EXHIBIT "A" ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHOP Chairman: Mr. Gilbert C. Rohde, President, Wisconsin Farmers Union, 117 West Spring Street Street, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Vice Chairman: Mr. Sydney L. Bross, President, Iowa Farmers Union, 6538 University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa. Mr. Elton L. Berck, President, Nebraska Farmers Union, 1305 Plum Street, Lincoln, Nebraska. Secretary: Mr. Reuben L. Johnson, Legislative Director, National Farmers Union, 1012-14th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Introductory Remarks: Dr. Raymond Johnson, Acting Commissioner for Pesticides, Environmental Protection Agency, 1129-20th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Resource Panel: Mr. Leon G. Billings, Professional Staff Member, Senate Committee on Public Works, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Mr. T. C. Byerly, Assistant Director, Science and Education, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Mr. Ray Hunter, Director Conservation and Land Use Program Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture Room 3096, South Building, Washington, D.C. Miss Barbara Reid, Legislative Director, Environmental Action (Rm. 731), 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. Senator ALLEN. That would seem to be all of the witnesses scheduled to appear today. We will met again at 9:30 in the morning and stand in adjournment until that time. (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. to reconvene at 9:30a.m. on Thursday, March 25, 1971). 59-044-71-19 FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GENERAL Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., in room 324, Old Senate Office Building, Senator James B. Allen presiding. Present: Senator Allen (presiding), Senator Chiles, and Senator Curtis. Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present. We will proceed. We have some votes in the Senate this afternoon, starting at 4 o'clock-possibly even before that time. Therefore, we will recess at 3:45. That may necessitate going on through with the testimony without a noon recess. We would request those witnesses listed for this afternoon maintain contact with the committee to see the approximate time they may be called. So, at some point this afternoon we will probably start with some of the afternoon witnesses and it may be that we will have to take some witnesses out of order if other witnesses are not present as scheduled. Our first witness this morning is Senator Bob Packwood, the author of S. 745. Senator Packwood has a conflict as to his presence at another committee. He is going to give his testimony, and we will not have an opportunity to go into details with Senator Packwood, or question him, as to his bill. I might say, Senator Packwood, that your bill has created considerable interest, and it necessitated the calling of this subcommittee to hold lengthy hearings, it falling the lot of the junior Senator from Alabama to help conduct the hearings. So, we are delighted to have you before the committee, and if you will, give your testimony, please. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. PACKWOOD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON Senator PACKWOOD. I shall endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to make my testimony as short as possible, so the committee can finish in time for this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for extending this opportunity to me to speak in behalf of the administration's Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1971, which I felt privileged to introduce. As you know, this legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Case, Scott, Javits, Cooper, and Gurney. (285) The question of pesticide use is two-pronged for the State of Oregon. Any decision on this subject will have considerable impact on both the forestry and agricultural interests. At the same time, Oregon has taken a leadership role in the environmental area, having enacted some of the highest and most stringent standards-in most cases far superior to those enacted at the Federal level. Oregon is rightfully proud of its progressive strides in environmental issues, and I believe will continue to be an intelligent, reasonable guiding light for the Nation. That is why I feel privileged to sponsor the administration's proposal. I believe it offers the same intelligent, reasonable approach that Oregon has already taken. As on any environmental issue the extremes on both sides of the question make it necessary for a "Solomon" to find a so-called politically acceptable plan. I do not believe that there is anyone here in this room who would wantonly wish to threaten the public health, or, for that matter, want to recoklessly harm our wildlife, disturb our environment, or upset our ecological balance. I find it hard to accept that any of us would in zealous haste deprive anyone of his adequate healthful food and nourishment, and sufficient wood for his shelter. So, then, what we are faced with-and what the administration has wisely attempted to do is strike that balance which recognizes and protects to the fullest extent possible the public health and welfare, which includes all of these things just mentioned. You will have submitted to you-and, indeed, probably already have many recommendations, ideas, and amendments to S. 745 by individuals and groups from both sides of the issue. To water down this proposal, I believe, will be taken as an affront to the American people, who are becoming increasingly concerned with their individual rights of health, welfare and, yes, even their pursuit of happiness. To strengthen this legislation beyond what the administration bill proposes at this time without further adequate research on the question of pesticides may unduly deprive those same concerned Americans of the unblemished, high quality produce and products to which they have become so accustomed. And so, here, then, is the crux of the whole problem-"research!" Let me quote to you from the Journal of Forestry, February 1971: McIntire-Stennis Funds. When the House acted on Agriculture Department appropriations for fiscal 1971, it eliminated a $400,000 item for projects carried out under the McIntire-Stennis Forestry Research Act. The Senate restored the funds, and the funds were included in the bill when it was cleared for the President. The $400,000 included $300,000 for research on timber supply problems and $100,000 for insect and disease research. McIntire-Stennis funds help support forestry research projects carried out in the state agricultural colleges. I would like to tell you of the many, many letters and chats I have had on the subjects of gypsy moths, bark beetles, and other forestryrelated pests and diseases. Interestingly enough, the emphasis has always been on research, the conclusion being: "We simply do not have the money or personnel, adequate facilities, to do the necessary research." This is equally true on the farming side. We could spend many hours in this type of discussion, but I know each of you have had similar experiences. In the "Report of the Secretary's Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health," dated December 1969, persistent emphasis was placed on lack of knowledge and the need for more research. This emphasis was coupled with recommendations of stricter regulation and registration. This is exactly what the administration proposes to do, provide better control and protection through stricter regulation and registration under the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that is where the authority should be vested. Required registering of a pesticide under one of the three categories of "general use," "restricted use," or "use by permit only" is a reasonable provision of what we could term "public-health and well-being insurance." And to back this provision up with the requirement that a pesticide designated for "restricted use" can be used only by, or under the direct supervision of, an approved pesticide applicator is demonstrated effectiveness of that provision. This effectiveness is further demonstrated by the requirement that a pesticide designated for use "by permit only" can be used only with the approval in writing of an approved pest management consultant who has obtained a State license meeting certain standards approved by the Administrator. Cognizant of the fact that it will require time for the States to train and certify sufficient numbers of applicators and consultants, this legislation allows up to 4 years to fully implement the system of classifying pesticides. The Administrator also has the authority to change the designation of a pesticide any time, subject to due notice and an appeals procedure. If this authority failed to be provided in this legislation, then the whole bill would be a farce. If adequate appeals procedure was not provided for the applicant whose registration is refused, then, we would have violated an American guarantee of justice. Now, the proposal changes the appeals procedure from the "advisory committee" which has been in effect under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)-to the route of a public hearing on the matter, and then appeal in the courts. I know of nothing that will go farther in relieving any doubts in the public mind than this concept of appeals procedure, for it takes the question away from a close-circuited, inhouse route to open public hearings, backed up by court protection. Another provision of the administration's bill establishes that a pesticide is registered for an initial 5-year period and for 5-year periods thereafter, with a report from the registrant to the Administrator 3 years after the initial registration. I believe that these are reasonable requirements which will allow an intelligent evaluation of the risk-benefit considerations of any registered pesticide. Now, Mr. Chairman, I could go on with many of the other provisions in S. 745, relating to misbranding and mislabeling, criminal penalties, the export questions, and the authorities vested in the Administrator, but you have copies of the bill and, I believe, a section-bysection analysis. You will have coming before you experts from those departments and agencies concerned, both at the Federal and State. levels, and you will hear from the private sectors of industry, and from public-interest groups and organizations. So, I will not labor the issue further, except to say that I believe it is imperative that we in Congress pick up the problem of pesticides and its many ramifications and unknown qualities and thrust it into the arena for the challenge of its life. And this is exactly what S. 745 does. |