mitted approximately 20,000; however, in the census, enumerating a farm, it is not necessarily a commercial farm.

Senator DOLE. It could be two chickens.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Or a chicken and a horse.

Additionally, we are concerned about EPA's legalistic attitude toward enforcement effect and the regulations promulgated thereunder. I would like to give you an example of this. The Environmental Protection Agency recently sent to the States a rough draft copy of their pesticide enforcement statement No. 1, which addresses the use of registered pesticides at less than label dosage rates. This policy statement indicated that a registered pesticide could be utilized at less than label-dosage rates if certain conditions were met.

Among these conditions are a written recommendation from a knowledgeable expert-and they include county agents and State employees in that category-knowledge that the pesticide is efficacious against the target pests, that it otherwise has only beneficial effects, and that it in no way is harmful to man or his environment, the application is performed in accordance with all other label instructions and precautions, and that the application at the lower-than-dosage rate would not be so frequent as to result in higher pesticide usage. For a farmer to use a pesticide at a reduced rate that he knows efficacious, that he has done many times in the past, he still must accomplish these things.

Particularly interesting is the requirement that a written recommendation from a knowledgeable expert be obtained. I know of very few knowledgeable experts, county agents, myself, or members of my staff, as defined by EPA, who would provide written recommendations for less than label doses. My question is, Why make a criminal out of a farmer for using his commonsense? This legalistic approach to the use of pesticides is directly contrary to legislative history of the FEPCA, which addressed the problem of use of pesticides at less than legal rates. EPA takes the same legalistic approach in the area of State registration of compounds for special local needs. It appears at the present time that the State of Alabama must have the expertise and testing facilities available that are currently available to the Federal Government before we will be able to register pesticides for special local needs in some cases.

I do not question the availability of brain power in our State; I am a little doubtful as to whether our testing laboratories and facilities match those of the Federal Government. Certainly I would question the wisdom of expending the money necessary to develop these facilities.

I think that to combat this legalistic nitpicking approach to the enforcement of this law, that those people who are responsible for interpretation and development of regulations under FEPCA should be required to spend some time in the field with agriculture as it exists on a day-to-day basis.

Particularly during planting time when preemergence and postemergence herbicides are mixed and applied, and during the height of the insect spray season when crops are faced with destruction because of insects and pesticide applications are made on a very specific and exact timetable. People who are responsible for enforcement and interpretation of regulations should know something of the environ

ment in which these regulations are applied. They should know something about those whom they are regulating. I know there is a tendency to lose a sense of reality when one spends even a short time in Washington. We have the same problem in Montgomery. You sit behind a desk day after day, and the most important thing that you have at hand is the exact enforcement of regulations as written. Sometimes it is a difficult condition to overcome.

Finally, before State pesticide lead and training agencies can proceed with a meaningful training program, they must be advised as to what pesticides and pesticide uses are going to be restricted. This vital information has only been available in a trickle. We need the entire listing to work with.

Perhaps if EPA's future funding for FEPCA were contingent on the publication of the restricted use pesticide list, we might see some action and fewer excuses.

Thank you for your consideration and kindness in inviting the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries to appear before you and express some of our concerns as they apply to the implementation of the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Dole, do you have any further questions? Senator DOLE. No.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. All right, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come.

Senator LEAHY. Next we have Mr. Datt and Mr. Bruce Hawley.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. DATT, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL
RELATIONS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. DATT. I have with me Mr. Bruce Hawley, assistant director of government relations for the Farm Bureau, who does the work of the Farm Bureau with the EPA.

Senator LEAHY. I understand from your testimony, while you support the legislation, you are very concerned with the interpretations made by EPA and their regulations. In fact, the delay in this material is going to make it impossible for some States to be in compliance by October 1975, especially if the legislative process is involved.

Mr. DATT. The Farm Bureau was very active in the original enactment of this legislation. My former colleague, Cliff McIntire, was one of the leaders in helping put this legislation on the books.

Mr. Hawley has worked with EPA since the law was enacted in an effort to see that it was carried out properly. In our statement-and we will file it for the record-we tried to indicate some of the problems that we have run into. As you mention, this question of classification we indicate the proposed regulations on October of 1974 gave interested parties 30 days. We sought an opportunity to have an extension of the time they set. They denied this, and still, 11⁄2 years later, we do not have these things published.

We cite in here the language of the Senate Agriculture Committee of the bill at the time it was passed, that it was their view that we would have a limited number of pesticides that were now registered that would be classified for restricted use.

Then we go on, and cite some problems that have occurred in this area of classification. The second thing we cite has to do with the certification classification of private applicators. Here again, things that you are familiar with, that they published in October of 1974, almost 12 years after the legally mandated date-again, we cite in here the record from the House Agriculture Committee report at the time the bill was passed, that it was the intent of the Congress that only the signing of a register would be required. We feel EPA has completely disregarded this rather clear statement of congressional intent as to what was to be the regulations for the certification of private applicators.

Let me just stop here and say that the classification and certification are tied together. We have been talking about them one at the time. But they are actually tied together. They were in the original law. We anticipated that in these classifications, that we were going to have a relatively small number of pesticides that were considered to be dangerous that would be classified for restricted use. In the case of those restricted use pesticides, then you would have a certification procedure as far as farmers and private applicators are concerned.

So, one of the key questions becomes, what is going to be your list? How large is that list-of restricted use pesticides going to be. If it is going to be a rather large and broad list, then your question, then your problem of certification of farmers is quite a different problem. This was what Secretary Long cited earlier. These were the things that we do not have the answers to, these kinds of questions.

Then we cite the question of regulation of sale versus the regulation of use. EPA intends to try to restrict the sale of a restricted use pesticide, which again, we view as being somewhat contrary, or contrary to what the law was intended to be.

Then, the fourth area-that has to do with State plans. The approval of the State plans becomes important in terms of our Farm Bureau members, as to how these State plans are going to operate.

I might also point out that the Farm Bureau in most States is the one that will carry or be largely responsible for the type of State legislation that is put on the books to carry out these plans. We have our State Farm Bureau folks that are totally confused, because they do not know quite what to do. What kind of a State plan does it take, or does it not take?

We have States now which say we are not going to do anything. They have thrown up their hands. So, clearly there is the potential, at least in our judgment, of some very serious problems out here within the agricultural community. We have been through this as it relates. to OSHA and a number of these other things. We feel that basically the law is sound, and we would support the extension of the authorization.

What we would urge this committee to do is to clarify or indicate to EPA what was, in our judgment at least, the original intent of the law as it related to some of the areas that we have cited. That is the Farm Bureau's basic position.

If there are any questions, Mr. Hawley and I would be glad to try to answer them.

Senator LEAHY. I am very interested in seeing your position. They had endorsed the regional legislation, as you indicated.

I have no further questions for you. I found your testimony to be very complete.

Senator DOLE. I have no questions. It is clear and concise, and the recommendations are there. You suggest we approve the 2-year authorization?

Mr. DATT. Yes; we support extending the authorization for either 1 or 2 years.

Senator DOLE. For the full amount?

Mr. DATT. For the full amount.

Senator DOLE. With reservations?

Mr. DATT. With the recommendation that the committee would provide in the committee report, Senator Dole, language to implement what we thought was the basic intent of the legislation as you passed it at that time in the area of classification, registration, and the State plans. As someone suggested earlier, the shoe has not dropped yet out of the country. When the shoe drops out on a country; namely because they have not really felt it yet, but when this drops in terms of farmers who have to be registered and so on, you are going to hear it. It has not dropped yet, but it will the way it is going.

We are hearing from our people, particularly in terms of our fellows who are trying to carry this out at the State legislative level, as to what they have to have or do not have to have.

Senator DOLE. You have been working with EPA officials, too, though.

Mr. DATT. Mr. Hawley, on my right, who is assistant director of our government relations department, spends about 100 percent of his time in working with EPA and trying to help get this law implemented and other problems we had with them.

Senator DOLE. Are they making any progress, Mr. Hawley?

STATEMENT OF BRUCE HAWLEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. HAWLEY. That is a matter of opinion. They are moving along, yes. In terms of making progress, of implementing the legislative intent, they are making very little progress.

Senator DOLE. Which way are they moving?

Mr. HAWLEY. It is my opinion

Senator DOLE. Laterally, forwards, or backwards?

Mr. HAWLEY. They are moving in the direction of establishing a bureaucracy, in my opinion.

Senator DOLE. That would be figurative-that would be a normal

event.

Mr. HAWLEY. Unfortunately so.

Senator DOLE. They have a great number of employees working on this problem?

Mr. HAWLEY. They have a great number of employees, a great number, particularly, who are legally-oriented employees.

Senator DOLE. That is why I wonder if they really need all of this money. Maybe we should cut it in half. That would speed up their efficiency.

Mr. HAWLEY. The money could be quite well used by providing some of it through the States for what appears to be a very costly program of certification.

Senator DOLE. Has the Farm Bureau taken a look at how this money is being expended? It seems to me the Congress has really failed in its oversight responsibilities over the years. We just keep approving every authorization that comes up-$50 million this year; $100 million the next year. There are more employees and more bureaucracy, and the intent of the program is lost.

Mr. DATT. As I recall, the authorization is not a very substantial increase over what they have been receiving.

Senator DOLE. It may have been too high then for what they apparently have done.

Mr. DATT. On the other hand, despite the fact that there is a bureaucracy, you still have to have people who make it operate. If you do not have enough, you are worse off sometimes.

Senator LEAHY. I must say, I am concerned about the question of necessity of State legislation. By now or within a few weeks well over half of the State legislatures will have gone home for the year.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, might I comment in that respect? The State of Wyoming submitted a proposed State plan to EPA in November. This was prepared by the State Department of Agriculture working with various people in the State. They asked EPA specifically for comments. Is this plan acceptable or is it not? The State legislature adjourned in February. They had still not received a response from EPA as to the adequacy of the proposed plan. Therefore, they did not pass a plan.

Mr. DATT. In that connection, the one thing that might want to be done in terms of amending it, is that you have a completion date in a State by October 1976, and as you have just pointed out, we have a number of States whose legislatures will not be meeting next spring. So, they are done. Any work they are going to do has been done until 1977.

So, we raised the question in here of what happens where a State has no plan or no legislative authority to do this. What happens under those circumstances? There are going to be more of those.

Mr. HAWLEY. We do feel, looking at legislative history, that the signup system is adequate in many instances. The legislative history quite clearly says that for pesticides that are classified for restricted use, because of environmental hazards, the signing of a register should be deemed adequate. EPA flatly denies this and objects to that concept out of hand. If the agency will restrict a limited number of products, a few products currently registered will be restricted from legislative history, if they keep the list small. If they embrace a relatively flexible approach toward certification, most States currently have authority for some kind of limited certification program. If, down the road, we discover that this is not adequate, we are still having misuse problems, it would seem to me appropriate to put a little more meat on the bones to toughen up the requirements on a Stateby-State basis. The agency wants to get the whole thing, the major program instantly in place.