ties and breeds, (2) improved soil, water, crop, and livestock management practices, (3) better plant and animal nutrition, (4) farm mechanization, (5) irrigation, and (6) the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The integration of the various production inputs has been responsible for what can truly be called an agricultural revolu

tion.

For example, between 1870 and 1939 the average yield of corn in the United States remained essentially constant at less than 30 bushels per acre. Since 1940 the average yield has increased about three times. Rice yields in the United States increased from 23 hundredweight per acre in 1940 and to a high of 45 hundredweight in 1967.

High yield per acre is important in meeting increased needs for food and fiber because land that would otherwise be used for agricultural production can be freed for other purposes, such as greenspace, recreation, and habitat for wildlife. Our production of 17 major crops in 1969, if produced with the average yields of 1940, would have required almost 300 million acres more land than was actually used. This is an area equivalent in size to the States of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

When we consider these beneficial effects, the pertinent fact is that pesticides are essential to the abundance and quality of agricultural production in this country. Pesticides provide protection against insects, weeds, fungi, and nematodes.

We are developing and applying biological and cultural methods of pest management and integrate them with chemical control. In this way, we can greatly reduce adverse effects of pesticide chemicals on the environment while retaining their essential benefits.

Pesticides play an important part, too, in the production of forestry products and natural fibers. The Department estimates that every year losses from inserts and diseases in the forests of this country amount to the equivalent of 2.4 billion cubic feet of lumber. This is from tree mortality.

The use of pesticides prevents the loss of about 1 billion cubic feet. According to our testimates, the amount saved annually by insecticides alone is enough lumber to build about 400,000 homes.

Our Forest Service has reduced its total use of pesticides for insect and disease control programs from about 354,000 pounds in fiscal year 1965 to about 310,000 pounds in fiscal year 1970.

In some cases, the Forest Service has relied entirely on the use of parasites to control insect outbreaks. In 1964 we began to rear and release parasites in large numbers to control the larch casebearer, an introduced insect. The degree of defoliation by the insect pests was noticeably reduced in some areas in 1969. However, other areas still have to be treated chemically to prevent serious losses.

Today, pesticides are our most effective and, in some instances, essential weapons not only against agricultural pests but also against some of the most serious insect-borne diseases of man.

The need-while very real-does not mean that we can ignore the hazard they represent to man and the environment. We must always keep foremost in our planning the fact that some of these pesticides are highly toxic to man. Others persist in the environment as a threat to birds, fish, and beneficial insects.

The nature of these hazards makes it necessary to establish controls and restrictions on the use of pesticides. Within these restrictions, we must continue to examine and reexamine agricultural uses of pesticides.

The policy of the Department of Agriculture-as expressed by Secretary Clifford M. Harding in 1969-is to practice and encourage the use of effective pest control methods "which provide the least potential hazard to man, his animals, wildlife, and the other components of the natural environment."

This policy is implicit in the pest management activities of the Department.

An extremely important pest control activity system is the quarantine program that helps to keep pests out of the country. The Department maintains inspection and quarantine services at ports of entry to intercept pests and disease organisms that might be brought here from other countries. This is an operation of some magnitude. Last year inspectors examined the cargo of thousands of trains, ships, and airplanes, millions of passenger automobiles, 84 million pieces of luggage, and over a million imported animals.

Without this first line of defense, the pest problem in this country would quickly be staggering. As just one example, plant quarantine inspectors intercept the Mediterranean fruit fly, or Medfly, as many as 400 times a year. That means without inspection and quarantine, we could have 400 infestations of Medfly every year, with the resulting requirements for pesticide applications. As it is, we have had to stamp out four invasions of this pest in the past 15 years to protect our Nation's fruit and vegetable industries.

Quarantine inspection is a necessary and remarkably effective precaution, but it is not infallable-as the Medfly has proven on these four occasions. Foreign pests and diseases can and do gain entrance, in spite of our best efforts. And we live with many other pests that have been with us for a long time.

In helping farmers combat established pests, our research programs are aimed at developing methods that are specific to the target organism, that interfere only with its welfare, and that do not introduce contaminants into the environment. The Department's funding for research on pest control reflects this interest. Expenditure of funds for fiscal year 1972 shows over half of the total money spent for pest control research is to support the development of nonpesticidal controls. Types of nonpesticidal control include research on (1) resistant crop varieties, (2) biological control, (3) insect sterility, (4) cultural control, and (5) attractants and hormones.

The Department has already taken concrete steps to reduce the amount of pesticide used in some agricultural commodities.

We are expanding a cooperative program with the States for pest management. The major thrust of our pest management program is to use pesticides only when the evidence gained by field monitoring indicate the pesticides should be used. The objective is to achieve an essential level of protection against pests and diseases with minimal amounts of pesticide chemicals.

We started pilot programs during fiscal year 1971 in cotton and tobacco areas, because these crops normally get high rates of pesticide

application. The program is being significantly exapnded in fiscal 1972. If these pilot programs are successful, they will be pushed into new areas and new crops.

The heart of the program is the use of paid insect observers during the pest season. These observers are trained to determine such things as when insect buildup is great enough to warrant starting a control program; how to protect beneficial insects; and how long to continue the control program in the fall. Findings are evaluated by experts and reported to the producer every week, along with detailed information on recommended control measures.

Another development is an integrated system for the control of cotton bollworm. This system utilizes chemical, biological, and cultural techniques to reduce and hopefully eradicate the pest population. If successful, the technique will be expanded into new areas.

Recently we initiated an effort with resident deans of instruction from land-grant colleges to develop a curriculum that would provide broad training in pest management. This training would encompass the four major classes of pests and their control by biological, cultural, chemical, and integrated methods. Broad training is necessary for a systems approach to pest management.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, we support passage of H.R. 10729, we believe that its enactment would permit the programs for which the Department of Agriculture is responsible in research, information, in extension, in regulatory and control, to progress. It would enable farmers to continue to use effective pesticides without hazards to the environment.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate the advice and counsel that you have given the committee from time to time, and especially appreciate your testimony this morning. There is one question that I would like to ask. Since we are talking about the improvement on the House bill, between lines eight and nine from the bottom, it looks like possibly there is a line or phrase left out on the amendment. Would you look at that?

Dr. BYERLY. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD CARTER, DIRECTOR, REGULATORY DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. CARTER. It should read: "receive notice of action of the Administrator of EPA regarding the registration."

Senator ALLEN. How would you define "interested persons"? That might be every person on the farm having access to this pesticide.

Dr. BYERLY. What we had in mind is an example of a small group. To use an example, let us take an example of citrus growers in Calìfornia. I believe that the registration for DDT on citrus was not appealed by the registrant when it was canceled. The citrus growers therefore had no recourse under the existing law and under the proposed law. What we would say is that user groups should have the

right to appeal on their own behalf and this should not be limited to the registrant. This is our point.

Senator ALLEN. Might that not make the registrant continue producing this pesticide when possibly he might agree with the Administrator in cutting him off?

Dr. BYERLY. I would suppose, sir, that the Administrator of the EPA would impose the same requirement on any appellant that he imposed on the registrant if the registrant was an appellant. So that if this substantial question was verified by the Administrator, the privilege of use, it would be withdrawn after due process.

Senator ALLEN. Yes; but if the order is to the registrant and he is ordered not to produce it any more, and he agrees with the conclusions of the Administrator and does not want to appeal. This would give third persons the right to appeal for the registrant when he might not desire an appeal?

Dr. BYERLY. That is correct.

Mr. CARTER. That is correct, but in the case of a pesticide that does not involve a formula secret-in other words the formula is known, or even if the formula is secret-another manufacturer, of course, might acquire the rights to manufacture the product, I would think, under this concept. As Dr. Byerly testified, the purpose is to avoid situations in which an essential use, an important use of a product, although it may be nominal in volume, will not be automatically canceled as a matter of law, merely because the registrant for perhaps economic or perhaps other reasons doesn't choose to appeal. It is a protection for small groups such as the citrus group.

Senator ALLEN. Well now, you gentlemen recommend the passage of the House bill with these two suggested amendments.

Dr. BYERLY. Sir, of course we would prefer to continue to work with the committee with respect to the amendments. Yes, we strongly urge the passage of the bill.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much. Now, let me state for the benefit of the remaining witnesses, the chairman has unwisely allowed the discussions to be too lengthy and as a result, we are falling behind and it was announced at the time that the hearing was called that oral testimony would be limited to 10 minutes so it does not seem that it is of great deal of use to come and read the prepared statement. The committee can study that at another time. So, it is thought advisable to condense your statement and your oral testimony and then file your written statement as a part of the record. Since the hearing was called for the benefit of considering the merits or demerits of the House bill, I would suggest that each witness get right to the point and give us his or her views with regard to the merits or demerits of the bill and suggested methods of improving the bill and then file the written statement as part of the record. Most of you have a list of witnesses I am sure.

We are going to have to impose the 10-minute rule with all due respect to all of the witnesses. Dr. Isleib, please.

Dr. Isleib, you will pardon me if I mispronounced your name and I would appreciate it if you would proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD R. ISLEIB, SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO THE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LANSING, MICH.

Dr. ISLEIB. My name is Donald Isleib. I am science adviser to the director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and it is in this capacity and at the instruction of the director and the Commission of Agriculture of the State of Michigan that I appear here today to voice strong objection to three portions of H.R. 10729:

(1) The apparent intent to require certification of every grower as applicator, or compel him to hire a commercial applicator;

(2) The failure to speak to the funding of the program defined in H.R. 10729; and

(3) The virtually complete preemption of the registration and regulation of pesticides from State jurisdictions. I will attempt to paraphrase my points, sir, our testimony has been offered to the clerk and is here. I hope it will be part of the record.

Senator ALLEN. Yes, it will be made part of the record.

Dr. ISLEIB. We have since 1949 had a series of laws which are intended to control the distribution and use of pesticides in Michigan. The most recent one has been to establish a definition for restricted use pesticides and to require that all who sell these pesticides be licensed and show evidence of their competence in safe handling and safety precautions and to be acquainted with any other information that may be required by the Director relating to the required safe uses.

We require these dealers to submit monthly reports, including the names and addresses of the purchasers and the date of sale and the identity of the formulation and intended use and an applicator's license number in the case of commercial applicators. We feel this is a workable and enforceable program and in the event of enactment of H.R. 10729, we would like to offer our State program to the Administrator of the EPA as a workable State plan.

If this is not an acceptable plan to the Administrator, and if the Administrator requires the certification of every applicator, we will have extremely high new certification costs for the approximately 40,0000 to 50,000 potential applicators of restricted use pesticides in Michigan.

We have very diverse agriculture in our State, characterized by small farms. Typically our farmers perform their own application services and we think in many cases the economics of the kinds of crops we are growing would not permit-particularly in view of the size of the farms involved our farm operators to economically hire a licensed commercial applicator for the small acreage; we oppose compelling him to do so, or to suffer infestations that would jeopardize his livelihood. So, we are concerned as to the silence in H.R. 10729 as to how the registration of restricted use pesticide applicators might be funded. We wonder if the State would be required to pay the cost of establishing and operating a program designed, directed, and virtually preempted by the Federal Government.

Every State program is now competing and getting a very hard look from our local legislators; our stretched budget may require that some of the programs be discontinued. If, in fact, legislation should not make provision for complete Federal funding of the program,