farmer, he is the guy it catches in the end, and he will say, "What will I do, do I buy this, or not buy anything?" So, that is one more problem. We have a couple of other points, if I may.

Senator LEAHY. Go ahead.

Mr. DUSKIN. Opposition to RPAR was one of our principal points. We support the idea of reduction of the efficacy data. We support the generic or technical ingredient registration proposition. We strongly support conditional registration. We have a problem, the small formulator has a problem with civil penalties, and this relates as well to the pest control operator, the applicator, in the way these penalties are applied.

Senator LEAHY. Describe that to me a little bit.

Mr. DUSKIN. The civil penalties system.

Senator LEAHY. I understand the system.

Mr. DUSKIN. Our problem here with it is for technical violationsthe labeling is involved-for a small violation, the wording on a label that has not caused any damage to anyone and certainly has not caused any unreasonable, or adverse effects on the environment-the little formulator because he has a little something wrong with his label gets nailed for $3,500. That represents something to him.

What we would like to see-the OSHA appropriations bill has a rider on it for this year that spells it out that small things, first violations, ought to be treated with a hand slap, rather than being fined. We would like to see something like that being put in on pesticides. Senator LEAHY. Leaving the teeth in there.

Mr. DUSKIN. We want the teeth in there. If it is a serious violation and causes great risk, then something should be done about it. We are not trying to avoid penalties, we are simply trying to make them reasonable and in accordance with the degree of the violation, so to speak. Senator LEAHY. I see.

Mr. DUSKIN. We have a problem with labeling. We note the definitions that have been put out on "use inconsistent." We would prefer, as we say in our statement, to have "use" defined and "misuse" defined in the law, and then let the label be what it used to be, a simple document that is a guide to use, and not a law in itself.

Senator LEAHY. I understand.

Mr. DUSKIN. Apparently we do not have a great deal of support for this concept. We support all the recommendations for State registration made by Mr. Buffaloe and others. We think the EPA should have the right to weigh data as relates to minor uses; but the EPA should be prohibited from restricting a State from registering two products for the same use, or the same special local need.

On State registration we feel, if a State issues a registration for a particular company and there be other registrations in other States, say a major manufacturer already has a label on that somewhere else, that he has to be notified. The liability for the State registration has to fall on the State registrant. What happens is that a State can register a product, and out of it comes a product liability suit. The guy who made the product, who does not even know it is registered within that State, necessarily. So, that is a minor point but very important to

those who have it registered another place and do not even know it was registered in a State.

Senator LEAHY. Senator Allen?

Senator ALLEN. Your recommendation on the establishment of a national cancer assessment policy-and other witnesses have spoken of the need to have a national cancer assessment policy, I feel that is going to put considerable burden on any committee. You know we have been talking about the need for an energy policy for 10 years. I am just wondering if on a bill, coming out of the Agriculture Committee we could establish any national cancer assessment policy where there are two or three other committees that call for this bill. You know, we might not get this bill through in the Congress.

Mr. DUSKIN. It was not our intention, Senator Allen, to recommend specifically that this committee come up with a bill; but we would strongly urge that this committee support the creation of such a policy, and that if it is created within FIFRA, that EPA be bound by it. I think that is probably as far as it should go.

Senator ALLEN. I guess any policy would contemplate ascertaining the causes, and the risks, ascertainments, and the method of doing all those things-that would be very difficult.

Mr. DUSKIN. Entirely scientific, entirely technical, and what we would hope to take out would be emotion.

Senator ALLEN. I guess the policy as of right now would be more or less the Delaney act, I suppose; is that not the present policy?

Mr. DUSKIN. No, sir, Delaney does one thing. These are two separate items. Delaney is triggered, it is an absolute standard, it simply says that any product that is carcinogenic cannot be used, there can be no such thing, no residues. It is an absolute. It needs to be modified to allow the rule of reason.

Senator ALLEN. I understand that, and I agree on that. I guess as to things that are consumed, are eaten, I suppose that is the policy at the present time. I do not know of any policy other than that.

Mr. DUSKIN. That is correct.

Senator ALLEN. It would require a considerable amendment with your way of thinking, I am sure. I guess the EPA has a policy now, that these pesticides might well all cause cancer, and therefore they will all be forbidden. That seems to be the present policy.

Mr. DUSKIN. That is essentially it, yes.

Senator ALLEN. How would you change that?

Mr. DUSKIN. The question is, what is the cause, and that goes back to an assessment policy. It goes to the "threshold concept"; does the body recuperate from a certain minor exposure; is there no safe exposure level. Those are all scientific-medical things.

Senator ALLEN. If on the basis of this testimony it is lined up, the committee is going to want to be specific in this area.

Mr. DUSKIN. I understand that.

Senator LEAHY. I agree all of us would like to have such a definition, but I agree with Senator Allen, forming such a definition is very difficult.

Mr. DUSKIN. I am fully aware of that.

Senator LEAHY. I am aware also that the people I talked to in preparation of these hearings raised the same difficulty. Senator Curtis?

Senator CURTIS. Well, I did not get to hear the testimony so I have no questions. I do want to ask one thing. The Delaney amendment applies only to the Food and Drug Administration, does it not?

Mr. DUSKIN. Yes, it is directed to the food and drug action. It relates to the agricultural pesticide industry when you get involved in tolerances for pesticides applied to crops that might be consumed as food.

Senator CURTIS. Do cigarettes face the same fate as saccharin under the Food and Drug Administration?

Mr. DUSKIN. I could not answer, it is not foodstuff. If we do not eat it, it is not really under it.

Senator CURTIS. But I mean if the rules applied over there.

Mr. DUSKIN. I would presume so, but that would be a presumption totally on my part. I could not say.

Senator CURTIS. How about marihuana?

Mr. DUSKIN. Is it a carcinogen?

Senator CURTIS. I do not know, but the very week the executive branch took saccharin away from the diabetics, they came out in favor of decriminalizing marihuana. I have no further questions.

Senator LEAHY. You are not in any way, Senator, asking this from personal concern? [Laughter.]

Senator CURTIS. It is personal. I think the Food and Drug Administration was clearly off base taking an unverified foreign experiment and imposing a rule on this country. I think the alternative that you can buy saccharin at the drug store with a prescription is silly. Ŏur people that need it want it for foods and beverages-and a ruthless Government Agency took it away from them.

Senator LEAHY. I think that is a matter that concerns all of us, even though some like myself neither use saccharin, tobacco, or marihuana, I can understand your concern.

I will hold the hearings in recess until 1 o'clock this afternoon, and I thank you all for your attendance.

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator LEAHY. Good afternoon. The next witness we will hear from is F. Farrell Higbee, who is the executive director of the National Agricultural Aviation Association.

Mr. Higbee, how are you this afternoon?

Mr. HIGBEE. Fine, Mr. Chairman. May I sit here?

Senator LEAHY. Sure, wherever you are comfortable.

Mr. Higbee's statement will be placed in the record.* He has also testified before the House Agriculture Committee, and in his statement here today, he has restated some of the same testimony in the House. He, also, however, has some additional amendments he will discuss.

Mr. Higbee, you were here this morning, were you not?

*See p. 124 for the prepared statement of Mr. Higbee.

STATEMENT OF F. FARRELL HIGBEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. HIGBEE. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. You heard the various people's statements. Do you find some areas where you find yourself in substantial disagreement, I might add, first, with the people testifying this morning?

Mr. HIGBEE. No, absolutely not. Our industry supports all of the amendments and changes to FIFRA that people like Mr. Buffaloe support, and we have found that we have a great deal of difficulty in the country with the administration of FIFRA.

Most of the frustration, I think, is caused by the fact that it has had such an economic impact on production agriculture. I used to be a formulator of pesticides in Nebraska, and we used to make a formulation of 24D that we sold to the farmer for $4. My son, who now farms in Colorado, recently purchased that same formulation for $16.50 a gallon, and, obviously, inflation is responsible for some of that, but, probably, from $8 to $16.50 of it is directly related to the actions of the EPA in the administration of FIFRA.

And they are requiring so much additional data, which they do not have the ability to really use, that we find the manufacturers and formulators are having a very tough time making ends meet. And, of course, the lack of registration in the past year has also hurt us in the field to a great extent.

We have had many problems with the enforcement division, in terms of their interpretation of the law. They contend that the word "use" is not defined in the law, but, actually, it is really defined in the regulations. They could reinterpret "use" if they wanted to, without changing the law.

And then, of course, we think that in view of some of the decisions that have been made recently in the cancellation of some of these pesticides, that the Delaney amendment now does apply to pesticides. You get to pesticides through various things, like the cancer principles that were stated in the Aldrin-Dieldrin case, and the "no threshold level" that was stated in the Heptachlor-chlordane case.

So, we are calling for some kind of national cancer assessment, and one of your previous

Senator LEAHY. Done by whom?

Mr. HIGBEE. Well, we think it ought to be a federally funded project.

Senator LEAHY. But not with EPA or FDA?

Mr. HIGBEE. No. I think it has to be something that is conducted by a law that you would pass, and that would then become acceptable to all the agencies, so far as guidelines or benchmarks.

Senator LEAHY, Do you think there has been a problem with section 24, the definition of what is a pesticide seller? Do you feel there is any problem with EPA in determining what is a seller, as opposed to what you might consider an applicator?

Mr. HIGBEE. Yes. You see, in our case, we sell pesticides in about 60 percent of the cases. And so, as a result of that, they have, arbitrarily, decided that we are a manufacturer, or come under sections 7 and 9 of the law. And we, like the PCO's, do not feel that this is correct, and that they should not have the added enforcement capabil

ity that this gives them; in other words, to come in and make use inspections of our facilities without suspicion of misuse.

Senator LEAHY. What about the assessment on specific end use and impact? How do you feel about their general determinations of safety? Do you think they are adequate, or do you think that they are broad enough to cover specific end uses?

Mr. HIGBEE. Well, I think they have all the capability of assuring safe use of pesticides. They do not really need anymore capability than they have. And one of the things that they do not seem to recognize is the fact that we do have a large group of people in the United States who have used these pesticides safely for many years now, with very little difficulty.

It seems like that they are just more interested in setting up a riskless society, and this is something that I do not think our society can live with. We have got to have a reasonable amount of risk.

Senator LEAHY. Senator?

Senator LUGAR. No questions.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much. Your statement will be in the record. We seem to be getting a great deal of uniformity of thought here today. The various witnesses must have been doing a lot of work together, hammering out.

Mr. HIGBEE. We have; I am sure you know that. I would like to comment on this RPAR thing, because I was one who saw the audiovisual presentation that they put on.

Senator LEAHY. Sure, go ahead.

Mr. HIGBEE. I would imagine that it cost about $50,000, and in my view, it was quite an indictment of toxaphene, and there was nothing good said about toxaphene. And it was so shocking to us all that we could not even ask any questions about it after it was over.

Senator LEAHY. I will have it shown up here; at least, have my staff and the committee staff see it, and I am going to try to see it myself.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HIGBEE. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. This morning, we skipped over Dr. Andrew Jovanovich, who was not here, vice president of Western United Resources, Inc., of Denver, Colo.

Doctor, are you here?

Dr. JOVANOVICH. Yes.

Senator LEAHY. I have a statement from you here this morning, and it will be made part of the record.*

You also heard part of the testimony this morning. I know you were here at the end of the morning. Do you want to give us your general assessment?

STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW P. JOVANOVICH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS, WESTERN UNITED RESOURCES, INC., DENVER, COLO.

Dr. JOVANOVICH. Well, first, I would like to say that since other people were changing their position during the last week, and particu

*See p. 127 for the prepared statement of Dr. Jovanovich,