priations under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 if action is not taken on this bill during the 90th Congress.

We believe, however, that it would be better to extend indefinitely the authorization of the 1958 act without a dollar ceiling, as the President recommended to the 89th Congress.

Departmental scientists study the transport of pesticides, their distribution geographically and in the habitats, their degradation, and in some cases, accumulation in water and soil, and especially their biological transfer from one organism to another along the chains of the food web.

These ecological pesticide research programs can be divided into four broad categories:

1. Monitoring the levels of pesticide residues in living resources and their habitats;

2. Physiological studies of the effects of pesticides upon life processes;

3. Bioassay studies of the lethal and sublethal effects of pesticides under controlled laboratory conditions;

4. Field appraisal of the immediate and long term effects of pesticides upon various species of fish and wildlife.

The following paragraphs discuss each of these broad areas: Pesticide monitoring: The objectives of this program are to ascertain on a national scale at specified intervals and independent of specific treatments, the levels and trends of certain pesticidal chemicals in the bodies of selected kinds of fish and wildlife.

What this refers to is called the common pesticide burden that living organisms carry in their bodies.

This is part of the national pesticide monitoring program recommended by the President's Science Advisory Committee and sponsored by the Federal Committee on Pest Control to document residue levels in soils, water, food, air, fish, wildlife, and humans.

Under this interdepartmental program the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has established 300 sampling stations for ducks, 140 stations for starlings, and 50 stations for freshwater fish.

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is responsible for monitoring in estuaries and the Great Lakes in cooperation with the States involved. Oysters are sampled monthly and estuarine fish every 2 months at 162 permanent stations selected to represent all major estuarine areas in the country.

Results of our monitoring program suggest that the greatest danger from persistent pesticides is from the chronic exposure of aquatic and terrestrial organisms to very low levels of pesticide contamination.

Increases of pesticide content along the food chains can affect the reproduction and behavior of fish and wildlife, cause low levels of mortality which may be undetectable at any given time; and by accumulation of pesticides in various food organisms, levels may become toxic to higher animals.

The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife are placing increased emphasis on studies of effects of chronic exposure to low levels of pesticides.

Physiological studies: Both Bureaus of the Fish and Wildlife Service are conducting long-term physiological studies of the effects of pesticides on several species of fish and wildlife, and on their food organisms. We are just beginning to learn the manner of degradation

of many pesticides and the toxic effect of these degradation products upon animal communities.

The phenoxy herbicides which include 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T are among the most widely used pesticides in the country. Some formulations of these compounds are safe to use for aquatic weed control.

Other formulations, while not lethal to fish at the concentrations used, are nevertheless corrosive to the circulatory system of fish. An important part of pesticide studies is to determine the organs and tissues where pesticide residues are stored, the effect on the species when these residues are metabolized or excreted, and the effects on physiological protective mechanisms of the animals.

The results of these studies show that residues of some chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides are deposited in fatty tissue such as the brain and gonads. We need to know more about the effects of pesticides on the growth, development, and reproduction of all of the important marine and terrestrial species.

Bioassay studies and pesticide registration: The Pesticide Registration Division of this Department must evaluate the potential hazard to our living natural resources that would result from proposed pesticide use patterns.

Bioassay programs are conducted at several laboratories to determine the acute and chronic toxicity of pesticide compounds. This information is utilized by our registration group, who then must decide on the potential pesticide hazard.

They then relay the necessary information to users of the compounds through USDA and the labeling process which I referred to earlier.

Field appraisal: The objectives of our field appraisal studies are to establish criteria for determining effects from low- and high-hazard pesticide compounds under actual field conditions.

These studies also help to determine how pesticides break down in the environment, how they are circulated and concentrated, and how they are passed up through the food chain.

Field appraisal personnel also participate on State and local pesticide control boards. The Bureaus of Commercial Fisheries and Sport Fisheries and Wildlife provide technical assistance and protocols to State agencies and the chemical industry.

Our primary emphasis is on the safe use of these chemicals. Such technical assistance seeks to take preventive rather than corrective action on pesticide matters.

Every day new pesticides are developed, new uses proposed, and different application rates suggested. U.S. manufacturers' sales of synthetic organic pesticides in 1966 amounted to nearly $600 million, compared to only $262 million as recently as 1960.

Continuing research of the many kinds I have mentioned is necessary in the foreseeable future, because man must rely upon an everincreasing array of pesticides to protect his food supply and his health. Tremendous values are at stake, not only the human values, but the indirect ones on fish and wildlife.

With the amendments recommended in our Department's report, we favor the enactment of H.R. 487.

This completes my statement on H.R. 487.

Mr. DINGELL (presiding). The committee is grateful for your testimony this morning.

My good friend, Mr. Downing, has some questions.

Mr. DOWNING. Is there presently a law which would prohibit the use of pesticides with a certain toxicity that has harmful effects on animals? Is there any law which would prohibit use of certain pesticides?

Dr. CAIN. There are certain statutory requirements under which the use can be conducted and directed. I will have to ask Mr. Finnegan from the Solicitor's Office to comment whether there is any law which would absolutely prevent the use of any given pesticide.

Mr. FINNEGAN. The Department of Agriculture has a statute which requires the registration of pesticides, and if you violate the conditions of those registrations, there are, obviously, penalties involved.

I would suggest that question may be properly directed to them. I think they are here today and could discuss this. There is no such statute administered by the Department of the Interior.

Mr. DINGELL. There is no statute anywhere in the Federal Government that says you can't market pesticides, you can't use it.

In the Food and Drug Administration, you have the Delaney amendments which prescribe that you can prohibit foods being marketed which contain certain substances which exceed either fixed tolerances or have the presence of a subject which a zero tolerance has been fixed. Mr. DOWNING. The answer is there is no law prohibiting the distribution of certain pesticides.

Someone might develop a wonderful pesticide which completely does the job but might kill every animal coming into contact with it.

Dr. CAIN. You referred to the requirement of zero tolerance with respect to chemicals in certain foods. This is an awkward situation, because at the time of the enactment of this requirement, the ability to detect the presence of many of these chemicals was much cruder than it now is and so instead of a few parts per million we can now detect fractions of a part per billion and the concept of tolerance has been greatly changed.

It produces a problem for all of us, this phenomenon.

Mr. EVERETT. Can you indicate for the record how much has been appropriated for pesticide research since the inception of the act?

Dr. CAIN. We have a table on that that we can introduce into the record. I can tell you in the general summary since 1960, in the last 9 years, the amount has increased tenfold and is now approximately $3 million.

(The table follows:)

ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR PESTICIDE RESEARCH-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. EVERETT. I notice that the Department recommends an open ended authorization. Can you indicate what you contemplate your research level would be in the coming year and also on a continuing level?

Dr. CAIN. We have been talking in terms of about a two-third increase, from about $3 to $5 million to support more research in this field.

Mr. DINGELL. Is that projected increase approved by the budget? Mr. FINNEGAN. The administration's position is that the authorization should be extended indefinitely with no dollar limitation.

Mr. DINGELL. That is the Bureau of the Budget position. Can you give us an idea of what the level will be? This subcommittee has over the past years had a practice of extending for a period of 3 years. The Chair doesn't happen to be in accord with that but that has been the policy of the committee.

The Chair recognizes that practice. Are you able to tell us what the level of expenditures should be on a yearly basis for the next 3 years? Dr. CAIN. We would like to have it moved to $5 million as rapidly as possible.

Mr. DINGELL. Is it now on the order of $3 million?

Dr. CAIN. It is now on the order of $3 million.

Mr. DINGELL. $3 million authorized?

Dr. CAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. FINNEGAN. The authorization is $5 million.

Mr. DINGELL. You are authorized to spend $5 million a year under this and you are appropriating $3 million a year now?

Dr. JAIN. Approximately; yes, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. So if the present authorization is extended at the same level, it is for the next 3 years and the Department can live with that level?

Dr. CAIN. Yes, with an authorization of $5 million, if we could get the funding up o the authorization, this is about the rate of growth that we anticipate as being feasible and practical.

Mr. DINGELL. You would anticipate at the conclusion of that 3-year period it would be necessary for the committee to ascertain whether some upward projection was necessary at that time?

Dr. CAIN. We are not thinking several years in the future of a rate of growth that has been occurring in the past several years. As I mentioned awhile ago the funding has gone up about tenfold in 9 years. To project that 9 or 10 more years would bring it to $30 million. We are not anticipating any such growth.

We think in the next 3 or 4 years we need to expand on the order of $5 million a year.

Mr. DINGELL. I will be entirely fair with you, I am in great sympathy with this program and understand the need of it. If you report to this committee for authorization of $5 million for the next 3 years, can you live with it?

Will this enable you to monitor these programs and do everything else?

Dr. CAIN. We have not anticipated asking for more than that. Mr. EVERETT. How much are you asking for fiscal year 1969?

Dr. CAIN. Excuse me, I don't remember.

I have been advised it is roughly $3 million.

Mr. DINGELL. How about 1970 and 1971?

Dr. CAIN. The 1970 cycle is just the beginning and no figures have been put on.

Mr. DINGELL. You wouldn't have any thoughts on that?

Dr. CAIN. I would like to see the amount of funds available of the type described increased for 1970 to $5 million.

Mr. EVERETT. Dr. Cain, what would be the cost of H.R. 487 should it be enacted by the committee as proposed by Congressman Dingell? Dr. CAIN. Well, I believe the answer to that, Mr. Counsel, is the same as we have just been discussing. With the passage of this bill, we would hopefully expand some of the necessary research in the order of magnitude I have just discussed.

Mr. EVERETT. There is a labeling requirement provision in the bill, as well as other provisions. I am wondering if you have a figure as to the cost of the bill if passed as introduced by Congressman Dingell. Your answer would still be the same?

Dr. CAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVERETT. You propose an amendment to the bill the report just came in early this morning, therefore, it is not in the record as yet. Will you supply for the record the exact amendment to H.R. 487 that you propose; understand the authorization would be open ended and the program would be extended indefinitely.

Mr. FINNEGAN. That is our proposal to the Senate; yes, sir. (The information follows:)

A BILL To amend section 2 of the Act of August 1, 1958, as amended, in order to prevent or minimize injury to fish and wildlife from the use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Act of August 1, 1958 (72 Stat. 479), as amended (16 U.S.C 742d-1 note), is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1969 and each succeeding fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Such sums shall remain available until expended."

Mr. EVERETT. You indicated in your statement the interagency agreement was working satisfactorily. You also made the same statement in 1965 before this subcommittee. Several of the recommendations that were made on samples supplied to the subcommittee back in 1965 indicate otherwise. Yet your testimony indicates Agriculture has gone along with the recommendations made by the Department of Interior.

Subsequent to the hearings, we had some of the examples analyzed and found that your statement was not entirely correct. Would you like to respond to the degree of cooperation you are receiving from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of HEW since the inception of the agreement in 1964.

Dr. CAIN. I know of no difficulties in the carrying out of the agreement between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior and for that matter with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. As far as I know the agreement is working quite well.