title 28. The commencement of proceedings under this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court to the contrary, operate as a stay of the Administrator's order.

"(j) The Administrator may, upon the request of any person who has obtained an experimental permit for a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U. S. C. 135) or upon his own initiative, establish a temporary tolerance for the pesticide for the uses covered by the permit whenever in his judgment such action is deemed necessary to protect the public health or may exempt such pesticide from a tolerance. In establishing such a tolerance, the Administrator shall give due regard to the necessity for experimental work in developing an adequate and wholesome food supply and to the limited hazard to the public health involved in such work when conducted in accordance with applicable regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

"(k) (1) Regulations or proposed regulations affecting pesticides which are promulgated by the Administrator after the effective date of this section or within ninety days prior thereto under the authority of section 406 (a) and the procedure specified by section 701 (e) shall be deemed to be regulations under clause (5) of paragraph (d) of this section and shall be subject to all provisions of this section applicable thereto.

"(2) Regulations affecting pesticides which have become final before the effective date of this section under the authority of section 406 (a) and the procedure specified by section 701 (e) shall remain in full force and effect but shall be amended or repealed in the manner prescribed in this section and shall be otherwise subject thereto.

"(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall, upon the request of any person submitting an application for the registration of a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or upon the request of the Administrator, certify to the Administrator whether or not the pesticide is useful for the purpose for which a tolerance or exemption is requested under this section. Such certification shall be made as soon as practicable after a request is made, but in no event later than thirty days thereafter.

“(m) The Administrator after due notice and opportunity for a public hearing is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations for the efficient administration and enforcement of this section. Such rules and regulations shall prescribe the manner in which regulations under this section may be amended or repealed."

SEC. 5. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the purpose and administration of this Act.

SEC. 6. All provisions of this Act shall take effect upon enactment.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I regret the delay in opening the meeting this morning. It is due to the fact that Mr. O'Hara, who is chairman of the subcommittee, is unexpectedly absent on account of illness; the second member, Mr. Hoffman, is likewise ill and unable to be present this morning; and this, together with the fact that there are two other committee meetings which have also been hit rather hard by reason of illness, have made a most difficult situation to contend with.

However, we will proceed. I am informed that Dr. Miller is also ill and unable to be present this morning. I regret that this is the case. However, our colleague, Hon. Walt Horan, of Washington, is present and will be the first witness.

Í also understand that our colleague, Mr. Herlong, of Florida, wishes to testify.

Mr. HORAN. We also have our colleague, Billy Matthews, of Florida. Mr. WOLVERTON. Very well. Will you proceed, Mr. Horan?

STATEMENT OF HON. WALT HORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. HORAN. We are all interested in this, Mr. Chairman. Since 1910 when it was found necessary to use spray dopes for the control

of pests which would have rendered food unfit for interstate commerce because of the effect of rodents or fungus or pesticides.

Since 1910 we have had an act on the books which required the Department of Agriculture to certify the use of pesticides. That brought up an interesting case because when you use pesticides on anything that is to be eaten later on, you have the problem of residue and how much residue should you leave on something that later on is to be eaten.

For that reason, the Department of Agriculture, under the act of 1910, was required to certify whether or not a pesticide was usable. We have had some interesting experiences with regard to that. As I have testified before, after 1910 and until 1925 the residues were not removed from apples, for instance, from my own hometown. We had the interesting experience of having 2 shiploads of apples arrive in London in 1925, 1 from South Africa that had not been sprayed and 1 from the United States which had been sprayed.

The importer from South Africa saw this shipload arriving there and on a falling market and he saw the apples and they were white with residue and so he protested. The English brought up an old 1904 ale law which designated how much arsenate of lead could be on the malt used in making ale. On that basis that shipload of apples was confiscated. That brought that whole thing into purview here and we have had the whole question of residues on fruits and vegetables and other commodities ever since.

The act of 1910 was invoked and it was rather cumbersome to the producers of fruits and vegetables in 1940 when Hon. Clarence Cannon and Hon. Richard Russell introduced a bill which appropriated $100,000 and studies were made by the Public Health Service to determine what the residue should be with regard to arsenate of lead, which is a pesticide which is not used much any more, and it was determined that the arbitrary residues that were then in force were completely constringuous on the fruit and vegetable producers.

Then, in 1947, we passed the Pesticide Act which this amends. All this bill does is to recognize that we have to use pesticides in the production of fruits and vegetables in order to protect them from rodents and fungus and insects and this bill merely simplifies the procedure of determining what the tolerance should be.

It does it in a very simple way. This bill avoids placing the complete responsibility over highly technical questions of science in the province of one agency. I think we have competent witnesses here this morning. I think if we call on Mr. Lea S. Hitchner of the National Agricultural Chemical Association, he can explain this bill completely because we do have a real problem here.

Your committee has reported out a bill which will be on the floor, I think it will pass, which gives the Food and Drug agents the right to enter warehouses and inspect, but before they do that, Mr. Chairman, they should know what they are looking for and this bill here will simplify the whole procedure of what they are looking for.

For that reason I think this bill is tremendously important. That is about all I have to say.

I would like to hear from one of my colleagues.

Mr. ROGERS. There is no doubt but that this is in the public interest; is that right?

Mr. HORAN. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. Does anybody oppose it?

Mr. HORAN. Not a soul, so far as I know.

Mr. WOLVERTON. We will now hear from Mr. Herlong.

STATEMENT OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Chairman, as has been indicated, this is a very technical bill. I shall not attempt to go into the workings of it and just how it works, because I am not an expert on that, but we have with us here the director of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Dr. Fifield, who has a prepared statement on it which I have read and rather than repeat something that he is going to say a little later, I should like to state to the committee that I am enthusiastic about this bill and I think it is going to be a great help to all of us in the agricultural producing areas.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Any questions?

Mr. SPRINGER. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS. No questions.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Congressman Matthews?

STATEMENT OF HON. D. R. MATTHEWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and cooperate in the statements of my colleagues, Mr. Horan and Mr. Herlong. This bill H. R. 4277 is one that I am very much in favor of. As my colleague from Florida, Mr. Herlong, has said, naturally it is a technical subject and I cannot explain all the provisions but I think what is important for us in Florida is the fact that all the leaders of our great agricultural industry are for this bill, for this subject that has been presented here so clearly by Mr. Horan from Washington.

The Florida Citrus Commission, the Florida Agricultural Research Institute, our agricultural experiment station-I want to emphasize again, all the great leaders of agriculture in Florida, are for this bill, and Dr. Willard Fifield has been referred to before. He is here today. He is one of my constituents from the Eighth Congressional District of Florida and I know he will join with others here who will give the technical explanation of this bill.

I believe that is all I have to say. I want to thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. SPRINGER. No questions.

Mr. ROGERS. No questions.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I have been advised that statements will be presented for the record-they will be made a part of the recordby Mr. R. B. Heiney, assistant to the secretary of the National Canners Association; statement by Mr. H. W. Hamilton, secretary of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association; a statement by W. M. Hoskins, chairman of the Pacific Branch Entomological Society of America; Mr. C. W. Kitchen, executive vice president, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Washington, D. C.; Mr. George L. McNew, Boyce Thompson Institute, Yonkers, N. Y.; Mr. Frank L. Holland,

manager of the Florida Agricultural Research Institute; Mr. Robert C. Evans, general manager of the Florida Citrus Commission; statement by Ernest Falk, manager of the Northwest Horticultural Council, Yakima, Wash.; statement of Mr. Matt Triggs, American Farm Bureau Federation; and statement of the National Cotton Council of America, Washington, D. C.

I also have the report from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare dated July 14, a report from the Department of Justice dated June 18, a report from the Department of Commerce dated July 15, and a report from the Department of Agriculture dated July 14. They will also be made a part of the record. (The listed statements and reports follow :)

Hon. JOSEPH P. O'HARA,

NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D. C., July 10, 1953.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN O'HARA: The National Canners Association is disappointed that it will be unable to have a witness appear at the hearing on July 14 with respect to the Miller bill, H. R. 4277, dealing with pesticides and pesticide residues. The provisions of the bill are being studied by a special association committee. However, with the active canning season underway, it is very doubtful that the recommendations of this special association committee can be formulated and an industry policy adopted during the remainder of the summer months.

We respectfully request, therefore, that the record of the hearing on the Miller bill be kept open in order that the position of the canning industry can be given consideration by your subcommittee. We feel the interests of fruit and vegetable processors in this subject fully justify our request since the direct responsibility to the ultimate consumer for shipping any processed food which has been subject to pesticide control is on the processor.

Very truly yours,

R. B. HEINEY, Assistant to the Secretary.

STATEMENT BY CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

RE H. R. 4277, JULY 13, 1953

The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association is a trade association composed of manufacturers of packaged insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and sanitary chemicals used for home and institutional purposes. The association was organized in 1914 for the purpose of furthering the aims of the Insecticide Act of 1910. It has since that time advocated adequate laws and enforcement facilities in relation to these products.

The association supports H. R. 4277 and urges that it be favorably reported by the committee with certain amendments. It is a well-balanced measure which reflects intelligent thinking. It should substantially improve the procedures in the existing law which it amends.

H. R. 4277 provides for an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which would prescribe a more realistic, economical, and efficient method for establishing tolerances for pesticides used in food production, storage, or transportation. It should supplement in a constructive manner the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the primary Federal law regulating pesticides.

Under the present law, public hearings must be held before necessary tolerances can be established. These hearings have been conducted in an adversary atmosphere with protracted delays and excessive cost to the Government and to the participating parties. Experience has demonstrated that they are not suitable media for accomplishing their objective. Today, after 15 years of operating under the present law, there are no tolerances. The bill would substitute a more informal rule-making proceeding for this cumbersome, unfruitful process.

The bill prescribes specific time limits for administrative action in establishing tolerances. This should serve to remedy the long periods of delay and inaction