Thus, by a roll call vote of 22 yeas-14 nays the amendment was adopted.

Mr. Mathis offered and explained the following amendment which would provide a sunset provision:

Add the following new sentence at the end of line 9:
"All authorities granted under this Act shall be
effective only through September 30, 1980.".

Discussion occurred on the amendment and without objection Mr. Mathis reformed his amendment to change "1980" to "1985". Discussion continued and by a show of hands vote of 17 yeas-6 nays the amendment was approved.

Mr. de la Garza moved that H.R. 3546, as amended, be ordered reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass. By a voice vote the motion was agreed to. Mr. Harkin requested a recorded

-6

Thursday, May 3, 1979
Full Committee
Business Meeting
Extension of FIFRA
H.R. 3546

vote and three Members--an insufficient number--supported the request. The Clerk was directed to count the Members present at the time the vote was taken (28 Members present) and a quorum was established.

Staff was given permission to make clerical and technical changes in the bill to reflect the Committee's intent, and Members were given three legislative days in which to submit additional views for inclusion in the Committee report.

At 12:22 p.m. the meeting was adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, May 8, for consideration of H.R. 3683 and H.R. 3580.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3546

OFFERED BY

MR. MATHIS

Add the following new section:

"Sec.

Any use, including aerial application, of

the pesticide mirex shall not be prohibited under the pro-
visions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (7 U.S.c. 136 et seq.) during the calendar years 1979
and 1980. Any such use shall be subject to any restriction,
applicable to such pesticide, which was in effect on October 1,
1977, other than any restriction limiting the period during
which such pesticide may be used, and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency may not alter or otherwise
change the terms of any such restriction applicable to such
pesticide."

STATEMENT OF

CONGRESSMAN DAWSON MATHIS

IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT TO

H.R. 3546

PERMITTING THE TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY USE OF THE PESTICIDE MIREX

"We are all aware that the pest [the fire ant] can disrupt agricultural practices, injure farm animals, and worst of all, inflict a burning painful sting to humans. There are many documented cases of violent reactions to the sting, which have required the hospitalization of the unfortunate victim. Parents write that aggressive ants attack their children at play. The public outcry for protection in infested areas is more than understandable.". John R. Quarles, Deputy Administrator, EPA, June 26, 1975

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering provides for the temporary, emergency use of the pesticide mirex during 1979 and 1980. The use of mirex would be supervised by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State Departments of Agriculture, which have seventeen years' experience in administering a safe program using mirex. Under the amendment, the use of mirex would be subject to strict standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1977. allow only 0.454 grams of mirex per acre per year. No mirex could be applied over streams, lakes, ponds, ocean areas, forests, or other environmentally sensitive areas.

These standards

The limited program I am advocating contrasts sharply with the program in existence for many years which permitted the application of ten times as much mirex on an unlimited land area. Even at the higher concentrations, mirex was always found to be safe by USDA, and the Department's findings of safety were supported by many state, federal, and university studies during 17 years of mirex use.

- 2

Despite the proven safety record of mirex, my amendment would cut the amount of mirex applied during a year's time by about onetenth and prohibit its use in environmentally sensitive areas as I have described.

Mr. Chairman, I feel this is a responsible approach to a problem which is approaching emergency proportions in the South. My approach is in contrast to what I view as an extreme position taken by EPA, which was to ban mirex before any substitute was available. I might add that EPA led Congress and the public to believe that an effective alternative would become available when mirex was finally phased out in June, 1978. Many of us believed the Administrator when, during the House consideration of FIFRA in 1977, he said:

"My purpose... is to indicate our sincere commitment to expedite regulatory clearance for an alternative pesticide which as Administrator I can assure you the Agency will honor." (Congressional Record, October 31, 1977,

p. H 11866)*

The Deputy Administrator said:

"I am prepared to give you my personal assurances that
EPA will examine the prospects for early approval of an
alternative chemical prior to the fall 1978 application
period. You may be sure that the matter of a mirex sub-
stitute would receive high level attention at EPA and that
procedural delays would not prevent prompt action
(Congressional Record, October 31, 1977, p. H 11866)

In fact, there was nothing available in the fall of 1978, which is the proper time for treating infested areas. It is now the spring of 1979 and time for treatment, but EPA has approved nothing that is