WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 30, 1972 1549

Capital region a better place to live and work and visit.

I am especially pleased to approve the National Capital 

Area Transit Act of 1972. Nothing is more essential in 

making a city livable than a regional transportation system 

which enables people to move easily among their homes, 

their places of employment, their leisure time pursuits and 

tourist attractions. During the last 4 years, Washington has 

taken long strides toward the development of such a system. Construction of M ETRO rapid rail transit system is 

progressing well, as is the improvement of the regional 

highway system. The transit act signed today is a necessary 

complement to these steps. It opens the way for acquisition 

of the area’s four major bus companies by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and thus for 

the efficient coordination of bus and subway services when 

METRO begins operation in 1974.

I also join with the local community in welcoming the 

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center Act. This new center and the activities it will host can 

serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of the downtown 

heart of the National Capital region. Thanks to the 

prompt action of the Congress on this bill, it should be possible to have the center open and operating by the 1976 

Bicentennial year— a fitting memorial to the late President 

Eisenhower.

Another important measure which I have long supported and will happily sign is the Pennsylvania Avenue 

Development Corporation Act of 1972. This legislation 

will be of great assistance in the planning and development of the avenue, blending governmental and private 

uses to create an impressive and active main street for the 

Federal City.

While the civic center and Pennsylvania Avenue bills 

contain provisions which raise constitutional issues, I believe that those issues can be worked out satisfactorily with 

the Congress as we proceed to implement this legislation.

The three other measures which I have signed today are 

also important to the citizens of Washington. Under the 

District of Columbia Implied Consent Act, the city obtains 

a long-needed mechanism, already held by every other 

jurisdiction in the Nation, for dealing more effectively 

with the serious public safety hazards caused by drinking 

drivers. The District of Columbia Teachers’ Salary Act 

amendments of 1972 recognizes the need of adequately 

compensating public servants for the demanding and 

important work they do. The equal rights for blind and 

physically disabled act raises the standard of justice and 

opportunity for handicapped persons in the District of 

Columbia.

Sometimes it is difficult to know at close range whether 

the city’s tribulations with excavated streets, barricaded 

construction sites, community disputes, and the like indicate progress or merely confusion. But a major legislative achievement like that represented by these six bills 

offers heartening proof that the system does work and that 

a better day is coming for all the people of the National

Capital region. I commend the bipartisan effort in the 

Congress, and the constructive cooperation of Federal and 

local officials and concerned citizens, which made this possible and which points to more progress in the future.

n o t e: Five of the six bills were approved by the President on October 21, 1972, as follows:

S. 4062, National Capital Area Transit Act of 1972— Public Law

92-517

S. 3943, Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center

Act— Public Law 92-520

S. 4059, District of Columbia Implied Consent Act— Public Law

92-519

H.R. 15965, concerning District of Columbia teachers’ salaries and retirement benefits— Public Law 92-518

H.R. 11032, concerning equal rights for the blind and physically

disabled in the District of Columbia— Public Law 92-515

The sixth bill to which the statement refers is:

H.R. 10751, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972

National Environmental Data System

and Environmental Centers Act of 1972

The President’s Memorandum of Disapproval.

October 21,1972

I am withholding my approval from H.R. 56.

My objections to this bill are centered upon two of its 

titles which would establish a National Environmental 

Data System and create environmental centers in each 

State. While both of these titles sound desirable in theory, 

they would in reality lead to the duplication of information or would produce results unrelated to real needs and 

wasteful of talent, resources, and the taxpayers’ money.

A third portion of H.R. 56 would direct the Federal 

Government to purchase the Klamath Indian Forest lands 

in Oregon. After studying this proposal carefully, I believe 

this purchase would be sound public policy, and if the 

next Congress provides the necessary funds, I shall happily 

approve the acquisition of these unique lands.

In the form now before me, Title I of this legislation 

calls for the establishment of an independent, centralized 

environmental data system for the acquisition, storage 

and dissemination of information relating to the environment. Data for the system would come from governmental, 

international and private sources. A Director, who would 

be under the guidance of the Council on Environmental 

Quality, would determine what data would actually be 

placed in the system and who would have access to the 

data.

I believe there are serious drawbacks to such a data system which would outweigh potential benefits. The collection of data and statistics on the supposition that some day 

they may be useful is in itself a highly dubious exercise. 

Data, taken out of the context of the questions they were
1550 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 30, 1972

specifically designed to answer, can even contribute to confusion or be misleading.

With this in mind, I believe the centralized collection 

of environmental data should be related to specific policies 

and programs. H.R. 56 fails to provide such a relationship 

and the question of whether this basic deficiency can be 

overcome, and a useful centralized system designed, is now 

under study by the Administration. In the meantime, the 

Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies have 

consistently worked to strengthen the acquisition and exchange of such data and this effort will continue.

Title II of this legislation authorizes the establishment 

of environmental centers in every State to conduct research in pollution, natural resource management, and 

other local, State or regional problems. The centers would 

also train environmental professionals and carry out a 

comprehensive education program.

Research is a vital part of our effort to come to grips 

with the environmental problems we face. This Administration is currently spending literally hundreds of millions 

of dollars through directed research efforts sponsored by 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 

the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare—to name 

but a few. We will continue these programs and institute 

others where they are needed.

Academic talent and resources have a vital role to play 

in the success of our environmental research programs. 

As members of the academic community know, grants for 

research are awarded on the basis of not only the merits of 

the project, but also the capabilities of the institution to 

carry out its responsibilities. By creating research centers 

on a rigid State-by-State basis, and requiring that each be 

funded, the Congress is asking us to throw away our priorities and to fund programs regardless of their merits and 

in spite of the limited capabilities of some institutions. 

Equally important, this approach also ignores the competence and available capacity of already existing institutions and laboratories to carry out this vital research.

Further, I share the view of the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency that environmental 

problems are essentially national in scope, and that most 

problems, even though they may appear to be local in nature, really affect many other States and localities as well. 

To the extent there may be local problems, our present 

project-by-project approach in research can be used to 

marshal the best scientific talents, wherever they are located, to deal with such problems. Thus, there is clearly 

no justification for establishing up to 51 new environmental centers specifically charged with investigation of State 

and local environmental problems.

Titles III and IV of the bill direct the Secretary of 

Agriculture to purchase a tract of 113,000 acres in the 

Klamath Indian Forest in Oregon. I believe that acquisition of this forest area would mark a significant and worthwhile addition to our National Forest System while, at the 

same time, assuring full environmental protection to this 

scenic part of Oregon.

Richard Nixon

The White House,

October 21,1972.

Federal Environmental Pesticide

Control Act of 1972

Statement by the President Upon Signing the Bill Into

Law. October 21,1972

While pesticides have been regulated by Federal law 

since 1910, it was not until after World War II that they 

began to be used in large volumes for a great variety of 

purposes. Since that time, the use of pesticides has become 

one of the major reasons for the tremendous growth of 

American agriculture, helping our farmers to provide sufficient food and fiber for this Nation and for much of the 

world.

But even though pesticides have greatly aided our agricultural productivity, they can also present serious problems. For if they are not used properly and prudently, 

they can be damaging to the natural environment and 

harmful to human beings.

As part of my environmental message of February 1971, 

I proposed that the Congress—for the first time—give the 

Federal Government authority to regulate effectively the 

use of all pesticides in the United States. I am pleased that 

this recommendation has received the diligent, conscientious consideration of the Congress and especially of the 

House and Senate Agriculture Committees and the Senate 

Commerce Committee. The legislation which has emerged 

after this consideration is as strong and workable as my 

original proposal. I take great pleasure in signing it into 

law today.

The act I sign today represents the most significant 

legislation in this field since the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act was passed in 1947. That 

law required the registration of pesticides but it did not 

address the problem of misusing properly registered pesticides and it did not control pesticides which moved solely 

in intrastate commerce. The new law remedies these 

defects. It prohibits the use of any pesticide inconsistent 

with its labeling, it extends Federal regulation to all 

pesticides including those distributed or used within a 

single State, and it takes a number of additional important 

steps to improve and strengthen the regulatory process.

As a result of this new law, the Federal Government, for 

the first time, will be able to exercise adequate control 

over the use of pesticides. We will now be able to ensure 

that we can continue to reap the benefits which these