Page images
PDF
EPUB

EMPLOYMent Administrative or Line programs supervisory PFT AO Total PFT AO Totals 1980: Agricultural research and human nutrition line activities 1/----------- 6,884 1,404 8,288 ---------------------other line activities 2/-- 262 45 307 ---------------------Program administration and special staffs----------------------------- l, 134 245 1,379 Total 3/-------------- 7, 146 1,449 8,595 1, 134 245 1,379 1981: Agricultural research and human nutrition line activities 1/----------- 6,901 1,323 8,224 ---------------------other line activities 2/-- 272 38 310 ---------------------Program administration and special staffs l, 220 200 1,420 Total 4/-------------- 7, 173 1,361 8,534 1,220 200 1,420 1982: Agricultural research and human nutrition line activities 1/----------- 6,901 1,323 8, 224 other line activities 2/-- 272 38 310 Program administration and special staffs----------------------------- 1,077 200 1,277 Total ---------------- 7, 173 1,361 8,534 1,077 200 l, 277

1/ Includes research scientists, support scientists, research technicians and T other lab support. 2/ Includes professional and support positions in extension, cooperative T research and technical information systems.

3/ As of January 9, 1981.

3/ As of January 26, 1981.

Source: Prepared by the Organization and Management Development Staff, SEA, March 13, 1981.

[graphic]

Mr. WHITTEN. How many of your permanent employees are located in Washington, D.C., how many are in the metropolitan area, and how does this compare with a year ago and two years ago? How many part-time employees and temporary employees are located here in Washington, D.C.?

Dr. BERTRAND. Presently we have 459 permanent employees located in Washington, D.C., and 1,903 in the metropolitan area. This compares with 436 permanent employees in Washington, D.C. in 1980, and 445 in 1979, as well as 1,868 in the metropolitan area in 1980, and 2,045 in 1979. We have 78 part-time and temporary employees located in Washington, D.C.

Mr. WHITTEN. How many permanent employees do you have located outside the metropolitan area?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have 5,944 permanent employees on board outside the metropolitan area.

Mr. WHITTEN. How many part-time and temporary employees are located outside the metropolitan area?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have 863 part-time and temporary employees located outside the metropolitan area.

HUMAN NUTRITION Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Hegsted, who is the head of our Human Nutrition program, is here. His budget is part of the agricultural research budget.

He is prepared to make a statement if you wish.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would certainly like to hear it, but I thought I would open it up for questions while I could be here.

Mr. McHugh?
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I would like Dr. Hegsted to comment on this.

One of the areas where some cuts are proposed is human nutrition research. Please indicate where the cuts on human nutrition research are being made. What is the justification for this?

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. McHugh, the cuts in the proposed budget are for the competitive grants program. A $3 million item of the $3.3 million increase for the competitive grants program has been deleted from the earlier version of the budget.

Mr. McHugh. Why is this being decreased relative to other areas which are being increased?

Dr. BERTRAND. We have other items of higher priority in the general science and education area that those monies will be directed toward, principally aimed at agricultural productivitygermplasm, water-those items I enumerated a few minutes ago.

Mr. McHUGH. Would you submit for the record greater detail on these relative priorities? I certainly am not opposed to your emphasis on productivity. That is very important.

However, at the same time, we have seen how human nutrition research has been very helpful. Obviously it is important to health, and to the extent that nutrition research contributes to better health and thereby reduces health care costs it is also important in helping us deal with inflation.

I realize that is a generalization. Nevertheless I am interested, without being critical, in more detail as to why you are decreasing human nutrition research relative to the others areas.

Dr. BERTRAND. We will be glad to do that, sir.
Mr. WHITTEN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

RESEARCH PRIORITIES–COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS The January budget request proposed a $3,000,000 program increase above fiscal year 1981 for human nutrition research under the Competitive Research Grants program and an additional amount for increased operating costs. The present proposal would continue the program at the level appropriated in fiscal year 1981 plus increased operating costs. The current budget revisions are aimed principally at agricultural productivity and provide for research in the area of integrated reproduction management, germplasm collections, water use conservation, processing efficiency and animal health, and for increased operating costs.

BANKHEAD-JONES GRANTS Mr. McHUGH. I also notice that you have proposed eliminating the Bankhead-Jones money. Again, without intending to imply criticism, I would like your justification for that particular proposal.

Dr. BERTRAND. Dr. Carter, who heads our Higher Education program, is here. May I turn to him? Mr. McHUGH. Certainly.

Dr. CARTER. The Department feels that the Bankhead-Jones funds made available to the land grant universities are relatively small compared to the funds that are used by the colleges of agriculture and, therefore, we felt that in weighing this against other funding priorities, we would put it into a lower priority.

The Department was also concerned that not all of it was being used by the universities for higher education exclusively for agriculture.

Mr. McHugh. In other words, some universities use this money for general education purposes as opposed to specifically allocating it for agricultural research or activities?

Dr. ČARTER. The Bankhead-Jones Act allows for use of these funds for programs other than agriculture.

However, Congress has indicated their desire that as much as possible it be used for agriculture. We have informed the universities of this desire. Mr. McHugh. Thank you very much. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TRAXLER (acting chairman). Mrs. Smith?

IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Mrs. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are pleased to have you gentlemen here today. I want to say I am gratified with your testimony. Agricultural research has been and is a top priority of mine. In my district we have the Meat Animal Research Center and Clay Center, and one of the finest land grant colleges, and several fine experiment stations.

I feel that in recent years agricultural research has not been funded adequately. Spending has not been keeping up with the pace of inflation. Of course, inflation has forced equipment and facility costs up drastically.

I am concerned that the general public and many Members of the Cress do not appreciate the critical importance of research.

I ferant colirch Centof mine ony. Agen here to

Great strides were made in yield and insect control, disease resistance, and many other areas in the last 50 years. In recent years, great breakthroughs have slowed down. Work of improving plant varieties, vaccines, and safe and effective pesticides and herbicides has become harder and more expensive. I was delighted when Secretary Block came before us and told us of his concern about research. I am gratified by the budget figures that we have just received this afternoon. However, I do share the concerns of our distinguished Chairman. I will look forward to your answers. I was especially pleased, Dr. Kinney, with your comments about integrated pest management. The University of Nebraska has pioneered in this field. It is being accepted by farmers and ranchers acroSS our area. I just have one question.

COMPETITIVE GRANT FUNDS

In the Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1981, the House removed $25 million from the competitive grants fund and transferred them to the special grants fund. Then over in the Senate most of these funds were put back into the competitive grants category prior to final passage. We ended up with $18 million in the special grants and $16 million in the competitive grants. I would like your comments about which fund uses the dollars more effectively. I would like you to shed a little light on that. Dr. BERTRAND. Both of these programs are very important to us. The special grant funds are aimed primarily at practical questions—questions that need answers immediately and that will be undertaken by the state university/land grant college/experiment station complex to meet either state needs or regional needs. The competitive grants program is aimed at basic research questions in plant science and human nutrition. These basic questions will not always be addressed if we are giving priority just to the special grants area. We feel there is a need for both special grants and for competitive grants in order that we can highlight the need for some of those basic studies. As to which is the most efficient, I do not think we have the answer to that. We have not made an in-depth study. We do know, however, that the process for awarding these grants is basically the same in that we use a peer panel to select, advise, and counsel us as to whom shall be the recipient. We also use essentially the same methods of controlling and checking to see that the work is carried out in accordance with the agreed-upon plan. There is a potential cost factor in favor of special grants in that traditionally the land grant universities have charged a lower rate of overhead than some of the recipients of the competitive grants. Mrs. SMITH. Thank you very much for that answer. It is good having you here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TRAXLER. Thank you, Mrs. Smith.

HIRING FREEZE Dr. Kinney, we have already heard much about the continuing hiring freeze and the plans to reduce actual federal employment over the next year. Can you tell me what impact this new hiring freeze has had on your operations and if you have any indication as to how many and what type of personnel might be terminated as a result of efforts to reduce federal employment?

Dr. KINNEY. The hiring freeze has had the immediate impact of deferment of 150 hiring commitments which were anticipated in the second quarter of fiscal year 1981. It is anticpated that many of those prospective hires will no longer be available when the freeze is lifted.

No employees will be terminated by Argicultural Research as a direct result of efforts to reduce federal employment. Employment ceiling reductions will be achieved through attrition. Vacancies in research positions will be filled as required to continue critical programs. Clerical, General Schedule and Federal Wage System support positions will be carefully examined and only those essential for program accomplishment will be filled. In this manner, Agricultural Research will attempt to alleviate the personnel impact of hiring freezes and ceiling reductions.

PROJECTS WHICH WILL NOT BE FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 1982 Mr. TRAXLER. You specify in your statement that a number of projects will be terminated, mostly because of their having been completed or outlived their priority. Can you provide for the record a complete list showing by project, location and amount, those projects which will still be in progress when you terminate them, and which projects will be completed?

[The information follows:]

« PreviousContinue »