Page images
PDF
EPUB

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981.
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
EXTENSION SERVICE
TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
WITNESSES

ANSON R. BERTRAND, DIRECTOR

WALTER I. THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

MARY NELL GREENWOOD, ADMINISTRATOR, EXTENSION

R. A. FARLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

JOHN R. VICTOR, CHIEF, BUDGET DIVISION

ROBERT E. SHERMAN, DEPUTY BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WHITTEN. The Committee will come to order. We continue with the hearings on the Science and Education Administration. Today, we will hear from Dr. Thomas, Administrator for Cooperative arch, Science and Education Administration and Dr. Mary Nell Greenwood, Administrator, Extension, Science and Education Administration. We'll be glad to have such statements as you wish to present at this time, and then we'll proceed from there. [CLERK's NOTE:-The statements of Dr. Thomas, Dr. Greenwood, and Dr. Farley begin on pages 394, 403, and 412, respectively. The Explanatory Notes appear on pages 447 through 565.] Dr. BERTRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are pleased to be back this afternoon to cover these other two very important areas. Yesterday, we covered our in-house research program, and this afternoon we will deal with our partnership programs with the states, the Cooperative Research Program and the Extension Program in SEA. A unique feature of our American agriculture is that we have the in-house research programs and the cooperative programs with the states, which team together for the good of the nation. Without the Extension Program our research would not be delivered to the farmers, so it is indeed a very important program. I think you have already met Dr. Walter Thomas, Administrator of Cooperative Research, and Dr. Mary Nell Greenwood, Administrator of Extension. Also present is Dr. Richard Farley. We failed to cover our Technical Information System activities yesterday and we'd like to touch on that with you today. Mr. Chairman, we also have with us this afternoon Dr. Keith Shea. Dr. Shea is with Forest Service in charge of the three bug programs which you had questions about yesterday.

(277)

Mr. WHITTEN. Does he have the answer?

Dr. BERTRAND. Yes, sir. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we'll turn to Dr. Thomas for his introductory remarks.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH OPENING REMARKS

Dr. THOMAS. Thank you, sir. The states depend on federal formula funds for partial support of their basic and applied research programs. These funds are the basis for them to build and maintain the scientific expertise so that their programs can respond to state, regional and national research needs. It's extremely important to maintain that research base with formula funds. It encourages the states to develop their state-supported research programs in coordination with other states and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This planning combines their research knowledge with other states' research expertise in order to respond to the changing circumstances at state and regional levels with consideration to national perceptions of needs. This kind of coordination is necessary if we are to have an adequate research planning system that meets the needs of all facets of agriculture.

The state institutions that receive research funding through SEA Cooperative Research conduct about 60 percent of the publicly supported agricultural and forestry research of the nation.

The budget request for Cooperative Research this fiscal year is $234,188,000, which represents an increase of $33,291,000 over the funds available in 1981.

The major changes requested for Cooperative Research are increases for Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and 1890 institutions to provide for increased operating costs and also for some expansion in some parts of their research programs.

There is an elimination of the funding for the Animal Health and Disease Research formula funds under Section 1433 of Public Law 95-113.

There is an increase for Competitive Research Grants for basic research in the plant sciences, and there is a net increase for Special Research Grants of $7.4 million, which includes, specifically, some increases in animal health.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks.

EXTENSION OPENING REMARKS Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed with your statement at this time, Dr. Greenwood.

Dr. BERTRAND. Dr. Greenwood?

Dr. GREENWOOD. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the proposed fiscal year 1982 budget for the Cooperative Extension System. As has been mentioned, I did submit a statement for the record, so I'll make my comments very brief, and highlight some of the elements of the submitted statement.

The Cooperative Extension Service has been involved, since 1914, in the dissemination of useful and practical information to the people of this nation. Through a continued interface with the land grant universities, experiment stations and the Agricultural Re

bunits of the Science and Education Administration, the

the national Prio has sharealisere

latest research findings are translated into a useable form, and their applications made available to the citizens of this country, through Extension offices in nearly every county of the nation.

Some of the characteristics of the Cooperative Extension System are that it provides opportunities for lifelong off-campus education; that for every dollar appropriated at the federal level, another oneand-a-half dollars is generated at the state and county level; and that the partnership with the land grant universities has provided a nationwide network for addressing local and state as well as national priorities.

Extension has over the years continued its belief in the partnership with its shared program determination. Citizen advisory groups throughout this country influence the type of program carried out by the Cooperative Extension Service.

FISCAL YEAR 1982 PROPOSED BUDGET The budget which we are proposing in fiscal year 1982 is designed to preserve the concept of shared program determination and shared funding between the Federal Government and the state and county cooperators.

In terms of our fiscal year 1982 budget, with the exception of a very moderate request for increased operating costs for our State Cooperators, and a small increase for expanded work in nonpoint source pollution, we do not propose to undertake any new program efforts in fiscal year 1982.

Rather we reviewed and examined our present programs to ascertain whether those that are targeted for a particular clientele group or special problem can be possibly sustained through the Smith-Lever formula funding with accompanying state or local support. In line with this, we are proposing that two such targeted programs be eliminated beginning in fiscal year 1982. These are the Urban Gardening Program currently funded at $3 million and the Farm Safety Program, at $1.02 million.

We recommend a budget of $317,378,000 for Extension activities for fiscal year 1982. This is $25,109,000 over our fiscal year 1981 appropriation.

The adjustments we propose include, an increase of $27.7 million for increased operating costs of the State Extension Services; an increase of $1.4 million for nonpoint source pollution Extension programs; a decrease of $4 million plus, to eliminate the two earmarked programs I mentioned above and an increase of $22,000, for federal pay increases.

The increase in operating costs will consist of $19.9 million for Smith-Lever 3(b), 3(c) formula. These will be provided to the 1862 institutions and will be utilized to support the core extension programs in the states.

Other elements of the increased operating costs are $5.3 million for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program-EFNEP-and $1 million plus for 1890 colleges and Tuskegee. Other increased operating costs are also requested for other high priority programs. These include pest management, pesticide impact assessment, energy and D.C. Extension programs.

As I indicated earlier, we are also seeking additional funding to expand our efforts in the area of nonpoint source pollution. An

increase of $1.4 million is proposed to finance a program designed to make the farmers, private landowners, and the general public more aware of the problems associated with nonpoint pollution; to suggest potential solutions that are both economically and socially feasible, while at the same time, allowing land owners the maximum freedom to choose between various alternatives on water quality issues. That concludes my statement.

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. We might hear from the Library, at this time. Dr. BERTRAND. Dr. Farley? Dr. FARLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Technical Information Systems operates from the National Agricultural Library building in Beltsville. We also have two very large libraries in the district—the Agricultural Law, and the Economics and Statistics Libraries—plus 18 officially designated field libraries in the states and 30 information centers, which contain approximately a quarter of a million volumes. Mr. WHITTEN. Talk a little louder. Dr. FARLEY. Our task is to capture the results of research as done by the Department of Agriculture— Mr. WHITTEN. Is it a hard job to run it down? Dr. FARLEY. It sure is. Mr. WHITTEN. You used the word “capture.” [Laughter.] Dr. FARLEY. That's why I used that word. [Laughter.] Mr. WHITTEN. Well, I thought it might be better to have it delivered to you, so you wouldn't have to run it down. Go ahead. Dr. FARLEy. Once we have captured it, we index it, catalog it, and make it available to anyone who needs it.

FISCAL YEAR 1982 BUDGET REQUEST

Our increased request this year amounts to $449,000 with a major portion going to cover the increase in costs of books and journals, which now run about 18 to 20 percent. The additional $100,000 will be used to support the Food and Nutrition Information Center with the remainder for supplementing the cost of our automated data bases. That concludes my statement. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you very much. I think this subcommittee has a good track record as far as supporting the Extension Service and Cooperative Research activities. I think these efforts have been the backbone of agricultural development right through the years, but only a part of it. I think that I should say that this Committee has been on the forefront in pointing out certain problems that have developed in our country. I had a study which shows that the dollar has depreciated more than 50 percent since 1967, and that about 70 percent of the federal budget bypasses the appropriation process which subjects it to annual review. These uncontrollable expenditures keep rising with inflation. I don't mean to condemn the things in that

category, but they leave a relatively small amount which is control

lable.

BUDGET TARGETS I also happen to be cochairman of the group that made the study about how to try to harness or, as you say, capture that spending to which Congress was committing itself in advance, only to have to pay the check later.

Now, that was the study that recommended legislation to create the Budget Committee. I served on that committee the first year. The law provides for a tentative spending target first, which we are supposed to aim for, and later a final ceiling and a reconciliation if the total exceeds the limit.

I can fully appreciate the position of the President, and the Office of Management and Budget that comes under the President, with the election and the promise to do something about inflation.

BUDGET CUTS

What disturbs me is the fact that, in the last few weeks in particular, attention has been given to making cuts in order to carry out campaign promises, as against cuts that reflect good economics. That's a matter of judgment and I don't mean to question anybody's good intention, but that's the way I see it.

I frequently say in Congress, and it works the same way in the Executive Branch, that when you work towards what you believe in you'll always get less than you believe in, but you have to defend it from those who think you got too much and those who think you got too little. If you just want to record your views without working toward your beliefs, you might as well stay at home and write the editor.

So, I recognize the difficulties, but when I look at the recommendations sent down in the budget, I can't help but think that perhaps they are not putting first things first.

I think a big part of the economic problem we face today is that we've gone overboard with spending in many, many areas. But many people have been convinced that cutting the budget will solve everything, and goodness knows, I hope it does, but I think that is overly optimistic. Then, what bothers me further, as I study the budget, is that we are not cutting out and saving, we are just cutting it out over here, and giving it to additional military spending.

I ran across a statement that I haven't seen in years, and I read it for the record. Quote: “I am convinced defense is only one of the factors that enter into our determinations for defense spending. The others are pump priming, spreading the immediate benefits of defense spending, taking care of all services, giving all defense contractors a fair share, spreading the military bases to include all sections.

"There is no state in the Union and hardly a district in a state which doesn't have defense spending, contracting, or a defense establishment. We see the effect in public and Congressional insistence on continuing contracts, or operating military bases though the need is expired.”

« PreviousContinue »