Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes. Dr. BERTRAND. We asked for $3 million. Mr. WHITTEN. Three million dollars? Dr. BERTRAND. In this urban gardening area. Mr. WHITTEN. Then you did not ask to cut out city gardening? Dr. BERTRAND. No, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. Well, that's an Office of Management and Budget decision, or the Secretary's decision. I’m reminded of the other day when I mentioned another program to the Secretary of Agriculture, and he said we had too many dairy cows. People around the world are just as hungry as they can be and in need of every bit of spare food we've got; half the world is crying for it right now. I told him, you can get into the hog business in nine weeks. But if you cut down the number of dairy cows to barely meet our immediate needs, it would take five or six years to build them back up. I can't imagine anything that would be more ridiculous than to run that risk, particularly when we have furnished you with a salesman to dispose of our surpluses. You know, back yonder, we had billions of dollars of surplus commodities available for sale. We had tons and tons of butter, and one reason the General Sales Manager couldn't sell it, besides the fact that he might not have tried for a while, was that we wouldn't leave out the salt. We like salt and even if we were going to sell the butter to countries that don't, we insisted upon putting salt in. And we still do, so I'm told.

PRIORITY OF RESEARCH

Now all of this goes back to the question of what you are going to do with the money that is being cut from soil conservation, nutrition, forestry, and rural electricity, and given to you. Now, why do you think what you're doing is more important than these programs that we're trimming back? Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, we think that research— Mr. WHITTEN. That's a decision OMB made. I tried to take you off the hook. Dr. BERTRAND. Believe me, I appreciate that. And to finish my answer, the Secretary of Agriculture recommended that urban gardening programs be continued in fiscal year 1982.

IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WHITTEN. I'll tell you in all seriousness that, with less than 5 percent of Americans owning farms, I appreciate the members of this subcommittee who have stayed here, when all of us have more glamorous assignments. As Chairman of the full Committee I’m an ex officio member of all the other subcommittees, but we've stayed here because we think agriculture is basic to our country. As I've said many, many times, the standard of living of just about every nation in the world is dependent upon how much of its time the population has to devote to providing food, clothing and shelter, and our country is better in this respect than any country that I know of. So that's the key to our prosperity, and I think there should be no question. But with such a limited number of farmers it becomes imperative that we keep the support of our city colleagues, and I am proud that this subcommittee pushed through the urban gardening program. But we have had to restore it every year. OMB doesn't seem to have a practical politician in the group who realizes that you've got to get votes in Congress, and a lot of Members don't come from rural areas. It's been that way since I've been here. This subcommittee also set up 4-H type work in the cities, and I'd like to mention on account of my friend, John Myers, that the biggest 4-H club is in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana.

NUTRITION AIDES We also have nutrition aides. Now, the Extension agents were very important where I grew up, and I am a big believer in home economists, and the 4-H. We also had home workers employed by the state. They were helping the wives apply improved nutrition in the home. So I believe in all of that.

I think it's been proven through the years that to go into a woman's kitchen an aide has to be somebody in the same social status; somebody that is accepted. In major cities I think we have done lots of good with nutrition aides.

Way back, you had what I believe you called Aunt Sally's Cookbook, at that time. We changed it because it wouldn't sell with that title. We called it a Book on Human Nutrition. Some of my colleagues who were big dairy men and supported keeping livestock healthy objected to the book. I told them, if you say any more against it, I'm going to show how many times you voted for nutrition research for livestock; this is for nutrition for human beings. And they quit.

I mention that here for consideration by all of us, because I think we have to be practical and see that we put together a package that our colleagues will be able to support.

I wrotembers of the thirkan wholenen te

FARM-CITY COOPERATION I want to say here that all Americans are greatly indebted to the city Members of Congress. But I think we were wise in including in our bill some of the things that are relevant to them, such as the study and planning of urban wholesale market facilities.

I once went to New York City when they had the old 14th Street wholesale market going. There were requirements on safety, health, and protection that applied inside the grocery stores, but you could go out and see sides of beef lying on the streets in this downtown run down area. They would take this same beef into the grocery store where they would take care that the facilities were clean, but by then, what was the point?

The City of Philadelphia, the City of Detroit. There are so many of them that have taken advantage of the program for planning new wholesale markets where food would be protected at all times and where you had air conditioning, where you could have the right kind of chill rooms for apples and other types of fruit and produce. All of these things are beneficial to the American people, but they also are very practical in helping us get our bill through the Congress.

I want to repeat, we are deeply indebted to the city Members, because they do stay with us. They realize we have things of

right kince you hadets where fatage of theroit

interest to their people back home, so they stay on the floor and listen, and they come to see that agriculture is everyone's concern.

Now, you didn't come here to listen to me but under the circumstances, I guess you had to. (Laughter.]

What statements do you have to make at this time?

INFLATION IMPACT ON SEA Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Farley has pointed out, the increases sought by the Technical Information Systems are primarily to offset the cost of inflation and price of books that have gone up 18 percent to 20 percent from last year as well as the cost of periodicals that we must subscribe to in order to run a decent library.

The increases that Dr. Greenwood described in Extension are primarily just to keep up with inflation as well as to meet increased operating costs of that program and to have a slight increase in the nonpoint source pollution area to help the farmers conserve the soil.

The areas that we mentioned in Cooperative Research we think are essential in helping the farmer meet those needs and in helping the agricultural experiment stations cope with the cost of doing business today.

We consider this a very frugal budget. In fact, in terms of meeting the needs Dr. Greenwood has a rather interesting diagram with her that I would like her to show you, if she may, about what has happened to our extension funding since 1977. (The information follows:)

EXTENSION FUNDING The following table reflects Extension's funding compared to what those dollars are worth on a constant basis. As shown, Extension, which has increased its program responsibilities to respond to Congressional mandates, including title XIV of the 1977 Farm Bill, has had difficulty during the last few years in initiating new programs and expanding existing ones because of high inflation. With more and more people requesting assistance from Extension on a broadening range of subjects, the need exists for additional funds to offset these rising costs and allow Extension to continue to meet its main purpose-help people identify and solve their farm, home, and community problems through the use of research fundings.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Comparative Chart: Current Appropriations vs Deflated Amount CGISRIIDKORJAU

D

U

. PACIDADOS Millions

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

170.8

169:4 .....

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

al GNP deflator with 1972 - 100 from Presidents Budgets for FY 79 through FY 82

Mr. WHITTEN. When the farmer's income drops thanks to the recommendations of the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget, will you use your travel money to go out and explain to them how to get along better on less?

Dr. BERTRAND. No, sir. The Office of Management and Budget is cutting our travel budget.

Mr. WHITTEN. What are you going to do then? Talk with each other?

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, we are facing a very serious prob lem here.

Mr. WHITTEN. I do not know that I could have done as good a job of revising the budget as they have. But it does strike me that your proposed increase at this time is competing with essential programs that have taken cuts.

Dr. BERTRAND. The one thing I cannot lose sight of-and I may be biased-what we are talking about here is an investment in our food supply, not just for today, but for the future. I do not think we could stand a cutback at this time.

EXTENSION FUNDING Mr. WHITTEN. Could you cite for the record what the figures on your chart are so the other members will know?

Dr. GREENWOOD. The chart reflects that although the appropriations for Extension have risen from $228 million in fiscal year 1976 to $292 million in fiscal year 1981, the effects of inflation have eroded the purchasing power of actual dollars by almost one-half.

Mr. WHITTEN. What you are picturing now is one way of looking at the effects of inflation.

Dr. GREENWOOD. That is what it is.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

HATCH ACT Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Dr. Bertrand. In the area of Cooperative Research for payments under the Hatch Act you are requesting $146,609,000, an increase of $17,994,000 over the amount available for fiscal year 1981, or an increase of 14 percent. Of this almost $18 million increase, how much represents inflation and how much represents real growth?

Dr. BERTRAND. $12,475,000 of the proposed Hatch increase is for increases in operating costs due to inflation. The remaining portion, $5,519,000 represents real growth.

Mr. WHITTEN. With respect to the portion that represents the real growth in research, exactly what do you hope to gain from these additional funds? Do you have a master plan for how these funds will be used by the states?

Dr. BERTRAND. The budget proposal provides specific program increases for integrated pest management and for acid precipitation and we expect to increase our research thrusts on other high priority research areas. We anticipate that the state agricultural experiment stations will give consideration to the Proposed Initiatives for Food and Agriculture Sciences: 1981-86, issued by the

« PreviousContinue »