Dr. GREENWOOD. SEA-Extension is currently professionally staffed at approximately 75 percent of its ceiling-that ceiling established before the freeze took effect. We believe, of course, that full staffing would result in increased opportunity to respond to the needs of the states. On the other hand, we are cognizant of our responsibility to be the best stewards we can of available resources. We have not, to date, filed exemption requests.

Mr. TRAXLER. Dr. Greenwood, why are we again facing an elimination of farm safety programs? Haven't we restored it enough times, or is that why you could afford to cut it?

Dr. GREENWOOD. The SEA management team recognizes that on many occasions the farm safety program has been identified as a reduction in the budget request and that the Congress has restored it. In developing the budget request, your interest in this program was recognized; however, considering the constraints placed upon SEA management and in constructing our priorities of total national needs based upon these constraints, we could not place farm safety high enough on the priority list to be included in the asking. At the same time, we recognize that the states have the option of continuing the program with their formula funds, which we would expect approximately one-half of them to do.

THE RENEWABLE RESOURCES EXTENSION ACT OF 1978

Mr. TRAXLER. Last year we discussed the renewable resources program, and the interest in providing funds for it. Did you attempt to obtain funds for this program for fiscal 1982? Is the program still a needed one?

Dr. GREENWOOD. The Department requested funding in fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982 but funds have never been included in the executive budget because of other higher program priorities. Program funding would help put into place an Extension education delivery system to teach how to manage natural resources that would be similar to the programs which have been so successful in agriculture. For example, if the timber products from these private forestlands became a reality, our Nation could become a net timber exporting nation. At the same time, with improved management, these forest and rangelands could be producing greater quantities of other renewable resources, such as wildlife, fish, recreation, and forage for livestock.

Also the Renewable Resources Extension Act is very closely tied with the Resources Planning Act of the Forest Service and Soil and Water Resource Conservation Act of the Soil Conservation Service. The Extension education component would improve the technical assistance and service programs of these agencies, as is mandated in the legislation.

Funding this program would be desirable if budget constraints were lessened. However, our first priority must be adequate increases in the Smith-Lever formula funds. The Nation is now relying upon the renewable resources within our own boundaries; i.e., wood, as an energy source, could supply about 10 percent of the Nation's energy needs on a continuing basis. Domestic livestock utilizing rangelands need much less in energy input as compared to confined cattle.

BANKHEAD-JONES

Mr. TRAXLER. We again see proposals to eliminate funding_for the Bankhead-Jones program, and I understand that the justification is once again based upon the non-agricultural use of funds by the recipient institutions. Last year Dr. Folks in response to one of my questions seemed to be saying that you were operating with our directive to be sure that these funds were being used for agricultural purposes. What happened? Did you just not follow through on the practice explained to us last year, or did you find that it was too hard to police the expenditure of these funds?

Dr. GREENWOOD. We were not deficient in following through with the actions outlined for you that required us to distribute the $11.5 million appropriation in accord with the existing statutes, and to inform the states about the House directive that required them to use the funds for agricultural education, to the maximum extent possible. Legally, these are the only actions available to us because of the broad provisions contained under section 22 of the Bankhead-Jones Act, and this particular section would have to be amended in order to enforce the House directive. You may be pleased to know that our latest survey of these funds conducted by our Financial Management Division indicated that around 60 percent of these funds were targeted for agricultural purposes in fiscal year 1980.

Also, we reiterated the House directive to the states when we released the fiscal year 1981 grant allocations some months ago. Mr. TRAXLER. One of my county extension agents is a dynamite administrator. She whips those county commissioners around and tells them why she has to have good funding for those programs. Then she has a good network operation with the farmers and their wives. They come down and talk with county commissioners. They really get their attention.

From my observations you have been a very fine administrator and you have been a strong advocate of the cause of a true champion. Those of us on this Committee always appreciate that. We perhaps are a little too thin-skinned on occasion.

But you have been a fighter. You have maintained the quality of excellence in service within the Department in spite of decreasing real dollars in which to do that with. It has been tough. We understand that. We will try to help you.

It has been good to have you before us today.

NATIONAL SEA PLAN

Dr. Bertrand, you recently sent to me and other members of this subcommittee a copy of "A Comprehensive National Plan for New Initiatives in Home Economics Research, Extension and Higher Education." Can you summarize the findings of that report for us?

Dr. BERTRAND. A vital national concern is for families to care for their members, promote individual growth and development, and meet their needs for food, clothing and housing; also to produce and manage resources essential for health, safety, and well-being. The proposed new national initiatives in Research, Extension, and Higher Education are to help families handle major problems

facing them today. The work is to be conducted cooperatively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the land-grant colleges and universities, Cooperative Extension Services, and other cooperating institutions with programs in the food and agricultural sciences. Areas for new initiatives were identified by researchers, educators, and users who are currently involved in or recipients of home economics programs. Major economic and social data were examined to determine nationwide trends and needs for families individuals or households in the 80's which can be affected by home economics. Four major areas with several subcategories of concerns were identified where new initiatives in Research, Extension, and Education could provide urgently needed assistance. I will submit a list of these for the record.

[The information follows:]

1. Family Economic Stability and Security: (a) financial and resource management; (b) home production of goods and services; (c) consumption practices and privileges; (d) obtaining and managing real property.

2. Energy and Natural Environment: (a) conserving nonrenewable resources; (b) using renewable and nonrenewable resources; (c) coping with shortages and stoppages in supply; (d) planning long- and short-term trade-offs and goals.

3. Food, Nutrition, and Health: (a) eating for health and safety; (b) nutrition's role in human health; (c) food preparation, service and storage; (d) program coordination and referral for families.

4. Family Strength and Social Environment: (a) support and esteem for human developmental roles; (b) managing stress of social and economic changes; (c) relation to and control of institutions and services impacting families.

Mr. TRAXLER. To what extent does the fiscal year 1982 budget call for implementation of the findings of this plan?

Dr. BERTRAND. The fiscal year 1982 budget does not implement the findings of the study. The study was presented to the Secretary in late February 1981. We will consider the funding needs identified in the study, along with other high priority needs, as part of the fiscal year 1983 budget process.

Mr. TRAXLER. How long will it take to implement this plan and what results do you expect?

Dr. BERTRAND. The degree to which assistance can be offered is dependent on the additional support available. For Extension, knowledge currently available can be adapted for use with different audiences through a variety of methods in a fairly short time after personnel is in place for expanded or new programs. Research findings can be used most expediently when available. Better family financial management can be an immediate result.

Mr. TRAXLER. I want to turn to cooperative research. Dr. Thomas, I have several questions.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

In connection with the competitive grant program-and I am sort of making my peace with that program. And maybe because of me or perhaps it was just plain paranoia, the events that I was concerned about did not come about.

You did not abolish the category of the grant programs. We do have, I think, in the competitive grant area some worthwhile projects. It has worked beyond my best estimates of a few years ago when it was initiated.

I am interested in one aspect of it. You track the National Science Foundation methods in awarding grants. You use the peer review system, as I understand it.

On the contract grants you use in-house personnel for those purposes.

Dr. THOMAS. If the grants are awarded on a discretionary basis or specified in the Appropriation Act, in-house personnel review the grants. But if it is Special Research Grants that are to be awarded competitively we use a very similar peer panel review set up as we do with Competitive Research Grants.

Mr. TRAXLER. On the peer set-up that you would use on the noncompetitive grants, are those in-house personnel?

Dr. THOMAS. Yes, sir, they are reviewed by Cooperative Research scientists.

Mr. TRAXLER. I see.

Dr. THOMAS. Sometimes we do not have a specialist with the appropriate scientific expertise, and we go to Agricultural Research scientists or other scientists to make sure the research is appropriate.

Mr. TRAXLER. Thank you.

What do you think the cost differential is? How much does it really cost you to haul in a peer review panel from across the country? How many people do you have on the panel? How long are they in Washington? What are the costs of administering a program using the peer review process?

Without arguing for or against it, can you just give me the costs involved?

Dr. THOMAS. I cannot give a direct comparison. We generally have a minimum of five people on every peer panel. Each panelist is asked to review all proposals before they meet as a panel. They are in town for a relatively short period of time to discuss their evaluations and present their recommendations to the administrator.

Mr. TRAXLER. Would you detail that for the record?

Dr. THOMAS. Yes, certainly.

Mr. WHITTEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

COSTS OF PEER PANELS

The contract grants referred to are assumed to be the Special Research Grants that have been identified by the Congress for a high priority research area to go to a designated institution which has recognized expertise in the area of research. Since the identified recipient institution of the grant has been recognized as having research expertise in the area of the grant, it is necessary to review the proposal to assure that the design of the research and the procedure to be used are appropriate to achieve the objectives of the proposal. These discretionary grants are generally reviewed by one or two federal scientists having expertise in the area under study. The Special Research Grants, which are awarded under the competitive process, utilize panels of scientists who are recognized by the scientific community for their outstanding accomplishments in the research areas of the proposals they will evaluate. For these grants, a peer panel process similar to the one for Competitive Research Grants is used.

In the case of the Competitive Research Grants program, we generally have nine members on a peer panel. The peer panel members have to evaluate each proposal for scientific quality and the ability of the scientists for one proposal to carry out the proposed research in relation to the ability of the other scientist and all the other factors being considered in evaluation of all other proposals. Based on their combined scientific judgment they will recommend to the administrator of Coopera+ Research the proposals for funding which they believe to be better than any they reviewed. The research proposals are sent to the scientists for their

review and evaluation prior to their meeting as a panel in Washington, DC. One of the peer panel members is a federal scientist and others are nonfederal scientists. The panel meeting lasts for a three-day period. We estimate, that on the average, travel to and from the panel meeting and subsistence costs for the period of the meeting for a nine-member panel amounts to $6,208. We do not reimburse the institutions for salaries for the time their scientists devote to reviewing the proposals and serving on the peer panel. In fiscal year 1980, our costs for travel subsistence and honorarium for the 53 nonfederal scientists that served on the seven peer panels for the Competitive Research Grants program totaled $37,975.

FACILITIES OF LAND GRANT INSTITUTIONS

Mr. TRAXLER. Let us turn for a moment to the land grant college facilities. I am concerned over a severe problem of the future. What will be happening to the land grant college facilities because of the inadequacy and the aging of their plant and equipment? Can you describe for us how serious a problem this equipment and plant difficulty is?

Dr. THOMAS. The need for equipment is probably more serious than the need for physical building facilities because in recent years it has required more sophisticated equipment in order to carry out very complex, high quality research.

Running an analysis 30 years ago was a long, drawn out process whereas now with proper equipment it can be done quickly and research can be carried out very accurately.

But scientific equipment pieces are expensive. The institutions, in some cases, where they have not had additional funds from state sources, are having problems with equipment needs.

[Additional information follows:]

Section 1462 of Public Law 95-113, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, required the Department to conduct a comprehensive study of the status and future needs of agricultural research facilities. This survey was conducted in the winter of 19781979. State organizations included in the survey were the state agricultural experiment stations, the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee Institute, the forestry schools receiving McIntire-Stennis funding and colleges of veterinary medicine eligible to receive Section 1433, Public Law 95-113 funding. Estimated cost for providing additional office and laboratory space needed for the ongoing research program of the states was $94.2 million. The results of the survey indicated that it would require $72.3 million to renovate existing state facilities. Estimated Acre needs for land, for auxiliary structures and for maintenance and repair were also identified as a part of the survey. Anticipated needs by 1981 for the states are 92,000 acres of land, $320 million for ancillary structures and $72 million for repair and maintenance. The estimate of future program facilities needs were based on a 20 percent increase in program support over a 5-year period-4 percent per year. For state facilities a future increase in program funds of this magnitude would require additional and renovated space estimated to cost $105 million.

As a part of the survey that was made by the Department to determine the facility needs of the states, their equipment needs were also determined. The states were asked to list their needs for items of equipment which cost more than $20,000 per item or where it cost at least $10,000 annually to lease the equipment. The results of this survey indicated that it would cost $25,911,000 to replace out-of-date or worn out equipment. An additional $26,827,000 would be needed to provide new equipment to meet the needs of the ongoing program and commitments to new initiated programs. To meet the needs for program expansion at the rate of a 20 percent increase over a 5year period, an additional $39,764,000 would be required. These three levels of equipment needs by the states totaled $92,502,000. I would be remiss if I did not point out that the survey data is already two years old and does not include the inflation factor which needs to be added.