Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Dr. BERTRAND. You will note that the Science and Education Administration has received an increase of $13,558,000 over the budget that was submitted in January. We are extremely pleased with this favorable treatment. We realize this has put us on the spot. We must deliver in a way that is a credit to the confidence that has been expressed.

The addition of this increase

Mr. WHITTEN. It could be taken other ways. It could be the budget people thought you were not doing much of a job, so they thought they would give you some more people and money. You could look at it that way. [Laughter.]

There are two sides to the coin.

Dr. BERTRAND. We would like to think, Mr. Chairman, that we are doing such a good job they want us to do a better one.

Mr. WHITTEN. I do not want to bruise your pride. I just wanted to point out the other possibility. [Laughter.]

Dr. BERTRAND. We are very pleased that the Administration has seen fit to strengthen food and agriculture research and education. It is our intent to deliver.

The budget that is before you will permit us modest growth in our research program. It will permit us to work effectively with those agencies of the Government that depends upon us for their research support. It will permit us to take some major steps in meeting the research and education needs in natural resources and conservation.

All of this will be aimed at increased productivity in an environmentally safe manner.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to give a very quick overview. Additional details are included in my written statement. We can now entertain questions or we can move to Dr. Kinney.

Mr. WHITTEN. We will proceed with Dr. Kinney. Then we can ask questions.

Dr. KINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement I would like to have inserted in the record.

Mr. WHITTEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Statement of Terry B. Kinney appears on pages 162 through 170.]

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CHALLENGES

Dr. KINNEY. I would like to introduce one additional person-Dr. Thomas J. Army, who is Deputy Director for Agricultural Research. He came on board a few months ago.

Important issues confronting our Nation today are vital concerns of agriculture and especially agricultural research. The challenges are many; the problems are varied, and our tasks will not be easy ones. These national challenges of which I speak are as follows: One, maintaining a reasonable income for our farmers and producers;

Two, providing an abundance and variety of foods and agricultural products at reasonable prices;

Three, reducing cost inefficiences in agricultural production and distribution;

Four, promoting and encouraging international trade;

Five, providing the American public with safe and quality agricultural foods and products;

Six, improving our national environment and better managing our soil, water, air and climatic resources; and,

Seven, improving the nutrition and well-being of the American people.

MISSION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

The mission and responsibility of agricultural research is to meet these national and international needs in a dynamic environment and changing world. The role that agricultural research must play in solving these problems is crucial. Our research must continue to seek solutions to past and current agricultural problems; it must seek answers to new and evolving problems and be mindful of arising or potential contingencies that impact on this industry and the Nation.

It must remain flexible enough to meet changing needs and be able to react, redirect and fine tune its expertise and resources. More importantly, this agricultural research mission must be carried out in a manner that provides for the most effective allocation of scarce manpower and funding resources. We must be capable of delivering the best and most efficient research because we will be asked to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the 1982 budget for agricultural research is the blueprint from which we can successfully build to maintain and improve an agricultural system that is second to none.

1982 BUDGET REQUEST

The 1982 budget request is $458,781,000 and proposes a number of new and expanded programs. It includes a $5.5 million increase for basic research, $1 million for water use efficiency, $1.5 million for animal reproduction efficiency, $500,000 for integrated pest management, $6.49 million to support action agency requirements, $1.8 million for germplasm resources, $400,000 for pesticide impact assessment; $200,000 for research on minor use pesticides; $1.16 million for tropical and subtropical research, $1.5 million increase for aerospace technology, and $2.6 million for research in support of the Resource Conservation Act.

It also includes $1.25 million for nonpoint source pollution research; $150,000 for research on acid precipitation; $1.15 million for animal protection research; $400,000 for security at the National Arboretum; $1.9 million to construct a biocontrol laboratory in Europe; $1 million to energy retrofit in-house facilities; $300,000 for soil and water research in Alaska; $13.2 million for increased operating costs, and $1.5 million for human nutrition research which will be addressed in more detail by Dr. Mark Hegsted.

TRANSFER OF EPA FUNDS

In addition, a transfer of pesticide evaluation studies from EPA in the amount of $279,000 is requested.

In terms of the program reductions, we are proposing reductions that are predicated on the ability of other organizations outside the

Federal Government to conduct this research, as well as the need to reduce

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have a contract to that effect, or are you simply expressing your hope it will take place?

Dr. KINNEY. Mr. Whitten, it is a hope. It is an observation. Mr. WHITTEN. I will interrupt you there. I do not mean to cut you off; I think you should take up where you left off.

Having had experience on this Committee and having listened to budget proposals for years, as we all have on this Committee, do you not think we should defer all of this until you get approval from EPA?

What good is it if they are not going to let you use it?

Dr. KINNEY. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WHITTEN. Pesticides and other things you hope to discover answers to-should we get an approval by EPA in advance so you will not have wasted the money?

Dr. KINNEY. I think that would be desirable, Mr. Whitten. I think it is highly unlikely that we would get a commitment from EPA.

Mr. WHITTEN. I asked you if you felt we should defer this until we do get approval.

Dr. KINNEY. No, we cannot. We would be back in the dark ages.

INSECT CONTROL RESEARCH

Mr. WHITTEN. I know you did not mean to get into this yet. We interrupted to bring up this point. Are we hunting up new problems to solve? What have you done about the Southern pine beetle, the fireant, the gypsy moth, the Japanese beetle, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and so forth?

DDT

What are you doing about those problems where you do not have any answers? Are you going to renew the appeal of the decision on DDT?

The testimony before this and other committees shows that DDT never hurt anybody when properly used. Is it not better to spend some of your time trying to go back to those things that never have proved harmful?

MIREX TO CONTROL THE GYPSY MOTH AND FIREANT

Mirex, from my understanding, never was turned down by EPA. They never found any problems with it when used once a year. The Department insisted on twice a year. They started a study but never completed it.

I was told that not long ago by someone who should know. I had assumed that the EPA had prohibited the use of mirex for fireants. The reason I asked this is that the ants are rapidly moving north. My immediate district is not affected, but the gypsy moth is in New York and in the New England States. Once they kill all the timber you can imagine what is going to happen. What we read about certain parts of California with the mud slides will be typical of New England, as I understand it from witnesses, if we do not do something about the gypsy moth.

So, should we not take some of the money that you have requested for less immediate concerns and put it to work curing present problems? Should you not put it in your legal department and let them appeal certain decisions or intercede in pending ones so you can use what you already have?

I am asking you, but the question also is directed at Dr. Bertrand and the rest.

Dr. KINNEY. Let me answer first.

Not to avoid the issue, but in our research organization, we are guided by several things.

Mr. WHITTEN. Have we been stepping between you and your research organization?

Dr. KINNEY. No, I am not implying that. As administrator of a research organization, I am guided, first of all, by the policies that are established by the Department or by the Congress.

Mr. WHITTEN. But if we on the Committee feel those policies are a deterrent to moving ahead on the things that are dangerous and serious, had we not better let those policies go for a while and look to where the biggest problems are?

I was asked the other day about pet projects. I said that "pet project" is a term used by the news media to mean a project in your home area, where you know exactly what the problem is. Of course, the minute you start looking at that which you know most about, then it becomes a pet project.

I happen to know about fireants. There are others here that know about the gypsy moth, and others that know about other pests.

Had we not better direct you to those things where the problems have been with us and have reached dangerous proportions?

Dr. BERTRAND. Mr. Chairman, we would be very happy to respond to needs which are recognized by this Committee, or by any other legitimate source, and certainly the needs you have identified are paramount.

We are happy to report that in the fireant area, the experiment we had this past year in cooperation with APHIS did indicate that Amdro was quite effective as a control.

It is my understanding that EPA has given conditional clear

ance.

Mr. WHITTEN. Am I correct that EPA never did turn you down and you never did pursue it to a final decision?

Dr. BERTRAND. On mirex? I do not know. Perhaps Dr. Ross could answer that for us. Did EPA turn down the use of mirex?

Dr. Ross. My understanding was that the uses of mirex were not turned down. I cannot answer specifically because I do not have enough background. Dr. Fertig is one who has more experience. Dr. FERTIG. I do not have the answer, but I would be glad to get

it.

Mr. WHITTEN. When?

Dr. FERTIG. Right now.

Dr. BERTRAND. Would you please?

Mr. WHITTEN. I understand they filed some objections, but I was told it was not pursued to a final decision.

Mr. MYERS. We have not been using that material. Do we know why we could not?

« PreviousContinue »