Full text of "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations for 1995 : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session"

/o3

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND REUTED

AGENCIES APPROPRLVTIONS FOR 1995

Y 4,AP 6/1: AG 8/995/PT.7

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois Chairman

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi JOE SKEEN, New Mexico

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH. Nevada

ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAMES T. WALSH, New York

DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida

ED PASTOR, Arizona

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

Robert B. Foster, Timothy K. Sanders, and Carol Murphy, Staff Assistants

PART 7

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
Dn'ERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

m 1 9 m

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995

HEAKINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

RICHARD J. DURBIN, lUinois Chairman

JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi JOE SKEEN, New Mexico

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

RAY THORNTON, Arkansas BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAMES T. WALSH, New York

DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida

ED PASTOR, Arizona

NEAL SMITH, Iowa

Robert B. Foster, Timothy K. Sanders, and Carol Murphy, Staff Assistants

PART 7

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-387 O WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044246-X

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky, Chairman

JAMIE L. WRITTEN, Mississippi,

Vice Chairman
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
CHARLES WILSON, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULIAN C. DIXON, Cahfornia
VIC FAZIO, California
W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North CaroUna
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
BOB CARR, Michigan
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
NANCY PELOSI, Cahfornia
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, Cahfornia
GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ED PASTOR, Arizona
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida

RALPH REGULA, Ohio

BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana

JERRY LEWIS, Cahfornia

JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Ilhnois

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky

JOE SKEEN, New Mexico

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia

TOM Delay, Texas

JIM KOLBE, Arizona

DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada

JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa

RON PACKARD, Cahfornia

SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama

HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland

JAMES T. WALSH, New York

CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carohna

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio

ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma

HENRY BONILLA, Texas

Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and Staff Director

(ID

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Tuesday, March 1, 1994.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT

WITNESSES

HON. BILL K. BREWSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN FREEMAN, CHAIRMAN, RURAL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

TOM SETH SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RURAL ENTERPRISES, INC.

Mr. DURBIN. This meeting of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies will come to order.

Welcome. Mr. Skeen of New Mexico.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Durbin of Illinois.

Mr. Durbin. Our first witness is a treat for this subcommittee.
The gentleman from Oklahoma who has become a real legend in
Congress in a very short period of time, the Honorable Bill Brew-
ster of Oklahoma.

Mr. Skeen. You talk about a legend.

Mr. Brewster. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly good to come before
your committee today and visit with you and Mr. Skeen. My prede-
cessor, Wes Watkins always tells me to remind you that had he not
left Congress, he would be Chairman of this committee. I am sure
you are glad he did.

It is my pleasure today to come before the committee again as
I have the last two years with an organization. Rural Enterprises
of Durant, Oklahoma, which has been extremely important to the
economic development of our whole area. They can actually lay
claim to a lot of the success we have had in attracting new indus-
try, expansion of current industry. We have got many positive
things happening.

They are here today to ask for a continuation of the $433,000 in
funding from USDA and an additional $79,920. Testifying today is
the chairman of our board, who is also chairman of a bank holding
company in my district, in McAlester, Oklahoma. So it is a pleas-

(1)

ure to introduce John Freeman, who is both the chairman of the
board of REI and a tremendous friend.

John.

Mr. Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Brewster.

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted written testimony and I am
going to give a summary of it. My position is chairman of the board
of Rural Enterprises, with branches in Stillwater, Holdenville, and
Maude, Oklahoma, all communities in Congressman Brewster's
Third District.

I appear before you today on behalf of Rural Enterprises, Incor-
porated to request continuance of the funding by the United States
Department of Agriculture in coordination with the Cooperative
Extension Service for the purpose of creating jobs. Our efforts are
directed toward entrepreneurship of new business in industry and
economically depressed rural Oklahoma.

The rural technology application team evaluates development in
industrial technology of over 300 Federal laboratories nationwide,
seeking to match clients who are prospective users with the ad-
vanced technology discovered during evaluation.

It also provides technical advice and in some cases provides
hands-on technical assistance to small manufacturers. The indus-
trial incubator program provides startup businesses a stable foun-
dation on which to build profitable concerns. The program has cre-
ated approximately 210 new jobs since its inception in 1985.

Oklahoma is ranked seventh in the U.S. in number of incubators,
with 15 facilities. Rural Enterprises administers 10 of these facili-
ties. Complementing the industrial incubator program is Rural En-
terprises food project, the result of a competitive grant awarded by
the Office of Community Services.

In September of 1993, OCS awarded Rural Enterprises a
$500,000 grant for an equipment pool to help meet equipment
needs for new industry and business. Rural Enterprises financial
services packages short- and long-term loans and is a certified de-
velopment company for the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Perhaps this is the most important of the work that we do. Rural
Enterprises draws on local. State, Federal and private funding
sources to structure loan packages best suited to the client's needs.

Total loan packages funded since 1983 total over $35 million. We
have created or retained 2,066 jobs in our southeastern quadrant
of Oklahoma. Since 1989, the loan default rate stands at zero,
while our Ozark Corporation for OCID, for Innovative Development
lending program, has a default rate of 1 percent in the past five
years.

Of course, all of these, as you know, require a turndown by a
bank, and as president of a bank, I am beginning to wonder if we
don't turn down the good ones to get to the bad ones, because our
default rate is higher than that of our bank.

These loans represent an average loan size of $55,000 per busi-
ness. The total pools of intermediary funds administered by Rural
Enterprises, Incorporated is $3 million. These lending decisions are
a cooperative effort of the Rural Enterprises board, staff, and local
leaders.

An example of this t5rpe of cooperative effort is the location of a
company in my hometown in McAlester, Southern Star Foods. This

is a poultry deboning plant. A $5.1 million financial package for
this firm was prepared by Rural Enterprises' Financial Services Di-
vision with assistance fi*om my bank in McAlester and the U.S.
Small Business Administration and the McAlester Economic Devel-
opment Service. This company opened in February of 1993 with
200 employees, and today employs over 400.

The continuation of the $433,000 in funding from USDA and the
additional of $79,920 in funding through the Cooperative Extension
Service will allow Rural Enterprises to continue expanding eco-
nomic development efforts that USDA funds have provided since
the first agreement between Rural Enterprises and USDA before
1987.

It is my opinion if as a Nation we are to remain competitive, we
must improve, one, our ability to discover new technologies; two,
get such technologies to the production shops from the laboratories;
and three, provide avenues of financing for new and expanding
rural small businesses.

Because small businesses have the least access to new tech-
nologies and risk financing, organizations such as Rural Enter-
prises, Incorporated are crucial to filling these gaps. With this com-
mittee's endorsement of support for continued funding. Rural En-
terprises will be able to build on its solid foundation of assistance
to the rural business and industry clients, and ultimately strength-
en our Nation's position as one that is economically competitive.

Thank you for allowing me to present this testimony, and if there
are questions, our Executive Director, Mr. Tom Smith, is here with
me. If you have questions, we will be glad to try to answer those.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Freeman, with a zero percent default rate, Mr.
Skeen and I are going to recommend that you have a position in
the Federal Government here. The Farmers Home Administration
needs you and a few others. We want to send you right back over
there, and I am sure your stockholders back home will understand.
That really is an amazing story, and very encouraging, too.

What kind of longevity do these businesses have? You have been
around now for 13 or 14 years. Small business is notorious for fail-
ing over a certain period of time. And even if they don't default,
how many live on and prosper? What kind of success rate?

Mr. Freeman. We have a very good success rate. Tom has been
with the organization longer than I have, but personally I am only
aware of two that have defaulted since I have been on the board.

Mr. Smith. That is correct. We have had two liquidations
throughout the term of these loan programs.

Mr. DuRBiN. Out of how many businesses?

Mr. Smith. Our portfolio averages right now, we have — of course,
we have some payoffs that have occurred, but totally we have fund-
ed right out about 30 businesses out of these particular loan pro-
grams.

Mr. DuRBlN. You are saying the 28 are still in business?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.

Mr. DURBIN. That is an amazing story. We can learn something
from what you are doing in Oklahoma. Mr. Watkins will be glad
I said that, too. He told us that for years. Now we have testimony
to that effect.

Mr. Smith. Congressman Brewster has been a good champion for
us, too.

Mr. DURBIN. Joe Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you.

I don't have any questions. I just want to make this observation.
It is probably one of the most difficult areas of financing, rural
communities. First of all, not very many people in the lending busi-
ness ever understand what an agricultural or rural business has to
contend with. On a recent talk show with my friend Mr. Durbin,
we were talking about what we do in this Agriculture Committee,
and we were talking about agricultural enterprises. We get a call
from some fellow down in Georgia, who says. Why can't you run
agriculture like we run our business? I had a long answer I would
have liked to have given him, but I withheld.

One piece of advice I have for people who want to criticize what
we do in rural communities is, if you are a businessperson, you
think you are really worth your salt, invest in one of these little
rural businesses. If you want to really experience if you can handle
the business, we welcome you in here to join the crowd. But I ad-
mire you folks who do the financing. It is a tough, tough situation.
I appreciate what you have done. It is a good record.

Mr. Durbin. John Myers of Indiana.

Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Tom, I have been there before. Wes had me down there.

Mr. Smith. We were happy to have you with us.

Mr. Myers. He kept coming back and bragging and telling us
how great it was. It is good to see the success that you have had.
Wes was certainly a champion of it.

Bill, you carry on in those traditions.

Mr. Brewster. In addition to the financing side, they have
packaged most of the small businesses loan applications for secur-
ing financing elsewhere. They do a tremendous job with all the
small business. They do the financing on a lot of it or parts of the
financing, but they do the packaging on a heck of a lot of others.
When you can lay claim to 2,066 jobs in my district, that is impor-
tant.

Mr. Skeen. I think that says a whole lot. One of the things we
have never learned to do across the board is take rural businesses
and learn how to package them. And I think that is probably key
to this thing.

So once again, I commend you on being pioneers. We have got
a lot to teach the rest of them.

Mr. Myers. Bootstrap.

Mr. Durbin. We have 69 million Americans who live in small-
town America, that is about a fourth of our population.

Mr. Myers. That is real living, too.

Mr. Durbin. But the sad commentary is that our poverty rate in
rural America is still higher than urban America. We like to see
things like this to change it.

Thank you.

[The information follows:]

RURAL ENTERPRISES, EVC.

TESTIMONY BEFORETHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

AND RELATED AGENCIES
SUBMCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

March 1, 1994

WITNESS:

JOHN FREEMAN, CHAIRMAN

REI BOARD OF DIRECTORS

DURANT, OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Board of Rural Enterprises, Inc., in Durant, Oklahoma,
I express my thanks for the opportunity to address this committee on a matter of crucial
importance to this country's economic future. Specifically, we are addressing assistance
to small businesses and entrepreneurs in areas that make a difference in the success or
failure of such entities.

Rural Enterprises, Inc., is a private non-profit (501-C3) economic development
corporation established in 1980 to provide assistance to individuals and businesses to
improve the economic conditions of our service area. REI was formed to provide a
diversity of services that were needed to develop prospective businesses and to assist
existing businesses with chances of survival in an economically depressed area by applying
a combination of innovative economic development tools consisting of

•

Financial packaging services including SBA 504, SBA 7(a), conventional loan
guarantee program, CDBG, FmHA Business & Industry, FmHA Infi-astructure,
Intermediary Relending Program, OIFA and Ozarks Corporation for Iimovation
Development;

Database searches of NASA/Recon unclassified databases and over 700 commercial
databases; a full document ordering service; technology transfer; innovation
evaluations; promotion and encouragement of innovative ideas through new product
and process fairs;

Incubator assistance; and industrial development services. USDA's assistance has
enabled REI to increase efforts toward regional economic enhancement, specifically
to:

Expand the geographic area in which tenants are recruited for the ten incubators in
which REI is involved in Durant (3), Hugo, McAlester, Atoka, Bennington (3) and

Stigler, and provide support services for incubator tenants and explore the feasibility
of building additional incubators in the state of Oklahoma.

• Participate in the continuing New Product and Process Fair, thereby encouraging the
development of innovations.

• Solicit and evaluate new products and processes which may result in the establishment
of single product industries or maintain the flow of new products for existing
industries.

• Develop and continue an active literature program describing the services available
through Rural Enterprises. This material is distributed as an outreach effort to other
states, as well as within Oklahoma, to broaden economic development efiForts.

• Provide financial loan packaging assistance in support of job creation opportunities.

• Assist in plant expansion and manufacturing process improvement of existing small
businesses.

• Provide assistance to the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service including
technology development consultation, patent searches, technology searches, and
document procurement services. Specific services that have been improved through
USDA's fiinding and examples of assistance provided through these services include:

Industrial Incubators: Rural Enterprises' Industrial Incubator program was created in
1980 with three incubator facilities located in Atoka, Hugo, and McAlester. Since its
inception, this program has expanded to include a total often incubator facilities in
Durant, Hugo, McAlester, Atoka, Stigler and Bennington. Through the small businesses
located in these facilities, 210 jobs were created.

REI's Industrial Incubator program offers beginning businesses a stable foundation on
which to build long-term profitable concerns. These facilities consist of buildings for the
specific purpose of starting new businesses and are designed to accommodate a variety of
manufacturing industries. Buildings range in size fi-om 4,800 sq. ft. to almost 12,000 sq.
ft. and have housed businesses such as machine shops, metal fabrication companies,
electronic assembly and biomedical engineering firms.

One of REI's newest incubator tenants is a manufacturer of hammer dulcimers, an ancient
folk instrument that has experienced a tremendous revival in the last 20 years. This
tenant's musical instrument and recordings are sold nationwide. Another incubator tenant
has a primary line of children's fiimiture with additional lines of decorative oak shelves
and clocks. Currently this tenant is working on a $50,000 furniture project for a school
system. Cooperation by the local vow-tech has enabled the company to set up an
assembly line and complete other modifications to the facility.

Complementing the Industrial Incubator program is REI's Equipment Poolproject, the
result of a grant awarded by the Office of Community Services(OCS) Discretionary
Grants Program. In September, 1993, OCS awarded REI a $500,000 grant for an
Equipment Poo! to help meet equipment needs for new business and industry.

Financial Services: REI has been a Certified Development Company for the U. S. Small
Business Administration since 1982. REI's Financial Services Division has provided
technical assistance to entrepreneurs and businesses in obtaining financing totaling over
$35 million since 1993 and 2,066 jobs have been created and/or retained in southeast and
south central Oklahoma. Since 1989, the loan default rate for REI's Intermediary
Relending Programs (IRPs) stands at 0% while REI's Ozark's Corp. for Innovative
Development (OCID) lending program has a default rate of 1% in the past five years.

One company which has received assistance through REI's Financial Services Division is a
manufacturer of horse and stock trailers. The company made a $1 .5 million expansion to
its facilities to meet changing market demands. A 30,000 sq. ft. building was added to its
existing plant to produce a lighter and more energy-designed, economic trailer, today, the
company manufacturers trailers fi-om composite materials, has 300 employees and sales
reached $16 million in 1992.

Another company which has been assisted is a poultry deboning plant. A $5. 1 million
financial package for this firm was prepared by REI's Financial Services Division along
with assistance fi-om a local bank and the U. S. Small Business Administration. This plant
opened in February, 1993 with 200 employees.

Technology Transfer: REI's Rural Technology Applications Team (RTAT) serves as an
intermediary between the research scientists and private business. The Team provides the
technical expertise necessary to help define problems and provide assistance to private
industry in identifying and applying technology. This assistance is essential to small
businesses who are usually oriented toward production and marketing but lack research
and development capabilities.

All REI divisions support the Cooperative Extension Service Technology Transfer Agent,
who in turn performs outreach services that complement REI fiinctions.

8
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE

WITNESS

RALPH QUATRANO, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Ralph Quatrano with the American Society of
Plant Physiologists.

We will make your statement part of the record.

Mr. Quatrano. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ralph Quatrano, and
I am President of the Society of Plant Physiologists. I am also Pro-
fessor of Biology and Chairman of the Department of Biology at the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. In the American Society
of Plant Physiologists, I am also Chairman of its Committee on
Public Affairs. Our society is made up of about 5300 scientists, aca-
demic, government, and industry, and teachers also from all over
the United States and 50 nations.

A critical and important program within USDA that I would like
to discuss today is the national research initiative competitive
grants program, the NRI. I have had direct experience from two
perspectives within the NRI — as a scientist whose research on the
mechanisms by which plants withstand desiccation stress was sup-
ported by NRI, and as program manager involved in the scientific
review process in the NRI in Washington, D.C. for a year.

The NRI is now the primary means by which the USDA broadly
attracts and competitively funds the highest quality research rel-
ative to food, agriculture and the environment. Since the NRI is
open to all scientists working in diverse fields, but all related to ag-
riculture, it has expanded a number of scientific disciplines contrib-
uting to agricultural research enterprise in our country.

Furthermore, the competitive research supported by the NRI oc-
curs in all 50 States, at land grant colleges as well as private and
State universities.

Hence, it is a key and unique program of the USDA's research
portfolio that complements other programs in the ARS and CSRS.
This broadly based research effort within the NRI has greatly in-
creased the breadth and diversity of our understandings of how our
crops and other plants function and how they interact with the en-
vironment. This knowledge base has been the source of information
from which solutions to practical problems arise.

Basic biological knowledge of plants as well as plant-pest inter-
actions, for example, can lead to crop protection strategies, ones
that are biologically based and that do not involve chemical treat-
ments. For example, plant parasitic nematode worms are among
the most devastating pathogens of the world's food crops, causing
an estimated damage of about $77 billion in food and fiber crop
losses in 1987. Scientists of North Carolina State University, for
example, with the support from the NRI, have identified that point
in the root where nematode worms feed. This discovery could lead
to a genetically engineered plant which is resistant to this pest and
may overcome many disadvantages of chemically based pest control
strategies.

Plants of this type will have advantages both in productivity and
for the environment. This work initially supported by the NRI now

has industrial support from companies such as Hybritech Seed,
RJR Nabisco and Monsanto.

Further development of the necessary knowledge base is in jeop-
ardy not only because of reduced funding in government programs
like the NRI, but also since industry is downsizing their basic re-
search component. To be competitive globally, U.S. agricultural
companies will more than ever rely on universities to continue to
build an ever-broadening and detailed knowledge base for them to
tap for applications.

From personal experience another valuable component of the
NRI funding is the support it provides for the training of the next
generation of agricultural scientists. My last three-year grant from
the NRI helped me support two postdoctoral students who are now
professors at Clemson University and Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, as well as the training of three graduate students. It also al-
lowed three undergraduate students to participate in research that
has led to their enrollment in professional schools for postgraduate
education.

NRI funding has allowed this example to be repeated hundreds
of times throughout the Nation. Hence, the relatively small pro-
gram of the NRI has contributed substantially to the training of
the next generation of agricultural scientists, as well as helping to
build a knowledge base that will serve as a source of future appli-
cations to the agricultural industry.

However, many programs within the NRI are still operating with
startup funds only. They need to be expanded to better address im-
portant problems of agricultural research. These programs were
able to fund only a small percentage of the new proposals submit-
ted in fiscal year 1993.

This low funding rate, besides meaning that as much as 87 per-
cent of the new scientific ideas were declined, many for lack of
funding, also strongly discourages submissions of new proposals be-
cause of the effort required for submission versus the poor chance
of success.

The lack of necessary funding also results in lower grant awards,
thus slowing research progress. The funding crunch increased in
fiscal year 1994 because of the budget rescission and other factors
which result in a funding of approximately 60 fewer research pro-
posals.

Funding the full $160 million proposed for NRI would be a step
in the proper direction to properly fund the important research as
originally envisioned by the National Research Council in its report
and by Congress in its $500 million authorization.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for an opportunity to testify today. I
also have written remarks I would like to submit for the record.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. You don't have to sell me on agriculture
research. I believe in it. Unfortunately, in Congress we have the
equivalent of the Flat Earth Society which is opposed to most sci-
entific advancement, particularly anything involving Federal ex-
penditures. And we do our best to overcome their dim-witted view
of the world, and we will continue to.

You have pointed out, for example, the problem of nematodes. I
know we have spent a lot of money on this problem, and if we can

score a breakthrough here in dealing with it, it is going to mean
big cost savings to producers and to consumers.

I am sure there are many other areas that you are working on
that have equal or greater promise, and we will do our very best
to meet the administration's funding request under very tight cir-
cumstances.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you. I share your concern, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, the thing that keeps us in this agricultural ball game is
the kind of research you do, because our technology is better than
anybody else's. That is why 2 percent of the population can feed the
rest of them and do it in pretty good style. We appreciate the work
you do.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks for joining us.

[The information follows:!

American Society of Plant Physiologists

15501 Monona Drive. Rockville. Maryland 20855-2768 • telephone 301-251-0560 • fax 301-279-2996

STATEMENT OF

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRIOJLTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,

AND RELATED AGENCIES

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1994

RELATING TO THE

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1995 APPROPRIATIONS

FOR RESEARCH AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, my name is Ralph Quatrano and I am Professor of
Biology and Chairman of the Department of Biology at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I eim also the Past President of
the American Society of Plant Physiologists (ASPP) and Chairman of
its Committee on Public Affairs. The American Society of Plant
Physiologists is made up of approximately 5,300 academic,
government and industry plant science researchers and teachers from
the United States and more than 50 other nations.

A critical and important program within USDA that I would like to
discuss today is the National Research Initiative Competitive
Grants Program (NRICGP) . I have had direct experience from two
perspectives within the NRICGP — as a scientist whose research on
the mechanisms by which plants withstand desiccation stress was
supported by the NRICGP and as a progrcim manager involved in the
scientific review process in the NRICGP in Washington, DC for one
year.

In 1989, the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences produced a report. Investing in Research: A Proposal to
Strengthen the Agricultural Food and Environmental System, that
called for an expanded public investment in research concerning
food, agriculture and the environment. Major recommendations of
this report were to increase competitiveness of U.S. agriculture,
improve human health and well-being, and enhance natural resources
and the environment. As a result, the NRICGP was established in
1991 within USDA with the enactment of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. The NRICGP is now the primary
means by which the USDA broadly attracts and competitively funds
the highest quality research relative to food, agriculture and the
environment.

The research supported by the NRICGP includes such critical areas
as food safety and processing for value-added products (the
importance of which have been exemplified by the recent E. coli
outbreaks) , entomology, weed science, and biological control
research (all important in responding to pest outbreaks and
pesticide issues) , animal health and well-being (vital for
understanding the recent resurgence of tuberculosis in dairy cattle
and the transfer of disease from feral to domestic pig
populations) , plant responses to the environment (critical research
for problems such as flooding, salinity, freezing and global
change) , rural development and ecosystems research (vital in issues
such as proper implementation of ecosystem management and in
wetlands conflicts) .

Since the NRICGP is open to all scientists working in diverse
fields but all related to agriculture, it has expanded the number
of scientific disciplines contributing to the agricultural research
enterprise in our country. Furthermore, the competitive research
supported by the NRICGP occurs in all 50 states at land grant
colleges, as well as at other private and state universities.
Hence, it is a key and unique program component of the USDA's
research portfolio and it complements other programs in ARS and

CSRS,

This broadly based research effort within the NRICGP has greatly
increased the breadth and diversity of oxir understanding of how
crop and other plants function and how they interact with the
environment. This Icnowledge base has been the source of
information from which solutions to practical problems arise.
Basic biological knowledge of plants as well as plant-pest
interactions can, for instance, lead to crop protection strategies,
ones that are biologically based and that do not involve chemical
treatments. For example, plant parasitic nematode worms are among
the most devastating pathogens of the world's food crops, causing
an estimated damage of $77 billion in food and fiber crop losses in
19S7. Scientists at North Carolina State University, with the
support from the NRICGP, have identified that point in the root
where nematode worms feed. This discovery could lead to a
genetically engineered plant which is resistant to this pest and
may overcome many disadvantages of chemically-based pest-control
strategies. Plants of this type will have advantages both in
productivity and for the environment. This work, initially
supported by the NRICGP, now has industrial support from companies
such as Hybritech Seed, RJR Nabisco and Monsanto.

Further development of the necessary knowledge base is in jeopardy
not only because of reduced funding in government programs like the
NRICGP, but also since industry is downsizing their basic research
component. To be competitive globally, US agricultural companies
will more than ever rely on universities to continue to build an
ever broadening and detailed knowledge base for them to tap for
applications.

From personal experience, another valuable component of the NRICGP
funding is the support it provides for the training of the next
generation of agricultural scientists. My last three-year grant
from the NRICGP helped me support two postdoctoral students who are
now professors at Clemson University and Pennsylvania State
University as well as the training of three graduate students. It
also allowed three undergraduate students to participate in
research that has led to their enrollment in professional schools
for postgraduate education. NRICGP funding has allowed this
example to be repeated hundreds of times throughout the nation.
Hence, the relatively small program of the NRICGP has contributed
substantially to the training of the next generation of
agricultural scientists as well as helping to build a knowledge
base that will serve as a source for future applications to the
agricultural industry.

However, many programs within NRICGP are still operating with start
up funds only, and need to be expanded to better address many
important problems in agricultural research. These programs were
able to fund only a small percentage of new proposals submitted in
FY 1993. This low funding rate, besides meaning that as much as 87
percent of the new scientific ideas were declined, many for lack of
funding, also strongly discourages submission of new proposals

because of the effort required for submission versus the poor
chance of success. The lack of necessary funding also results in
lower grant awards, thus slowing progress in research.

The funding crunch increased in FY 1994 because of the budget
rescission and other factors, which will result in the funding of
approximately 60 fewer research proposals. Additionally, in
response to requests from the agricultural and scientific
communities, the NRICGP created a new program in FY 1994 to fund
agricultural systems research out of existing funds. Because the
NRICGP created this program out of existing funds, money will be
available to fund only three or four agricultural systems grants in
FY 1994. The agricultural systems program, and the DOE/NSF/USDA
Joint Program on Collaborative Research in Plant Biology, which has
been funded from existing monies since FY 1992, currently place
further strains on the existing research programs. Funding the
full $130 million proposed for NRICGP would be a step in the proper
direction to properly funding the important research as originally
envisioned by the National Research Council in its report, and by
Congress, in its $500 million authorization.

15
HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH

WITNESS

DENNIS BIER, M.D., DIRECTOR, CHILDREN'S NUTRITION RESEARCH
CENTER

Mr. DURBIN. The next witness is Dr. Dennis Bier of the Chil-
dren's Nutrition Research Center.

Dr. Bier. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to
submit this testimony on behalf of the Children's Nutrition Re-
search Center. I came to the CNRC last July from Washington
University in St. Louis where I was on the faculty for 17 years. I
came to the CNRC for one reason, and that reason was a truly
unique scientific opportunity: The CNRC is the best place world-
wide to conduct research on significant nutritional questions in
pregnant women, lactating women, their infants, children and ado-
lescents.

The tremendous opportunities to make an impact in pediatric nu-
trition are clear. Five of the leading 10 causes of death in the Unit-
ed States are attributable at least in part to the diet, and there are
firm indications that most if not all of these have their origins in
childhood.

It is much less costly in the long run to understand the nutri-
tional factors contributing to good health, particularly during preg-
nancy in childhood, than to simply treat diseases. Thus, the mis-
sion of the CNRC is to find ways in which better food can produce
healthier children now and healthier adults tomorrow.

The CNRC is unique among the ARS human nutrition research
centers if having human, animal and plant scientists working to-
gether under one roof. We are further unique in that this associa-
tion occurs on a major medical campus.

The USDA has been a leader in human nutrition research for
101 years, and this research continues to grow in importance. The
ARS human nutrition research centers are uniquely well suited to
this mission. In fact, one of the reasons that these centers exist is
that although nutrition research is increasingly viewed as vital, it
is chronically underfunded by other agencies such as the NIH,
which has traditionally concentrated on cell biology and more dis-
ease-driven questions.

The CNRC has a long track record of producing data, the bulk
of which produces data of practical importance to the citizens of
this country. These are far too numerous to summarize here. I will
mention only a few recent highlights.

For example, our scientists recently found that cigarette smoking
severely reduces the amount of mother's milk and alters the nutri-
tional content of that milk. Similarly, we are working at the mo-
ment to determine the nutritional needs of pregnant, adolescent
girls who have a high incidence of low-birth-weight babies. There
is a new area of research we very much need to become involved
in. It is now very clear that nutrition contributes to the growth of
the human embryo at the most fundamental level.

For instance, I know you are aware of the recent CDC rec-
ommendations that all women of childbearing age consume supple-
ments of folic acid, one of the B vitamins. This is expected to re-

duce the incidence of neural tube defects by about 50 percent. The
role of folic acid in this progress is at the most basic level because
this event takes place in the first few weeks of pregnancy when the
entire embryo is less than two tenths of an inch long.

Similarly, in animals, for example, molecular manipulation of the
terminal vitamin C receptor gene can cause deformities in the off-
spring. We believe such interactions during critical periods of em-
bryonic investment is critical to understand the nutritional needs
for optimal development, but we do not now have an active re-
search program in this area. We believe it would take approxi-
mately $1 million in new funding to start this effort, which is abso-
lutely essential from the public health perspective.

Finally, we are working to accurately translate research findings
about nutritional needs to practical, understandable recommenda-
tions about food for the general public. The news media is recogniz-
ing the CNRC as a source of accurate nutrition information. In the
last two years the annual number of newspaper articles cited by
CNRC research doubled to 443, and there were an estimated 43 ar-
ticles in national newspapers, such news magazines as Good
Housekeeping, in addition to a number of radio spots and the like.

We have for many years actively worked with other USDA pro-
grams to speed application of our work. In fact, the Extension Serv-
ice last year placed their national program leader for infant and
maternal health at the CNRC. She is the only national program
leader based outside of Washington.

We would like to thank Members of this subcommittee for the
strong support you have given the CNRC in the past. You are mak-
ing a high-pay-off investment in healthy children, and we urge you
to continue that investment.

Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Doctor, I am a big fan of what you are doing and
what your center is trying to accomplish. I will do my very best to
make sure that with limited resources, we continue to give you
what you need to do your final work.

Let me ask you a couple of practical questions, if I might.

We started talking about folic acid and included a reference to
it in the last appropriation bill, to try to get some frame of ref-
erence in all of the different nutrition programs that we deal with,
and to have them focus on it. Since then, there have been some
breakthrough discoveries and I believe as a government we are
moving forward as a matter of public policy.

Incidentally, I think the State of Texas was ahead of us on this
issue, one of the public health departments that really adopted folic
acid levels as one of their goals early on.

Dr. Bier. Certain areas of Texas have nodes of increased defects
as do areas of New Mexico right across the border. So this is an
important health issue in southwest Texas.

Mr. DuRBiN. We have the Food and Drug Administration in this
subcommittee as well and we have talked to Dr. Kessler about this.
I would like, if you could, to share your thoughts on how we could
address this issue.

The importance of folic acid is in the very earliest stages of preg-
nancy, usually before a woman discovers she is pregnant. As a re-
sult, it suggests we might be talking about fortifying some foods

with folic acid that are common in this country; or at least as an
alternative, once a woman has had her first child, to try to put on
a diet rich in folic acid, anticipating a second pregnancy. What are
your thoughts from a public health viewpoint in dealing with this?

Dr. Bier. I am on the FDA Food Advisory Committee and the
Folic Acid Subcommittee. The issue of recurrence of tubal defects
was the one easiest to deal with, because a woman who has had
a child needs to consume supplements. Unfortunately, that rep-
resents perhaps 5 percent of the cases. The more pressing issue is
the woman who is not pregnant and has not had a child with a
neural tube yet.

It is clear that I think most everyone who has advised the FDA
on this have felt that supplements alone are going to be difficult
to solve this problem. People just don't take that many supple-
ments. People who are not pregnant, something like 50 percent of
the pregnancies are unplanned, so as you know the FDA has been
considering fortification options, with regard to replacing foliated
grain products.

There is some consensus that that should be done, and in fact
our committee did vote for foliation. There were several options
presented. One is 70 micrograms per hundred grams of grain of
flour, and that is the restoration level of foliate. That is the amount
of foliate removed during the milling process.

The second option was twice that amount. Then the amounts
went up to as high as five times the amount.

The CDC, which as you know has presented the recommenda-
tions for supplemental folic acid, would like to see the higher doses
of fortification, because they believe that that will in fact reach the
largest number of women with regard to raising the foliate intake.

Right now this is an area of some debate and I don't think there
is uniform consensus. My own opinion on this is that a safe ap-
proach, meaning restoration or 2X restoration, is the safest ap-
proach, I think it is very difficult to find that that would be harm-
ful, and in the meantime what is going to happen to the diet with
all of the publicity on this, the changes that are likely to occur with
processed foods, et cetera, are probably going to change the back-
ground folic acid intake in those women and accomplish the addi-
tional amounts necessary.

Mr. DURBIN. Do I understand too that excessive amounts of folic
acid pose some health threat to senior citizens?

Dr. Bier. That is correct.

Mr. DURBIN. Is 2X well below that level of danger?

Dr. Bier. Of course one of the problems in science is deciding
precisely what that number that causes harm is. There is not an
absolute consensus on that. The consensus safe amount that the
committee reached in its deliberations would allow 2X fortifications
without exceeding that amount in elderly adults.

Mr. DURBIN. What are some common sources of folic acid?

Dr. Bier. Various green vegetables, things of that sort.

Mr. DURBIN. Citrus?

Dr. Bier. Some.

Mr. DURBIN. I have a special interest in the dangers of smoking
and use of tobacco products, and I notice your reference to research
on nursing mothers and the impact of smoking. I am kind of inter-

ested in your personal opinion as to how we can get this message
out to pregnant women in America, not only about the dangers
when they nurse but also the dangers during pregnancy of smok-
ing.

Dr. Bier. I really — if anyone knew the answer to that question,
we would probably be doing it. But I think the success of advertis-
ing for smoking, that is, for the tobacco manufacturers, that has
been so successful, that I think our efforts should be directed to-
wards similar approaches describing the harms of smoking.

Mr. DURBIN. I know it is a tougher question. I will keep asking
it, though.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. You are very persistent, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, let me ask you a question in regard to young women in
particular dealing with nutrition. You mentioned that most of the
new entrants into the smoking habit are young women, who are
also those less inclined to have a normal or rational intake of cal-
cium. And we are doing a lot research in the agriculture areas
about making milk more palatable and acceptable and so forth, and
also encouraging young women to keep their intake of calcium at
levels when they are young.

Has this got a lot to do with the extension of our life-span, both
from the standpoint of people who practice good nutritional habits
but also on the children?

Dr. Bier. I think it is becoming clear that one of the — that the
major time that you deposit a significant amount of calcium in your
skeleton is just before puberty and during adolescence. This is a
crucial time for laying down the backbone of the skeleton for what
happens later.

Much of the early research on osteoporosis focused on later in life
and has been frankly relatively unsuccessful, and I think it is be-
cause we are looking in the wrong place. At least from a pediatric
perspective, we feel we have to spend a lot more time making sure
the bone is deposited properly in the first place. From the perspec-
tive of agriculture, that means dairy products and things that con-
tain high sources of calcium.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Myers.

Mr. Myers. On your first paragraph when you refer to certain
diseases including five which were traced back to diets of early
childhood, cancer is one of them. Before another appropriations
subcommittee we had Dr. Sam Broder, and I remember last year
asking him about the study, about whether it is heredity or envi-
ronment or diet or many other things that could contribute to that.
He told us there is no conclusive evidence at this time, regardless
of all the studies they do — I asked him, being a farmer, about red
meat. He said, tonight I am going to have a bacon- wrapped steak;
does that answer your question?

So contrary to what you are saying here, if you have something,
could you provide — not today — provide for us information about
early childhood diets contributing towards cancer.

Dr. Bier. I would be happy to do that, but I think my point in
that question is more that healthy diets, there is now a fair
amount of evidence that antioxidants present in foods may in fact

have effects on inhibiting cancer. I wasn't implying that certain
foods cause cancer. I think the data for that is really very "debat-
able," would be a kind word.

Mr. Myers. We are doing a lot of things. Beta carotene, there are
a lot of things we think, but nothing is conclusive.

Dr. Bier. Other foods, for example, the effects of cholesterol on
atherosclerosis, are much firmer.

Mr. Myers. Stroke

Dr. Bier. Stroke, right.

Mr. Myers. Cancer is one thing which we have been examining
very closely.

Thank you.

[The information follows:]

Testimony by

Dennis Bier, M.D.

Director

Children's Nutrition Research Center

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a privilege
to submit our testimony to the Subcommittee on behalf of the
Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC) . I came to the CNRC last
July from Washington University in St. Louis, where I was a faculty
member for 17 years. As a pediatric endocrinologist, my interests
include diabetes, cholesterol, and growth problems. The close links
between these and nutrition led me into nutrition research.

I came to the CNRC for one reason. That reason was a truly
unique scientific opportunity. This opportunity exists today in
pediatric nutrition research in general and in pediatric nutrition
research at the CNRC in particular. First, the particular — the
CNRC is the best place worldwide to conduct nutrition research on
significant questions involving women and children. Because of the
unique mix of facilities and scientists at the CNRC, we can do work
that no one else can do. Further, since we are located in the Texas
Medical Center, we benefit directly from the vast institutional
resources and scientific expertise available there.

There is no doubt that there is a great need for the research
that we are doing. The relationship between poor nutrition and
disease is clear and well -documented.

More importantly, the relationship between good nutrition and
health maintenance has been demonstrated repeatedly by the scientific
conununity. My redirection in emphasis is not merely a linguistic
tool. As each of you struggles with the issue of health care for all
citizens, accessible, affordable strategies that prevent disease
should logically receive a higher priority than relatively
inaccessible, expensive approaches that address the problem after it
has become established.

The tremendous general opportunities in pediatric nutrition are
clear. Of the ten leading causes of death in the United States, five
— heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, and atherosclerosis —
are attributable at least in part to diet. Moreover, there are now
firm indications that most, if not all, of these begin in childhood.
We as a nation should do more than close the barn door after the
horse has left. It is much less costly in the long term to develop
an understanding of the nutritional factors contributing to good
health, particularly during pregnancy and in childhood, than to
simply treat diseases. This is precisely what the CNRC is doing.

The Children's Nutrition Research Center is dedicated to work on
the food needs of mothers and of children from infancy through
adolescence. The CNRC is unique among the ARS human nutrition
centers in having human, animal, and plant scientists working
together under one roof. We are further unique in that this
association occurs on a medical campus. Thus, in an unbroken chain,
scientists at the CNRC link basic agricultural research with

nutritional investigation in humans. The CNRC's mission is to find
ways in which better food can produce healthier children today and
healthier adults tomorrow.

The production and consumption of food and its relationship to
health have historically been a key part of the mission of the
Department of Agriculture. This is the 101st year of human nutrition
research in the USDA, and this research continues to grow in
importance. Furthermore, the ARS human nutrition research centers
are uniquely well-suited to address nutrition research issues of
great practical importance to the American public. In fact, one of
the reasons that these centers exist is that, although nutrition
research is increasingly viewed as vital, it is chronically
underfunded by other agencies such as the NIH and NSF who have
traditionally concentrated on cell biology and more disease driven
questions. Nutrition, by its nature, is a whole-animal or whole-
human science. In addition, many of the most important nutrition-
health issues require long-term studies to get answers. By and
large, NIH nutrition research awards have historically concentrated
on shorter-term projects.

The research conducted at the CNRC is peer-reviewed and thus held
to the highest academic standards. Further, our scientists compete
successfully for research funds through peer-reviewed, competitive
processes such as at the National Institutes of Health, and all CNRC
research is also overseen by an outside advisory board composed of
leading nutrition scientists from around the world.

The CNRC has a long track record of producing excellent research
data, the great bulk of which applies directly to nutritional issues
of practical importance to the citizens of this country. In order to
comply with the Subcommittee's requested limits on materials placed
in the record, I will mention only a few highlights.

Calcium Requirements for Children

We are making exciting advances in understanding the calcium
needs of young girls and the impact of these needs later in life. We
have found that current Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) for
calcium intake for young girls are not adequate. We believe that
children need much more calcium at much younger ages than previously
thought. Girls who do not get enough calcium early in life are at
greater risk of osteoporosis, a debilitating bone disease, later.

We are also examining the impact of heredity on the body's
ability to absorb calcium and build strong bones. Results from this
research could help us identify vulnerable groups, such as those at
risk from osteoporosis, and intervene with dietary measures.

Dairy products supply about 2/3 of all dietary calcium, so this
research has obvious implications both for commodity programs and for
feeding programs such as school lunch, WIC, and Food Stamps.

Nutrition During Pregnancy and Lactation

The CNRC has consistently contributed to the important issue of
nutritional needs during pregnancy and lactation. The Center has
provided data on almost every aspect of diet intake and energy
expenditure during these crucial periods for mother and child; data
too extensive to summarize here.

As a small practical example, our scientists recently found that
cigarette smoking severely reduces both the amount and the
nutritional value of mother's ff.ilk. Smoking mothers produce
significantly less milk. In addition, their milk contains 20% less
fat, which is the baby's primary source of calories. This may
explain why smoking mothers tend to wean their babies sooner.

Similar work, also with very practical national consequences, is
currently underway in our active research to determine the
nutritional needs of pregnant teenagers. Very little is known about
the nutritional requirements of pregnant adolescents and the smaller
babies born to teenaged mothers are a significant financial and
social burden both to the families and to the health care system.

Likewise, we have an extremely active research effort in the
methods and formula compositions needed by very low birth weight
babies, whose hospital care invariably costs more than $1,000 and
often more than $2,000 per day. Our approaches are allowing many of
these preemies to leave the hospital up to 10 days sooner than they
might receiving more conventional formulas and feeding techniques.

From a more basic, but nonetheless practical, perspective the
development of a simple, single-cell fertilized egg into a healthy
baby is an extraordinarily complex biological process. That
nutrition contributes to this process at the most fundamental level
is now becoming very clear.

For instance, I know you are aware of recent CDC recommendations
that all women of childbearing age consume supplemental folic acid,
one of the B vitamins. This supplement is expected to reduce the
incidence of neural tube defects by about 50 percent. The role of
folic acid in normal closure of the embryonic neural tube, necessary
for proper formation of the brain and spinal cord, is at the most
basic molecular level of fetal development since the responsible
events take place during the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, when the
entire embryo is less than two-tenths of an inch long.

In animals, molecular manipulation of a vitamin A receptor gene
causes physical deformities in the offspring. Similarly, zinc, a
trace element of long-standing nutritional interest in pregnancy
because of its role in fetal growth, is now known to also play a
pivotal role in early embryonic development since zinc is essential
for the binding of certain regulatory proteins, including the vitamin
A receptor protein mentioned above, to DNA in order to "turn on" the
specific genes required for development.

Currently, due to funding constraints, the CNRC does not have an
active research program in these areas of nutrient-gene interactions
during critical periods of human embryonic development. We believe
initiation of this line of research is crucial for the understanding
nutritional needs for optimal development. It would take
approximately $1 million in new funding to start this effort.

Metabolic Research Unit

Many of our studies, such as those on pregnant teenagers, require
an environment where we can closely monitor our study participants.
The facilities are there in our Metabolic Research Unit, but we need
additional funding of $3 million to fully staff and operate them.
Currently our hours of operation are limited by the lack of staff to
care for volunteers who are willing to come in.

Plant Physiology Onit

We also need to fully activate our Plant Physiology Unit. This
unit is in essence a very high-tech greenhouse used both to study the
basic processes of improving nutrient composition of plants and to
grow plants labeled with stable isotopes (non-radioactive tracers)
used to follow the absorption and metabolism of nutrients.

By using this unit to produce foods that are labeled with stable
isotopes, we can determine how children and their mothers actually
use real foods and how that bioavailability is impacted by processing
methods. Most nutrition studies focus on nutrients, but farmers,
food processors, and consumers are concerned with food, not just
nutrients. Bridging that gap is an important part of our work.

One study just getting underway looks at alternative sources of
calcium. We have shown that girls in particular do not drink enough
milk to get even the current RDAs of calcium. Some people say they
can get calcium from other sources, such as vegetables. We have
grown green beans with labeled calcium and are beginning a study
comparing calcium absorption from those green beans with calcium
intake from milk.

Hutrltion Information

We are working to accurately translate research findings about
nutrient needs into practical, understandable recommendations about
food needs for the general public. We publish a quarterly
newsletter, "Nutrition and Your Child," that recently won the first
Creative Nutrition Education Award from the Pediatric Nutrition
Practice Group of the American Dietetic Association. The citation
noted that the newsletter "has become an important teaching,
educational, and training tool."

The media is also recognizing CNRC as a source of accurate
nutrition information. In the last two years the annual number of
newspaper articles citing CNRC research doubled, to 443; TV
interviews increased almost 60%; radio interviews increased fivefold;

and articles in national magazines, such as Good Housekeeping, Child,
Parenting, and others, increased from 2 to 43.

We have also established a Nutrition Information Service that
reviews nutritional material for other government agencies, testifies
at hearings, such as School Lunch, and answers questions from the
public and other government agencies. Members of this group have for
many years actively worked with Extension, WIC, Child Nutrition, and
other USDA programs to speed the application of our work.

In fact, the Extension Service last year placed Karen Konzelmann,
their National Program Leader for Infant and Maternal Health, at the
CNRC in order to facilitate this needed communication between
nutrition research and nutrition education. She is the only National
Program Leader based outside of Washington. This year she has
established relationships with a broad range of scientists and
educators both in and out of government, and she has conducted a
nationwide needs assessment to identify priority issues related to
nutrition research, education, and training at the grassroots level.

Conclusion

Our mission is to find ways to produce healthier children today
and healthier adults tomorrow. As a byproduct, these studies will
also help the nation's agricultural industry to produce more
efficiently, to document the nutritional value of their products, and
to tailor those products as necessary to better meet the nutritional
needs of future generations.

We are doing the best that we can under difficult circumstances.
We have had level funding since FY 1992, and we have not increased by
more than the inflation rate since 1990. In fact, since 1990 the
real purchasing power of our annual appropriation has shrunk by over
$1.2 million. Despite this we are making very good progress in our
existing programs.

However, our ability to pursue needed, new areas of research,
such as the impact of nutrition on brain development and functioning
and the impact of nutrient-gene interactions, is severely
constrained. Science is now in the process of defining the impact of
nutrients on genes that control development of the embryo, as
witnessed by the recent FDA-CDC announcements on folic acid and
neural tube defects. These new research programs will address very
practical needs of pregnancy through studies in pregnant women. The
expansion needed to implement these programs at the CNRC will require
additional funding of about $1 million.

We thank the members of this Subcommittee for the strong support
that you have given the CNRC in the past. You are making a high-
payoff investment in healthy children. We urge you to continue that
investment by increasing the Center's operating budget by $5 million,
to the originally-envisioned full funding level of $16 million, so
that we can fully carry out our mission as defined by Congress.

STORED-PRODUCTS INSECT RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY

WITNESS

HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. DURBIN. Congressman Jack Kingston.

Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DURBIN. We are going to make your entire statement a part
of the record. If you would Hke to summarize it, we would appre-
ciate it.

Mr. Kingston. Basically, my views, I believe, are shared some-
what, I hate to say in their entirety, but I think generally speak-
ing, by Representatives Cynthia McKinney, Sanford Bishop, Roy
Rowland and Senator Sam Nunn, as you can see by the letter we
have attached in our statement, attachment A.

In essence what we are talking about is the Stored-Products In-
sect Research and Development Laboratory, at Saurand, Georgia.
When you buy grits, pancake mix, something like that, they try to
determine how insects are getting in there and how to prevent in-
sects from getting in there, and work for alternative packaging and
that sort of thing. That is part of their mission statement.

The facility is actually located in Representative McKinney's dis-
trict, but many of the staff people live in mine. I don't believe it
would save money to close the facility, because it is leading high-
humidity, high-temperature R&D lab in the Nation. So many of the
costs incurred because of closing it would negate any potential sav-
ings in moving the facility. And that doesn't even talk about the
personnel transfers, and I don't believe there is any recommenda-
tion to reduce the personnel if we move them to other locations.

Communications from ARS to the lab employees make clear the
agency's intent to begin transferring personnel by mid- 1994, even
though written guidance refers to obtaining congressional approval
in the budget. If personnel are moved now, then the mission of the
lab is significantly compromised.

ARS has used misleading and unreliable information regarding
the condition of the facility site and equipment, and has used in-
flated estimates of several maintenance items. Rather than go into
details on that, I just refer you to attachment B, which shows some
of the kinds of repairs that are needed and some that have already
been done, and the true costs.

I personally went to the facility about two weeks ago, and while
the ARS report says that the buildings are in need of repair, this
is a picture of the main building right here, and it is an extremely
nice-looking facility. It is far from something that is falling down
and outdated and so forth like that. I have plenty of these pictures,
but this is not a facility that is about to be blown over by the wind
and on which maintenance has not been kept up with.

I have pointed out that moving the lab would not save money.
It simply redirects the funds. USDA plans to use the funds else-
where, and claims that closing the lab would result in savings over
a long period of time. This is not borne out by USDA's own figures.
There is a great likelihood that USDA will incur significant cost
over and above current expenses by trying to close the lab and de-

commission or relocate the cobalt irradiation unit which is cur-
rently housed at the site.

The lab is probably more important now than ever as Congress
seeks to reduce the volume of potentially toxic pesticides used in
agriculture production and storage. We must maintain ongoing re-
search and development activities such as those conducted at the
lab in order to find effective, safe replacements for the more toxic
compounds.

In addition, the lab has been responsible for finding alternative
methods for packaging, climate control, and biological control to
prevent insect damage to commodities and processed foods during
transit and storage.

There are a number of letters on this, but I guess what I would
say is because of the Southeast, having higher humidity than other
agricultural areas, some of the insect problems that we have in the
South are unique, and if this lab was moved to the Midwest where
it is snowing several months of the year, you are going to have a
different type infestation than you would in the South.

That is not necessarily in the written testimony, but that is one
of the problems that the scientists have told us, that in order to
get a lab which represents the real world in the agricultural busi-
ness community, you would need to have one that is located in the
Southeast.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Do you know where this research is to be moved to?

Mr. Kingston. There is talk of moving part of it to Fresno, Cali-
fornia. There is another similar lab in Florida, I believe, but it is
only doing a part of what the Savannah is doing. So as we under-
stand it, the research is going to Fresno.

Mr. DuRBiN. The USDA has proposed closing I think 19 different
facilities, 18 in the United States and one overseas. And yours is
the first testimony raising questions about the wisdom and cost
savings of such a move. Thank you for doing that.

You have raised some points that we are going to pursue with
USDA. Before it is over, we will have to sit down with them and
discuss the rationale of these closings. This won't reach the level
of the Base Closing Commission, but it still is important for the
people working there and for the missions involved that we ask the
tough questions and try to come up with some answers.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. As I gather, the research is done mostly on grains,
insects in stored grain products?

Mr. Kingston. Yes, sir. I don't think the exact breakdown of
what it is between that and toxics, but I would say that is correct.

Mr. Skeen. I would think if you were going to do that kind of
research, you would go to a place with high humidity. I would have
thought they would move it out to where the grain producing area
is, and not in California.

Mr. Kingston. That is correct.

Mr. Skeen. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe I am
missing something.

Mr. Kingston. There is a type of bug found in the Southeast
they tell me stays in the corn all year long, as soon as the corn is

grown, whereas in other parts of the country you would not find
that bug staying in the grain year-round. So you are exactly right.

Mr. DURBIN. Ms. Kaptur.

Ms. Kaptur. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
gentleman for his testimony and we will take it to heart.

Mr. DuRBiN. Mr. Myers.

Mr. Myers. You keep bugs out of flour, that is going a long way.
In Indiana I keep flour in the refrigerator. I opened it up and it
did have bugs in it. I don't know how it got there. I think they
packed them in it. They add protein, I don't know.

Mr. Kingston. My wife's grandfather, one of his first jobs in a
grocery store when he was about 12 years old was to put flour on
a sieve to strain the bugs out and put them in the sunshine so the
bugs die. It is because of labs like this we don't have to have those
jobs anymore.

Mr. Myers. Good point. Tell me which one goes through the lab
so I can buy the right one next time.

Mr. DURBIN. The other possibility is that Mr. Myers needs a new
Frigidaire.

[The information follows:]

Statement by the Honorable Jack Kingston
Georgia First District

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

House Committee on Appropriations

Tuesday, March 1. 1994

2362 Raybum House Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20151

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for letting me appear today regarding an item in the
proposed FY 1995 Agricultural Research Service (ARS) budget. I believe
I also represent the views of House Members Cynthia McKinney, Sanford
Bishop, and J. Roy Rowland - and Senator Sam Nunn, as indicated by a
copy of their letter attached (Attachment A) for the record.

USDA has proposed closing the Stored-Products Insect Research and
Development Laboratory (SPIRDL), located in Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney's 11th District in Savannah, Georgia. The facility employs
about 39 persons, 17 of whom reside in my adjacent First District.

In closing SPIRDL, USDA does not save any money! Instead, the
funds now used to operate SPIRDL would be "redirected" to other ARS
locations. Yet, SPIRDL is the leading high-humidity, high-temperature
R&D laboratory dedicated to the detection, prevention, and sate
eradication of insect pests occurring in stored agricultural products - both
bulk commodities, and packaged, processed, value-added agricultural
goods. Closing SPIRDL will likely result in greater costs, not less, and
it appears USDA won't wait for Congressional approval of the '95
budget before beginning to close-out the Savannah lab.

Honorable Jack Kingston (Ist-GA)
Appropriations Subcommittee on

Agriculture & Related Agencies
Tuesday, May 1, 1994

Communications from ARS to SPIRDL employees make clear the
agency's intent to begin transferring personnel by mid-1994, even though
written guidance refers to "Congressional approval" of the budget
proposal. If significant personnel transfers are already arranged prior to
Congressional approval, if any, then the mission of SPIRDL is
significantly compromised regardless of the final budget outcome.

ARS has used misleading and unreliable information regarding the
condition of SPIRDL facilities, site, and equipment and has used inflated
estimates of several maintenance items. In the sake of time, I would
refer the subcommittee to "Attachment B" for a complete analysis of
SPIRDL's buildings, equipment, and needed maintenance. I believe you
will find SPIRDL is definitely not an "outdated, antiquated facility which
would require large amounts of funding to bring up to current standards"
as some in ARS have publicized (see Attachments C and D).

Mr. Chairman, I want to be creative and constructive as we seek to
reduce levels of Federal spending. However, as I have already pointed
out, the funding for the SPIRDL facility in Savannah would not be "saved"
since USDA plans to simply "redirect" those funds to other operations.
Claims that closing SPIRDL would result in a savings over a longer term
are not borne out by USDA's own figures, and there is a very great
likelihood that USDA will incur significant costs over and above current
expenses by trying to close SPIRDL and decommission or relocate the
cobalt irradiation unit which is currently housed at the site.

Honorable Jack Kingston (Ist-GA)
Appropriations Subcommittee on

Agriculture & Related Agencies
Tuesday, May 1, 1994

The research mission at SPIRDL is probably more important now
than ever before. As Congress seeks to reduce the volume of potentially
toxic pesticides used in agricultural production, storage, and
transportation, we must maintain ongoing research and development
activities such as those conducted at SPIRDL in order to find effective,
safe replacements for the more toxic compounds. In addition, SPIRDL has
been responsible for finding alternative methods of packaging, climate
control, and biological control to prevent insect damage to commodities
and processed food products while they are being stored and transported.

Just one of many letters from food and commodity processors is
attached to today's statement (Attachment E) to help the subcommittee
understand just how important the SPIRDL facility is in helping to ensure
a safe, insect-free food supply in the future. This particular letter also
underscores the fact that there are no other commercial, academic, or
USDA/ARS facilities which can perform the work now being handled by
the Savannah laboratory.

The SPIRDL laboratory is the only facility that has the warehouse
space necessary to test insect-resistant packaging, treatment protocols for
warehouses and packaged products, and methods of detecting and
monitoring pest populations in warehouses. Again, this research has
become increasingly important with the loss, and pending loss, of
chemicals such as methyl bromide, phosphine, and other fumigants.

Honorable Jack Kingston (Ist-GA)
Appropriations Subconunittee on

Agriculture & Related Agencies
Tuesday, May 1, 1994

The location of the Savannah facility also gives it a unique capacity
to address the problems of insect pests on stored products in the warm,
humid, southern region of the country, where insect pests are active
throughout the year. Not only does grain from the region suffer heavy
losses, but grain shipments from other regions is exposed to high pest
populations as it passes through export terminals in the South, such as
New Orleans which is a major export terminal for Midwestern crops.

A laboratory such as SPIRDL in Savannah - with cooperators in
Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Alabama, and with access to port
facilities in the South is essential in testing the effectiveness of alternative
control methods in a humid, subtropical climate. SPIRDL works closely
with the Georgia ports at Savannah and Brunswick, and through
cooperative agreements can thoroughly and effectively test new protocols
in a highly cost-effective manner.

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for allowing me to appear here
today on such short notice. I thank you and the Members of the
subcommittee for your attention, and for the concern I know we share
about finding realistic ways to trim spending, while also protecting our
ability to ensure a safe and wholesome food supply for Americans and
our world customers in the future.

-END-

77-387 0—94-

Attachment A

Con^tifi of ti}t Winitth States;

J^ouit of iKepredentatibed
niatfbmston, BC 20515

February 17. 1994 -

Honorable Mike Espy, Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th Street & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20250

Dear Mr. Secretary,

We are writing to register our concern about the decision outlined in the FY
1995 budget to close the Stored-Product Insects Research & Development
Laboratory (SPIRDL) in Savannah, Georgia, and " redirecting " the funds for other
purposes in Manhattan, Kansas, Gainesville, Florida, Fresno, California, and
Washington, D.C. This decision would likely not cause as much consternation if
the funds were truly "being saved," however, it appears that is not the case.

The SPIRDL in Savannah is apparendy the only USDA facility which
addresses the problems of insect infestation and insect damage to stored crops
(everything fi'om grains to peanuts to processed, value-added products) located in
a high-humidity/high-temperature environment. Since the Southeast United States
presents a unique challenge in our attempts to minimize stored-product infestation
and damage because of the larger number of insect organisms prevalent under such
climatic conditions, their propensity to proliferate under such conditions, and - in
many instances — their strildngly different biological diversity and resistance to
existing control methods.

Additionally, since methyl bromide use is to be restricted (or prohibited) by
EPA in the relatively near future, the expertise of scientists at SPIRDL becomes
increasingly important as we seek environmentally acceptable replacements for this
pesticide which is of vital significance to the survival of many types of agriculnaral
production throughout the South and Southeast -- including your home State of
Mississippi. Relocation of key scientific investigators, the delays involved in re-
establishing their facilities, and the certainty that at least portions of existing
experiments would have to be started over at such new locations will cause a
critical delay, and almost certainly will hamper our efforts to find effective
alternatives for methyl bromide.

Honorable Mike Espy
February 17 1994
Page Two

Also, your budget document doesn't take into account the fact that SPIRDL
currently has on-site an experimental irradiation unit which utilizes radioactive
cobalt. We are informed that the costs of de -activating this unit, the possibility of
site remediation, and the necessary Environmental Assessments and/or
Environmental Impact Statement studies and related activities (which will be very
costly) are not adequately reflected in the Department's budget figures and
calculations of any cost-savings related to closing SPIRDL. One indication of the
additional costs is the recent determination by the State of South Carolina that
transportation of the irradiation unit and its radioactive cobalt would not be
permitted over highways in that State.

Mr. Secretary, we share your commitment to "continuing work related to
the highest priority national research needs." As discretionary funds grow
increasingly scarce, we also believe the Department must have some flexibility in
order to meet these needs. However, we are concerned that with the decision to
close SPIRDL, the Department is creating a research vacuum which it cannot meet
elsewhere. Moreover, we are concerned that the costs of relocating or
decommissioning the cobalt irradiation facility at SPIRDL may likely negate any
"savings" which might otherwise be anticipated by closing the facility.

We urgently seek your attention to this situation, and request that you
arrange an opportimity to meet with us at your earliest convenience. Please let us
hear from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

McKinney, M.C/ J C — ^ Jack Kingston, ^.C.

Qywv^^

Sam Nunn, U.S.S.

Attachment B

Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory in Savannah. Georgia

One principle justification provided by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) for closing the
Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory (SPIRDL) in Savannah, Georgia,
is that the facility is old and inappropriate for modem research. These are the facts:

1 . The main laboratory building at Savannah was constructed at about the same time as the
laboratories in Gainesville, Florida and Manhattan. Kansas (late 1960"s and earl>
1970's). It is no less modem than either of the other laboratories.

2. The buildings that house the shops and the biological control research program are good
steel buildings that were constructed no more than five years before the main laboratory
building.

3. A steel research warehouse (120 x 60 feet) was constructed in 1978 and is an excellent
facility for research on insect resistant packaging and detection and monitoring of insect
pests in warehouses.

4. A cold storage building (43,000 cubic-foot capacity), which was constructed in 1981.
provides safe storage for a wide range of products used for insects rearing and research

5. Six, 1,000-bushel metal bins equipped for aeration, were constructed in 1992 for a
biological control pilot test and will be available for other research when this test i^
complete.

6. SPIRDL has a mechanical grain handling facility that was constmcted in 1988 This
consists of twelve hopper-bottom bins ( 1 .000 bushels each) and a pit and conveyors for
loading and unloading.

7. There are ten 5,000-bushel grain bins (old but still very useful) on site and numerous
portable al uminum sheds of various sizes. All of these contribute significantly to our
research capacity.

8. SPIRDL has five buildings that were on the site when it was first occupied by the
U.S.D.A. in 1945. Four of these were constructed in the 1930's for use by C.C C
They were faced with brick to match the nuin laboratory building just before it was
constructed. All have been remodeled a number of times since 1965. They are still very
serviceable buildings. One houses the poiicKle residue lab, another houses chemical
control research (it contains special chambers for testing space treatment aerosols) and
a third houses research on insecticide resisiarwc and part of the biological control
research. The fourth building was recently convened to a single-room warehouse to test
M.R.E.'s for the Department of Defense The other old building on the site is a large

warehouse (date of conslruction unknown) that was probably on the site when it was part
of a fairground. It is in good repair and serves very well as a warehouse. It also houses
the fumigation research lab.

9. The SPIRDL research equipment (analytical instruments, environmental control
equipment, equipment for automatic data acquisition, computer hardware and software,
etc.) has been effectively updated over the last 4 or 5 years and is state of the art

The ARS justification for closing the Savannah facility also states that the estimated cost of
bringing the facility up to modem, safe standards is more than $3 million. The estimate of S3
million was provided by the ARS Facilities Division after one cursory site visit by their
engineers and an engineer from the South Atlantic Area Office in Athens. The estimate includes
the cost of repaving, correction of drainage problems, major roof repairs, miscellaneous
building repairs, a facility deficiency study, work on HVAC systems, utility upgrades, minor
renovations and minor alterations. They have an estimate of $29, OCX) to repave the roads and
parking lot. They have already corrected the drainage problem. The main laboratory building
needs a new roof and they have obtained an estimate of $130,(X)0. All but two of the other
buildings have new roofs. The cost of re-roofing the remaining two would be $7, (XX) - $10,000
each. The work on the HVAC systems to meet OSHA requirements is probably not needed, ai
least in the main laboratory building. When the fume hoods in this building are operating, they
provide 100% fresh air exchange as required. The fume hood stacks need to be lengthened at
a cost of about $8,000. One cannot associate the other items included in the list with any needed
work, and they are probably included as "fudge factors." Obviously, this does not add up lo
more than $3 million.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ARMED FORCES PEST MANAGEMENT BOARD Attachment C

FOREST GLEN SECTION. WRAMC
WASHINGTON. DC. 20307-5001

February 1, 1994

Dr. Ralph A. Bram
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Program Staff
10300 Baltimore Avenue
BuUding 005. BARC-West
Beltsville. MD 20705-2350

Dear Dr. Bram:

The Armed Forces Pest Management Board Council recently passed a unanimous
recommendation to express the Department of Defense's support for research performed at the
Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Laboratory, Savannah, Georgia. As was
evident from this year's Annual Review of USDA Research of Interest to the Department of
Defense, the Department is greatly interested in the Laboratory's stored products research which
is of military importance. Their 1994 status report aptly addressed this research.

Of special interest is that research which can be incorporated directly into stored products
integrated pest management plans such as insect detection in stored products. The cooperative
work of Savatmah's research scientists at DoD installations is an example of this research.

We recognize the importance of this stored products research and ask the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to maintain this capabiUty in meedng DoD's stored-product research
needs.

Sincerely,

-^^^^^T-T^o^

Herbert T. Bolton
Captain. Medical Service

Corps. U.S. Navy
Executive Director

United States Agricultural National Beltsville, Maryland

Department of Research Program 20705

Agriculture Service Staff

February 14, 1994

Attachment D

Captain Hertjert T. Bofton
Department of Defense
Armed Forces Pest Management Board
Forest Glen Section, WRAMC
Washington, D.C. 20307-5001

Dear Captain Bolton:

Thank you for your letter of February 1 , transmitting the recommendation of the Armed
Forces Pest Management Board Council to support research performed at the Stored
Product Insects Research and Development Latxaratory, Savannah, Georgia.

The President's fiscal year 1 995 budget proposal recommends closing the Savannah
latwratory. Though the latxjratory is adequately funded to conduct its planned
research, facilities at Savannah are old, inappropriate for today's research, and in
need of costly repairs and modernization. The estimated cost of just bringing them up
to modem, safe standards is more than $3 million. Further, the Agency has under-
utilized facilities at the U.S. Grain Marketing Research Laboratory, Manhattan, Kansas,
and the Insect Attractants, Behavior and Basic Biotogy Laboratory, Gainesville,
Rorida. Redirection of the major portion of the resources to these locations would
enhance the disciplinary diversity and critical mass at each. Other portions of the
resources would be used to strengthen high priority programs on alternatives to methyl
bromide and grain quality issues Important to export.

To the extent possible, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will continue to
address those stored products pest research needs of highest priority to the
Department of Defense. We appreciate the Armed Forces Pest Management Board's
continued interest In, and support of, all the pest management research programs in
ARS.

Sincerely,

RALPH A. BRAM
National Program Leader
Medical & Veterinary Entomology
and Parasitology

Attachment E

Ralston Purina
Company

W. Patrick McGinnis

Presideni

Chiel Executive Officer

Grocery Products Group

October 25, 1993

The Honorable John C. Danforth Sr.
249 Russel Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Danfoith:

It has recently come to our attention that reorganization efforts
witlun the Agricultural Research Service of the Departnie|t of
Agriculture could result in a reduced level of services firom the
U.S.D.A. Stored-Product Insects Research and Development
laboratory in Savannah, GA. This facility has been instrumental in
die evaluation of several packaging improvements that have
significantly reduced our level of insect-related product complaints.
Other grocery manufacturers have similar programs in progress
which would be greatly compromised if the laboratory was lost I
would also like to point out diat there are no commercial, academic
or other USDA-ARS laboratories with suitable warehouse facilities
to conduct diis research.

Infestation is a problem which costs the food industry millions of
dollars per year in die form of reduced productivity, product returns
and loss of good will from the grocery Hade and consumers. The
increasing restrictions on fumigants and the general reduction in
grocery sanitation programs have required us to quickly find
packaging innovations diat can economically and safely provide us
widi a way to prevent insects from contaminating our products. The
direct efforts of the Savannah ARS Laboratoiy have led to various
packaging improvements that have reduced our level of complaints
up to 40% in some product categories.

OMckerboord Square
St. Louii, Mtsouri 63164

Senator Danforth

Page 2

October 25, 1993

In conclusion, our cooperation with the Savannah facility has
allowed us to make significant progress against a major problem that
affects our business. We are anticipating a long term product and
package testing program and have just entered into a funded 3 year
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the
laboratoiy. We would greatly appreciate your help in maintaining
the Stored-Product Insects Research and Development Lab and the
valuable service that it affords our industry. Would you please
convey our concerns to Secretary Espy. Thank you.

Sincerely,

W. p. McGmnis

WPM/wm

bcc Mr. Carlo Hansen, 3RN

40
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

WITNES^

DR. KENNETH R. FARRELL, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALI-
FORNIA, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. DuRBiN. Dr. Farrell, University of California.

Good to see you again.

Mr. Farrell. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement which I would ask be
included in the record. I will simply summarize that statement.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee
today to present to you two projects that we think are vitally im-
portant to the Western region and American agriculture as a whole
if it is going to retain its competitive position.

The first of our requests is for continued funding of state-of-the-
art research facilities at the University of California, Davis and
Riverside, on a matching basis with the State of California, to as-
sist in the development of technologies to reduce application of pes-
ticides £ind to develop means for more effective control of an array
of crop pests which threaten the economic viability of important
sectors of American agriculture.

The second request is for funding of a complementary research
project to establish a Western region biotechnology consortium to
accelerate research on the development of genetically engineered
plants to better withstand environmental stress, improve quality,
develop new products and provide genetic resistance to disease and
insects.

Funding for this project would also be on a matching basis with
Western region universities and private sector organizations.

For fiscal year 1995, we are requesting a total of $6 million in
Federal funding for construction of pest containment and quar-
antine research facilities on the campus at UC-Riverside, and for
completion of working drawings Eind initial site preparation for a
facility at the University of California, Davis.

The Congress has previously appropriated through the USDA Co-
operative State Research Service funds in the current fiscal year,
and in each of the two years preceding that, totaling about $2.5
million, which has been matched by the University of California
with State funds.

The proposed $6 million funding for fiscal year 1995 would com-
plete Federal funding for the Riverside facility and move the Davis
facility on schedule for completion of Federal funding in fiscal year
1997.

Total Federal funding at these two facilities over the five years,
1992 through 1997, would total $17.5 million. Funds which will be
matched by the university from State funds for a total project cost
of $35 million.

This request for continued Federal funding of these facilities
emanates from a very long planning process by university sci-
entists in cooperation with the USDA CSRS. This process included
a needs assessment conducted in 1990-1991 at the request of
USDA, and site visits and project evaluation by a panel of sci-
entists appointed by the USDA.

The panel concluded, and I quote:

Without regard to sources of funding, the review panel has concluded that this
is an important, necessary facility, the construction of which would have an impor-
tant impact on U.S. agriciilture.

Construction of the facilities on both the Davis and Riverside
campuses has been very carefully considered and designed as a sin-
gle, integrated project to maximize research capabilities at the two
campuses and to be responsive to both near and longer term needs
of agriculture.

The planned 21,000 laboratory and support facilities at Riverside
are designed to accelerate research leading to the development of
biological and other natural controls for a range of pests including
the white fly and the medfly.

The quarantine research facility at Davis will provide a state-of-
the-art facility for research into environmentally compatible pest
management strategies including bioengineering, genetically al-
tered mechanisms, and other promising biotechnology applications
for pest management.

As noted by the USDA peer review panel, the scientific condition
and security of facilities for research in these fields of science are
currently grossly inadequate throughout the Western United
States, including California. Although the proposed facilities are to
be located on the University of California campuses, operated by
university faculty and staff, with university financial support, the
facilities when completed will provide opportunities for research by
scientists from other universities and institutions in the Nation,
particularly in the western region, and scientists from the Califor-
nia Department of Food and Agriculture and the USDA.

Thus, while the location is California, the facilities will provide
opportunities for scientists well beyond State boundaries and will
generate research results of national significance.

Mr. Chairman, this is the single highest priority agricultural re-
search-related proposal of the University of California for 1994-
1995. We have strong support for this request from the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, California agricultural indus-
try leaders. Office of the Governor of California, Members of the
California congressional delegation, and as I have noted, the Uni-
versity of California, which has included funding in its long-term
capital project.

Our second request, $5 million annually in matching Federal
funds through a USDA CSRS special grants program, is for the
purpose of funding high-priority biotechnology research at facilities
in the Western region such as those I have just described. The pro-
posed consortium of universities. Federal laboratories, and private
sector organizations in the Western region will provide, I believe,
a very useful mechanism to ensure collaborative planning, effective
priority setting, and funding of top-priority research projects in the
region as a whole. This arrangement will also enhance the rate at
which resultant new products and technologies are introduced from
the laboratories into commercial practice.

Upon funding of the proposal, the CSRS would be asked to con-
duct a competitive process to select a lead university from within
the Western region to house the program. The program would be
administered by a secretariat of professionals composed of univer-

sity, Federal lab, and private sector members. The secretariat
would appoint an executive director.

All universities and Federal laboratories in the Western region
would be eligible to compete for project funding. Universities and
Federal labs outside the region could compete for funding by col-
laborating with the principal investigator in a Western university
or Federal lab. All awards would be based on scientific merit as de-
termined by peer review and the ability to attract private sector
and other non-Federal matching funds.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for the commit-
tee's support for pest containment and quarantine facility during
the past three years, and hope that it will be possible for you to
continue these important investments in agricultural research in
fiscal year 1995.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.

We faced a dilemma last year, as you know.

Mr. Farrell. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. This subcommittee has a great reputation for break-
ing ground on facilities, not a very good reputation for finishing
them. And we found ourselves overcommitted in terms of construc-
tion. So we said to the University of California, take your pick,
which one do you want, Riverside or Davis, and I believe the choice
was Riverside when it was all over.

The reason we asked the university to make that selection was
that we had just completed a building at Riverside, a research fa-
cility for some $25 million. And now I believe your testimony this
year suggests that you still want both of them.

Mr. Farrell. Yes, sir. We still want some funds for both facili-
ties. As I have said, we view these as a single project. We are de-
signed to be complementary, not duplicative.

Riverside, for example, we are asking for funds to complete con-
struction of a greenhouse and a new lab which will permit them
to begin immediately to develop an expanded program of research
using biological controls to deal with the problems, particularly of
Southern California in the fruit and vegetable industry.

Davis, on the other hand, is a longer-term investment, an invest-
ment which calls for a new state-of-the-art facility that would en-
gage in more sophisticated kinds of bioengineering.

So we consider, Mr. Chairman, that one, these are separate parts
of a single project. They are both needed, and in fact, sir, last year
we did split the funds that the Congress gave us between the two
facilities, as we are doing again this year administration fiscal year
1994. So that both are on stream.

Mr. DuRBiN. That is a little different than the way we have
reached an agreement in the conference on this issue. I mean, we
really basically said to the university. Decide where you want a
building. Riverside or Davis, and what you are telling me is they
decided to go ahead with both.

Mr. Farrell. We decided to proceed in some funding in each. In
Davis we are only at the beginning, the planning stages of the de-
velopment. So there was very little of the funds that were used for
that purpose. The majority did go to Riverside, and that is what
we are proposing to do in fiscal year 1995 as well.

Mr. DURBIN. We will have the same debate this year, and fewer
dollars to spend.

Mr. Skeen, maybe you will figure this one out for us.

Mr. Skeen. I don't have any answers. Let me ask you this ques-
tion, though. Doctor. In this Western region biotech consortium,
any other universities involved in this other than

Mr. Farrell. Yes. We have had extensive discussion with sev-
eral universities in the Western region, including Oregon, Washing-
ton State, Arizona, discussions in New Mexico with John Owen and
Company, Utah, and with Montana — I am sorry, with Idaho. Some
of those will be forthcoming either at hearings or by informal con-
tacts in support of this proposal.

Mr. Skeen. We have had a Southwest consortium on plant stress
that has been operative for some time. This is about the same
group?

Mr. Farrell. It is essentially the same group although it would
be expanded, I think, beyond the current participation in that par-
ticular consortium.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Doctor.

Mr. DURBIN. Ms. Kaptur.

Ms. Kaptur. Yes, Doctor, I just had one question. On page 2 of
your testimony you say that in no part of the country are the is-
sues you discuss more critical than in California, in the West,
where certain t3rpes of insect infestations threaten the viability of
the region's fruit and vegetable production, accounting for almost
two thirds of the Nation's total production of these commodities.

What is the region?

Mr. Farrell. The region being the 11 Western States.

Ms. Kaptur. I thank you for that clarification.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Myers?

Mr. Myers. No questions. Thank you.

Mr. DuRBiN. Dr. Farrell, thanks for joining us.

[The information follows:]

STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. FARRELL

VICE PRESIDENT, AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BEFORE

HOUSE AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

March 1, 1994

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am Kenneth R. Farrell, Vice President, Agriculture and Natural Resources, at the
University of California.

I appreciate the opponunity to provide testimony in support of two projects vitally
important to Amencan agriculture and the retention of its competitive posmon.

The first is a request for continued funding of state-of-the-art research facilities at
the University of Califomm, Davis and Riverside, on a matchmg basis with the State
of California, to assist in the development of technologies to reduce application of
pesticides and to develop means for more effective control of^ array o crop pe^ s
which threaten the economic viability of important sectors of Amencan agnculture.

The second request is for funding of a complementary research project to establish
a Western Region Biotechnology Consortium to accelerate research on the
devXment of genetically-engineered plants to better withstand environmental
strls improve quality, develop new products, and provide genetic resistance o
reaseTnd insects. Fading of this project also would be on a matching basis with
western region universities and private sector organizations.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, public and private investments in ^g^cultural research
in recent decades have undergirded much of the growth and Productivity in
Lencan agriculture, the provision of an abundance of low-cost wholesome food
Tr America^ consumers, and development of a highly competitive mu ti-bi^n
dollar export trade essential to the American economy. However, U.S. public

investments in agricultural research have been eroding for some time in nominal
terms, relative to total U.S. R&D investments, and relative to investments being
made in agricultural research in several of the nations w^ith which we compete in
international markets. We must find ways to reverse these ominous trends. And,
Mr. Chairman, you also are keenly aware of the constraints with which agriculture
must operate in the future as a result of regulations to protect and enhance
environmental quality-regulations which have, among other effects, sharply reduced
the availability of pesticides. While this is occurring, American agriculture is
confi-onting a succession of plant pest invasions and growing resistance of pests to
the pesticides which remain in use.

These are matters of nationwide, urgent importance to agriculture, but in no part
of the country are the issues more critical than in California and the West where
infestations of Medfly, whitefly, Mexican fruit fly, and the potential invasion of the
Africanized bee threaten the viability of the region's fruit and vegetable production
accounting for almost two-thirds of the nation's total production of these
commodities. We must enhance investments in research now if we are to have the
means of resolving or mitigating these problems in the future.

For fiscal year 1995, we are requesting a total of $6.0 million in federal funding for
construction of pest containment and quarantine research facilities on the campus
at UC Riverside and for completion of working drawings and initial site preparation
for the facility at UC Davis. The Congress has previously appropriated, through the
USDA Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) budgets, funds in the current
fiscal year and in each of the two preceding fiscal years totaling $2.5 million which
have been matched by the University of California with state funds. The proposed
$6.0 million funding for FY '95 would complete federal funding for the Riverside
facility and move the Davis facility on schedule for completion of federal funding
in FY '97. Total federal funding at the rwo facilities over the five years FY '92-'97
will total $17.5 million-funds which will be matched by the University from state
funds for a total project cost of $35 million.

This request for continued federal funding of these facilities emanates from a long
planning process by University scientists in cooperation with the USDA/CSRS. This
process included a needs assessment conducted in 1990-91 at the request of USDA
and site visits and project evaluation by a panel of scientists appointed by USDA.

This panel concluded "without regard to sources of funding, the review panel has
concluded that this is an important, necessary facility (sic), the construction of
which could have a significant impact on U.S. agriculture."

Construction of the facilities on both the Davis and Riverside campuses has been
carefully considered and designed as a single integrated project to maximize
research capabilities at the two campuses and to be responsive to both the near-
and longer-term needs of agriculture. The planned 21,000 asf laboratory and
suppon facilities at Riverside are designed to accelerate research leading to the
development of biological and other natural controls for a range of pests including
the whitefly and Medfly. The 39,000 asf containment and quarantine research
facility at Davis will provide a state-of-the-art facility for research into
environmentally compatible pest management strategies including bioengineering,
genetically-altered mechanisms, and other promising biotechnology applications for
pest management. As noted by the USDA peer review panel, the scientific condition
and security of facilities for research in these fields of science are currently grossly
inadequate throughout the western United States including California.

Although the proposed facilities are to be located on the University of California
campuses, operated by University faculty and staff with University financial support,
the facilities when completed will provide opportunities for research by scientists
from other universities in the nation, particularly the western region, and scientists
of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the USDA. Thus,
although the location is California, the facilities will provide opponunities for
scientists well beyond state boundaries and will generate research results of national
significance.

Mr. Chairman, this is the single highest priority agricult\iral research-related
proposal of the University of California for 1994-95. We have strong support of the
request firom the California Department of Food and Agriculture, California
agricultural industry leaders. Office of the Governor of California, and members of
the California Congressional Delegation.

Our second request"$5 million annually in matching federal funds through a
USDA/CSRS special grants program-is for the purpose of funding high-priority
biotechnology research at facilities in the western region such as those I have just

described. The proposed consortium of universities, federal laboratories, and
private sector organizations in the western region will provide a mechanism to
ensure collaborative planning, priority setting, and funding of top priority research
projects in the region. This arrangement also will enhance the rate at which
resultant new products and technologies are introduced into commercial practice.

Upon funding of the proposal (a total of $10 million annually), the CSRS would
conduct a competitive process to select a "lead" university within the western region
to house the program. The program would be administered by a secretariat
composed of university, federal laboratory, and private sector members. The
secretariat would appoint an executive director. All universities and federal
laboratories in the western region would be eligible to compete for project funding.
Universities and federal laboratories outside the region could compete for funding
by collaborating with a principal investigator in a western university or federal
laboratory. All awards would be based on scientific merit as determined by peer
review and the ability to attract private sector and other non-federal matching
funds.

This proposal has been discussed widely in the western region and is supported
substantially by research administrators of the region. I anticipate that I will be
joined in this request by my counterpans in several states of the region.

Mr. Chairman, we are appreciative of the Committee's support in the past three
fiscal years and hope that it will be possible for you to continue these important
investments in agricultural research in FY '95 and the years beyond.

That concludes my statement. I am prepared to respond to any questions which
you or other members of the Committee may have.

48
TUFTS UNIVERSITY

WITNESS
DR. J LARRY BROWN, CENTER ON HUNGER, POVERTY AND NUTRI-
TION POLICY, TUFTS UNIVERSITY

Mr DURBIN Next, Dr. Larry Brown, from the Center on Hunger
and Poverty and Nutrition Policy at Tufts University.
Gk)od to see you again.
Mr Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will paraphrase my statement for the benefit of you and your

""""l w^ld^ like to at least verbally, for personal reasons, perhaps for
many of you, acknowledge the role of the late Dr. Jean Mayer, both
S Stiating the work to establish the Center on Hunger Poverty
and Nutrition Policy at Tufts university, but also the work
throughout his professional life, because he did, I think, perhaps
more than any single American to establish the value of nutrition
SLnce and inject the research findings into public policy dating
back from his^ days as the Chairman of the White House Con-
ference on Food, Nutrition and Health under President Nixon.

Mr Brown. Dr. Mayer believed that the university had a num-
ber of resources which could be focused on the highly mvportant
problem of hunger in America and it is his vision that is embodied
Fn the work of our center there at Tufts. He died a year-and-a-half
ago. l^d while we miss him, great people leave legacies and they
also leave people like me in their wake, trying to carry out those
dreams so we ?an have an impact on the health status of high-risk
neoole in our Nation, particularly children. , . u i.

^ I wouki Uke to review just momentarily the relationship between
this committee and Congress and the Department. This project
beean s^^rTyears ago with the Department of Agriculture doing
Sibfnty study to determine whether or not the work center was
fn the national interest, was commensurate with the goals of the
USDA and whether or not it was duplicative. And I am happy to
Fay that thTuSDA team that conducted the feasibility study
u/animously recommended it to the Congress and this committee
w«Q thP first to beffin the appropriations to make it a reality.

Last yeaf we asked you for a larger appropriation than you were
able to^live, which we certainly understand, but we are pleased
that we hav; had now three continued years of support toward the

construction of this facility. ^^ fV,;^ v*.nr which

I am happy to be here to ask you for support this year, wmcn
I hop?wm be the next to the last year, so that we can complete
the pro-am In our view, we think that $5.25 mi lion would allow
us to Xe close to construction on this entire P^-^J^^^' ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^

million altogether. The committee so far .^^f "f^,^ .^?.",5^^_"'bit over
far made three grants totaling— appropriations, totaling a bit over

^™s project altogether is a $30 million P'-f^t^^^™^ ^^^f;.
sitv is going to— is committed to picking up two-thirds of the over
all cistTit, and we are already staffing and operating center pro-

^Through this process, we are very grateful that we have been
able to work with the Department of Agriculture staff, not only in

terms of the facility per se, but programmatically, and we have
gained an abiding faith that we can muster the resources of this
university to begin to do things in a different way in our Nation
so that we don't continue to look at hunger in America, note and
measure its significance, know its outcomes, for example, for high-
risk groups like the elderly and children, but not solve it.

Despite the enormous amount of taxpayer money, I think that
two things are quite clear. One is we have some programs that
work very well and we need to utilize them, and secondly, just be-
cause programs have been there forever doesn't mean that we need
to continue them. Some things we need to do differently.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the center alone cannot solve the
problem of hunger. Our goal, however, is to directly link research
and the products of research to sound educational policies in the
country and programs which protect the well-being of children in
their formative years.

I know that none of you would disagree with the fact that a lot
of our programs are well intentioned but don't make a lot of sense
in light of what we know now. And so by bringing these important
elements together and disseminating important information to the
public and policy-makers, I believe the center can play an impor-
tant role in battling domestic hunger in the United States.

I would like to conclude with two or three examples of the work
of the center. We are now planning this March for the third sympo-
sium on Capitol Hill, always in conjunction with one or more Mem-
bers, to examine the policy significance of recent research over the
last five or six years which links nutritional status and cognitive
development in children. We know now in the scientific community
things that we didn't know even a decade ago, probably even six
or seven years ago, in terms of the subtle impacts and long and far-
reaching impacts that undernutrition has on the cognitive develop-
ment of our children.

If you think about that, for example, in terms of our desire to re-
form education, we literally are delivering damaged children to the
schoolhouse door by letting hunger continue on such a widespread
basis in this country. We are also evaluating other interventions
designed to protect children from nutrition-related impairments,
and we are spending a good deal of time trying to look at the etiol-
ogy of hunger, particularly in terms of the economic resources of
families.

You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, earlier to another speaker, that
poverty has grown substantially in rural areas. Interestingly
enough, over the last — well from 1989 to 1992, poverty increased
four times as fast in rural and urban areas — in rural and suburban
areas, as it did in cities. So we have a widespread problem in the
Nation which links very directly to the issue of hunger.

I am grateful for the continued support that the committee has
evidenced to this point and the partnership that Dr. Mayer began
with the committee and Congress, and wish to express my grati-
tude that we can work together with you on the problem of hunger,
not simply to study it, but to see it as a solvable problem which
our Nation has the capability of getting behind us in the near fu-
ture.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DURBIN. I was just asking Mr. Foster a question I would like
to ask you. Dr. Brown, we have the Human Nutrition Center at
Tufts University, built by the Federal Grovernment at the cost of
$25 million or so. We put about $14 million a year into the oper-
ation of that center. What is this new center going to do that is dif-
ferent?

Mr. Brown. That center, Mr. Chairman, as you know, is the
Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging. It is a bench science
center focusing predominantly on problems of the nutritional status
of the aging and the interaction. Our center focuses both largely on
children and also on the retail end of research, that is, looking at
the policy significance of research.

The other difference, the third difference would be that we are
in fact not asking the Congress at all for any operational support
for this. Tufts University has agreed that we will operate the facil-
ity, the center and its programs, both operating costs and program
costs, staffing, and so on, so it is simply to finalize the construction
of the facility.

Mr. DURBIN. Tufts focuses on problems of the aging and nutri-
tion, but we also have another Federal facility in Houston that fo-
cuses on nutrition and children. What will be the difference in
terms of what you are setting out to do with this center and what
is already being done in Houston?

Mr. Brown. Sure, that is a good question, which I can answer.
The facility in Houston, as you know, is the children's parallel to
the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts Univer-
sity. What we are doing with the Center on Hunger, Poverty and
Nutrition Policy is focusing almost exclusively on the issue of hun-
ger in America, on high-risk population groups, and on what
science knows in terms of its meaning for public policy and pro-
grams, so that we can do an evaluation — continue doing the eval-
uation of programs which cost the Federal Government, as you
know, $30 to $40 billion per year in order to understand better
what works, what doesn't work, so that we can discontinue pro-
grams that don't work and so that we can move, as this new re-
search in this area of cognition and nutrition in children shows, to
protect children much earlier than we have been picking them up.

Mr. DURBIN. Let me see if I understand the costs that you have
explained to us here. Total cost of $30 million. Tufts will pay for
approximately two-thirds and then Tufts assumes all responsibility
for staffing and operating this center which you are requesting; is
that correct?

Mr. Brown. That is right, yes.

Mr. DURBIN. We have already invested about $3.5 million in this
center?

Mr. Brown. That is right.

Mr. DURBIN. I am trjnng to calculate what our remaining obliga-
tion is at the Federal level if Tufts is paying for two-thirds of it.

Mr. Brown. We envisioned that the facility will cost somewhere
between $12 and $13 million to construct. That is the construction
costs of the building itself, which is what over the last several
years we have been requesting the Congress to pay, and then the
operating, maintenance, the research, the staffing of the facility on
an ongoing basis will be the responsibility of Tufts University.

Mr. DURBIN. Well, I guess I misunderstood it then. It is not a $30
million center for construction?

Mr. Brown. No. No.

Mr. DURBIN. It is $13 million.

Mr. Brown. That is right.

Mr. DURBIN. And you want the Federal Government to pay for
all of that?

Mr. Brown. For the facility alone, yes.

Mr. DURBIN. And then beyond that Tufts is going to actually
equip it, staff it and operate it?

Mr. Brown. That is right.

Mr. DURBIN. This is a little different approach than we have
used on some of these. There is usually some sort of a match from
the university involved in this. In this case, you are looking for
100-percent construction?

Mr. Brown. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can get you the details on
that, but the match, for example, the — our staff, our person at
CSRS has informed us, for example, that part of the match for the
construction of the facility, the initial phases, for example, would
be the value of the land, which I think is about $2.4 million or $2.3
million.

Mr. DURBIN. Okay, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think anyone could disagree that nutrition is so impor-
tant, whether it be a child or adult, but particularly children who
are victims often of noncaring parents or even a noncaring society,
but the School Lunch Program is more than 50 years old now and
some schools I understand already provide two meals, which origi-
nally started as one. Then it became breakfast, now some I under-
stand are providing a going-home meal. And yet we seem to be fall-
ing further behind and I don't know what Tufts is going to be able
to do about that.

But I do recall several years ago we had an Under Secretary of
Agriculture who objected to a doughnut that this committee helped
start, a nutritious doughnut that children would eat, provided all
the nutrients for breakfast. But she didn't like it because it wasn't
teaching proper eating habits.

Now, what are we going to do? Are we going to make sure the
child gets proper nutrition? Are we more concerned that they use
the right hand to hold the fork and have the spoon on the left side?
Which is more important?

Mr. Brown. Having grown up in schools in the State you
represent

Mr. Myers. A Hoosier.

Mr. Brown [continuing]. And having gotten the benefits of the
School Lunch Program, let me tell you that while all programs
such as that can be improved, and you have seen some research
findings on dietary fats in the research School Lunch Program, it
is a program which is a resounding success on the part of the Con-
gress and the American public.

The problem that you refer to, however, and that is that we seem
to keep getting further behind, is driven in large part, the research
shows, by changes in the economy which produce greater economic
vulnerability on the part of American families. Next week, for ex-

ample, Second Harvest, the national food bank network is going to
be releasing the comprehensive results of a study that it has con-
ducted over the last years. . , , t. . iU- ^

I think that all Americans, and certamly those of us in this room,
will be very concerned about the level of hunger that they are now
reporting, which gets to your point. There are programs we have
such-which Members of this committee and Congress m general
know about, the School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Pro-
gram, the WIC Program, which work very well.

There are other programs, which I won t name now until I final-
ize our research in the areas, which we don't think work well and
which probably need to be significantly altered or changed. I repeat
that just because programs have been in existence for a long time
doesn't mean they are good, doesn't mean they work the best and
doesn't mean that the American taxpayers are getting the benetits
of their investment in terms of improving the nutrient status ot our

^^Mr^M^RS. I think we have come a long way, no question. When
I was in school, long before you were in school in Indiana, we didnt
hrve a School Lunch Program. I lived on the edge of town, but I
had to walk home because I couldn't brown bag the country kids
riding in could, and I found a girl I kind of liked who lived in the
country, so I told my mother to give me a brown bag so I could eat
with Se kids at noon. They wouldn't let me. So we have come a

^""^^think the answer is motivation, how to get those kids to eat the
proper diet. We know how to feed them what, they should eat but
we have eot to get them to do it. ^. j j

Mr Brown. Mr. Myers, that, in fact, is an issue, continued edu-
cadon of the American pubHc, but we don't have hunger m Amenta
because our people are more ignorant than people in other ndustn
alized nations that have solved their hunger problem; it is J^st that
we have not yet learned how to move in to protect the well-bem^
S-ouryoung people, our future work force in terms of their nutri-
ent slatus That is why we continue to see the problems we have

°Mr. Myers. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Mr. DURBIN. Ms. Kaptur.

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a question. I ust want to commend the doctor tor
l.i^ wnrk and sav I hope as you do your research and you look at
all thele pu^oj^ams like the School Breakfast Program, the
School Lunch PrVam, the WIC Program, all the Programs that
people term successes, and I voted for those .Programs that two

Lrds be embedded in your brain f^^f ^^^^f.^ Pf^CiUet^^sed
wp rrpatp all these Federal answers to actions that tamiiies usea
IMZ^fJet^to bridge back to the famijy I think^^^^^^^^
that the Federal Government has to substitute for what isnt done
in the home and we know we must do that but I thmk one ot the
tragedies of many of these programs is we have forgotten that the
first people who should feed children, are the mother and the fa-
ther ^So I w^uld lust encourage you to "think Parent in your own
work and perhaps the Nation 10 years from now will be in even
better shape than it is today.

Thank you.

Mr. Brown. I think that all of us share the ultimate goal that
we not have to have these programs. The goal is not to have more
people on food stamps, for example, but to have no people on food
stsimps in this country.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks very much. Dr. Brown.

[The information follows:!

TESTIMONY OF

DR. J. LARRY BROWN, DIRECTOR

CENTER ON HUNGER, POVERTY AND NUTRITION POLICY

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON

RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURE, AND RELATED AGENCIES

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to testify here today. I will keep my remarks brief to make myself available for any
questions that you might have.

Let me begin by briefly describing the origin of this e^ort. Many of you were
acquainted personally and professionally with the late Dr. J^n Mayer, former President of Tufts
University. As such, you are familiar with the extraordinary contributions he made in the area
of nutrition and public policy. Particularly through his work at Tufts University, nutrition has
been transformed into a valued science which has borne important firuit for the American people.
It was Dr. Mayer's belief that Tufts' unique efforts in the area of nutrition could be focused to
make a difference on the seemingly intractable problem of hunger in America. It is that vision
that is embodied in the Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy.

Dr. Mayer is no longer with us and while we miss his vision and his leadership, he left
this Center on a firm footing. In its short existence, the Center has already lived up to his faith
in what it could accomplish.

Before I describe in more detail the work we are doing at the Center, let me review the
important paitnership the Center has with this Subcommittee, with Congress and the Dqnrtment
of Agriculture.

Several yean ago, dte Dqnrtment of Agriculture performed a feasibility study to
examine the value and need for a facility to house this Center. After a unaninraus
recommendation from the Dqnrtment of Agriculture review team, this Subcommittee led the
way with several initial appropriations to get this effort off the ground. Last year we urged the

Subcommittee to make available a large sum to complete the effort and though we did not
receive that full amount, we are pleased to have received continued support from this
Committee. I am grateful to be here with you once again to ask that the Subcommittee continue
its support so that we can move quickly to complete this important project. In our view, an
appropriation of $5.25 million will allow us to move forward in our effort. Last year we
requested approximately $12 million, and our request this year simply reflects our sensitivity to
the other pressures on this Subcommittee.

This is a project for which the overall costs will well exceed $30 million and Tufts has
committed to contributing approximately two-thirds of the cost. Tufts University is already
staffing and operating the Center, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Throughout this process we have worked closely with the Department of Agriculture staff
and inevitably we have benefitted from that relationship by modifying and enhancing the work
of this Center. Along with the Department of Agriculture we have gained an abiding sense of
the difference this Center can make in the quality of life for many high-risk Americans.

The problem of hunger in America is not simply that it effects so many people, but that
we have been so unsuccessful in solving it. Despite the enormous sums of taxpayer's money
that we have devoted toward ending hunger, the sad fact remains that in the last fifteen years -
- particularly with respect to children - we have millions more who are going hungry.

We recognize that the Center alone can not solve the problem, but we do believe we can
make an important and highly unique contribution. Our specific goal is to link research and the
products of that research to sound educational programs. We have talked about that with this

Subcommittee in the past and it is worth emphasizing. So often our programs - weU intentioned
as they may be - make UtUe sense in light of what we have learned. By bringing these
important elements together, and by disseminating that appropriate information to the pubUc and
poUcymakers. the Center can play an important role in battling hunger in this country.

If I may. let me provide you with several examples of the work we are doing:

• Symposia on Capitol Hill to examine the poUcy significance of recent research on
children linking nutrition with cognitive development.

• Evaluation of program interventions which are most likely to protect young
children from impairments associated with undernutrition.

• Analysis of child poverty trends to the year 2010 under two different policy
scenarios.

• The effectiveness of child nutrition programs in terms of increasing educational
preparation and competence.

• Analysis of the extent of hunger among elderly Americans to access adequacy of
elderly food programs.

I am grateful to be here to continue the important partnership that Dr. Mayer started with
this Subcommittee and Congress. I also want to express our gratitude for the faith you have
expressed in us and in our efforts and to say that aU of us at the Center on Hunger. Poverty and
Nutrition Policy look forward to working together on the important - and solvable -- problem
of hunger in America.
Thank you.

CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY AND THE FOOD
FERMENTATION LABORATORY

WITNESSES

JACK HOBSON, AUNT JANE FOODS, REPRESENTING THE PICKLE

PACKERS INTERNATIONAL
CURTISS CATES, PICKLE PACKERS INTERNATIONAL
TERRY MEREDITH, PICKLE PACKERS INTERNATIONAL
TIM TERSKE, PICKLE PACKERS INTERNATIONAL
RICHARD HENTSCHEL, PICKLE PACKERS INTERNATIONAL

Mr. DURBIN. The Pickle Packers are now up.

Mr. HoBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

committee. ,. . i

Mr. DURBIN. I think I told you folks last year that a plate of pick-
les would go a long way toward bringing us to your side of the
issue, obviously, we haven't gotten through to you. I don't know?

Mr. HoBSON. I will come with bulging pockets next year.

Pickle Packers International thanks the subcommittee for their
invitation to offer testimony in support of USDA, ARS, specifically
the Crop Research Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin and
the Food Fermentation Laboratory at Raleigh, North Carolina.

Interestingly enough, on my flight into Washington yesterday, I
had the pleasure of finding myself seated next to one of your fellow
Congressman, in this case. Congressman Smith, who represents a
district in southern Michigan. We discussed several topics that
were of mutual interest to both of us and talked for quite some
time, almost arriving at Washington before I became aware that he
was a Congressman and before he became aware that I was coming
here to testify before the Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Mr. DURBIN. Did he seem Uke just a normal person?

Mr. HOBSON. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Amazing.

Mr. HOBSON. Amazing. But anyway, immediately he asked me
the pointed question, he said, if the research is so important to
your companies, how come you aren't funding it yourself? And of
course that is the question that we always get.

I answered him with some of the answers that came immediately
to mind, but time there was of its essence, too, and I didn't have
the time to completely answer him.

I would like to say just a couple minutes, off the top of my own
head, to answer why I think it is important that this funding be

continued. • on j«- +

Pickles are produced by small and large producers in 30 ditterent
States and there are pickle-processing plants located in 18 different
States across our country. Most of these processing plants are lo-
cated in small communities, small rural communities, and we have
been talking about that this afternoon already, about the impor-
tance of keeping industry going in rural communities.

I have heard it offered in testimony here that that is important.
Many of these processing plants are the major industry in these
small communities and therefore certainly are a mainstay for the
survivability of those communities. Without the work ot the AKb
laboratories for which we are requesting funding and the problems
which have been faced in the past and the problems yet to be

solved in the future, would be such that they would have been in-
surmountable if the pickle industry had to fund that entirely them-
selves.

The development of new varieties that are disease resistant and
of higher nutritional value, along with being a high-quality prod-
uct, have been a very real salvation to the industry and to the
growers. So what I am trying to get across is the fact that we are
not representing only the industry, but we are representing the
growers, the people in the communities where we process this prod-
uct and the industry, also.

Both of these laboratories work in close cooperation with the in-
dustry, with a lot of communication taking place, as well as addi-
tional funding by the individual companies within the industry
themselves that go into these research laboratories, too.

Many additional research projects are carried out every year be-
cause of funding provided by our individual companies who are
members of this association that I represent, so I believe we are
facing up to our responsibilities as an industry to do our part. How-
ever, we need your continued support of the laboratories mentioned
before if we are to be in a position to face future problems.

The growers, working people and companies who are associated
with the pickle industry are all taxpayers and as such ask that you
consider our request with the deliberate and kind consideration
that you have shown us in the past. And we again thank you for
this opportunity for presenting our request to you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Hobson, one of the things we did last year was
to change the approach that was being used for standards in your
industry, and suggested that from this point forward, this fiscal
year, that if your industry wanted your product graded or stand-
ards to be established, that it be paid for by the industry.

Can you tell me what has happened in the first four or five
months of this fiscal year? Has anything changed from your indus-
try perspective?

Mr. Hobson. If I may, I will refer that to Richard Hentschel who
IS the

Mr. Hentschel. If I understood your question, you are asking in
terms of our pickle standards, if that is what you are referring to
what have we done?

Just prior to last year, we did receive — two years ago, we just re-
ceived a new set of standards from the government, so we have just
essentially been acting on those, and those changes came about
from our input, noting, for example, they used to say you had to
have so much salt in your pickles. Well, that is obviously against
what >ve are — what the consumer would like to see and what we
would like to see in terms of environmental concerns. So we had
those types of things eliminated.

Some of the other changes that occurred in the standards were
those that we asked about. Just because the pickle industry has
evolved and changed, a lot of the materials now is harvested by
machine, processed by machine. It no longer sees — every pickle
sees— an individual doesn't look at every pickle, so it is inappropri-
ate now that every absolute stem, for example, be removed from a
pickle.

It has been perfectly acceptable by the consumer for many years
that way and by food service and institutions, so those are some
of the things that were removed out of there.

Mr. DURBIN. The bottom line is this; after we took this action,
I was wondering what the reaction of your industry might be. It
appears that life goes on. , , , , , , .i

Mr. Hentschel. Well, yes, but we also helped develop the cur-
rent guidelines that we are running by because we felt these were
necessary to bring our industry up to date, up to speed and allow
the technology to be here and exist.

Mr DURBIN. So we think this subcommittee may have saved
about $4.5 million in pickles that are still out there and people are
enjoying them?

Mr. Hentschel. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. Not a problem.

Thanks.

Ms. Kaptur.

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hobson, you own a facility in my district, H.A. Pickles.

Mr Hobson. I am sorry, but I don't own anything. I am a lowly
little field man, but, yes, we have quite a bit of production taking
place in your district.

Ms. Kaptur. That is right.

Mr. Hobson. Down in Ohio. u • n

Ms Kaptur. Could you just give me a sense and very bnetly,
what does the pickle market look like in the United States versus
our foreign competition, particularly in view of NAFTA being

Mr. Hobson. We are waiting for answers to that ourself. I don't
think we have a complete answer on that xTAT:^rrA

Mr Hentschel. Some of the changes that occurred with NAi- lA
kind of balanced out one side. Where we had preferred general
agreements for certain commodities, for example, with Mexico,
those were lost with NAFTA, but on the other hand, within
NAFTA there is a point-of-origin rule that said after X amount
of products coming from your country, still originating from your
country or had to be made from parts originating from your coun-
try, would be brought in duty free. So they lost some of the pre-
ferred trade agreement. But on the other hand, with NAi- lA, it
came out the same, for example, with trade with Mexico

We, every year and for many years, have gotten produce out ot
Mexico, especially during the winter months here in the United
States and that isn't Ukely to change. We have been in Mexico
probably 20, 30 years already getting that product m and out.

Ms. Kaptur. WTio is "we"? , ^ v • 1 1

Mr Hentschel. The pickle industry. To get the fresh pickles-
fresh cucumbers that we use to make into pickles dunng the win-
ter months when they are not available here in the United States.
Other countries that we get commodities from have typically— tney
come in duty free with this general preferred ruling. ,

Ms. Kaptur. Is a larger share of the U.S. market now comprised
of pickles that come from places like Mexico? .

Mr Hentschel. Not at all. Not at all. These make up the size
of pickles or the type of pickles, brine stock that we need to fill out

what we suspect will be our sales projections here in the United
States. So they are just filling in the holes and voids. By far, the
majority come from here in the United States.

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks a lot. We appreciate your testimony.

[The information follows:]

A STATEMKNT OF CONCERN FOR SUSTAINED
AND INCBBASBD RBSBAHCH BY THB
AGRICOLTURAL RBSBARCH SBRVICE/DSDA
AND in particular for thei

Food Fermentation Laboratory, DSDA/ARS ''"^'J^'TlT HlT^Tt7r.

Department of Food Science Department of Horticulture

No^arolina State Onivereity Dniveraity of Wisconein

„ , V K M„.-t-h raroltna Madieon, Wisconain

^e:i^c; "rder?'"D: hU Fleming Research Leader, Dr. Philip Simon

Principal Witnesa: Mr. Jack Hobaon, Aunt Jane Fooda
CroBwell, Michigan
For the Field Research and Research
and Develop«»ant Committees,
Pickle Packers International, Inc.

ON THE OCCASION OF Hearing March 1, 1994, D. S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies.

The Pickled vegetable industry strongly supports and encourages your Committee in its
v»rk of maintaining and guiding the Agricultural Research ««"^-;„//;:, ^^^^^^J^.^e
indulged our group allowing us to show our support each Y"'''/" ~" ^'"^ ^"""^^
years Thank you for allowing us to present this statement of concern.

and with members in 14 nations.

The vegetables we supply to consumers along with other horticultural crop. »'•""«»
-minor" l^er Z total: horticultural crops constitute a large part of our diet and
thiv Ic;ounnor lost of ou; vitamin C and vitamin A intake. Homemakers today are
conectouo of whit constitutes a healthy diet, and make purchaeee accordingly.

„.^ -oSrrth-:t^t-c":s-^:"S -"^-]Hl^~r ^^^
rk "^ri"- ?Sooo-toro'f'^c'k!i-L:^« -— ^£^'-£r^^^ -

ilon:"-Thrp:oce..ing of pickled onions P-^P^"; -^i^ ^ ro^n"rr..rinrplant.
-minor" horticultural crops provides cash income to 9"^°**'" *". J°!" . ^^ „ .^ch. do

Page 2

U.S. FOOD FXRMZNTATION lABORATORy, RALIIOH, N.C.

The U.S. Food Fermentation Laboratory, USDA, ARS, is the only public laboratory in the
country dedicated exclusively to research on the preservation of vegetables by
fermentation or direct acidif ~ation. The research has benefited the farmer, processor
and consumer for many years. The research has been very complementary to the evolution of
our industry by providing the fundamental basis for more efficient and safe methods,
improved product quality and reduced wastes. Pasteurization, aa applied to acidified
vegetables, was introduced into the industry in the 1940 's as a result of their research,
which resulted in a doubling of the industry, since then there has been a steady stream
of research contributions by the laboratory which has resulted in benefits to the taxpayer
that have far exceeded the cost of the research. Their recent research on developing
controlled brining methods for cucumbers, peppers and other produce has resulted in
greatly improved quality and reduced wastes. Their introduction of purging of fermenting
cucumber brines to prevent bloater damage alone has resulted in savings of $20 million
annually. Our current use of calcium compounds has permitted the industry to reduce the
salt concentration for brine storage of cucumbers and peppers by about 50% and still
retain product texture, evolved from their original research. Their current research to
justify industry adoption of completely closed vessels for bulk fermentation and storage
of produce could revolutionize our industry. They are developing special microbial
cultures and biological systems to justify the higher capital investment required for
closed tanks. This research could solve many of our waste disposal problems and result in
greater value enhancement of our brined vegetables.

However, many problems still remain and continuing research, at an enhanced level, is
needed in order for the U. S. fermented and acidified vegetable industry to maintain or
increase its competitiveness in international markets. Both farmers and consumers will
benefit in the long run from a strong agricultural industry. Here is a brief example as
to why our industiry needs fundamental, long range research such as that provided by the
0. S. Food Fermentation Laboratory. Those of us who brine vegetables are obligated to
comply with two regulatory agencies. Environmental regulators are mandating that we
reduce our chloride wastes. On the other hand, the Food and Drug Administration demands
that our products be beyond reproach concerning food safety. When we tried to reduce
sodium chloride concentration for brined cucumbers to more environmentally acceptable
levels, spoilage by Clostridium bacteria resulted in some of the trials, which implicated
the potential for food poisoning. We support the efforts of these regulatory agencies,
but need scientific guidance to develop technology that adequately responds to regulatory
requirements and is economically feasible. Since we have stricter environmental and
health standards and higher labor costs than many countries with which we compete, we must
advance technologically in order to offset the competitive advantages of some of those
with whom we trade. As processors, we can and do obtain fresh and brined produce beyond
D. S. borders when it is economically advantageous to do so. Still, it would be in the
best interest of farmers/processor s/consumers to maintain a strong farm economy here.
*

Problems related to food safety have to do with the possible growth of food pathogens,
such as Listeria, in lightly acidified or non-acidified vegetable products that are stored
under refrigeration. In an attempt to meet changing consumer demands, we recognize the
possibility of Listeria problems in some of these products and again, look to the Food
Fermentation Laboratory for aasistance in solving these problems.

The fermented and acidified vegetable industry is receptive to capital investment in
order to ronain competitive, but only if that investment is economically justified. The
research needed to justify such capital investment involves both short term (6-24 months)

77-387 O— 94-

Page 3

and long term (2-10 years or longer) comnitinents. Our industry aaaumes responsibility for
short term research, but the expense and risk are too great for individual ccmpanieB to
comnit to the longer term research needed to insure future competitiveness. Our industry
currently provides financial support for a vegetable fermentation pilot plant which is
located on the premises of one of our member companies for use by personnel of the O. S.
Food Fermentation Laboratory in their research.

We urge your committee to insure the continuance and strengthening of the cooperative
and highly productive relationships between public and private research, when such
cooperation has clearly been to the benefit of U.S. agriculture and the taxpaying public.
We consider the U.S. Food Fermentation Laboratory to epitomize the advantages that can
result from such cooperation and a reason why the consumer is able to purchase food at the
lowest relative cost of any country in the world.

A full-time scientist in the area of microbial ecology is urgently needed to do research
to assure safety of fermented and acidified vegetables. This need is in part due to the
stricter regulatory guidelines for chloride disposal as mentioned above, and the consumer
demand for more lightly acidified products. To help meet our long term needs, a
bioengineer should be employed. This scientist will be responsible for conceptualizing
the future designs of containers for vegetable fermentations, and for contributing
engineering expertise for new and improved processing methods.

VXOSTABUE CROPS RXSIARCB LABORATOIUr, tOOISON, WISCONSIN

The aSDA, ARS Vegetable Crops Research Unit at the Oniversity of Wisconsin is the only
OSDA research unit dedicated to the genetic improvement of cucumbers, carrots, onions and
garlic. Approximately half of the U.S. public breeding and genetics research on these
crops is accounted for by three scientists in this unit. Past efforts have yielded
cucumber, carrot, onion cultivars and breeding lines that are widely used by the U.S.
vegetable industry. These varieties account for over half of the farm yield produced by
these crops today.

This USDA group performs basic long-term research. They have developed the ■yatan for
producing hybrid vaxlatiaa of cucumber, carrot and onion. Nearly all of the cucumbers,
carrots and onions grown by U.S. farmers today come from the hybrid seed produced by tha
methods they developed.

Oanatlc raalatanca to many major ▼agatabla dlaaaaaa waa dav«lop«d by aolantlata In
thla unit. Perhaps the most important limiting factor in the production of cucumber haa
been its susceptibility to disease.. During the 1970's and 1980's this groups of
researchers developed a seedling screening assay for the detection of resistant varieties
for nine economically important diseases. Before this time identification of disease
resistance was accomplished through field observation. This method was largely
ineffective since infestation was unpredictable and pathogen infection levels could not be
well -documented. The seedling screening method allows for precise and repeatable
identification of resistant plants which can be selected and further bred in the
greenhouse during the winter months, thus dramatically increasing the effectiveness and
efficiency of cucumber breeding programs. The seed industry has adopted these screening
procedures which have now become routine for many companies. This genetic resistance
assures sustainable crop production for growers and reduces pesticide residues in our food
and environment.

Page 4

Recent research by this DSDA research unit has yielded useful products. Both oonsumar

and prooasslng quality of vegetables were improved by this group with a resulting increase
in production efficiency and consumer appeal. Carrots provide approximately 30% of the
O.S. dietary vitamin A. With new carrots that have been developed, nutritional value of
this crop has tripled. They have even developed nutrient-rich cucumbers.

Cucumbers with genetic resistance to cold, heat and salt were developed. Now the crop
can be more efficiently grown over a broader range of climatic conditions and production
locations. DNA markers recently developed by this unit will streamline cucumber breeding
and improve resistance to viruses.

Dsing new biotechnological methods, a system for rapidly and simply identifying aaad
production ability in onion has been developed. This system speeds up the breeding
process by 2 to 6 years I

There are still numerous serious vegetable production problems which need attention.
Loss of cucumbers, onions, and carrots in the field due to attack by pathogens and pests
remains high, especially as pesticide use becomes reduced. Genetic resistance is an
effective, inexpensive method for withstanding pathogen attacks. Nutritional content of
cucumber, carrot and onion could be dramatically increased with selective breeding
Biotechnological tools could be utilized to meet the challenges growers and processors
face in increasing cucumber, carrot and onion production and quality with less chemical
and energy input for O.S. consumers and new global export opportunities.

nmOINO NKKDS ?OR THS TUTORS

In reviewing the current funding situations that exist at the U.S. Food Fermentation
Laboratory and the Vegetable Crops Research Unit, it is critical that funding resources be
increased at both locations to maintain the forward momentum in pickled vegetable
research and genetics the United States now enjoys. We are aware that positions key to
the vital and continued success of vegetable breeding program at the Vegetable Crops
Research Unit and the Food Fermentation Laboratory are in jeopardy with a reduction in
research efforts being the result. We also understand that discretionary funds are now
used to meet the rising fixed costs associated with each location.

The pickled vegetable industry does support research efforts at both locations with
research grants to scientists to allow them to further strengthen their efforts.

Donations of supplies and processing equipment from processors and affiliated
industries has continued for many years. As already mentioned, these two locations have
provided many benefits to the vegetable industry and ultimately to the consumer.

Currant funding at th» 0. s. Pood Permantation Laboratory and the Vagatabla Crop*
Rasaarch Laboratory ia $463,000 and $347,000 ra.pactfuUy, To maintain tha currant
programa, approximataly $200,000 to $250,000 is naadad at aaoh location. With thla,
active poaitione may not be loat.

To meet the future challenges new expertise is needed to compliment existing staff.
The following is based on information and estimates from various public sources. A figure
used by OSDA, ARS to employ one scientist with salary, benefits, operating funds and all
overhead is about $300,000 per year. This is referred to as one Scientist Year, or sy for
short. Only a small portion of this is salary, administrative costs come off the top as
well.

Pago 5

Food Farmantatlon Lalsoratory, Ralalgh, North Carolina

Scientiata Needed Current Status Funda Needed

Food Tachnologlat Active $ 300,000.00

Biochemiat Active 300,000.00

Microbial Genet Iclat Needed 300,000.00

Microbial Ecologlat Seeded 300,000.00

Blo-Englneer Needed 300,000.00

Total Funding Required $1,500,000.00

Current Funding 463 , 000 . 00

ADDITIONAL FUNDINO NXIDXD $1,037,000.00

Vagatabla Crop* Raaaarch Laboratory Unit, Kadlaon, Hlaconaln

Scientific Staff In Place Current Statue Funda Weeded

Geneticist Active $300,000

Horticulturist Active 300,000

Geneticist Active 300,000

Horticultural Blotechnologlst Needed 300,000

Total Required $1,200,000

Current Funding 347, 000

ADDITIONAL FUNDINO NSBDED $853,000

It Is essential that every effort be made to correct this funding short fall in aa
short a time span as possible because of ianiedlate and recurring emergency situations
facing growers and procesaora. Sufficient funding will allow these laboratories to
address the critical problems and to create new proceaslng methods and enhanced gemplasm
that will Increase the competitiveness of our Industry in national and international
markets. Any funding increase for these locations would allow for increased research
efforts. The economic benefits resulting from the proposed funding increases will
continue to greatly exceed the budgetary coata of both locationa while benefiting the
farmer a, proceaaora and consumer a .

Thank you for your consideration of these needs and your expression of support for the
ARS/nSDA.

pctst94.v4

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (NASULGC)

WITNESSES

DR EUGENE G. SANDER, CHAIR OF NASULGC'S FISCAL YEAR 1995

BUDGET COMMITTEE

DR. JOHN C. NYE, ESCOP REPRESENTATIVE

DR. DANIEL D. GODFREY, ECOP REPRESENTATIVE

DR. ALLEN GOECKER, ACOP REPRESENTATIVE

DR MICHAEL F. NOLAN, ICOP REPRESENTATIVE

DR WALTER A. HILL, 1890 RESEARCH DIRECTORS REPRESENTATIVE

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Eugene G. Sander and panel. National Associa-
tion of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

Welcome.

Mr. Sander. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. You heard my addition about overtime and the
budget deficit?

Mr. Sander. We are going to go fast.

Mr. Durbin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sander. I am Eugene Sander, Dean of the College of Agri-
culture at the University of Arizona. I also presently serve as the
Chair of the Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Committee of the Board on
Agriculture, in NASULGC. We appreciate the opportunity to enter
into the hearing record what we have to say about the S&E budget
for USDA.

Thanks in large part to America's public investment in edu-
cation, research and extension, our agriculture is one of this Na-
tion's greatest success stories. The return on that investment and
the resulting benefits to the American consumer have been remark-
able.

In 1990, U.S. consumers saved approximately $196 billion be-
cause they paid 2.3 times less for food and fiber than they might
have if technology had halted at 1950 levels. The U.S. food supply
is the safest and most affordable on the planet.

Mr. DuRBiN. Excuse me.

How did you come up with that figure?

Mr. Sander. The two-and-a-half, that is an economic analysis
that was done at Ohio State University where they looked at — and
couched it in that particular way. Our agriculture now earns for-
eign exchange utilizing only 2 percent of the Nation's resources
while supplying 12 percent of the Nation's exports.

Each $1.00 invested in agricultural extension, research and edu-
cation has returned $10 over the typical 16-year life of that tech-
nology.

The social changes accrued by the American public are no less
important. Cooperative extension nutrition education has assisted
thousands of low-income families to improve their diet and health,
thereby saying millions of dollars in health care. 4-H is the largest
youth-serving nonformal educational program in the Nation, reach-
ing 5.5 million young people across the Nation, rural, small towns,
suburban and urban settings and across all races, ethnicities and
economic status.

American agriculture's protection of our environment and natu-
ral resources is no less important. Agricultural technology has re-
duced by 393 million acres, the prime farmland required to meet

the Nation's needs for food production. Technology, along with im-
proved farming practices, has also reduced soil erosion by a factor
of six over erosion rates of the 1930's.

A, too, often forgotten fact is the extent to which the American
agricultural sector contributes to the Nation's wealth. Some exam-
ples include: Output has doubled since 1950 to over $1 trillion
which represents 16 percent of the national economy.

Secondly, the industry accounts for 11 percent of the total value-
added segment of the U.S. economy.

Third, in 1990, 17 percent of the American workers earned a pay-
check from agricultural and food enterprises. It has been shown
that a relatively small increase in demand for food products has a
significant multiplier effect on overall employment and the overall
health of the U.S. economy.

Eleven percent of all wages, salaries, proprietor income, rents
and profits is contributed by food and agricultural enterprises
which generate three times greater income compared to the
nonfood sector.

Let's look at the bottom line. Several lessons can be learned as
a result of the public role in food and agriculture. First, the sheer
size of the industry means that raising productivity can add much
to the national economy. Second, multipliers indicate that what
happens in a subsector, such as food and agriculture, reverberates
through the economy to produce an impact sometimes several times
as large as the original output, income or employment effect. Third,
the highly diversified and independent structure of the food and ag-
riculture industry means that continued research, education and
extension inputs are needed for enhancing productivity of all the
many subsectors of the American agricultural industry.

Agricultural productivity must continue to grow or real food
prices will soon rise. As an example, it is estimated that approxi-
mately 20 significant technological developments would need to be
developed and adopted in the 1990's simply to maintain productiv-
ity gains at the 1990 rate.

All of this underscores the need for continued investments in
public and private research, extension and education efforts with
the public sector, especially prominent in providing basic and other
"public good" research along with technology transfer and edu-
cation. In this manner, we can ensure continued productivity of one
of the Nation's greatest success stories, and in doing so, protect the
standard of living and social well-being for future generations of
Americans.

Let's look at our fiscal year 1995 budget priorities. These prior-
ities were identified through a process of nationwide consultation
within the land grant community and mirror the national priorities
established by the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
The 12 overarching priorities that define our fiscal year 1995 budg-
et recommendations are: First of all, to strengthen the base pro-
grams for research, extension and higher education. Base funds for
research are appropriated under Hatch, Mclntire-Stennis, he
Evans, Allen, and Animal Health legislation. Extension base funds
are appropriated under Smith-Lever, 3(b) and 3(c), And, D.C. Ex-
tension and 1890 Colleagues and Tuskegee Extension Acts. The
Morrill-Nelson Act provides base funds for higher education.

These funds provide for the essential continuing support of the
infrastructure within which long- and short-term projects and pro-
grams can be conducted efficiently. Specifically, base funds do the
following things:

One, they assure that a stable resource base of personnel and fa-
cilities is in place in every State and territory to anticipate and
deal with short- and long-term societal concerns.

Secondly, they provide for the flexibility needed to respond to
changing needs and priorities.

Third, they provide initial capacity to focus on contemporary pri-
ority issues on the national agenda.

Fourth, they undergird a system for the continuing education of
youth and adults and for the delivery of knowledge and technology
to consumers.

Fifth, they provide networking capabilities to enhance commu-
nications nationwide and within regions.

And lastly, provide highly cost-effective leveraging of significant
State, county and private sector support.

Erosion of base funds over the past two decades has impaired the
ability of the system to meet critical State and national research
and extension needs. Major redirection of these funds to focus on
contemporary issues already has occurred at most land grant uni-
versities.

Many universities have been forced to reduce their faculty and
extension staff at a time when the needs for science-based research
and extension have escalated dramatically. Reversal of this erosion
in base funding is essential to maintain the basic infrastructure for
research and extension.

An increase of 5.2 percent in base funds for research, extension
and education is needed to offset anticipated inflation in fiscal year
1995 and to help rebuild capacity after nearly a 20-percent decline
in real funding levels since 1980.

The second priority is to advance special initiatives in support of
the food, agriculture and environment system. Many public invest-
ments are needed to assure the continuation of a dynamic food, ag-
riculture and environmental system of research, extension and in-
struction which anticipates information needs on a global scale
while maintaining a sound base from which to respond.

Assessing need and changing focus requires special research and
extension initiatives, such as the National Research Initiative and
programs on water quality, youth at risk, food safety and sustain-
able agriculture. Base funding sustains the infrastructure of infor-
mation, expertise and facilities from which new initiatives ema-
nate, but each requires funding to advance a competitive U.S. agri-
culture food and environment system.

These initiatives are undertaken through individually funded
programs which address priorities for fiscal year 1995 as estab-
lished by the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
These five important national priorities emphasize:

One, enhancing human potential; second, sustaining the environ-
ment, agriculture and natural resources; third, addressing social
and economic changes in America; fourth, improving global com-
petitiveness; and fifth, assuring health, good nutrition and safe
food.

Several key initiatives that address these important national pri-
orities are the Institutional Challenge Grant Program for Higher
Education, the National Research Initiative, Youth and Families at
Risk, Food Safety, the 1890 Capacity Building Program and Nutri-
tion Education. Initiatives of this type complement base programs
which undergird the infrastructure of the research, extension and
teaching programs of the land grant system. All of this com-
plements and accentuates the effectiveness of the overall science
and education effort of the USDA.

In conclusion, distinguished citizens representing all phases of
the land grant system have labored diligently to prepare what we
feel is a reasonable yet effective budget for fiscal year 1995. This
budget addresses critical national priorities and provides solutions
to important problems in agricultural production, environmental
and natural resource stewardship, and rural social and economic
welfare.

We do appreciate the opportunity to present this budget and its
rationale and trust that you will consider favorably our sugges-
tions. I respectfully request that you accept for the record our
science and education budget recommendations for fiscal year 1995
which are attached to the statement.

Thank you very much,

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks, and that statement will be included with
yours in the record.

I notice that your recommendation for funding is about $100 mil-
lion over the administration's request and funding recommenda-
tions for research, extension, higher education and international
agriculture. We are going to struggle to try to come up with as
many dollars as we can because we share your views about the im-
portance of this research. It is getting increasingly difficult as we
try to bring this deficit down, and I hope you will understand that.
I hope we don't end up sundering opportunities here in an effort
to slavishly bring this deficit down, but we are now on a regimen,
at least for five years, which is fgiirly specific and very difficult. We
will do our best.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr, Skeen. No questions.

You made your presentation with great authority and you rep-
resent a great group of colleges and we appreciate you being here.

Mr. Sander. Thank you, sir.

Mr, DURBIN. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you, gentlemen.

[The information follows:!

NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Und-Grant Colleges

February 28, 1994

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin

Chairman

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
2362 Raybum House Office Building
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

?Q"o^r? ^' i^^^' ^'- ^"^'"' ^- ^^^''' ^^^^^ of NASULGC's Board on Agriculture's
1995 Budget Committee is scheduled to testify before your Subcommittee in relation to the
Fiscal Year 1995 appropnations for agriculture. As requested, twenty-five (25) copies of his
statement are enclosed.

Dr. Sander wUl present the oral testimony, but members of NASULGC's Board on Aericul
ture Fiscal Year 1995 Budget Committee have prepared written statement for the record in
relauon to Fiscal Year 1994 appropriations for agriculture. The appropriate number of copies
of each statement are enclosed, and the statements included in this transmission are from:

Dr. Eugene G. Sander, Chair of NASULGC's FY 1995 Budget Committee

Dr. John C. Nye, ESCOP Representative

Dr. Daniel D. Godfrey, ECOP Representative

Dr. Allan D. Goecker, ACOP Representative

Dr. Michael F. Nolan, ICOP Representative

Dr. Walter A. HiU, 1890 Research Directors Representative

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 778-0828 whenever NASULGC can be of anv
a.s.<:i.<:tan«^ •'

assistance.

Sincerely,

^UcJ^.

Eddie G. Gouge

Assistant Director

Federal Relations - Foo/ Natural Resources,

and Environmental Affairs-^

Enclosures

One Dupont Circle. NW suite 710 • Washington. DC 20036- 1.91 • (202)778-08.8 • Fax (202) 296-6456

NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMirTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRLVTIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

BOARD ON AGRICULTURE

OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCL\TION OF STATE UNTVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

DR. EUGENE G. SANDER

CHAIR, FISCAL YEAR 1995 COMMITTEE, NASULGC BOARD ON AGRICULTURE

AND

DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

MARCH 1, 1994

One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20036- 1 191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chauman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Eugene G. Sander, Dean of the College of
Agriculture, University of Arizona. I am presently serving as chair of the FY 1995 Budget Committee of the
Board on Agriculture, NASULGC. The opportunity to include my full statement in the hearing record is very
much appreciated.

Thanks in large part to America's public investment in education, research, and extension, our agriculture is
one of this nation's greatest success stories. The return on that investment and the resulting benefits to the
American consumer have been remarkable.

In 1990, U.S. consumers saved approximately $1% billion, because they paid 2.3 times less for food and fiber
than they might have if technology had halted at 1950 levels. The U.S. food supply is the safest and most
affordable on the planet

Our agriculture now earns foreign exchange utilizing only 2 percent of the nation's resources while supplying
12 percent of the nation's exports.

Each $1 invested in agricultural extension, research, and education returned $10 over the typical 16-year life of
that technology.

The social changes accrued by the American public are no less important. Cooperative Extension nutrition
education has assisted thousands of low income families to improve their diet and health, thereby saving
millions of dollars in health care.

4-H is the largest youth-serving nonformal educational program in the nation reaching 5.5 million young
people across the nation-rural, small town, suburban, and urban settings-and across all races, ethnicities and
economic status.

American agriculture's protection of our environment and natural resources is no less important Agricultural
technology has reduced by 393 million acres the prime farmland required to meet the nation's needs for food
production.

Technology, along with improved farming practices, has also reduced soil erosion by a factor of six over
erosion rates of the 1930s.

And, a too-often forgotten fact is the extent to which the American agriculture sector contributes to the
nation's wealth:

Output has doubled since 1950 to over one trillion dollars, which represents 16 percent of the
national economy.

The industry accounts for 1 1 percent of the total value added segment of the U.S. economy.

In 1990, 17 percent of American workers earned a paycheck from agricultural and food
enterprises. It has been shown that a relatively small increase in demand for food products has
a significant multiplier effect on overall employment and the overall health of the U.S.
economy.

Eleven percent of all wages, salaries, prof)rietor income, rents, and profit is contributed by
food and agricultural enterprises which generate three times greater income compared to the
non-food sector.

THE BOTTOM LI^fE

Several lessons can be learned as a result of the public role in food and agriculture. First, the sheer size of the
industry means that raising productivity can add much to the national economy. Second, multipliers indicate
that what happens in a subsector such as food and agriculture reverberates through the economy to produce
impact sometimes several times as large as the original output income, or employment effect Third, the
highly diversified and interdependent structure of the food and agriculture industry means that continued
research, education, and extension inputs are needed for enhancing productivity of all the many subsectors of
the American agriculture industry.

Agricultural productivity must continue to grow, or real food prices will soon rise. As an example, it is
estimated that approximately twenty significant technological developments would need to be developed and
adopted in the 1990s simply to maintain productivity gains at the 1990 rate. All of this underscores the need
for continued investments in public and private research, extension, and education efforts with the public
sector, especially prominent in providing basic and other "public good" research along with technology transfer
and education. In this maimer we can ensure continued productivity of one of the nation's greatest success
stories, and in so doing protect the standard of living and social well-being of future generations of Americans.

FY 95 BUDGET PRIORITIES

This is the rationale behind the FY 1995 NASULGC budget priorities for agricultural research, extension, and
higher education. These priorities were identified through a process of nationwide consultation within the
land-grant community and mirror the national priorities established by the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences.

The two over-arching priorities that define our FY 1995 budget recommendations are:

1. Strengthen Base Programs for Research, Extension, and Higher Education

Base funds for research are appropriated under Hatch, Mclntire-Stennis, Evans Allen, and Animal Health
legislation; extension base ftinds are appropriated under Smith-Lever 3b and 3c, D.C. Extension and 1890
Colleges and Tuskegee Extension Acts. The Morrill-Nelson Act provides base funds for higher education.

These funds provide for the essential continuing support of the infrastructure within which long- and short-
term projects and programs can be conducted efficiently. Specifically, base funds:

Assure that a stable resource base of personnel and facilities is in place in every state and
territory to anticipate and deal with short- and long-term societal concerns.

Provide for the flexibility needed to respond to changing needs and priorities.

Provide initial capacity to focus on contemporary priority issues on the national agenda.

Undergird a system for the continuing education of youth and adults and for the delivery of
knowledge and technology to consumers.

Provide networking capabilities to enhance communications nationwide and within regions.

Provide highly cost-effective leveraging of significant state, county, and private sector support.

Erosion of base funds over the past two decades has impaired the ability of the system to meet critical state
and national research and extension needs. Major redirection of these funds to focus on contemporary issues
already has occurred at most land-grant universities. Many universities have been forced to reduce their
faculty and extension staff at a time when the needs for science-based research and extension have escalated
dramatically. Reversal of this erosion in base funding is essential to maintain the basic infrastructure for
research and extension.

An increase of 4.5 percent in base funds for research, extension, and education is needed to offset anticipated
inflation in Fiscal Year 1995 and to help rebuild capacity after nearly a 20 percent decUne in real funding
levels since 1980.

2. Advance Special Initiatives in Support uf the Food, Agriculture, and Environmental System

Major public investments are needed to assure the continuation of a dynamic food, agriculture, and
environmental system of research, extension, and instruction which anticipates information needs on a global
scale while maintaining a sound base from which to respond.

Assessing need and changing focus requires special research aixl extension initiatives such as the National
Research Initiative and programs on water quality, youth at risk, food safety, and sustainable agriculture. Base
funding sustains the infrastructure of information, expertise, and facilities from which new initiatives emanate,
but each requires funding to advance a competitive U.S. agriculture, food, and envirormiental system.

These initiatives are undertaken through individually funded programs which address priorities for FY 1995 as
established by the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. These five important national priorities
emphasize:

• Enhancing human potential

• Sustaining the environment, agriculture, and natural resources

• Addressing social and economic changes in America

• Improving global competitiveness

• Assuring health, good nutrition, and safe food

Several key new initiatives that address these important national priorities are the Institutional Challenge Grant
Program for Higher Education, the National Research Initiative, Youth and Families at Risk, Food Safety, the
1890 Capacity Building Program, and Nutrition Education. Initiatives of this type complement base programs
which undergird the infrastructure of the research, extension, and teaching programs of the land-grant system.
And this complements and accentuates the effectiveness of the overall science and education effort of the
USDA.

CONCLUSION

Distinguished citizens representing all phases of the land-grant system have labored diligently to prepare what
we feel is a reasonable yet effective budget for FY 1995. This budget addresses critical national priorities and
provides solutions to important problems in agricultural production, environmental and natural resource
stewardship, and rural social and economic welfare.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to present this budget and its rationale and trust that you will
consider favorably our suggestions. I respectfully request that you accept for the record our Science and
Education budget recommendations for FY 1995 which are attached to my statement.

I hope that you will agree to this request

Thank you.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR RESEARCH. EXTENSION, HIGHER EDUCATION

AND INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE

(In Thousands of Dollars)

FY94
APPROPS

FY96

PRES

REQUEST

FY96

NASULGC

RECOMMENDATION

BASE PROGRAMS

Research
Extension
Higher Education
TOTAL

225,821

298,054

2,850

626,726

225,821

298,054

2,850

626,725

239,238

312,320

2,850

664,408

SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Research

NRI

Special Grants

Special Problem Grants

Other Research Grants

International Research

TOTAL

112,150

22,566

50,351

14,193

199,260

130,000

29,718

15,118

174,836

144,000

47,418

17,600

250

209,268

Extension

National Priorities
Specified Programs
TOTAL

26,172
100,314
126,486

29,172

99,919

129,091

44,172
111,083
166,605

Higher Education

National Needs Grants
TOTAL

16,550
16,660

16,550
16,560

25,500
26,600

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION

Net Research
Net Extension
TOTAL NET

12,105
10,042
22,147

1,341
5,296
6,637

SUMMARY

Total Research
Total Extension
Total Higher Education
GRAND TOTAL

437,186

434,582

19,400

891,168

401,998

432,441

19,400

863,839

449,847

473,121

28,350

961,318

BASE PROGRAMS

Hatch Act ( )'
Mclntire-Stennis ( )
Evans-Allen (1890) ( )
Animal Health ( )
TOTAL BASE PROGRAMS
RESEARCH

TABLE 2

RESEARCH FUNDS

(In Thousands of Dollars)

FY95

FT94

PRKS

NASULGC

APPROPS

REQUEST

RECOMMENDATION

171,304

179,013

20,809

25,000

28,157

29,424

5,551

5,801

225,821

226,821

239,238

RESEARCH GRANTS-PL 89-106

Competitive Grants (sec. 2b)(NRI) ( )

Plant Systems ( )

Animal Systems ( )

Nutrition, Food Quality and Health ( )

Natural Resources and Environment ( )

Engineering Processes and Value-Added (

Rural Development, Markets and Trade (

Global Change ( )

Water Quality ( )

Integrated Pest Management ( )

Pesticide Impact Assessment ( )

SUBTOTAL COMPETITIVE GRANTS

40,000

25,000

8,000

18,000

7,500

4,000

1,250

4,500

2,500

1,400

112,160

47,000

29,500

11,000

27,000

9,000

6,500

130.000

49,000

31,000

14,000

30,000

11,000

9,000

144,000

Special Research Grants (sec. 2c) ( )
National Programs

Food Safety/Animal Health and Weil-Being ( )

Energy Biomass/Biofuels ( ) 500
Pest Control Strategies

Integrated Pest Management ( ) 3,228

Pesticide Clearance ( ) 6,750

Pesticide Impact Assessment ( ) 1,568

Minor Use Animal Drugs ( ) 650

Biological Impact Assessment ( ) 300

Rural Development Centers ( ) 500

Tropical and Subtropical Ag. ( ) 3,320

Water Quality ( ) 4,500

Global Change ( ) 1,250

Strengthening the Rural Workforce ( )
Rural Economic and Social Development

1890 ( )

Rapid Response Research ( )
SUBTOTAL NATIONAL

SPECLVL GRANTS 22.666
SUBTOTAL REGIONAL/STATE

SPECIAL GRANTS 60.361

TOTAL SPECIAL GRANTS 72.917
GRAND TOTAL RESEARCH GRANTS 186,067

7,000

10,800

2,968

650

300

500

4,600

3,000

29,718

29,718
169,718

5,000
750

7,000

10,800

2,968

650

300

950

9,000

3,000

1,000

3,000
3,000

47,418

191,418

1 - Page Dumben for progrun dsKriptions ue indicmted between the perentheaes.

TABLE 2

RESEARCH FUNDS (continued)

(In Thousands of Dollars)

OTHER RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Rangeland ( )'

Aquaculture Centers ( )

Supplemental and Alternative Crops ( )

Sustainable Agriculture ( )

1890 Institution Centers of Excellence ( )

Critical Materials ( )

TOTAL OTHER

RESEARCH PROGRAMS

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION

Direct ( )

1890 Capacity Building Grants ( )

NET FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION (

GRAND TOTAL RESEARCH 437,186 401,998

FY94
•PROPS

FY95

PRES

REQUEST

FY95

NASULGC

RECOMMENDATION

475

4,000

1,818

7,400

500

475
4,000

1,818

8,825

600

4,000

2,000

10,000

1,000

14,193

16,118

17,600
250

22,655

(10,550)

12,105

11,891

(10,550)

1,341

14,341

(13,000)

1,341

449.847

. • P^e numbers for prognm descrjptions we indicated between the parentheses.

BASE PROGRAMS

Smith-Lever 3b & 3c ( )'

D.C. Extension ( f

1890 Colleges and Tuskegee ( )

TOTAL BASE PROGRAMS

EXTENSION

TABLES

EXTENSION FUNDS
(In Thousands of Dollars)

FY94
APPROPS

FY95

PRES

REQUEST

FT96

NASULGC

RECOMMENDATION

272,582

25,472

271,557

1,025

25,472

283,777

1,071

27,472

298,064

298,0S4

312,320

NATIONAL EXTENSION PRIORITIES

Water Quality ( )

Food Safety and Quality ( )

Sustainable Ag. Systems ( )

Youth and Families at Risk ( )

Commercial Ag-ZHig^ Tech ( )

Sustainable Natural Resources Management (

1890 Special Targeted Programs ( )
Sustainable Agriculture/Small-Scale Farmers (
Plight of Limited Resource Families ( )

International Extension ( )

11,234

1,975

2,975

2,963

4,963

10,000

)

( )

11,234
2,975
4,963

11,000
2,000
6,000

4,000

2,000

250

TOTAL NATIONAL EXTENSION
PRIORITIES

26,172

29,172

44,442

SPECIFIED PROGRAMS

EFNEP( ) 61,431 61,431

Rural Development Centers ( ) 950 950

Integrated Pest Management ( ) 8,459 10,459

Pesticide Impact Assessment ( ) 3,363 3,363

Pesticide Applicator Training ( ) 2,000

Urban Gardening ( ) (3557)'

Rural Health and Farm Safety ( ) 2,988 988

Reservation Extension Agents ( ) 1,750 1,750

1890 Extension and Research Facilities ( ) 7,901 7,901

Renewable lUsources Extension Act ( ) 3,341 3,341

Pacific Rim Program ( ) 647"

Crop Simulation ( ) 498'

Agriculture Telecommunications ( ) 1,221 1,221

Rural Health and Safety Education ( ) 2,000 2,250

Nutrition Education Initiative ( ) 4,265 4,265

Rural Technology Grants ( ) 1,500

TOTAL SPECIFIED PROGRAMS 100,314 99,919

64,195

950

10,459

3,363

2,000

3,500

3,000

7,901

6,000

650

550

2,000

2,250

4,265

111,083

1 - Page nuznbers for program descriptions are indicated between the parentheses.

2 • Inchided in Smith-Lever 3b&3c

TABLES

EXTENSION FUNDS (continued)

(In Thousands of Dollars)

FY95

FY94

PRES

NASULGC

APPROPS

REQUEST

RECOMMENDATION

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION

Direct ( )'

11,187

5,296

6,496

Pacific Rim Program ( )

(647)

(650)

Crop Simulation ( )

(498)

(550)

NET FEDERAL

ADMINISTRATION

10,042

6,296

GRAND TOTAL EXTENSION

434,682

432,441

473,121

1 • Page numbers for program descriptions are indicated between the parentheses.

TABLE 4

HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDS

(In Thousands of Dollars)

BASE PROGRAM

Morrill-Nelson ( )'

TOTAL BASE PROGRAM
HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL NEEDS COMPETITIVE GRANTS

Graduate Training Fellowships ( )
Minority Scholars Program ( )
Institution Challenge Grants ( )
1890 Capacity Building Grants ( )
TOTAL NEEDS GRANTS

FY94
ROPS

FY95

PRES

REQUEST

FY96

NASULGC

RECOMMENDATION

2,850

2,860

2^0

3,500

1,000

1,500

10,550

16,660

3,500

1,000

1,500

10,550

16,660

4,000

3,500

5,000

13,000

25,500

GRAND TOTAL
HIGHER EDUCATION

19,400

28,360

1 • Page numbers for program descriptions are indicated between the parentheses.

Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy

©Experiment Station Section
The Division ot Agriculture
National Association o( State University and Land-Grant Colleges
pccop

n r .., ^°' '•?'>• please address

Roger E. Wyse ^. .„ri„„,.,„, r:.™.„„. c...:..

TESTIMONY
PRESENTED TO THE

Wl Agricultural Experiment Station System
1450 Linden Drive, Room 140
Madison. Wisconsin 53706
TEL (608) 262-4930
FAX (608) 265-3739
rDger.wyse@mail.admin.wisc.edu

SUBCOMMTTTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRUTIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

EXPERIMENT STATION COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION AND POLICY (ESCOP)

OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UMVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

DR. JOHN C. NYE

DIRECTOR, DELAWARE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

AND

DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK

March 1, 1994

Written Testimony of

The Bxperimant Station Committee on Orffanisation and Policy

National Association of State iTniversities and I>and-Qrant Colleffes

Submitted by

John c. Nye

Director, Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station and

Dean, College of Agricultural Sciences

University of Delaware, Newark

The Experiment Station Conmittee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP) thanks
you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the FY 95
Budget Committee of the Board on Agriculture, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) . The 106-year Federal -State
partnership in support of agricultural research has produced the most
productive and efficient food and fiber production system in the world.
This system produces 16% of the U.S. economic output and employs 17% of the
workforce. It is the oldest and largest industry in this country. Much of
the success of this industry and the abundance of safe and nutritious food
is the result of research conducted by State Agricultural Experiment
Stations .

The budget request from the State Agricultural Experiment Stations supports
research programs that address the five societal concerns of the Joint
Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences. These concerns we identified by
people who have a stake in the future of agriculture--f rom consumers to
agribusiness --when they were asked what they felt were the most important
agricultural issues faced by society today. This priority setting process
includes input and recommendations by the Users Advisory Board and the
ESCOP strategic planning process. These concerns are:

1. Sustaining the environment, agriculture, and natural resources

2. Enhancing human potential

3. Addressing changes in America

4. Improving global competitiveness

5. Assuring health, good nutrition and safe food

The State Agricultural Experiment Station System provides an infrastructure
of facilities, laboratories, equipment, farms, and scientists to conduct
research critical to the continued success of the food and agricultural
industries. Federal formula funds from the Hatch Act, Mclntire-Stennis,
Evans-Allen and Animal Health lines are matched by state funds to create
this effective research system. The erosion of these funds in recent years
has severely threatened our ability to provide research results. We are
very concerned that the President's FY 95 budget request would further
degrade the capabilities of the State Agricultural Experiment Station
System. We are recpaesting a 4.5% increase in Hatch, Evans-Allen and Animal
Health and an increase in Mclntire-Stennis to $25,000,000.

We are pleased that the President's budget request includes an increase in
the "National Research Initiative" competitive grants program from
$112,150,000 to $130,000,000. This program was developed and justified as

-2-

a $500 million initiative for conpetitive research in six critical
areas :plant systems; animal systems; nutrition, food quality and health;
natural resources and environment; engineering and value-added; and rural
development, markets and trade. These six areas support the five societal
concerns identified by the Joint Council. We rec[uest a $144 million
appropriation for NRI in FY 95.

Research directed at sustaining the environment, agriculture, and natural
resources has provided recommendation that optimize production while
minimizing nutrient and chemical inputs. This research demonstrates how
to maintain high levels of productivity, reduce soil erosion and prevent
water pollution. Many of these projects were part of the "Water Quality"
research which was appropriated $8,950,000 in FY 93. The FY 94
appropriation split this funding, $4.5 million in this special grant
category and $4.5 million to the NRI. We request a combined $9 million
appropriation iinder this special national grants category for this critical
environmental issue. "Sustainable Agriculture" research has provided
important research on environmentally sound, profitable and socially
acceptable agricultural practices. The President's request includes a
small increase over FY 94 appropriations but falls short of the $10 million
needed for this program. The "Water Quality" and "Sustainable Agriculture"
programs also demonstrate the collaboration between research and extension
programs at the Land-Grant Universities. The National Acadeity of Science
recently released its report on rangeland health which pointed out many
of the unanswered questions regarding rangeland. We request $600,000 for
"Rangeland" research to continue studies focused on this important topic.

While many of our research program indirectly enhance human potential
through graduate training and professional development, we also request $1
million to develop "1890 Institutions Centers of Excellence." The higher
education initiatives in the CSRS (Cooperative States Research Service)
budget support important initiatives in our Land-Grant Universities which
directly enhance human potential..

It is critical that we understand the changes in America that have resulted
from the increased productivity and efficiency of many agricultural
enterprises. The "Rural Development Centers" represent a collaborative
efforts of research and extension to stimulate rural economies and we
request $950,000 for the research portion of that program. Two new
initiatives, $1 million for "Strengthening the Rural Workforce" research
and $3 million for the 1890 Land-Grant Colleges to address "Rural Economic
and Social Development" issues, would provide greater understanding of the
problems facing rural areas.

U. S. Agriculture is the most productive and efficient in the world because
of the research conducted at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Global competitiveness would be improved by funding alternate and biomass
crops research. We request that "Energy Biomass and Biofuels" be funded
at $750,000. We also request $2 million for "Supplemental and Alternative
Crops" research. These funds will allow scientists to continue to find and
develop alternate crops and renewable energy resources.

-3-

U. S. consumers spend less of their disposable income on food than in any
other country. The abundance of nutritious food is evident in every
grocery store and super market in this country. To continue to assure
health, good nutrition and safe food a $5 million line for "Food Safety,
Animal Health and Well-being" is requested. This funding would address the
critical relationships between animal health and the food safety issues
related to animal products.

Each year some crisis arises that threatens the food and fiber systems of
this country. To provide "Rapid Response to Critical Issues" a $3 million
line is requested. This initiative would allow us to respond to issues,
such as the sweet potato whitefly outbreak, on a contract basis. This
mechanism would allow federal funds to be directed at these critical issues
quickly in response to strategic threats to agriculture.

Publicly funded agricultural research is an investment in the future of our
country. A safe, affordable, and reliable food supply is demanded by the
public. Agriculture is expected to maintain, preserve and enhance the
environment . This budget request for agricultural research responsibly
addresses the critical needs of this essential sector of the economy, while
keeping in mind the fiscal constraints on the federal budget . Agriculture
creates wealth in this country and research is essential for its continued
success .

I urge the members of this Subcommittee and the Congress to adopt these
recommendations for funding agricultural research as proposed by the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

ECOP

Extension Committee on
Organization and Policy

National Association of State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges

One Dupont Circle HW. Suite 710
Washington. DC 20036-1191
Telephone: 202/778.0818
FAX: 202/296.6456

TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION AND POLICY (ECOP)

OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCLVTION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

DR. DANIEL D. GODFREY

INTERIM DEAN AND ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE EXTENSICN PROGRAMS

AT
NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY

Mardi 1, 1994

TESTIMONY

DANIEL D. GODFREY

for the

National Assodadon of State Umvenities and Land-Grant Collegei
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy, 1994

Mr. Chairman, I am Daniel D. Godfrey, Interim Dean and Administrator of the Cooperative
Extension Program at N.C A&T State University. In my testimony today, I represent all State
Directors and 1890 Administratora of Cooperative Extension in the United States as the chair of
their 1995 Budget, my testimony will highlight the areas most in need of attention by Congress in
FYVS.

The highest priority for the Coo perative Extens ion System in 1994 is incre asing base supp ort
Other major priorities are (a) expanded funding for national initiatives and (b) providing support
for certain specified programs.

I. KEEP BASE SUPPORT STRONG

The Cooperative Extension System is built on financial support from federal, state, and local
partners. Over the past ten-year period, 1982-1991, federal support increased only an average of
3.1% per year and declined in its overall share of contributions. Funding from the three partners
has faLed to keep pace with inflation and the need to address issues of national importance. As a
result, the majority of state Extension Services are undergoing varying degrees of retrenchment The
integrated system of support which undergirds a network of Extension educators reaching into every
county in the Unites States has eroded. A recent study reported in a trade publication indicates
nearly two thousand positions were lost in 28 states since 1982. Unless the pattern of funding
changes very shortly, the network will be irreparably harmed. This position for a stronger base
support continues to be just as important in FY^S. We hope the Committee will share this position.

Smith-Lever 3 fbVc^ : We recommend a very modest 4.5 percent increase in Smith-Lever base
flmds. Matching funds from state and local sources are required for these funds. These core funds
maintain the scientific and the community-based network which is critical to the implementation of
all national initiatives and base programs. Those whose major interest is in new initiatives of water
quality, youth at risk, and food safety must understand that those initiatives build upon an existing
network of community-based Extension personnel. Without that network, the initiatives cannot
succeed. Those whose major interest is agricultural production must understand that is it Smith-
Lever (b) and (c) funds which support Extension Specialists in Colleges of Agriculture. No increase
in base funds will mean further reduction in these positions. Mr. Chairman, the FY'94
appropriations for Smith-Lever funds also include base funding for those educational efforts as
planned and implemented by the University of the District of Columbia Extension programs as
legislatively prescribed. We are asking that this line item also receive the same percentage increase
as Smith-Lever, 3(b) and (c).

1890 Colleges and Tuskegee University. These institutions have continued to maintain base
programs geared to the needs of culturally diverse audiences especially those limited in selected
economic as well as social resources. Funds provided for these institutions have helped them
prioritize highly essential educational initiatives focused on families; community leadership; small-

Kale farmen; and youth, etpedalljr pregnant teen'i progranu. Such programs are designed to
address new pathways for what has become a lai;ge audience of people at risk and generally out of
the mainstream of society's offerings.

TUs base funding request is a 4i percent inaease over the FY'94 appropriations.

IL SUPPORT EXTENSION NATIONAL PRIORiriES

The high priority Extension initiatives that were started in recent years with the support of
Congress are stiU very important and still continiie to receive emphasis. We wish to continue and
expand development of these initiatives: Water Quality and Management, Youth and Families at
Risk and Food Safety and Quality. In addition, we are particularly interested in obtaining funding
to implement sustainable agriculture, and two new initiatives; Commercial Agriculture-High Tech
and Sustaining Forest/Natural Resource Management.

Water Quality and Management : Congress has continued to appropriate fimds each year in
support of this successful coordinated multi-agency effort to improve water quality and management
Funds provided to Extension are targeted primarily to educational efforts in 74 faydrologic zones and
16 demonstration sites. We recommend that the $11,375 million executive request be maintained
at the FY'94 level.

Youth and Families at Risk : Land-Grant universities have developed the finest system of
non-formal education for young people. We reach 5.4 million youth through 4-H and other
educational efforts. The Cooperative Extension System has recognized the serious problems
confronting families and children and with Congressional help has intensified our efforts to reach
youth confronting such risk factors as poverty, high incidence of drug use, teen pregnancy, and
inadequate housing.

^th SIO million. Cooperative Extension Service has served more than 70 communities with
expanded educational programs. An independent evaluation completed in February 1993 affirmed
the effectiveness of innovative approaches being used. We recommended a one million dollar
program expansion to $11 million for FY'95.

Food Safety and Quality : Media attention has made food safety an item of great concern
to consumers, processors, food handlers, and producers. This initiative has enabled Extension to
expand education programs for critical audiences in order to protect the safety of food from
production to consumption.

Additional funding is requested to build upon the pUot efforts currently in place under the
$1.5 million 1993 appropriation. In order to address these issues on a national scale, rather than
through a handful of demonstration projects, the increase to $2,975, a one million dollar inaease
for FY'95 is reconunended which is the same as the president's request

Sustainable Apiculture : The 1990 Farm Bill requires that all agricultural agents of the
Cooperative Extension Service complete a national sustainable agriculture training program by 1995;
all new Extension Agents are required to complete the training within 18 months of employment
In addition to Extension Agents, training will be provided to appropriate field ofBce personnel &om
th^ Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),
and other professionals.

Ab specified in this legislation, the Cooperative Extension System is to assist in developing
and focOitating the adoption of sustainable agriculture, whole fsnn integrated management systems,
and natural resource management strategies. Those programs are to be coordinated where
applicable with the Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture (Section 1621), Integrated Management
S^tems (Section 1627), Integrated Pest Management (Section 1650), Water Quality and Nutrient
Management Research (Section 1484), and other appropriate research programs, llie request is a
$2 million inaease over FVH the same as the executive budget proposal FY'95.

1890 Specialized Targeted InltJattrec. In addition to the need to maintain base programs as
supported by a diverse competent staff, critical needs focused on the limited resource audience are
apparent aaoss the nation. The 1890 institutions and Tuskegee Universi^ have identified two
spedal initiative programs that need special attention:

Sustainable Ap-ieulture/Small-Scale Farmers . Most small farmers are producing only one or two
major commodities, without choosing among sufficient and profitable alternatives. According to the
1982 Census of Agriculture, approximately 12 percent of all small farmers have a gross income of
less than $20,000 per year. Most farmen fail to take the time to analyze the potential profitability
that can come in low/reduced input agricultural concepts. This farm system concept promotes
efficiently managed farm ^tems and the ability to reduce risk and emphasizes the importance of
selecting alternative agricultural enterprises which can aeate cash flow throughout most of the year.
Concepts in low/reduced input agriculture are issues that merit serious consideration by the majority
of American farmers. However, the consequences of not dealing realistically with those issues may
result in further depression in agriculture profitability in general The request is for $4 million.

Plight of Limited Resource Families. The poverty rate for families with young children is from 16
percent to 50 percent depending on the family. In 1990, 12.7 million children lived in poverty. It
is estimated that at least one in five children today live in poverty. Research indicates that infants,
toddlers, preschoolers, and limited resource families are at risk for poverty, infant mortality,
premature birth and/or low birth weight; poor health, diet, and nutrition; educational
underachievement; developmental delays; social deviance; and child abuse and neglect. The 1890
land-grant universities with years of experience in working with limited resource families are in an
excellent position to provide well-designed educational programs to address the issues related to
these families with young children. Tlie request is for $2 million.

These two new program requests under National Extension Priorities are very important as well:

Commercial Ajm'ailture/Hiyh Technolopv . The benefits to be derived from newer forms of high
technologies are yet to be fully realized, thus these technologies hove yet to be incorporated into the
nation's food and fiber production system. Even large commercial farms, which have been so long
on the forefront of adopting some of these new technologies are currently lagging behind other
sectors of our economy because of under-utilization of more recent scientific advances. With the
arrival of increased potential for cost-effective inclusion of these technologies even into medium as
well as small-scale agriculture in the form of personal computers which can facQitate recordkeeping,
backyard satellite dishes serving both our domestic, as well as market information niche, there now
exists an opportunity to remove these barriers. Extension educational programs are gearing up to
address this problem and fill this void. However, additional resources are needed to enhance the
quality of these educational programs. The request is for 52 million.

Sustaining Forest/Natural Resources Manayement . Forestry extension can improve the selection of
forest management options favoring both sustainabOity and productivity. The 1990 National

Reseircfa Council Report (Foreit Research: Mandate for Change) implored that additional effort
be directed towards communication and outreach to realize the fiill benefits of forestry research.
The proposed program focused on three issue areas: (1) enhancing productivity and integrated
forest steward^p, (2) forest products processing, and (3) natural Tcsourcei policies. The first of
these emphasizes new approaches to commodity and non-oommodity forest resource values and
environmental stewardship. The second addresses new products, new technologies and the
developmeat of expanded markets. The third recognizes the need for policies at all levels of
government that provide for propertj' rights, environmental quality and the stability of resource
dependent communities. The program charts a ten-year program to implement a significant increase
in staffing and capacity at state and regional levels, plus coordination, leadership, and materials
support

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chainnan, let me assure you and the Committee that the Cooperative Extension System has
faced up to the challenge of keeping the American Agriculture, Food and Environmental System
serving the public interest This System has continued to work to improve our competitive advantage
and has added, substantially, to the creation of wealth and added value to the economy when
compared to other sectors in our nation. In fact, Mr. Chairman, agriculture is America's largest
industry, as you know, with inputs exceeding one trillion dollars. It represent 15% of our economy.
Our farm output in 1990 was double that of 1950. FSnalfy, Mr. Chairman, the food and agriculture
industry accounts for over 23 million full-time jobs. Thus, tiiese Extension System programs which
are geared to address the needs of families, communities, both small as well as larger commerdal
fisrms will increase demand thus adding to the multiplier effect for employment, a better quality of
life for aU. We seek Congressional support to keep our base programs strong and to continue the
investment in Just a few new initiatives.

Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy

Academic Programs Section

Tt^e Board on Agriculture

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

1993-94 Officers

UICHAB.J.BUWE

Oak

CoOsge of XflrfcuAmf Sdancss

137 Strand A^iaMjn HaM

Oregon sate Ul*ianity

CcmBs. OR 97331-2202

(503)737-2211

x>HNu wnrrE

Vice Chair

loeo Umn Reaves HaJI
VPI * Stale Uvlventy
Oxkstiurg. VA 24C61-0SU
(703) 231-S503

LKNeWCOUB

Secretary

Roan 100. 2120 Fy/He Road

CoBeQe ol Agriculture

OAo SB» UntwrsAy

Coluntius.OH 43210

(S14) 292-S4S0

MUeS H UORTENSEN

PastChair

101 Af Aitnimaraion BUg

Pervi Stale Univefsity

Urivenlty ParK PA IS802

(814/ S6S-752I

XSEPHE KUNSUAN. M

Oireaor ol AcaOemk Prograrra

Suite 710. One Our""! Cade NW

NASULOC

Washtigton. DC 20O3f-ii9i

(202)778-0831

TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMTTTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT^ FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMTITEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMTmE ON ORGANIZATION AND POLICY (ACOP)

OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCUTION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

DR. ALLAN D. GOECKER

ASSISTANT DEAN AND ASSOCUTE DIRECTOR. ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

March 1, 1994

TESTIMO^fY

To the

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations
U^. House of Representatives

Presented by

Allan D. Goecker

Chairman, FY 1995 Budget Committee

Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I sincerely appreciate this opportunity
to present testimony in support of the FY 1995 Budget Recommendations of the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Specifically, I wish to request your
increased investment in five priority food and agricultural science higher education programs
currently funded by Congress and administered by the Cooperative State Research Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. These five programs are of critical importance to students and
other citizens served by U.S. colleges of agriculture and natural resources located in each state
and territory.

Food and Agricultural Higher Education Programs FY 1995 Requested Investment

Institution Challenge Grants Program $5.0 million

Graduate Fellowships Grants Program $4.0 million

Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Grants Program $3.5 million

1 890 Capacity Building Grants Program $ 1 3.0 million

Morrill-Nelson Program $2.85 million

Perhaps the critical value of the U.S. public investment in these high priority food and
agricultural education programs can best be observed from a distant perspective, away from the
daily challenges and routines. During February 2-4, 1994, 1 had the distinct opportunity to view
the U.S. Agricultural Education and Training System — its people, programs, and support
structures— from a distance.

The location was in the library meeting room of the Timirazev Agricultural Academy, the
flagship Russian agricultural university located in Moscow. Gathered were some 125 leaders
from the Russian Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Education, the Russian Academy of
Agricultural Sciences, rectors and prorectors from a number of Russian agricultural universities,
and food and agricultural education leaders from more than a dozen western and central
European countries.

They were meeting to discuss observations and recommendations regarding the future
operation of the Agricultural Education and Training ( AET) system of Russia. Several months
ago, the Russian Ministry of Agriculture invited the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) based in Paris to send a seven-member international team to review and

evaluate its Agricultural Education and Training system, and to make recommendations. As a
member of that OECD team, I had the unusual opfKjrtunity to explore and to evaluate the many
facets of the Russian Agriculmral Education and Training system, and to gain, simultaneously, a
new and significantly better perspective on the highly intricate structure of the U.S. Agricultural
Education and Training system which, regrettably, seems to be increasingly taken for granted in
our society.

My purpose is not to provide a long report of the OECD review team recommendations
regarding the future of the Russian Agricultural Education and Training system. But, through
some comparative and reflective observations, I wish to emphasize as strongly as I can the
critical importance of adequate U.S. investments in the food and agricultural education programs
of our nation's state universities and land-grant coUeges.

Compared to the monthly earnings of a Russian agricultural college professor or
agricultural scientist, one can earn six times as many rubles driving a city bus in Moscow.
Consequently, during the past two years, nearly one-third of the Russian agricultural educators
and scientists— generally, the most productive and capable individuals — have left the universities
and the agricultural research institutes to pursue more profitable career oppwrtunities in a
growing number of business ventures throughout Russia. Obviously, the Agricultural Education
and Training system is in a serious state of decline due to this extensive professional migration.

Fortunately, the U.S. Agriculmral Education and Training system has not experienced the
acute disruptions that were observed in the AET system of Russia. But, one can conclude, from
a distance, that the U.S. Agricultural Education and Training system is currently operating in a
sub-optimal manner from chronic under investments in priority human capital development
programs. Food, agricultural, and natural resource faculties have dwindled in U.S. universities
during the past fifteen years, and insufficient resources have been available to challenge and to
support the remaining faculty to be most productive in serving students.

In 1977, Congress designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the lead Federal
agency for conducting higher education programs in the food and agricultural sciences. Federal
appropriations for food and agricultural higher education programs have increased only slightly
from $14.2 million in 1978 to $18.1 million in 1993. Adjusting for inflation, this serious erosion
of support has resulted in inadequate preparation and under representation of minorities in food
and agricultural occupations, marginally effective agricultural and natural resource educational
programs in many universities, and a decline in the quality of students who are preparing for
future science and business careers in our nation's agricultural and food system.

The somewhat better news is that Congress is now investing in five U.S. Department of
Agriculture higher education programs, four of which are in critical need of additional funding in
FY 1995. The Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy of the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges is requesting the Appropriations
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to make the following FY 1995 investments:

Institution Challenge Grants Program • $ 5.0 million

The competitive Institution Challenge Grants Program is highly important to all citizens
who are served by all U.S. colleges offering programs in the food and agricultural sciences
including specializations in agriculture, forestry and natural resources, home economics, and

-3-

veterinary medicine. Faculty proposals to improve the quality of higher education in the food
and agricultural sciences are reviewed and grants are awarded to a very small proportion of the
applicants due to intense competition.

Since the program was established in 1990 by Congress, 96 challenge grants have been
awarded in targeted areas such as improving the international capabilities of agricultural
graduates, enhancing the ethical dimensions of food and agricultural science and technology
education, developing educational efficiencies through distance learning programs, and
recruiting a more diverse student population to prepare for careers in the food and agricultural
sciences. Institution Challenge Grants Program awards have been more than matched dollar for
dollar by non-Federal appropriations thus increasing the impact of this highest priority program.

Graduate Fellowships Grants Program - $4.0 million

In response to many requests from business representatives, agency officials, and food,
agricultural, and natural resource educators. Congress estabUshed the national needs Graduate
Fellowships Grants Program in 1984. The program was designed to attract more highly qualified
students to enter graduate degree programs to prepare for agricultural science and business
specialties of national priority.

Within the limited budget parameters, the Graduate Fellowships Grants Program has been
successful in increasing the pool of highly qualified students in the food and agricultural
sciences. During the past decade, 722 individuals with excellent academic credentials have been
awarded fellowships through this program. The Graduate Fellowships Grants Program has a
proven and effective performance record, but it is a very small national program which seriously
needs an infusion of additional resources to meet the diverse and sizable requirements of
agriculture, forestry and natural resources, home economics, and veterinary medicine.

Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Grants Program - $3.5 million

With an initial appropriation from Congress in FY 1994, this program has the primary
goal to stimulate minority student enrollment and retention in food and agricultural science
higher education programs so that the U.S. food and agricultural system will benefit from the
contributions of a more diverse group of college graduates. 1992 national data indicated that
minorities accounted for only seven percent of the total enrollment in our nation's colleges of
agriculture and natural resources. If the U.S. is to have an efficient and highly productive food
system in the coming years, it is absolutely essential to expand participation of minorities in the
food and agricultural science and business occupations.

Each $1 .0 million of Federal investment in the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars
Grants Program will provide funding for about 50 students. Scholars are selected on the basis of
academic merit and are supported during the completion of baccalaureate degree curricula. The
Academic Programs Conmiittee on Organization and Policy of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges is recommending a major expansion of this program in FY
1995.

77-387 O— 94-

1890 Capacity Building Grants Program - $13.0 million

During the four-year history of the 1890 Capacity Building Grants Program, Congress
has appropriated a total of $33.0 million. On a competitive basis, 1890 colleges and universities
have been awarded funds for 89 teaching projects and 8 1 research projects. Also, an additional
$25.4 million of non-Federal matching funds have been allocated to these 170 high priority
projects to strengthen the teaching and research programs in the 1890 colleges and universities.

Examples of the teaching projects which have been supported through the 1 890 Capacity
Building Grants Program include improving the quantitative sltills of agricultural majors,
developing electronic learning centers in 1890 college libraries, enhancing capacity related to
telecommunications and distance leaming, and improving the student recruitment, retention, and
experiential leaming activities in 1 890 colleges and universities. These projects have increased
the access for many minority students to participate in food and agricultural science programs of
enhanced quality. Further development of teaching and research programs through the 1 890
Capacity Building Grants Program is necessary, and is a high priority for proposed Federal
funding for FY 1995.

Morrill-Nelson Program - $2.85 million

Appropriations to the Morrill-Nelson Program provide for $50,000 annual grants to states
and territories to support higher education programs in the food and agricultural sciences. This
base program provides an ongoing stimulus to colleges and universities to invest in higher
education degree programs in agriculture.

While additional appropriations are not requested in FY 1995 for the Morrill-Nelson
Program, the Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy of the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges strongly recommends continuation of
this investment in the U.S. food and agricultural higher education system.

In closing, I wish to share one more perspective from a distance. Perhaps the most
attentive audience or class that I have ever experienced during my 28-year professional career
was at the Timirazev Agricultural Academy in Moscow on February 4, 1994. I had the
opportunity and privilege to present an overview of the U.S. Agricultural Education and Training
system to those who had gathered to evaluate and chart the future course for the Russian AET
system. There was no doubt whatsoever that the agricultural teaching, research, and extension
education system of the U.S. land-grant colleges and universities was of paramount interest to
those in attendance. What is increasingly taken for granted in the U.S., is increasingly respected
elsewhere in the world. Each of us can benefit from that perspective as decisions are made
regarding future public investments in food and agricultural higher education programs.

Thank you.

fatematlOBal Committee Ob OrgmlMtlon A"d Policy

InlenMnoiMiScenon

Tbe OMatoa of Acileultuic

NUkaal AMoetatkm of State Unlvenltlca and Lud-Ofam CaDcfea

TESTIMONY
PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMTTTEE ON ORGANIZATION AND POLICY (ICOP)

OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCUTION OF STATE UMVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

DR. MICHAEL F. NOLAN

ASSOCUTE DEAN AND DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS IN AGRICULTURE

AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA

March 1, 1994

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Michael Nolan. I
am Associate Dean and Director of International Programs in Agriculture at the
University of Missouri. I submit this testimony on behalf of the International Committee
on Organization and Policy (ICOP), of the Board on Agriculture of the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC).

The rapid spread of technological change is revolutionizing virtually all aspects of
our lives, from the genetic mapping of plants to the near-instantaneous transmission of
information anywhere in the world. In order for the United States to sustain a
competitive advantage in the world, the U.S. science and technology base must be
maintained and enhanced. The agricultural science and education programs of both
USDA and the land grant university system must consider that the prosperity of U.S.
agriculture will depend on our active participation in the global science and education
networks.

The U.S. is not the only actor in the development of agricultural science and
technology. Fully 90% of the World's agricultural scientists are located outside the U.S.
We must find ways to systematically learn about scientific/technological developments in
other countries and then modify those to U.S. conditions.

The global agricultural economy also requires that we learn much more about
international markets if we are to remain competitive. Market research can identify
niches which U.S. producers and processors can access. Such knowledge can identify
new value added product opportunities thus helping in the transformation of our
agricultural sector from an exporter of raw materials to high value consumer oriented
products.

To fully exploit the opportunities offered by the global market, an integrated effort
of research and education will be required. For far too long we have assumed there was
nothing outside our border of interest to us. We now know better.

In the 1990 Farm Bill, congress authorized an enlarged role for UDA in terms of
collaboration with institutions throughout the world engaged in agriculture and related
research and extension activities. The international dimension of science and education,
not as a separate component, but fully integrated into USDA, must be a priority. ICOP
requests that this subcommittee seriously consider funding these activities in its
appropriations for fiscal year 1994. We stand ready to work with you and USDA in
further developing these activities.

Thank you.

Association of Research Directors.Inc.

OFFiCE OF THE CHAIRMAN

^^coatoes.NPSu,eo„v,^,^^^^

TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OF THE

1890 RESEARCH DIRECTORS

OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

BY
DR. WALTER A. HILL

nbO YEARS OF PROGRESS

THROUGH TEACHING,
RESEARCH AND SERVICE"

DEAN AND RESEARCH DIRECTOR,
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS

AT
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY

-A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION"

100

Walter A. Hill, Ph.D.

Representative of the Association of Research Directors, 1890 Universities and Tuskegee, on
the FY '95 Budget Committee, Board on Agriculture, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). Dean and Research Director, Tuskegee
University, Tuskegee, Alabama.

Testimony

The Association of Research Directors (ARD) strongly supports the two top priorities and the
total budget recommendations for FY '95 submitted by the Budget Committee, Board on
Agriculture, NASULGC. An increase of 4.5 percent in base funds for research is being
requested. These programs represent the long-term commitment of Land-Grant Universities
to maintain a stable research base including personnel and facilities in the fields of agriculture
and food sciences, natural resources and environmental sciences.

We strongly support the recommendation for an increase of 4.5 percent in base funds for the
EVANS- ALLEN BASE PROGRAM at the 1890 institutions in FY'95. These funds provide
the principal support to conduct basic and applied research to ensure a safe, economical and
adequate food supply, promote a sustainable environment, conserve the natural resource base,
and contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic well-being and overall quality of
life of diverse rural and urban populations. These funds also contribute to the development of
professional expertise (especially, minority students) in the food and agricultural sciences
through focused programs.

We strongly support the recommendation for funding die 1890 CAPACITY BUILDING
GRANTS PROGRAM at $13 million in FY'95. This program is critical in enhancing
teaching and research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and in advancing
partnerships with industry, USDA agencies and other institutions of higher learning. Results
from previous years have shown that this is a highly competitive program which helps in
building both research and teaching in food and agriculmral sciences on these campuses.

We also strongly support two programs that were authorized in the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990: 1890 FACILITIES GRANTS ($8 MILLION) and 1890
INSTITUTION CENTERS ($2 MILLION). The facilities program enables the 1890
Institutions to provide opportunities and state-of-the-art facilities and equipment for scientists
and students. The appropriation for the 1890 Institution Centers would provide for the
establishment of five National Centers.

101

-2-

We strongly support the new initiative for 1890 Institutions on RURAL ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ($3.0 MILLION). Over 55 percent of the rurul poor and 97
percent of the rural black poor live in the South. Targeted research is needed that will
specially address the disadvantaged and underserved communities and families in the
following areas: barriers to family and community development; incentives for new linkages
and partnerships; infrastructure needs; businesses and job opportunities; enhanced
development of human capital and leadership; use of natural resources for community
development; and new markets for agricultural products.

The MINORITY SCHOLARS PROGRAM ($3.5 MILUON) addresses the critical need to
increase the ethnic and multicultural diversity and numbers in the workforce available to the
nation's expanding and complex food and agriculture system. We strongly support full
funding of this program in FY '95.

102
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (CARET)

WITNESS
ROBERT L. KIDD, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RE-
SEARCH, EXTENSION AND TEACHING

Mr. DURBIN. Robert Kidd, with the Council for Agricultural Re-
search, Extension and Teaching.

Mr KiDD Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, i
appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today for the sec-
ond time as Chairman of the Council for Agricultural Research, Ex-
tension and Teaching, commonly known as CARLi.

You may recall, I am involved in ranching and agricultural busi-
ness in Wyoming and have very definitely been a beneficiary of the
land grant programs. Over the years, your subcommittee has come
to know CARET as a grassroots citizens organization which works
closely with their deans of colleges of agriculture and directors for
research, extension and academic programs.

You know that the CARET delegates from your States as users
of the system helped to develop the priorities, projects and budget
requests to ensure strong land grant programs and to meet na-
tional needs. CARET delegates arrive to our meetings as parents
homemakers, agricultural business and urban entrepreneurs and
they might be leaders of their business or commodity organizations^
They might be the individual that works quietly towards a better
extensTof service in their home county. CARET also contains with-
fn its membership a few individuals that might Perhaps ho^d a
public office at the State or local level. And because of this make
up and with the perception that we are taxpayers first our discus-
sions are very focused on the fiscal realities at the local, State and

^^The^CARET membership wants the membership of this commit-
tee to know that we, too, are very concerned about bloated budgets
and have taken consistent positions for ^^^ca conservatism ^How-
ever as participants in the Board on Agriculture of the National
Sciation of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges budget
nrocess we know that the line items requested in this budget are
not a draTn on the Federal Treasury but are, in fact, an investment
that will pay dividends to society and enhance our tax base.

During^my tenure as CARET chairman, I have had the oppor-
tunity to interact with various organizations, such as the National
Cociation of Counties, all of whom depend upon their Extension
Service to serve their citizens, or, for example the Southwest In-
diaT Agricultural Association tribal leaders. It has given me a
rh an re to learn of their specific needs. ,. . c

^yl^inl% example, is 48 percent Federal land, a big issue for
us at this time is rangeland reform, and needless to say I find the
answer to many of these specific needs in our land grant budget
for research, extension and teaching. „^;K^iifTr fn

CARET delegates understand your committee's responsibility to
scm^Tze thisLdget as to the cost and Pef-ved benefits a^^^^^^^^
me leave you with no doubts that we m CARET fee it is accurate
Sid timely The land grant system is working for all of us to meet
oSr sodll needs for sife and abundant food supplies, a protected
environment and for our economic development.

103

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to speak with you today and thank you for giving
this NASULGC's Board on Agriculture's budget recommendations
for fiscal year 1995 and request your careful consideration. Please
don't hesitate to ask me or the CARET delegates from your home
States any questions about any portion of this budget because we
do want to assist you in any way we can.

So thanks again for this opportunity to visit with you, and you
do have written remarks for your permanent record.

Mr. Skeen [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Kidd.

I want to say to you that you do have a wonderful group of Rep-
resentatives, because one of them is my house mate.

Mr. KiDD. She is a very capable CARET delegate.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, but she was
down there loading wool. We just got through shearing, so I es-
caped again.

But you folks do great work and it is a great organization. And
I think it is a culmination of what we are trying to do in agri-
culture, is coordinate the research aspect with the teaching and the
extension work and the rest of it. Lord knows, we need some rep-
resentation because this is a small portion of our population today.
But you do exciting work, and you do, I think, adequate work in
representing agriculture and what is necessary and we appreciate
the time that you give to your organization and the work — and the
input that you have with us. Congress. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. KiDD. I appreciate that praise. Congressman Skeen, and I
will tell the members of the organization that you are pleased.

Mr. Skeen. I appreciate that. Everybody says we are so glad you
gave us some of your time. I had to be here an3rway. You all made
the sacrifice. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Mr. KiDD. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

104

TESTIMONY

ROBERT L. KIDD

CHAIRMAN

OF THE

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND TEACHING

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity
to appear before you for a second time as chairman of the Council for Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching (CARET). You may recall that I am involved in ranching and
agribusiness in Wyoming and have very definitely been a beneficiary of land-grant programs.

Over the years, your Subcommittee has come to know CARET as a grassroots citizen
organization whose membership are the users of the research, extension, and teaching
programs of the land-grant system. You also know that CARET delegates work with their
respective colleges of agriculture in developing priorities, projects, and budget requests to
ensure strong and effective land-grant programs to meet our national needs.

CARET delegates come to our national organization as parents, homemakers, agribusi-
ness and urban entrepreneurs. They might be leaders in their business or commodity organ-
izations or the individual that works quietly toward a better Extension Service in their home
county. CARET also contains within its membership a few individuals that hold public office
at the local or state level. Because of the very character of CARET, we are taxpayers first
and our focus is on the fiscal responsibilities and realities at the local, state, and federal levels
of government

CARET'S membership wants this Subcommittee to know that we too arc concerned
about bloated budgets and wholeheartedly support positions of fiscal responsibility. However,
as users of land-grant programs and services, we know that the budget recommendations of
the Board on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC) will not be a drain on our federal treasury. In fact, these recommenda-
tions will enhance the tax base of the nation and pay tremendous societal dividends. The
NASULGC recommendations will allow the land-grant system to continue responding to the
needs of the people residing in every state and territory of the nation and delivering solutions
to many of the problems of today and tomorrow facing Americans.

During my tenure as CARET Chairman, 1 have had the opportunity to interact with
various groups and organizations, such as the National Association of Counties (NACo), who
depend on their county Extension office to serve their citizens. I also have had the oppor-
tunity to meet with the Southwest Indian Agricultural Association (SWIAA) and its tribal
leaders to learn about the specific needs and discover how the land-grant system is moving to
address those needs. At home in Wyoming where 48% of the land belongs to the federal

105

-2-

govemracnt and rangeland reform is a constant topic of concern, I find the answer and po-
tential solutions to many of our specific needs and concerns addressed in the budget recom-
mendations agricultural research, extension, and teaching being offered by NASULGC.

There arc numerous examples of success stories within the land-grant system resulting
from the federal money provided to our land-grant universities, and I would like to share six
examples with you:

RHODE ISLAND - The water quality program at the University of Rhode Island has
played an important role in water resource protection through the development of a compre-
hensive technology transfer process reaching a variety of audiences. These programs in-
clude: Watershed Watch Volunteer Monitoring (a statewide volunteer water quality monitor-
ing program) and Water Quality Protection: Municipal Training (training local officials who
are responsible for controlling non-point source pollution that may degrade water supplies,
shellfish areas, and other important water resources).

OKLAHOMA - The Oklahoma State University Pest Management Program is an
interdisciplinary effort working with agricultural and urban clientele throughout the state.
The objectives are to work with groups to improve economic, environmental, and social out-
comes through education. Accomplishments include: improved agronomic practices; more
efficient pest control methods that have resulted in savings for pesticide inputs of $8 to $10
per acre annually; increased profits for farmers by 23%; and reduced the energy expense,
grain shrinkage, and pesticide inputs by an estimated $25 million per year in the storage and
processing of wheat.

MINNESOTA —At the University of Minnesota, research is underway on how to
change the violent behavior of men who beat women by analyzing and comparing how well
various interventions work. Rural interventions programs, as well as cultural and ethnic
differences, have been studied. It is hoped that this research will yield more effective techni-
ques for helping men who batter to become nonviolent.

VIRGINIA — A solid and liquid waste management project was initiated by food scien-
tists with the state 's six mechanized clam processors. The information generated was used to
obtain new waste disposal permits resulting in a $50 million industry with 1,500 employees to
remain in business. An entomology study for the city of Norfolk reduced pesticide usage on
urban trees by 80% — saving money, manpower, and reducing pesticide usage an area bor-
dering on the Chesapeake Bay.

WASHINGTON — Washington State University developed leadership conferences for
older Hispanic migrant youth. Only 40% of Hispanic children will attend school beyond the
eighth grade. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the 65 Hispanic youth who participated in the
conferences since 1989 are still attending high school or have graduated.

106

-3-

WYOMING — Home economists at the University of Wyoming have developed a uni-
que program that incorporates proper care of contaminated clothing into pesticide applicator
training. It became evident that the spouses who often are caring for the cloMng of pesticide
applicators had no idea as to what precautions to take. This program addresses the selection
and care of protective clothing, absorption rates for different materials, and proper techni-
ques for cleaning contaminated garments — improving the serfety and health of pesticide
applicators in Wyoming.

caret's number one funding priority has always been and remains the base program
funding for Hatch, Smith-Lever, the 1890s, Mclntire-Stennis, and Morrill-Nelson. These es-
sential programs provide the necessary infrastructure for what constitutes the core of the agri-
cultural research and education programs of the land-grant university system. Our land-grant
system will not be able to carry out its mandate of transferring new knowledge and technolo-
gy of the food and fiber system to the very people in rural and urban America who need it

In addition to the base programs, CARET also supports several priority initiatives: (1)
the competitive grants program which is known as the National Research Initiative; (2) the
Extension initiatives relating to sustainable agriculture, at-risk families, rural economic
development, and nutrition; and (3) the initiatives in higher education which are known as the
Institution Challenge Grants, Minority Scholars Program, Graduate Training Fellowships, and
the 1890 Capacity Building Grants.

The National Research Initiative (NRI) allows for important and necessary research to
be undertaken in the areas of plant systems; animal systems; nutrition, food quality, and
health; natural resources and the environment; engineering processes and value-added; rural
development, markets, and trade. The NRI provides an important mechanism for essential
multidisciplinary research to be accomplished.

Extension is one of the most effective outreach systems in the world. Technological
advances and knowledge are effectively transferred from the laboratory to our fields, homes,
and communities. With the knowledge and technology bases continuing to expand, an educa-
tional transfer mechanism is vital if the farmer, consumer, businessperson, and general public
is to progress. The Extension System's programs in sustainable agriculture, rural economic
development, EFNEP, at-risk youth, teen pregnancy and health, and Indian reservation Exten-
sion agents seek to address the problems and challenges facing Americans today.

Congress has enlarged the role for agricultural research and education program in
terms of collaboration with institutions throughout the world which are engaged in related
activities. CARET certainly supports the integration of an international dimension into agri-
cultural research, education, and teaching programs of the land-grant universities. This will
be the only way America can remain a strong competitor in the global economy.

Mr. Chairman, CARET delegates understand your Subcommittee's responsibility to

107

scrutinize this budget as to the costs and perceived benefits. Let me leave you with no
doubts that those of us in CARET feel that the Fiscal Year 1995 budget recommendations of
NASULGC are timely and "hit the mark" in meeting the five major societal goals identified
by the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences — enhancing human potential;
sustaining the environment, agriculture, and natural resources; addressing social and economic
changes in America; improving global competitiveness; and assuring health, good nutrition,
and safe food. The land-grant system is working so all us can have a safe and abundant food
supply, a protected natural environment, and economic development.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and for giving NASULGC's
Board on Agriculture's budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 1995 your careful con-
sideration. Please do not hesitate to ask me or your own CARET delegates about any por-
tion of this budget, because we look forward to assisting you in every possible way.

108

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (NASULGC—

FORESTRY)

WITNESSES

DR. ALAN R. EK, NASULGC-SECTION ON FORESTRY AND NATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FORESTRY SCHOOLS AND COL-
LEGES, NAPFSC, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

DR. PATRICIA LAYTON, NASULGC-SECTION ON FORESTRY AND NA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FORESTRY SCHOOLS AND
COLLEGES, NAPFSC, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

Mr. Skeen. Dr. Alan R. Ek; are you accompanied by Dr. Patricia
Layton?

Ms. Layton. Yes.

Mr. Skeen. We will hear from you both.

Thank you.

Welcome to the committee.

Mr. Ek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skeen.

My name is Alan Ek, I am Head of the Department of Forest Re-
sources at the University of Minnesota. My testimony today is pre-
sented on behalf of the National Association of Professional For-
estry Schools and Colleges, an organization representing over 60
universities that conduct the Nation's research, teaching and exten-
sion programs in forestry and related natural resources.

My formal testimony has already been submitted to the commit-
tee, and I would just like to preface those remarks, and following
that preface, I would like to turn this over, and still keep within
your time limits, to Dr. Patricia Skeen, from the Scott Paper Com-
pany — Dr. Patricia Layton

Mr. Skeen. That is all right. I will adopt you.

Mr. Ek [continuing]. And ask her if she will help wrap this up
for us.

First, NAPFSC wants to thank the Congress for recognizing and
supporting what we have requested for last year, as what we call
the Forestry Research Initiative, with the focus on ecosystem man-
agement, and components of that request really led to new funding
for the Cooperative Forestry Research Program, for the National
Research Initiative, for the Renewable Resource Extension Act and
for the U.S. Forest Service.

As we move to improve stewardship of our natural resources, I
think we only need to read the newspapers to see that that stew-
ardship is increasingly important to us. It is imperative that that
be based upon sound information that permits a rational evalua-
tion of the often rather complex trade-offs involved.

Regrettably, the science needed to support sound management is
far from complete. There is further "no one size fits all." We will
need site-specific, landscape-level research, regional, local and tech-
nology-based research. As a Nation we simply have not invested to
the extent that we are capable to make this move to effective stew-
ardship without that effort.

In 1995, the forestry research community is moving again as a
group in cooperative effort, and I wanted to bring to your attention
four requests that are outlined in more detail in my testimony: The
first is the Cooperative Forestry Research Program, sometimes re-

109

ferred to as the Mclntire-Stennis Program. This program has been
an unqualified success. The program is leveraged by a factor of four
or five at the local level. It is really the cornerstone of the Federal-
State cooperation and partnership in forestry and related natural
resources research.

As a justification for this program, we note that it was author-
ized originally at 50 percent of the Forest Service research budget
As late as 1988, it was 13 percent of that budget. Today it stands
at 11 percent. We seek an increase to at least $25 million which
would take it back to 12 percent of the Forest Service research
budget.

The second request, as others have indicated, is support for the
National Research Initiative Cooperative Grants Program. That
helps forestry research as well. We see it as providing the founda-
tion for future economic gains and sustainable development capa-
bility.

The third request is for your support of at least $6 million as an
appropriation for the Renewable Resources Extension Act. That is
the forestry and related natural resources extension effort to make
the research we conduct available to user groups.

Finally, our last request, and I will detail that further to you at
a later date, is an initiative we have entitled Sustainable Natural

5^A^<??T^T^?fr.^^'^^^^"^®^^' ^^^ y°^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^s a new line in the
NASULGC request. This initiative at a request level of $6 million
recognizes the important transitioning of forest products demand
over the last few years, from public lands to private lands, and the
fact that there is but a skeleton force of forestry and forest product
capabilities to meet the needs of this transitioning efforts.

With that, I would ask Dr. Layton if she would give her testi-
mony.

Ms. Layton. Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Forest Tech-
nology and Issues at Scott Paper Company, and I am here today
speaking on behalf of both my company and the American Forest
and Paper Association's Resources Research Committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to present our committee's rec-
omniendations to you. I believe my written testimony has been pro-
vided for your use, and in order to keep you on schedule, I am iust
going to briefly highlight a few things.

First I would just like to introduce AF&PA, we are a national
trade forest association, representing forestland managers, solid
wood producers and the pulp and paper manufacturers in the Unit-
ed States, with about 1.4 million employees, annual sales of $190
billion and 7 percent of the Gross National Product. The forest
products industry is a significant contributor to the Nation's eco-
nomic strength, quality of life and protection of the environment

I am going to just highlight a few of the things that are very im-
portant for us today. We believe that forestry research is severely
underfunded given the economic and environmental importance of
the Nation's forest resources. Major investments in forestry re-
search will be needed for the north forest products industry to re-
main competitive on a global scale while at the same time conserv-
ing and protecting the many functions and values of the forest re-
sources of this country.

110

As many of you know, we were rated one of the only two Amer-
ican industries as a plus in the global competitive environment in
a recent Fortune Magazine analysis.

We have a lot of major natural resource conflicts in this country.
The spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, wetlands in the South-
east, and we need research in these public policy issues to be con-
ducted and answers found so that we risk — or we risk continued
gridlock because of inadequate information.

We recently did a research report, and I am going to ask this to
be submitted for your record, and it kind of outlines the priorities
that industry has shown for this. We found that there is consistent
research priorities across the — in each region of the Nation, and
they are very important research priorities. The Forestry Research
Initiative resulting from the National Academy of Sciences Report:
"Forestry Research Mandate for Change," is a very important ini-
tiative.

We believe that even though the full program recommended can't
be funded because of current budget realities, that we take that re-
port and implement it in stages and we would hope that you could
look at that, and take the first steps to implement those programs.

We have been coordinating closely with many of the interested
parties, agencies and environmental groups that have worked on
developing research priorities under this, and we believe that the
things that we are representing here represent a lot of those inter-
ests.

One particular area of emphasis that I would like to point out
is an area that I have worked in for the last nine years, that is
the area of short rotation-intensive culture forestry. As you know,
more land is being withdrawn from the public arena and there is
less timber from public properties, so we are placing higher and
higher burden on private landowners to produce that timber for
needs of this country.

One of the things we are seeing is that is going into what I
would call "marginal farmlands," lands that have been taken out
of farming in the past or can be taken out of farming in the future.
And one of the things we envision is a short rotation intensive cul-
ture, plantations which could be integrated into the agricultural
community easily. But there is research needed in developing both
species, genetic improvement of those species, control of competing
vegetation, soil amendments to make those sustainable forests that
can actually be managed within the rural landscape.

I am talking about forests that we cut down in like 5 to 15 years,
but that fit easily into the farm landscape system, and I think that
is a big initiative we need to see more of, especially as we look at
changing the scope of rural development, adding crops into their
area, things like that. I think that is something we should look at.

I would specifically like to ask for support of the Mclntire-Sten-
nis Act. I think you have — ^Alan mentioned the number that we
were requesting. I personally benefited from this act. That is what
supported a lot of my graduate education, and I certainly couldn't
have done my Ph.D. research without Mclntire-Stennis funds. And
to highlight Alan's point about how this is leveraged, let me tell
you that although the Mclntire-Stennis funds paid for part of my

Ill

travel and expenses while I was out doing field work, the field
work was done on industry lands.

They had invested the cost of the land, the site preparation, the
planning of those forests because the trees that I was working with
in my research were already six, seven and eight years old and so
they had already had that time investment, the money involved in
that and they provided that and that is how we leverage research.

And as a company, now with my company, we actively encourage
getting university researchers and having them come out and work
on our lands to undertake research projects and this is how
Mclntire-Stennis gets leveraged, and I really appreciate that. It
has been a big help to our country and our industry in general.

We also want to underscore our support for the Competitive
Grants Program as a part of the National Program on Research,
on Agricultural Food and the Environment. We recommend that 20
percent of that be dedicated toward forestry research projects.

We believe we are a big part of agriculture and we really want
to get our fair share. Trees, because they are so long term and sort
of complex ecosystems, need a lot of different kinds of research
than we have gotten in the past. Even though some things have
been demonstrated on corn, sometimes they have to be reinvented
when you apply them to pine trees. And we think investments in
this type of research is very important and it also will bring to bear
getting us new types of researchers, looking for doing research on
our areas, getting people from other disciplines into doing forestry
research. It will give us a lot of innovation and new ideas and
something we are anxious to get. We would like to support $6 mil-
lion for the renewable Resources Extension Act. I can't tell you how
important it is in that 50 percent of the landowners — or 50 percent
of the land, forestland, is owned by private citizens, not industry.
Fifty percent of the land base in forestry, commercial forests are
owned by individuals, and extension agents are our number one
contact with those people and helping them learn about forestry,
how to manage forests, how to grow forests and that is very, very
important.

Having demonstration programs, field sites where they can go for
field day and visits those things. All of those things can be done
in the Renewable Resources Extension Act, and we think they will
promote good forestry, good forest management and provide cleaner
water, better wildlife habitat all along, if we can train people who
own the land how to manage the land, and extension is the best
way to do that.

We would also like to support the initiative that Alan talked
about, the Sustainable Natural Resources Management Initiative.
We believe that we do need more extension agents and other people
out there helping us in the field. We are very much understaffed
and underfunded, and I think in your areas which are very highly
into agriculture, your extension agent probably has never had a
forestry course or hasn't had a lot of training in forestry and we
need to bring that to bear so that those options are available to
local farmers.

Thank you for your time this afternoon. If you have any ques-
tions, I would be pleased to respond to those.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Dr. Layton.

112

Perhaps this doesn't relate specifically to your Forestry Research
Committee, but I listened intently thinking that perhaps at some
point in your testimony representing the American Forest and
Paper Association you would use the word "recycling." Is there a
reason why you did not?

Ms. Layton. I think we were concentrating on the forestry re-
sources themselves today, although in the research budget, as I un-
derstand it, there is an initiative on recycling of wood products and
areas of that, I think under the

Mr. Ek. Mr. Chairman, the Research Initiative as this group of
cooperators worked up last year, was focused primarily on eco-
system management. This year we would like to expand that to
more areas.

In fact, recycling has been a major area of research within the
U.S. Forest Service and within forestry schools, and we see our-
selves really moving from a few years ago to 20 percent recycling
capability, for example, with paper to 30 and by the year 2000 per-
haps to 50. That recycling is a major way that we extend the re-
source, basically add to the supply, in a sense, and provide for envi-
ronmental quality at the same time. So that recycling is really part
and parcel of the five, what we call, "major breakdowns of forestry
research" as described by the National Research Council Report.

Mr. DURBIN. I read recently that 37 percent of the content of our
landfills is paper, so that is clearly one national problem. What we
do with recycling would also have a direct impact on forestry re-
search and our needs for the future. So I can see where there is
a direct relationship.

Thank you.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, and thank you, doctors. Appreciate your
testimony. I wanted to talk to you about recycling. You covered
that pretty well, I think. The reason it cropped into my mind is
that building materials have gone up 200 percent, I think in the
last couple of years because of the spotted owl situation and some
of the rest.

You spent a lot of time talking about propagation of species in
your dissertation, and also reforestation, I believe?

Mr. Ek. Yes.

Mr. Skeen. Why in the world as technologically advanced as we
are, can't we refute this stupid idea that you can't propagate a spe-
cies and still harvest a renewable resource? Is that beyond our ca-
pability or are we just supposed to leave everything alone?

Mr. Ek. Mr. Skeen, one of the things we really have going that
we are trying to address with the Sustainable Natural Resources
Management Program is a greater initiative and extension in the
area of understanding natural resources policy. And you are right,
there is a combination of "the sky is falling" myth out there that
is very difficult to work with and we need a significant educational
program for landowners, the general public and professionals to
help professionals move those, that understanding more clearly.

Mr. Skeen. You use the word "professionals." I will go along with
it because I think popular news items lack a lot of professional
background and good information. And you know, I think a lot of
the business of some of these activities that we are involved in sav-

113

ing the world, are more aimed at enhancing somebody's wallet be-
cause of the scare tactics in this thing.

This country is a great advocate of donating or contributing to
causes, but let me ask you just one other question about old for-
ests. I have always been mesmerized by this because I spent some
time doing forestry work. We did the surveys on fires for number
one, and also you could take an old forest and go in there and see
the disease rate amongst the trees from bugs and the natural attri-
tion. And with good management, it would have been cleared out.
I think it is more of a hazard. Yet, there is something sacrosanct
about an old forest.

Don't forests grow, die, revolve and renew themselves? But under
this situation now, we are mostly going to ruin them because of in-
sects and bugs, other diseases.

Mr. Ek. Mr. Skeen, you are quite right, and one of the things we
have been looking at more recently is describing what those forests
were, what they have gone through and where they are likely to
go under a variety of kinds of investments that society might make,
and I think we really do have a concept of the pristine pre-Euro-
pean settlement forest that is not often very close to reality and we
really need to get that across.

I just want to emphasize one point. You know how effective we
have been in agriculture, and if you take my State, which is Min-
nesota, noted for agricultural production, we have 300 agricultural
extension agents in the Minnesota Extension Service. They have
been extraordinarily effective in communicating needs and inter-
ests and technologies in agriculture. When we look around the
country, or if you take my own State when you look at forestry, you
have got three extension workers, and that is our problem. That is
really why we are moving to this initiative.

We have a fair amount of research to get out there. We really
don't have a forest to get it out there. And so it brings me to the
initiative again in the sense that if we are going to make a dent
in this perception of forestry issues, it is going to take a major ef-
fort.

Mr. Skeen. I agree with you. I noticed some time ago in Europe
the areas that have been reforested over centuries, and they have
beautiful stands of timber, particularly in the area of Germany,
where they very carefully stack every piece of wood. I think every
morsel of wood is always very neatly stacked and all the forestry
work is done, hauled out and stacked on the edge of the forest and
harvested. Yet they are repropagating the same forest over and
over again and have for a century. It is something we will have to
work on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DURBIN. Ms. Kaptur?

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.

I notice your industry had a hundred billion dollars' worth of
sales, and assets would be many times that.

Ms. Layton. Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Kaptur. You then go on to request assistance in different
types of research, $28 million, $140 million, et cetera. I guess my
question really is the one that our constituents always ask us:
What is the appropriate role for the Federal Grovernment, and why

114

should you be funding this research, particularly when it benefits
firms that are so well endowed and have great success in the mar-
ketplace?

What I heard you say is, one of the stronger arguments you
made was that since half of the forest lands in this country are in
private hands, there is a rationale, we need extension agents, et
cetera. Do you think that is a strong enough argument?

Ms. Layton. Well, it is certainly one that I think is very strong.
I think there are some other arguments we could make, and may
not have time to discuss today, but I think one of the things that
we have to remember is that the forest industry does have large
investments in forest research in addition to the investments we
are asking for from your committee.

Ms. Kaptur. If I might interrupt, what makes what you are ask-
ing the Federal Grovemment for a little different from what you
would fund yourself?

Ms. Layton. I think we would probably not fund some of the
types of research that are longer term, more basic ecosystems-type
research. We probably would not — although we have some outreach
programs — we might not reach into some States where the forest
industry is not as large. Certainly we are going to fund more the
research that is increasing productivity, whereas ecosystems-man-
agement-t5rpe things, landscape-type things, things that go across
so many different types of ownerships, it would be much, much
harder for us to fund.

And also, I think there are things like genetic conservation, long-
term genetic conservation types of research, biodiversity types of
research that are really not our direct interest to fund, but are in
the interests of the country to fund, to conserve resources for the
future.

Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much for that.

Dr. Ek, I just wanted to ask you, when you think of forests I
think of Georgia, and I think of northern Michigan and I think of
Minnesota. Ohio has a lot of forested land, but I don't really view
it in the same way as we might look at some of the Western States.
Yet Ohio has a lot of wooded land.

When Dr. Layton talked about plantations and trying to plant
new areas to produce trees, could you give me a sense of where the
Midwest fits in all of this?

Mr. Ek. Yes. The Midwest is increasingly a major player in ail
aspects of forestry, especially as we reserve more lands in the
West, and just in my State and probably in Ohio, what you buy at
the lumberyard or pulpwood or whatever has gone up in value 50
to 200 percent in the last three to five years.

If we scratch the surface, we would probably find at least 200 or
300 sawmills in Ohio, we would find quite an active forest indus-
try.

If I recall, in the southern part of the State, we would see urban
forestry as very important, which is a component of our research
programs. I think because

Ms. Layton. Neat paper.

Mr. Ek. We could look up Ohio quickly and we would find sub-
stantial forest products relate employment, not only in the primary
portion of the industry, but in the secondary, manufacturing, fur-

115

niture, publication, et cetera, a variety of things related to forest
products.

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the witnesses.

[The information follows:]

116

National Association of Protessiooal Forestry Schools and CoHeges

NAPFSC

i.n )n<»w

nrani-Mi

Hi II i»».i« rtm
noiiss-na

(flMI2«I-3073

TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

SUBCOMMTITEE ON AGRICULTURE. RU»AL DEV^P!jm^n\ FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRA-nON. AND RELATED AGENCIES

OF THE

COMMTTTEE ON APPROTRIATIONS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON BEHALF OT THE

NATIONAL ASSOOATION OF PROTESSIONAL FORESTRY SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES

a03)48t-M76

*Kl.Hi BIOS

son nj 2221

DR. ALAN R. EK

RESEARCH CHAIR, NAPFSC

AND

HEAD DEPARTMENT OF FOREST RESOURCES

AT THE UNIVERSTTY OF MmNESOTA

AND

tthMl •! hnmr t

IMUwnratf
lh.HMt.CT OBBII

DR. RICHARD F. FISHER

PRESIDENT, NAPFSC

AND

HEAD DEPARTMENT OF FOREST SCIENCE

AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSTFY

March 1, 1994

OFFbt.
CMMERAOOPY

niw«>iiiiiiiiii,*»

WSIMWU?

t«m.U isni

Research

Education

Extension

International

117

STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL ASSOOATICm OF PROFESSI(»4AL
FCnESTRY SCHOOLS AND COLLECTS

I am Alan Ek, head of the Detnrtinem of Forest Resources at the University of Mhmegota. With
me is Dr. Richard F. Fisher, Head of the Depaitmeat of Forest Science at Texas ASM
Univetsity. This statement is presented in our capacity as research chair aui president,
respectivety, of the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Coll^et
(NAPFSC).

Our organization represous the 62 universities ihat conduct the nation's research, t<»a<'hing jod
extension programs in forestry and related natural resource areas. We appreciate this opportnnity
to comment on three programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture whisii
undergird the educational and research efforts at these 62 institutions. They are the Mclotire-
Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program, the National Research Initiative, and programs
conducted under the Renewable Resources Extension Act.

Funding appropriated by Congress for the Cooperative Forestry Research Program has been ■
crucial part of the support for university-based research and vital to die trsining of fiiture
scientists and educators for more than 25 years. Tliese funds have been wisely used and have
brought much in return. Each dollar in federal appropriations has been leveraged by a factor of
five to six in nonfederal dollars in support of research programs having both regional and national
significance.

Within states, regionally and overall, these programs have been an unqualified success. They
have improved the understanding of i) the biology of forest organisms, ii) the structure and
function of forest ecosystems, iii) human-forest interactions, iv) wood as a raw material and v)
international trade, competition and cooperatioiL These university-based programs have advanced
our knowledge of the forest ecosystem and of the basic chemical, physical and biological fiorcea
which influence forest productivity. At the same time they have "»<TP«»fid the types and market
horizons of environmentally friendly and renewable wood based products. Further, this efEort
has significantly aided the understanding of forest management systons appropriate for multiple-
use of forest lands for timber, water, wildlife aod recreation and aesthetic purposes.

Despite the gains that have been made in developing research information nffdfd to maintain tfae
health, productivity and biodiversity of our forest resource, much remains to be done. In %t,
the research comnmnity, in common with the administration and members of Congress, f vr
growing public concern over ancient forests, threatened and endangered species, global warming
wetlands, wilderness preservation, tropical deforestation, sustainable development and related
eirviroimiental issues.

In my own state, Miimesota, we are just completing a geoeric enviroimientai impact statement
that attempts to assess the long range and cunnilative effects of timber harvesting on the state's
forests and impacts on water, wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, economics and the sustaiiubility of
development. In fact, many states are seeking such information to plan their future. These
studies in themselves, however, show many of the same information inadequacies evident with
federal lands.

118

Despite our progress, this tesdmony is driven by the simple fact that the science to whidi
resource management and national, state and local policy measures can be anchored is simply
inadequate. The urgent need for research on environmental issues related io forest lands is most
apparent at the state and local levels. Maziagement of lana for timbo', water, wildlife and
recreatioQ is becoming mcreasingly more difficult and expensive for lack of reliable information
on the best management and harvesting practices on a site specific, landscape and regional basis.
That truly hinders thoughtful movement to ecosystem management. In support of diis
uoderstasdmg, I note that environmental research was ranked first among research needs— above
timber production— by the Southern Industrial Forestry Research Coimcil. an organization
r^resenting the major forest-based industries in the South.

New fiuiding for ecosystem management research provided by the 102nd Congress is already
moving to support the above noted needs. This request is for your continued suppon of
university-based forest r^earch. This request is closely tied to the inaeasing importance of the
forest r^ource to the economic and social well being of our citizens. The growing and
processing of timber provides the economic underpinning for literally thousands of communities
in all regions of the country. Some examples are:

•Miimesota-the forest products industry is the second largest industry and a major area of
industrial expansion.

•Texas-timber is the second largest crop and it accounts for the largest value added sector
associated with agricultural production.

•Mississippi-thirty-eight percent of all manufacturing firms are in the forestry sector.
Collectivdy, these firms account for approximately one-fourth of all mamifarfflring
employment, payrolls and value added aisd for almost half of all capital expenditures for
mannfisturing facilities.

•niioois-die forest related industries employ 55,000 people and contribute $2 billion to the
state's economy through valued added mamifocturing. Still, the forest area in niioois is
increasing and those forests have the potential to greatly increase their productivity. Dlinois
is also a leading state in recognizing the importance of urban forestry programs.

•Arkansas— the forest products industry accoiuits for one of ever 6 basic jobs. Over half of
the state is forested and timber was the states leading cash crop.

•Oregon— the forest produos industry represent 3 1 % of the manufacttuing jobs and represent
$.35 of every $1 generated by the state's economy.

There is convincing evidence that forest products will become even more important in the fidare.
Global demand for forest pnxiucts is increasing. This increase in demand coincides with
diminish ed wood Supplies in many established wood-producing countries of the world. The
United States is well positioned in terms of timber supply aiul manufacturing and transpoitation
infrastructure to satisfy a major share of this increase in demand. However, comiimed economic
health of forest-based industries will require that we develop more efficiem and environmentally
softer production and processing systems if we are to compete in a growing international market
where foreign conq>etition is also increasing.

119

This economic characterization of the forest resource must also recognize the very significant
degree to which our forests provide the setting for outdoor recreation and the considerable
economic impact associated with that. In many areas, tourism and the forest products industry
coexist very effectively and together make for very viable communities.

There is also convincing evidence that forests, by virtue of their structure and biodiversity, will
become even more important as wildlife habitat and to maintain the gene pool for a wide range
of plants and animals. Especially important to maintaining biodiversity will be the spatial linkage
that we provide between forest communities across die landscape.

It is clear that the problems we are facing are more complex than any issue previously dealt with
by mankind-we will not be able to provide needed goods, services and values the people require
AND sustain our ecosystems if we do not improve our understanding of how those systems
function, both now and under some desired future condition.

President Clinton, in his recent statement 'Vision of Giange for America," recognized the
importance of a stronger forest resources research program. That fits well with the recent
National Research Council study on forestry research authorized by the National Academy of
Sciences. The study report entitled 'Forestry research: A mandate for change,' recommended
a significant strengthening of forestry research. Subsequently a study implementation committee
and plan was developed. Since then we have been working closely with the implementation
committee, USDA Forest Service Research, state foresters, forest industry, professional societies
and interest groups to develop a cooperative effort known as the Forestry Research Initiative.
We see this effort as an imperative for the environmem and the economy.

This initiative would recognize the scientific basis needed for ecosystem sensitive resource
management-that it requires a combination of (1) basic long-term inquiry; (2) issue-focused,
problem solving interdisciplinary research and development; (3) scientific support to ongoing
management of lands and resources, such as through ecological classifications, inventories,
ecological analyses and monitoring and evaluation; 4) innovation in product development,
utilization and recycling; and (4) integrating science into the policy-making process. From the
standpoint of a university role, we see this as especially importam to state and regional concerns
as pressures on federal lands are shifted to other ownerships.

As part of the coordination in this initiative, univosity fimding would be largely directed to the
problems of state, local and private ownerships. In particular, the large non industrial private
forest landownership (NIPF) nationally would be targeted as one that will have to carry a larger
share of the burden for timber production and where considerable improvement in managefflcjit
is both desirable and possible for a wide range of forest values.

This application of science to resource management also calls for a systematic extension process
to (1) provide continuing education for natural resource professionals; (2) enable
landowners/managers/industry to adapt and utilize research results; (3) assure basic undostanding
by public decision-makers, and (4) reach the general public with education to guide their
individual and collective efforts.

University -based forest research is an important part of the collaborative research effort involving
federal, state and industry scientists and resources. Schools and colleges with programs in

120

forestry and forest products have the expotise in house to address a broad range of problems and
opportunities related to the forest resource and its utilization. Because of their university
affiliation, diey can conduct research on problems that require scientists from many disciplines.
This is important in the context of increasing public concern about the enviroimient and the need
to maintain healthy, productive forests to meet the increasing demand for both consumptive and
nonconsumptive uses of the forest resource. It is for these reasons that we resp)ectively request
your support in securing an appropriation of at least $25 million for the Gxiperative Forestry
Research Program.

We also request your consideration of a fimding levd of $ 144 million for the Competitive Grants
Program administered under the National Research Initiative of the USDA. This program is
increasingly important to natural resource scientists. It emphasizes high priority, basic and
applied research needed to expand our knowledge base and to provide the foundation for fiiture
economic and social benefits. Funds from the National Research Initiative enable forestry schools
and colleges to build upon the base provided by the Cooperative Forestry Research Program.

We further request your continuing support for programs administered under die Renewable
Resources Extension Aa. Appropriations made available under diis Act help make possible the
timely dissemination of research results derived irom the Cooperative Forestry Research Pio g i am
and the National Research Initiative. Activities supported by these funds are an integral part of
the outstanding programs conducted by the Cooperative Extension Service in each state. We
respectfiilly recommend an appropriation of at least $6 million for the Renewable Resources
Extension Aa (RREA).

Finally, we ask your suppon of a new initiative designated Sustainable Natural Resource
Management. This initiative is intended to complement the operational support provided by
RREA. Specifically, extension education can improve the selection of forest managemem options
favoring bodi sustainability and productivity. The proposed extension program focuses on three
issue areas: (1) enhancing productivity aiid integrated forest stewardship, (2) forest products
processing, and (3) understanding natural resource policies. The first of these emphasizes new
approaches to commodity and non-coimnodity forest resource values and environmeotal
stewardship. The second addresses new products, new technologies and the development of
expanded markets. The third recognizes the need for understanding policy alternatives at all
levels of govenmiem— policies that provide for property rights, environmental quality and the
stability of resource dependem communities. The initiative charts a program to implement a
significam increase in program capacity at state and regional levels, plus coordination, leadership,
and materials support.

We know that our request for increases in funding for forestry research come at a time when
Congress must deal with budget shortfalls. However, we believe diat the number and complexity
of the economic, social and environmental issues associated with the forest resources of the
United States provides strong Justification for increased fimding. This position is supported by
the 'Forestry Research: A Mandate for Change' report in its recommendation that fimding for
the Cooperative Forestry Research Program be increased over a period of five years to its
authorized level of fifty percent of the USDA Forest Service research budgrt. Currently, support
for this program is only 1 1 percent of die Forest Service research budget. We trust you will see
forestry research and education as an important investment strategy for the nation.

121

In summary, we urge your support of the Cooperative Forestry Research Program at or above
$23 million; the National Research Initiative at $144 million; the Renewable Resources Extensioii
Act at $6 million and the Sustainable Natural Resources Management Initiative at $6 million.

Finally, this is not a request for forestry schools, forest industry or environmental groups. Nor
is it a request to aid the approximately 7-8 million forest landowners nationally. Rather, it is a
request to address crucial needs and issues that affect the environmental and economic future of
our society.

Thank you for this opportunity to preseffl this statement.

122

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

OF THE

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCUTION

BEFORE THE

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

AND

RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1994

123

Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Pat Layton. I am the Manager of Forest Technology
and Environmental Issues for Scott Paper Co. I am here today speaking on behalf of my
company and as a member of the Resources Research Committee of the American
Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA). I appreciate the opportunity to present the
Research Committees reconunendations for the Mclntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry
Research Act, the National Research Initiative (NRI), and the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA).

AFPA is the national forest industry trade association representing the forest land
managers, solid wood producers, and pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States.
With about 1.4 million employees, annual sales of $190 billion, and seven (7) percent of
gross national product, the forest products industry is a significant contributor to the
nation's economic strength, quality of life, and protection of the enviroimjent.

For purposes of my testimony today, I will highlight the results of the forest industry's
recently completed Research Priorities Report and express strong support for the
Forestry Research Initiative that resulted from the National Academy of Sciences
Report: "Forestry Research, Mandate for Change."

124

I. Forest Industiy's Suggested Research Priorities

AFPA beUeves that forestry research is severely under-funded given the economic and
environmental importance of the nation's forest resources. Major investments in forestry
research will be needed in order for the forest products industry to remain competitive
on a global scale while at the same time conserving and protecting the many functions
and values of the forest resources of this country. I am sure that you are aware of the
major natural resource conflicts around the country, including the spotted owl in the
Pacific Northwest and wetlands in the South. Research into these public policy issues
must be conducted and answers found or we risk continued gridlock because of
inadequate information on how to manage resources in a compatible manner.

A major finding of the AFPA's Research Report is that the top research priorities are
remarkably consistent from one region of the country to the other. Four of the highest
priority research areas include forest management, environmental & social\ biological
interactions, silviculture, and wood utilization. Other recommendations from the
National Research Priorities report focus on improving coordination of forestry research
through a National Research Advisory Council, establishing Centers of Emphasis,
providing new funding for the most pressing forest policy issues, maintaining long term
basic research, and improving the transfer of new research information to those who
make management decisions. I commend this report to your attention and would ask
that it be incorporated into the hearing record.

125

n. Forestiy Research Initiative

AFPA supports the Forestry Research Initiative resulting from the recommendations of
the National Academy of Sciences Report: Forestry Research, Mandate for Change."
Although the full program recommended by the National Academy report is critically
needed, the realities of current budget limitations require that it be implemented in
stages. The first step should be to make investments in research and education to
address the most pressing forestry and natural resources issues mentioned above and to
support current and future resource management programs.

The initiative focuses on addressing the questions of sustainable forest management
involving how to integrate the production of wood products with environmental
protection. Sustainable forest management integrates ecological, economic, and social
factors to meet human needs through diverse, healthy, and productive ecosystems.
AF&PA has been coordinating closely with the other members of the forestry community
including the nation's forestry schools and colleges, the Society of American Foresters,
the National Association of State Foresters, U.S. Forest Service, Cooperative Extension
Service, CSRS, and members of the conservation community. It is significant that all the
players in forestry research are supportive of the Forestry Research Imtiative.

126

One particular area of emphasis within the initiative should be the long-term productivity
and sustainability of intensively managed forests. As even more land is withdrawn from
timber production, the remaining productive acres will need to produce more and better
quality timber. Short rotation intensive forestry for wood fiber or biomass fuel, similar to
row crop agriculture, must factor in genetic tree improvement, control of competing
vegetation, and soil amendments such as fertilizers as part of sustainable forest
management.

III. AFPA Supports $28 Million for the Mclntire-Stennis Act

Mclntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act funds promote a broad range of
critical forestry research in areas such as: (1) expanding domestic and foreign markets for
forest products; and (2) increasing timber productivity while maintaining the associated
water, wildlife, recreation, and range resources. These funds also support graduate
programs which produce future forestry researchers and teachers. Moreover, these
Mclntire-Stennis funds leverage additional funding at the rate of more than four-times
the Mclntire-Stennis investment.

IV. AFPA Supports $140 Million in Competitive Grants as Part of the National
Initiative for Research on Agriculture, Food, and the Environment (NRl).

127

AFPA has joined many others in the forestry community, including the National
Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, in a consensus position which:
(1) supports increasing funding levels for the National Initiative for Research on
Agriculture, Food, and the Environment; and (2) recommends that at least 20% of the
funding be targeted for forestry research.

Investments in forest research in the South averaged only about 6 cents per acre per
year. This low level of investment means that many important forestry research needs
remain unfunded. The National Research Initiative is essential to fulfill the critical need
for funding of new innovative basic research. The Program will attract research
proposals from the best scientists in both traditional and non-traditional disciplines. The
National Research Initiative will enable forestry scientists to fully capitalize on the base
programs funded through other sources.

The forest products industry is of critical importance to the economy of the South and
the nation as a whole. Past forestry research has contributed to forest products
generating an annual value of over $6 billion. This amount was twice the value of
soybeans or cotton crops harvested throughout the south and three times the value of
tobacco, wheat, or com crops. Compared with all manufacttiring in the South, forest
industries employed one out of every nine workers and paid $1 out of every $10 in wages
and salaries.

77-387 O— 94-

128

V. AFPA Supports $6 Million for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RR£A)

AFPA strongly believes that extension and technology transfer of research information is the
keystone to ensuring that important new information is communicated to those best able to
apply and benefit from research expenditures. The forestry component of the Extension Service
is inadequate and not able to respond to increasing demands on all resource outputs from
private forest lands. This important element must receive increasing attention if the goals
Congress articulated in the 1990 Farm Bill are to be realized.

AFPA is currently working with the Extension Service to increase attention in three specific
areas including: (1) training of loggers and landowners in state-of-the-art forest management
practices to ensure the protection of water quality, (2) educating the public about the
compatibility of forestry with envirorunental values, and (3) forest policy education for decision
makers and opinion leaders.

VI. AF&PA Support $6 Million for Sustainable Natural Resources Management

The Sustainable Natural Resources Management Initiative will increase communication and
outreach efforts with non-industrial landowners to realize the benefits of forestry research
knowledge. Program thrusts include: (1) enhanced productivity and integrated forest
stewardship, (2) new technologies for value-added products and development of new and
expanded markets, and (3) understanding natural resources policies and policy options.

129

The Initiative will emphasize new approaches to commodity and non-commodity forest resource
values and environmental stewardship. It will develop new technologies and expanded markets.
It will also address policies at all levels of government that provide for property rights,
enviroimiental quality and stability of resource dependent communities.

Vn. Summary.

The American Forest & Paper Association (APT A) supports the Administration's Forestry
Research Initiative over the next five years. Additional investments including the initiative in
FY 95 would amount to $28 million for the Mclntire-Stennis Act, $140 million for Forestry
Competitive Grants, $6 million for the Renewable Resources Extension Act, and $6 million for
the Sustainable Natural Resources Management Initiative.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the American Forest
& Paper Association's Forest Resources Research Committee. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions that you might have.

130
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE

WITNESS

DR. FRANK W. FITCH, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCI-
ETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY (FASEB)

Mr. Fitch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I am
Dr. Frank Fitch, President of the Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology. I represent 41,000 working scientists.
FASEB appreciates this opportunity to testify before your sub-
committee concerning the fiscal 1995 appropriation for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture Competitive Research Programs.

Research supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture gen-
erates new knowledge to ensure an affordable, abundant, safe and
wholesome supply of food and fiber. This research also promotes
the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in the global economy.

As a result of revolutions in molecular biology and animal and
plant genetics, research opportunities in the area supported by the
USDA are growing at a spectacular rate. FASEB strongly supports
the initiative, the USDA's major program in sciences for awarding
research grants competitively.

Specifically, we recommend that the NRI receive a funding level
of $18 million in fiscal 1995, an increase of $70 million over that
approved for the current year. Over the next five years, appropria-
tions should reach the $500 million level, as authorized by Con-
gress earlier.

This recommendation is based on deliberations in the FASEB
consensus conference which met last November to make fiscal 1995
funding proposals for the USDA and seven other Federal agencies
which support life sciences research. Copies of the consensus con-
ference report published in December have been made available to
the subcommittee.

The National Research Initiative has greatly improved the qual-
ity of the USDA funded research. Studies of insect behavior sup-
ported by NRI have led directly to the development of effective in-
sect traps, significantly reducing the amount of synthetic pesticides
applied in orchards.

New measures have been developed to identify children at risk
for vitamin A deficiency. Studies of the characteristics of the dif-
ferent varieties of wheat have led to the identification of specific
mixtures that when planted together, reduce the incidence of dis-
ease and increase yield per acre.

FASEB believes that the NRI can best address the major chal-
lenges confronting U.S. agriculture by supporting peer reviewed,
investigator-initiated research which is directed toward problems of
broad fundamental importance for agriculture and ecology.

Emphasis on investigator-initiated research, which has been sub-
jected to rigorous peer review, has been critical to the present suc-
cess of the NRI. The NRI was funded at $112 million in fiscal 1994,
a level far short of the congressional authorizations included in the
1990 farm bill.

The FASEB consensus conference strongly recommends that the
NRI appropriation reach $500 million over the next five years, the
level originally envisioned in 1990.

131

The FASEB consensus conference also recommended that the
science conducted by the Agriculture Research Service, ARS, be
strengthened through the establishment of peer review panels and
through the greater use of investigator initiated research.

We applaud the action announced by Senator Leahy that ARS
will close a number of its facilities, and support his view that na-
tional funds saved should be spent on scientists and research.

FASEB recommends the Cooperative Research Service and ARS
remain separate administrative units to avoid conflicts of interest
when ARS scientists apply for NRI grants. This can be accom-
plished by placing the CSRS and the Agriculture Extension Service
in one administrative unit, and the ARS, the Agricultural Library
and the Economic Research Service in another.

Legislation recently approved by the House Agricultural Sub-
committee on Department Operations in Nutrition, which combines
the CSRS and the Extension Service into the Cooperative State Re-
search and Education Service, is a step toward the type of reorga-
nization FASEB recommends.

To summarize, FASEB's recommendations for fiscal 1995, NRI
funding should be increased to $182 million. The average size of
the NRI grant should be increased significantly.

To ensure that a significant number of trained young investiga-
tors, the number of post doctoral fellows should be increased from
21 to 35. Special programs in biotechnology similar to ones used by
the national institutes of health should be initiated by the NRI.

Specific areas including genetic engineering and transgenic
science. These will improve the competitiveness of agriculture and
improve human health.

I thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present
FASEB's views and for rearranging your schedule to meet my last
night out of Washington.

Mr. DuRBiN. Thank you very much.

I am sorry we don't have more time, because it would be interest-
ing to get into your thoughts on genetic engineering and transgenic
science. It is certainly topical.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you.

We appreciate your being able to accommodate our schedule as
well as yours. We want you to get out of town before the sheriff
finds out. We would like very much to look over the recommenda-
tions that you have made on the funding levels for genetic engi-
neering.

Thank you for your testimony.

[The information follows:]

132

FASEB

FEDE31ATI0N OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

Tbe AfDcrican Ptvnolosical Society
Amencan Society for Bioebemsay and

MotecuUr Biology
Amencao Society for Ptunnacotofy utd

Experimeaul Therapeutics
Americao Society for Investigative Paibology
American tostituie of Nutrition
The American Asso ci a ti on of

ImmuDologisu
The Americao Society for Cell Biology
Biopbyucal Sodeiy
American Assodalioo of Anatomists

Executive Director
MICHAEL J. JACKSOM

President and Board Chairman

FRANK W. RTCH, M.D.. Ph.D.

Ben May Institute MC 1069

Unfvefsitv of Chtcaflo

5841 South Marytend Avenue

Chtcago. IL 60637

Tel 312/702-67S6

Fa» 312/702-2720

FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY

(FASEB)

TESTIMONY BY

FRANK W. FITCH, MD, PHD
President of FASEB

Before

House Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee

March 1, 1994

5:30 P.M.

9650 Rockville Pike • Belhesda, Maryland 20814-3998
Telephone 301-530-7075 • FAX 301-530-7190

133

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members:

I am Dr. Frank W. Fitch, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB). FASEB is an organization of nine scientific societies with a membership of more than 41 ,000
scientists who conduct biomedical research at universities, research institutes and government
laboratories throughout the nation. I also am Director of the Ben May Institute at the University of
Chicago.

FASEB appreciates the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee concerning the fiscal 1995
appropriation for the Department of Agriculture competitive research programs. Research supported by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture generates new knowledge to ensure an affordable, abundant, safe and
nutritious supply of food and fiber. This research also promotes the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in
the global economy. As a result of revolutions in molecular biology and animal and plant genetics,
research opportunities in the areas supported by the USDA are growing at a spectacular rate. Investment
in these opportunities is the best way to promote the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture and secure its
leadership in the global economy.

FASEB strongly supports the National Research Initiative, the USDA's major program in the life sciences
for awarding research grants competitively.

The Federation recommends that NRI receive a funding level of $182 million in
fiscal 1995, an increase of $70 million over fiscal 1994. Over the next five years,
appropriations for NRI should reach the $500 million level as authorized by
Congress.

This recommendation is based on the deliberations of a FASEB Consensus Conference that met last
November to make fiscal 1995 funding proposals for USDA and seven other federal agencies that support
life sciences research. Copies of the Consensus Conference report, published in December, have been
made available to the Subcommittee.

Begun in 1991, the NRI has greatly improved the quality of USDA-funded fundamental research. Let me
cite several of NRI's recent accomplishments:

° Studies of insect behavior have led directly to the development of effective insect traps,
significantly reducing the amount of synthetic pesticides applied in orchards.

° New methods have been developed to measure Vitamin A stores and identify children
at risk for Vitamin A deficiency.

"Studies of the characteristics of different varieties of wheat have led to the identification
of specific mixtures that, when planted together, reduce the incidence of disease and
increase yield per acre.

134

Critical to the success of the NRI has been the emphasis on investigator-initiated research, rigorous peer
review of applications by scientists recmited for this task, and the quality of the proposals submitted.

I am pleased to report that the quality of the NRI research proposals is excellent. When NRI
investigators apply for competitive renewal of grants, an impressive 50-60 percent of these are funded
following rigorous peer review. Another plus is that when awards are made, funds are committed in the
first year for all ensuing years of the grant. If there are sufficient resources in the program, this provides
a predictable funding stream that enables investigators to plan efficiently.

FASEB believes that the NRI can best address the major challenges confronting U.S. agriculture by
supporting peer-reviewed, investigator-initiated science directed toward problems of broad, fundamental
importance for agriculture and ecology.

The NRI was funded at $112 million in fiscal 1994, a level far short of congressional authorizations
included in the 1990 fami bill. Tnat landmaric legislation provided for NRI to be funded at $400 million in
the cun'ent fiscal year and at $500 million in FY 1995. The FASEB Consensus Conference agreed with
this wise congressional decision and strongly recommended that the NRI appropriation reach the $500
million level over the next five years.

For fiscal 1995, NRI funding should be increased to $182 million. This $70 million increase over the fiscal
1994 level would be a small part of the overall research effort supported by USDA. The $70 million is
essential to achieve the national goal envisioned for NRI: a broadened research scope addressing the
major challenges facing U.S. agriculture. These challenges include competition from abroad, the need to
improve human health, ana the desirability for better management of natural resources and the
environment.

FASEB also believes the average size of NRI grants should be increased significantly. To assure that a
sufficient number of trained young investigators are available to support the fast-growing biotechnology
industry, the number of postdoctoral fellows should be increased in proportion to the increases
recommended for research funding. For example, the cun'ent number of 21 individual postdoctoral
fellowships should be raised to 35.

We also recommend that special training programs, similar to those used by the National Institutes of
Health, be initiated by NRI. Such special training programs are warranted in genetic engineering and
transgenic science.

The FASEB Consensus Conference also recommended that science conducted by the Agriculture
Research Service be strengthened through the establishment of peer-review panels and through the
greater use of investigator-initiated research. In this regard, FASEB applauds the action announced by
Senator Leahy that ARS will close a number of its facilities and supports his view that the funds saved
should be spent on 'scientists and research.'

FASEB also recommends that the Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) and ARS remain in

135

separate administrative units to avoid conflicts of interest when ARS scientists apply to NRI for grants.
This could be accomplished by placing CSRS and the Agriculture Extension Sen/ice in one administrative
unit, and the ARS, the Agricultural Library and the Economic Research Service in another. Legislation
recently approved by the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, which
combines the CSRS and the Extension Sendee into the Cooperative State Research and Education
Service, is a step toward the type of reorganization FASEB recommends.

To summarize FASEB's specific recommendations: For fiscal 1995, NRI funding should be increased to
$182 million. The average size of NRI grants should be increased significantly. To assure a sufficient
number of trained young investigators, the number of postdoctoral fellows should be increased from 21 to
35. Special training programs in biotechnology, similar to those used by the National Institutes of Health,
should be initiated by the NRI; specific areas include genetic engineering and transgenic science.

FASEB has consistently urged that USDA invest more of its money in investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed
research. This investment will improve the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, will improve human health
and result in better management of our natural resources and the environment. Mr. Chaiman, I thank
the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present FASEB's views.

# # #

136
HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH

WITNESS

DR. JOHN W. ERDMAN, JR., DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF NUTRI-
TIONAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF NUTRITION

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Erdman from the American Institute of Nutri-
tion.

Mr. Erdman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the sub-
committee.

I am Director of the Division of Nutritional Sciences at the Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, Champaign,

Mr. DuRBlN. I know you are in a hurry because you have a bas-
ketball game on TV tonight.

Mr. Erdman. One hour and 20 minutes.

I am here to testify on behalf of the American Institute of Nutri-
tion. We are one of the FASEB societies, so I can shorten my pres-
entation somewhat.

AIN consists of more than 3,000 nutrition researchers from near-
ly every major research, educational, and clinical institution in the
United States. I thank the subcommittee for their support of nutri-
tion research in the past and for the opportunity to speak on that
subject.

My testimony will focus on the USDA NRI program, and al-
though AIN supports all six components of the NRI, my testimony
today will discuss research conducted under the Nutrition Food
Quality and Health Division.

Funding provided by Congress with the leadership of this sub-
committee has enabled nutrition scientists in the country to pro-
vide better information to the citizens to help them select diets that
provide adequate amounts of those nutrients needed for growth
and development. Recent outbreaks of food-borne illness have also
highlighted concerns about food safety, an area now included in the
NRI program.

As health care costs rise at a seemingly uncontrollable rate, the
cost-effectiveness of prevention is becoming increasingly apparent.
The Food Nutrition Board's recent report on opportunities in food
nutrition sciences states:

With disease prevention becoming more important in this time of health care re-
form, continued research and advances in nutrition and food sciences provide great
opportunities to improve the lives of millions of Americans.

As vice chair of that NAS committee that wrote the report, I can
tell you I certainly agree strongly with that statement, and also
with a statement that states:

We recommend that USDA develop a strategic plan that places research in the
nutrition and food sciences more in the center of agricultural research initiatives.
Congress should provide full funding for USDA's NRI in the near future.

As a Member of the NRI study section on improving nutrition for
optimal health, I review and critique many proposals that are sub-
mitted for funding. My university also has several researchers in-
cluding myself who are funded through NRI. I thought a few com-
ments on a few of these grants would be appropriate.

137

My laboratory is currently funded through the improving nutri-
tion for optimal health division of NRI. Our work focuses upon die-
tary factors that affect the absorption of carotenoids, the yellow
and orange pigments in fruits and vegetables, and vitamin A and
metabolites. Foods high in carotenoids are associated with reduced
incidence of heart disease and several types of cancer as well as
aging, cataracts, et cetera.

We are studying several very important aspects of carotenoid ab-
sorption and we are beginning to define how dietary fiber, fat and
alcohol, or simply heating the foods affects how efficiently we can
absorb and convert carotenoids to vitamin A. Our long-term goal is
to assist USDA in forming dietary recommendations for Americans
so they can achieve optimal carotenoid intakes for provision of vita-
min A and other health outcomes.

Two of my colleagues at the University of Illinois in Urbana, Dr.
Visek and Dr. Kapur, also work through NRI funding. Their work
is funded on long-term consumption of dietary fat, which has been
linked to high incidence of cancer, heart disease and obesity. They
have postulated that high-fat diets alter gene expression and that
some of these changes lead to disease development.

Their long-range plans and goals are to identify and characterize
diet-related genes and to test their involvement in disease develop-
ment. Most recently they have isolated a few genes that are turned
on by high-fat diets.

Another one of my colleagues, Dr. Scott Martin, has been award-
ed a grant to study the bacterium that is a very serious concern
to the safety of our food supply. This bacterium. Listeria
monocytogenes, has been found in fresh vegetables, in milk and
dairy products and fresh and processed meats. It is fairly unique
amongst food-poisoning organisms because it can grow at refrig-
erated temperatures.

Even today one-third of those individuals contracting listeria in-
fections die. This bacterium causes illness and death because of its
virulence, that is, its ability to survive the defense mechanisms of
the body, and therefore pregnant women and immuno-compromised
people are at risk.

Dr. Martin's research will examine the influence of several envi-
ronmental factors: pH, temperature, and activity on the develop-
ment and the growth of this organism. So these are three examples
at the University of Illinois.

As a member of three previous NRI study section panels, I can
attest to the anguish that we all felt as panel members as numer-
ous excellent proposals have gone unfunded. Last year, for exam-
ple, under this particular division, only 25 percent of the propossds
were funded.

Also, funded proposals were provided inadequate funds to carry
out the work proposed. The average grant through NRI in fiscal
year 1992 was $58,000. In NIH the average grant in that same
year was $195,000. We had for a number of years had cuts, so that
the scientific issues could not be addressed. The average grant was
2.9 years as compared to 3.8 in NIH.

This is a summary of my comments. I thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and the subcommittee Members, for allowing me to testify.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you for your testimony.

138

You have raised important questions about food safety, which we
raised with the Secretary last week. I would just say in response
to your testimony and Dr. Fitch's testimony, that it is relatively
easier to authorize than it is to appropriate. And we have found on
this subcommittee that the authorizing committee has wonderfully
expensive ideas that we can't pay for. We are going to do our best
to pay for the ones we hope will be judged the most important. As
I said at the outset, I believe research is one of those.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Doctor, I appreciate the presentation that you have made. One
question that cropped into my mind was, with all the wonderful op-
portunities in research, could you get to the point of prioritizing as
much as possible. Can you give us some idea as lay people how to
fund these things, ones that you would think collectively are the
top priority, because with this restricted funding, it is very difficult,
as the Chairman pointed out. We don't want to impede your work.
We want to encourage it. But it is hard to do with a restricted kind
of a budget.

Mr. Erdman. I think one of the benefits of a peer review grant
system, however, is that you end up funding the highest priority.
We hope, of course, with a tight budget, that the nutrition area and
the food safety area, which are very, very important to the health
outcome to Americans, would be considered highly.

Thank you for your comment.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks a lot. Dr. Erdman. Good luck tonight.

[The information follows:]

139

Testimony of

Dr. John W. Erdman, Jr.

Director, Division of Nutritional Sciences

University of Illinois, Urbana

appearing on behalf of the

American Institute of Nutrition

before the

House Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

March 1, 1994

140

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am Dr. John W. Erdman, Jr., Director of the Division of Nutritional Sciences at the
University of Illinois, testifying on behalf of the American Institute of Nutrition.

The AESf consists of more than 3,000 nutrition researchers from nearly every major research,
educational, and clinical institution in the United States. I thank the Subcommittee for its
support of nutrition research and for the opportunity to speak on that subject today.

My testimony today will focus on the USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program (NRICGP). The NRICGP supports investigator-initiated basic and applied research.
These peer-reviewed competitive research projects represent the highest quality science
supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Although AIN supports all six
components of the NRI, my testimony today will discuss research conducted under the
"Nutrition, Food Quality and Health" division of the NRI.

The funding provided by the Congress, with the leadership of this Subcommittee, has
enabled nutrition scientists in this country to provide better information to our citizens to
help them select diets that provide adequate amounts of those nutrients needed for growth
and development. With each new scientific discovery, the key role of proper nutrition in
maintaining human health, and preventing and treating chronic debilitating diseases
becomes more evident. As Americans leam more about these new findings, they continue
to place an increased value on the nutritional quality and nutritional characteristics of the
foods they eat. Recent outbreaks of food-borne illness have also heightened concerns about
food safety.

As health care costs rise at a seemingly uncontrollable rate, the cost effectiveness of
prevention, is becoming increasingly apparent. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine noted in its recent report on
Opportunities in the Nutrition and Food Sciences that "With disease prevention becoming more
important in this time of health care reform, continued research and advances in the
nutrition and food sciences provide great opportimities to improve the lives of millions of
Americans." As the vice-chair of the NAS Committee that wrote that report, I can tell you
that I fully agree with that statement. Our report also made the follov«ng recommendations
which the American Institute of Nutrition fully supports:

"We recommend that USDA develop a strategic plan that places research in the
nutrition and food sciences more in the center of its agricultural research initiatives.
Congress should provide full funding for USDA's National Research Initiative. . .
Increased support for research on developing and applying new and emerging food
and engineering technologies is also needed to enable food-scientists to develop more
value-added food products for export. USDA should also explore the possibility of
emphasizing competitively-awarded, peer-reviewed grants in the nutrition and food
sciences. . ."

VITAL RESEARCH SUPPORTED BY THE NRI

New advances in nutrition science are dramatically changing the direction of our research.
Revolutionary studies based on biotechnology and cellular and molecular biology make it
possible to examine the roles of essential nutrients in people of all ages. Abo, clinical trials
related to the impact of interactions between specific nutrients and nutrients and drugs on
the development or treatment of diseases have been initiated. Ten years ago, such
interactions were not even recognized.

141

Research funded by the NRI has played a key role in establishing new methods to study
requirements for essential nutrients throughout the life cycle. These studies have led to
improved techniques for tracing the use of essential nutrients in the body.

Other studies based on biotechnology and cellular and molecular biology are defining
optimal levels of specific nutrients required by women during periods of pregnancy and
lactation, by rapidly developing irifants and children, and by the expanding population of
elderly citizens.

As consumers demand foods that are minimally processed yet convenient to use, there is
a danger that food-bome illnesses will increase in number. To counter this risk, scientists
supported by NRI grants are studying the basic biology of bacteria that cause food-
poisoning and have developed new detection methods so that harmful organisms can be
identified and eliminated early in food processing operations.

Although many significant advances have been achieved as a direct result of the NRI, much
more work needs to be done. Further research supported by NRI grants will enable
scientists to:

• Develop improved strategies for the rapid and efficient transfer of new
insights about nutrient requirements and food quality to assist the consumer
in making choices that promote optimal nutrition throughout the life cycle.

• Expand knowledge of molecular functions of nutrients using the newest
technologies to develop more effective strategies for defining dietary
recommendations that promote optimal health.

• Determine the role of dietary components in obesity and other chronic
diseases, and establish specific recommendations for optimal nutrition for the
diverse populations in this country.

• Provide more information about nutrients in foods and naturally occurring
food substances that may have important roles in maintaining health.

• Increase our knowledge of the relationship between nutrients and gene
regulation and expression, and the use of biotechnology to increase the
nutritive value of food and minimize spoilage after harvest.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE NRI

As a member of the NRI Study Section on Improving Nutrition for Optimal Health, I review
and critique many of the proposals that are submitted for NRI funding. My university also
has several researchers whose laboratories are funded through the NRI, including my own.
I thought it might be helpful to describe some of these research projects and to respond to
any questions about the work supported by the NRI.

142

Carotenoid Absorption

My laboratory is currently funded by the NRI through the Nutrition, Food Quality and
Health Division. Our work focuses upon the dietary factors that affect the absorption of
carotenoids (the yellow, orange and red pigments in foods such as tomatoes and carrots) and
their metabolism to vitamin A and other metabolites. About 10 percent of the 500 food
carotenoids provide vitamin A, an essential nutrient for vision, growth and reproduction.
In addition, foods high in carotenoids (fruits and vegetables) are associated with reduced
incidence of coronary heart disease, several types of cancer, and diseases of aging of the
eyes, such as cataracts.

We are studying several important aspects of carotenoid absorption where there is
surprisingly little information available. For example, we are beginning to define how
dietary fiber, fat, alcohol, or the heating of foods affects the efficiency by which we can
absorb and convert carotenoids to vitamin A.

Our long term goal is to assist the USDA in formulating dietary recommendations for
Americans so that they can achieve optimal carotenoid intake and status both for provision
of vitamin A and for other health outcomes.

Oiet and Disease

Two of my colleagues at the University of Illinois, Urbana, Willard J. Visek, MD, PhD, and
Jim Kaput, PhD, also have experience with the NRI. Their work has focused on the long
term consumption of high fat diets, which has been linked to cancer, heart disease, and
obesity. Individuals respond differently to diets and the evidence shows that inheritance
plays a role in the metabolism of nutrients. Based upon these facts, they have postulated
that long term consumption of high fat diets alter gene expression and that some of these
changes lead to disease development. Identifying the genes which respond to dietary fat
levels is likely to provide the basis for studying the molecular mechanisms of important
diseases and how diet influences those processes. Supporting experimental evidence for this
possibility has arisen from studies of genes which are involved in initiation and promotion
of coronary heart disease and which may be regulated by dietary variables. Like heart
disease, cancer is a multigenic disease often initiated by the action of one or more cancer
associated genes called oncogenes. The contribution of dietary constituents to the
development of certain cancers, particularly breast cancer, remains controversial. The
hypothesis that fat levels alter gene expression to cause metabolic changes which initiate or
promote disease can be directly tested by a protocol Drs. Visek and Kaput have developed
in their laboratory under a USDA competitive grant. Their long range goal is to identify
and characterize diet-regulated genes and to test their involvement in disease development.

Their research has produced basic information about the mechanisms of disease
development. This is needed for the development of drugs to alter or reverse the course of
diseases like heart disease and cancer which together account for 70 percent of all deaths
and are known to be influenced by diet. Their approach also is identifying factors that may
explain variation between individuals. Such information will be required to understand and
better utilize the human genetic map and sequence currently

being determined by laboratories all over the world. Testing individuals for their response
to dietary factors will ultimately be needed for recommending specific diets for optimal
health for each human being. Preventing disease wdll be less costly than treating disease
once it has developed.

143

Food Safety

Another of my colleagues, Scott E. Martin, PhD, has been awarded a grant to study a
bacterium that is a very serious concern to the safety of our food. This bacterium Listeria
monocytogenes, has been found on fresh vegetables, in miJk and dairy products, and'in fresh
and processed meats. It is unique among food poisoning organisms because it can grow at
refrigeration temperatures. Even today. 33 percent of the individuals contracting^ listerial
infections die. This bacterium causes ilhiess and death because of its virulence (its ability
to survive the defense mechanisms of the body). At least three enzymes allow the organism
to evade our protective systems. It is not presently known how the environment in which
the bacterium grows controls these enzymes. Dr. Martin's research wiU examine the
influence of three environmental factors (pH, temperature and water activity) on the activity
of the three enzymes. He will measure the activities of the enzymes and compare the results
to those of cells grown under known altered conditions. In this way, it can be determined
how changes in the growth environment change the bacterium's virulence. Results from this
shidy may show that current food processing methods could increase the virulence of this
bacterium. Increased virulence would make detection and elimination of this pathogen even
more critical.

These are just a few of the many important research projects funded by the NRI. The
scientific community's ability to obtain the answers to the kinds of questions described
above will be severely constrained without adequate funding of programs like the NRI.

NRI FUNDING

Although funding for the NRI has increased from the initial FY 1991 appropriation of $73
miUion to $1 12 million in FY 1994, funding has faUen far short of the level authorized which
called for funding of $500 million per year in FY 1995 and thereafter. Achieving the success
envisioned by the National Research Council's (NRC) Board of Agriculhire (BOA) when it
recommended the establishment of the NRI in its report. Investing in Research: A Proposal to
Strengthen the Agricultural, Food and Environment System, will certainly be delayed unless
funding approaching the original requested levels is made available. We understand the
severe budgetary constraints the Congress is under, but we beUeve very strongly that the
NRI should continue to be the "High Priority Research" program it was designated to be
under the 1990 FACT Act.

We were very disappointed to learn that $6,729 million of the FY 1994 appropriation for the
NRI was rescinded with the enactment of recent legislation. Again, we understand the
budgetary constraints facing the Congress and the pressure that is being exerted to reduce
government spending. However, we urge this Subcommittee to make the NRI a priority for
funding. ^

Research funded by the NRI is just as important for meeting societal goals as programs
hmded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), yet grants awarded through the NRI are
generally smaller and of a much shorter duration. For example, the average NRI grant (per
year) in FY 1992 (most recent year comparable data is available) was approximately $58,000
compared to $195,600 for NIH grants. The duration of NRI grants averaged approximately
2.2 years in FY 1992 compared to 3.76 years for NIH grants.

144

Of the 2 893 proposals by the NRICGP in FY 1993, only 790 grants were awarded. These
proposals requested $576 miUion in funds, of which $91.8 milUon was provided.

The figures for the Nutrition, Food Quality and Health division of NRI are even worse In
FY 1993 of the $45.5 million requested, only $6 milUon was provided (13.5 percent). Only
49 of the 191 proposals submitted in that year were funded - a success rate of just 25.6
percent. Moreover, limited funds allowed support for only one new mdependent
investigator and one postdoctoral training position.

In FY 1994 this situation will be even worse. The program has experienced a 40 to 50
percent increase in requests, far exceeding the funding increase in the program. This will
assure that the percentage of excellent proposals not hmded will mcrease.

As a member of three previous NRI Study Section panels, I can attest to the anguish felt by
panel members as numerous exceUent proposals have gone unfunded, funded proposals
were provided inadequate hinds to carry out the work proposed or had the number of years
requested cut to a point where the scientific questions raised could not be hilly addressed.
Additional hinds will help alleviate this serious problem.

AIN RECOMMENDATIONS

AIN supports the recommendations of the Federation of American Sodeties for Experimental
Biology (FASEB) Consensus Conference which met this past November to make fiscal 1995
fiinding proposals for USDA and seven other federal agencies that support life saences
research. These recommendations are as follows:

For fiscal 1995, NRI fimding should be increased to $182 miUion. This $70
million increase over the fiscal 1994 level would be a small part of the overaU
research effort supported by USDA.

. To assure that a sufficient number of trained young investigators are available
to support the fast-growing biotechnology industry, the number of
postdoctoral fellows should be increased in proportion to the mcreas^
recommended for research funding. For example, the current number of 21
individual postdoctoral fellowships should be raised to 35.

. Special training programs, simUar to those used by the National Institutes of
Health, should be initiated by NRI. Such special trainmg programs are
warranted in genetic engineering and h-ansgemc science.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present AIN's views.

145

NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE (EPSCoR)

WITNESS

DR. G. WILLIAM CROKER, JR., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELA-
TIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN BIRMINGHAM, FORMER EXECU-
TIVE DIRECTOR, COALITION OF EPSCoR STATES

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Croker, Coalition of EPSCoR States.

Mr. Croker. My name is Bill Croker. I am Director of Govern-
ment Relations for the University of Alabama in Birmingham and
the former Executive Director of the Coalition of EPSCoR States.
I am here this afternoon on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR
States, an organization of research universities in 19 States that
advocate broadening the Federal support for the experimental pro-
gram to stimulate competitive research.

The EPSCoR program is intended to increase the participation of
institutions in States designated by the National Science Founda-
tion in the merit reviewed Federal research programs that ensure
this country's technological and scientific leadership. It does so by
fostering systemic and sustainable improvement in the research ca-
pacities of universities and eligible states.

In Alabama, EPSCoR has been a tremendously successful pro-
gram. It has helped us bring about sort of unprecedented coopera-
tion among a bunch of research universities that tend to fight a lot
among themselves. It has also helped us begin to educate our legis-
lature about what competitive research capacity is and how impor-
tant it is to the State's economy.

One of your colleagues, Ray Thornton, was instrumental in es-
tablishing the EPSCoR program in 1979 at the National Science
Foundation.

Arkansas is, as you might expect, an EPSCoR state, and Presi-
dent Clinton stated during his campaign, "Federal programs like
EPSCoR can help assure that top-flight university researchers re-
ceive the funding they deserve no matter where they work. In addi-
tion, they provide the breadth needed for a healthy U.S. technology
base.

Presently, top-flight university research supported by EPSCoR
occurs in a number of centers at the University of Arkansas for
medical sciences, and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.
Centers like neural biology research and the Center for Cellular
and Molecular Studies on Biological Aging at the University of Ar-
kansas Center for Medical Sciences as well as the Center for Pro-
tein Dynamics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville.

Matching funds for these centers come from the Arkansas science
and technology authority centers for applied research funds.
EPSCoR members in Arkansas, like in Alabama, are also involved
in programs that help high school science teachers provide hands-
on experience in a research laboratory.

With your subcommittee's support. Congress has expanded
EPSCoR beyond NSF to include agencies such as the Department
of Agriculture. Through the NRI program which we have recently
heard about, the Agriculture Department is currently making
funds available to EPSCoR States.

We urge your subcommittee to continue to assure that EPSCoR
States are included as part of the National Research Initiative

146

Competitive Grants Program. Your subcommittee can achieve this
objective and ensure reasonable geographical distribution in the
awarding of initiative grants by directing the Agriculture Depart-
ment to set aside a minimum of 10 percent of these funds in fiscal
year 1995 for the EPSCoR initiative.

These funds should be coordinated through the individual State
EPSCoR committees to assure adequate funding for the State's
overall effort to improve its research infrastructure and to enhance
its capacity to compete successfully in a high-tech economy.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, we
urge fiscal year 1995 support for EPSCoR at the Department of Ag-
riculture. We believe that it is an exciting program of proven bene-
fit to our States. It is a program that is producing solid results,
merit-reviewed results, in both education and scientific research as
well as the Nation as a whole.

We hope will you join us in supporting EPSCoR. Thank you very
much.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

147

TESTIMONY OF G. WILLIAM CROKER, JR
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN BIRMINGHAM
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994

Mr. Chairman:

My name is Bill Croker. I am Director of Government Relations for the University
ot Alabama m Bmmngham and the former Executive Director of the Coalition of EPSCoR
States. It IS a pleasure to have this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee m
support of the Expermiental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) This
mormng I am testifying on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States and the nineteen
states' that participate in EPSCoR.

The primary mission of EPSCoR is to foster systemic and sustainable change in the
capaaties of umversities in eligible states to support nationally competitive academic
research Its secondary objectives are to assure a broad geographic distribution of merit-
reviewed research awards and access to quality education in science and engineering In
practice, EPSCoR also fosters enhanced interaction and cooperation in research and
technolo©. development among universities, state governments, and industries in
participatmg EPSCoR states.

The EPSCoR program is intended to broaden participation in the FederaUy funded
research initiatives that ensure this country's technological and sciemific leadership The
future ability of the United States to meet the economic and health challenges of the next
century depends m large part, on building a truly national scientific and technical research
infrastructure. In Alabama, for example, EPSCoR funds have been used to stimulate
research m such areas as galactic astronomy, coastal marine sciences, and materials science
I-hese programs stnve to build a statewide science and engineering research and education
capacity for Alabama. Not only has EPSCoR stimulated research in Alabama's universities
but It has also proved to be a profitable investmem of state funds. The dollar for doUar
return on investment of state funds in Alabama has equaled approximately $3.95.

The National Science Foundation established the EPSCoR program in 1979 in
response to Congressional concerns about the concentration of Federal support for
university research at a relatively small number of institutions, located in a handful of states
Arkansas is an EPSCoR state, and President Clinton stated during his Presidential
^paigo: Federal programs hke the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research have helped researchers in smaller universities to more effectively compete for

Alabaina, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas. Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine. Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South CaroHna, South DakoS
Vermont, West Virgima, Wyoming, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

148

federal research dollars. Such programs cjin help ensure that top-flight university
researchers receive the research funding they deserve, no matter where they work. In
addition they help provide the breadth needed for a healthy U.S. technology base."

Currently, in the state of Arkansas, this same "top-flight" university research the
President referred to has manifested itself in many ways. Members of the Arkansas
National Science Foundation EPSCoR Advanced Development program oversee research
initiatives in research groups called "centers" at both the University of Arkansas for Medical
Sciences and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. The Center for Neurobiology
Research and the Center for Cellular and Molecular Studies on Biological Aging, both at
the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, as well as the Center for Protein Dynamics
at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, are called "centers" because the match for their
programs comes from the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority's Centers for Applied
Research funds. Despite these impressive research endeavors, one must not think that
EPSCoR is confined only to the universit)' laboratory. Arkansas EPSCoR Committee
Members are also involved in programs like STRIVE, a program which gives secondary high
school science teachers hands-on experience in a research laboratory.

Characteristics of the EPSCoR States :

Presently, Federal research funding is concentrated in relatively few states and
regions of the nation. The 18 EPSCoR states and Puerto Rico, while containing 15 percent
of the United States population, receive only 6.6 percent of Federal research and
development dollars. In contrast, the top five research states, with 27.9 percent of the
population, receive 44.5 percent of Federal research and development dollars.

The EPSCoR Process:

I should explain, by way of background, that the EPSCoR approach involves the
establishment of a statewide coordinating mechanism to:

- identify state and institutional barriers to competitive research;

- develop a comprehensive improvement plan supported by state and
institutional resources;

- undertake a merit review of all EPSCoR programs and;

~ implement the improvement plan focusing on infrastructure improvement,
research enhancements, and human-resource development.

The result has been a significant improvement in state funding for research and
development in the EPSCoR states. Federal support, as a percentage of total spending for
research and development at our research universities, continues to lag significantly behind

149

both the national average for Federal funding and the percentage of support provided to the
top five states. On the other hand, state support in the EPSCoR states is twice the national
average and over seven times as great on a percentage basis as it is in the state that receives
the greatest amount of Federal research resources.

The National Resear ch Initiative Competitive Grants Prn pram-

Congress has expanded EPSCoR beyond NSF; and EPSCoR programs are now
underway -- or in the process of being established in -- the Departments of Agriculture
Energy, and Defense; the Environmental Protecdon Agency; the National AeronauUcs and
Space Admmistration; and the National Institutes of Health. Through the National
Research InitiaUve Competitive Grants (NRICGP) Program, the Agriculture Department
has made funds available to EPSCoR states, through a competiUve merit-review process for-
programs supporting faculty on sabbatical in order to allow them the opportunity to enhance
their research capabilities, for purchasing research equipment that wUl improve upon the
research capacity of institutions, and for experimenting with methods of collecting
prehmmary data for standard research projects. The USDA/NRICGP program has funded
research iniUatives including carbon partitioning and plastid ontogeny in germinating pine
seedlings, studies on senim protein expression and function for control of the medfly, and
hepatic blood flow determination in poultry using thermal pulse decay.

As part of its fiscal year 1995 budget request of this Subcommittee, the Department
of Agnculture has requested funding for the National Research Initiative Competitive
Grants Program. It is our purpose before this Subcommittee to urge your support for efforts
to assure that EPSCoR states are not left out of this Initiative as it moves forward. Absent
a specific program to assure improvement in our ability to compete, history would indicate
that the majority of funds will once again find their way into a small number of states with
established, largely Federally funded, scientific infrastructures.

We are pleased that the Department of Agriculture will use 10 percent of the fiscal
1994 funds m this program for "research strengthening grants." We are concerned, however
that this effort will not be carried forward into fiscal year 1995 unless Congress again directs
that a portion of the ftinds be used for this purpose.

Therefore, we would suggest the following guidelines for a program to assure
reasonable geographic distribution in the awarding of Initiative grants:

1) We ask that, as they did last year, the Appropriations Committees set aside
10 percent of the ftinds in fiscal year 1995 for the EPSCoR initiative. These
awards should be coordinated through the individual state EPSCoR
committees to assure support for the state's overall effort to improve its
infrastructure; to increase the number and quality of grant appUcations
submitted by its researchers; and, ultimately, to enhance its ability to compete
successfully in the high-tech economy.

150

2) A goal should be established to have 20 percent of the actual research grant
awards made to EPSCoR states. If the number of high quality research
proposals submitted from EPSCoR states is not sufficient to reach this goal,
the Department of Agriculture could report this determination annually to the
Congress, together with their suggestions for additional infrastructure
improvements to allow the goal to be reached.

Conclusion :

The state-based nature of EPSCoR is directly responsive to concerns about the
concentration of research in a small number of institutions in a way that institutional
programs intended to foster research are not. Other advantages include encouraging
cooperative efforts among universities in states with limited resources, developing a broad
base of research scientists with expertise related to an agency's mission, and providing a
critical mass around which a state's scientific enterprise can develop. In addition to
fostering competition and geographical equity in the distribution of Federal research funds,
participating states find real value in the EPSCoR program in an international economy
driven by technologj'.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we thank you for listening
to our presentation on the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. We
urge fiscal year 1995 support for EPSCoR at the Agriculture Department. We believe it is
an exciting program with gieat potential benefit for states such as Arkansas, Mississippi, and
Nevada. It is a program that we believe will produce solid results in scientific research and
education for the participating states and the Nation as a whole. We hope you will join us
in supporting EPSCoR.

151

NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE AND OTHER
RESEARCH PROGRAMS

WITNESS

DR. PETER J. BARRY, CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIA-
TIONS

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Peter Barry, the Consortium of Social Science
Associations.

Mr. Barry. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skeen, other Members, my name
is Peter Barry. I am a Professor of Agricultural Finance at the Uni-
versity of Illinois. I am currently President of the American Agri-
cultural Economics Association.

I am pleased to represent the Consortium of Social Science Asso-
ciations, or COSSA, which itself represents 90 professional, sci-
entific societies, educational and social science research institu-
tions. We would like to share our views about the budget proposals
for the Cooperative State Research Service, in particular the NRI,
and about two new research programs, and the Economic Research
Service of USDA

For the NRI, COSSA urges full funding of the $144 million rec-
ommended by NASULGC. It recommends full funding of the money
recommended by NASULGC for the markets, trades, and world de-
velopment program. And it recommends changing the name to eco-
nomic and social issues.

The primary association science program of the NRI, called mar-
kets, trade and rural development, has received about $4 million
of funding in 1992, 1993 and 1994. The 1992 and 1993 funds have
supported 69 research grants at U.S. universities out of a total of
355 project proposals, or 19 percent selection rate, leaving many
excellent proposals unfunded.

If funds permit, we would like to see the selection rate in the 30
to 35 percent range of funds permit. A brief sampling of some of
the projects under way indicates a study at the University of Ken-
tucky on economic and social restructuring of the six-State region
in the Ohio River Valley; a Penn State-Iowa State University study
on multi-community partnerships for meeting the service delivery
needs of rural areas; a Texas A&M University-led study to develop
a community leader handbook for the sighting and management of
waste storage facilities; studies of long-run export demands for the
U.S. meat and poultry industry, by the University of Delaware and
University of Kentucky; and a Purdue University study on export
and foreign investment activities by U.S. food companies.

We have a more extensive and detailed summary of these
projects in our written testimony. Good work is under way, and the
NRI benefits are greater than the availability of research funds
alone.

These Federal projects have allowed the university researchers to
augment their local support base, attract matching funds, tie into
regional, national and international networks, make their work
more credible, develop important interdisciplinary and multi-State
collaboration.

We are concerned, however, that the limited yet important focus
on markets, trade and rural development is overlooking other im-
portant economic and social issues. Feedback from research, user

152

and stakeholder groups has identified a number of other high-prior-
ity areas, including the effects of the continued industrialization of
agriculture, the economics of environmental and natural resources,
consumers' willingness to pay to avoid food safety risks, risk man-
agement in agriculture, and the distributional effects and regu-
latory costs and benefits of public policies.

Broadening the name of the markets, trade and rural develop-
ment program to economic and social issues will accommodate this
broader set of issues. It will add flexibility to the NRI program.
And it may aid in seeking an appropriate balance between competi-
tively and administratively allocated research funds.

COSSA also endorses and supports two new research grants rec-
ommended by NASULGC: $3 million for the rural, economic and
association development grant, which will allow the 1890s univer-
sities in the southern U.S. to gain ground on rural poverty and
community development; and $1 million for the grant providing a
stable and technically competent work force which will help sup-
port the nationwide youth at risk program and contribute to other
family and community initiatives.

Regarding the economic research service, in the USDA restruc-
turing plans, ERS is relocating to the new Under Secretary of Re-
search, Education and Economics. This new location will allow bet-
ter collaborative work with other agencies and allow ERS to con-
tinue its traditional work.

Having had a significant budget cut last year, we would hope
that the ERS funding base can at least be maintained or increased
for 1995.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DuRBiN. As I look through all the research being done, it all
looks like it has fairly practical applications. Especially the one
whether timber causes poverty is a little more reflective than I
thought we would be dealing with here. Explain to me what this
research ends up doing. Who reads it?

Mr. Barry. Who reads it? If it is marketed properly it finds its
way into the public decision-making streams, through yourself and
other policymakers.

Mr. DURBIN. How would it find its way to Joe Skeen?

Mr. Barry. Our professional association publishes Choices maga-
zine, which finds its way around the halls. I am not sure if you
both have seen it or not, but it is a policy-related magazine pub-
lished four times a year, and it contributes to the debate and dia-
logue on a policy agenda. And it does cover research projects.

Mr. DURBIN. Some of this research is very interesting and very
timely — NAFTA and sales in China and so forth. I just wondered
how a Member of Congress, for example, would ever stumble on it,
where we would find it.

Mr. Barry. We need to make it accessible to those who don't
need to see all the methodology behind it.

Mr. DURBIN. You are getting to a level here where a liberal arts-
economics major might actually get something out of it. Previous
witnesses talk about biology and somehow or other it manages to
escape

153

Mr. Barry. I would like to provide you and the other committee
Members with a copy of Choices magazine, because I think it meets
the bill on this.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, Doctor, that makes the point right there. We are inundated
with so much information that comes in, and it is very difficult
sometimes just from a cursory examination of it, to know just what
it does. So you have made your point. We will take a look at it.

Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank for testifying.

[The information follows:]

154

CoNSORTiuivi of SociAl SciENCE Associations

1522 K Streft, NW, SuIte 836, Washington, D.C. 20005 * [2021 842-3525 • Fax [202] 842-2788

TESTIMONY OF

PETER J. BARRY, Ph.D.

PROFESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL FINANCE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

and

PRESIDENT
AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION

on behalf of

CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS
(COSSA)

on the

FY 1995 APPROPRIATIONS
for the

NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FDA AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIAITONS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HONORABLE RICHARD DURBIN, CHAIRMAN

MARCH 1, 1993

JSMBMCOPV

An«n«n Anthropologkal A«oci..ioo • A,n«kan Economic A«ocia.ion • American His.orical A«ooa,ion • American Poftkal Science AssociaHon

American Psychological A«ocU.ion • American Sociological Association • American Stalis.ical Association • Association o( American Ceograpt«-s

Association o( American law Schoob • Law and Society Association • linguistic Society of America

155

nfA . '^^ <^!!™^'' ^"'^ ■ne""'«fs Of 'he Subcommittee. My name is Peter J. Bany. I am Professor
^e^^n^ A T "\ T ''""'''''^ °' '"^"'^ ^' Urbana-Champaign, and the ^rrent PrideTof
the Amencan Agncultural Economics AssociaUon (AAEA) - a professional association of almost 4 000
economists interested m the economics of agriculture, natural resources, and developmenL

I testily today on behalf of the Consortium of Social Science AssociaUons (COSSA) an advocacy
organmuon representing over 90 professional associations, scientific societies. edutLuon ^d Z^^^
msutuuons. mcludmg the AAEA, concerned with the promotion of and fede^ funding fo? thf^
miportant research conduaed by social, behavioral and economic scientists. (A list of COSSA Members
Affiliates, and Contnbutors is attached.) mcuiocn.,

I will present our views about the budget proposals for the Cooperative State Research Service,
.n particular the National Research IniUatlve Competitive Grants program (NRI), other special grant
programs, and the Economic Research Service. r ^ k „ spcv.™ gram

My own discipUne of agricultural economics is one of several social sciences involved in
agncultural research^ Also included are Rural Sociology, Family and Consumer Sciences, Agricultural
SZInTh""'- y^^'T^ Education, among others. TUese social science disciplin^ocus on
the human behavior and soaal systems dimensions of agriculture and rural communities Their research
goals are to understand and explain faaors affeaing the weU-being of rural people and the services they
provide to society, and to provide information that will lead to improvemenita private and pubi^
deasion making. Indeed, all research - including that of the biological and physical sciences - has
unprovements m soaal well-being as the ultimate goal. Thus, social scientist^ have much to offer in
helping to articulate social objectives, designing measurement approaches, interpreting and
^^a^Z'""^ '^^ """^ °^ °"'^' disciplines, evaluating new instituUons. and analyzing poUcy

CSRS and the NRI

The primary social sdence component of the NRI is the Markets, Trade and Rural Development
program, which received S4 million in FY 1992 and 1993. In FY 1994 the Congress appropriat^T
mjlUon agam. but the recent rescissions included in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Aa of
1994 reduced this amount to $3.76 miUion. This was distressing since this componem h^ less fundi
Uian It had three years ago. The other five programs areas of the NRI do contain language in their
descriptions about soao-economic implications, but administrative procedures for incon>orating social
science work mto these other areas has been slow to develop.

For FY 1995, for the NRI, COSSA urges:

1) Full funding of the $144 mllUon recommended by NASULGC;

2) FuU fiinding of the $9 million recommended by NASULGC for the Markets, Trade and Rural

Development Program of the NRI; and

3) Changng the name of the social science program of the NRI from Markets, Trade and Rural

Development to Economic and Sodal Issues.

The $4 million appropriated in FY 1992 supported 35 compeUUvely seleaed, peer evaluated
r^rch projects (21 in markets and trade, and 14 in niral development). The same amount in the FY
1993 appropnauon supported 34 projects (20 in markets and trade, and 14 in niral development) These
f^FZ\T^ "'u^ seleaed from a total of 355 proposals (a 19.4 percent selection rate) leavtag many (286
m total) excellent, unfunded proposals. .» 6 "7 (,-«»

156

The projects seleaed for funding include research on:

• the impacts of NAFTA and GATT on agricultural trade;

• export potentials for seleaed types and forms of commodities in various regions of the world;

• consumer attitudes toward about food, fiber, and forest products;

• food safety and quality standards in trade;

• fiscal management in rural communities;

• socio-economic linkages between metropolitan and rural areas;

• rural labor market skills;

• infrastructure investment; and

• employment diversification.

Most of the 1992 and 1993 NRI projects are still underway, but some selected progress reports
on these, often multi-state and multi-disciplinary studies, can be briefly cited.

For Rural Development

• A University of Kentucky project involving two sociologists, an economist, and a
geographer is studying the economic and social restruauring of a six state region of the
Ohio river valley in light of the recent loss of high wage jobs, economic and
environmental conflicts (jobs versus the environment), and the decline of extractive
industries. TTie study will evaluate how federal, state and local policies have influenced
the socio-economic and geographic transformation of the region and the well-being of
rural people.

• At Auburn University, a team of two sociologists, an economist, and a forester have
found a significant relationship between timber production and rural poverty (i.e. "timber
causes poverty?"), and are conducting detailed county-level studies to determine how
historic land use patterns, employment opporiunities, tax abatement policies, and other
Actors might explain this relationship.

• A multi-state project led by researchers in Pennsylvania and Iowa is studying how multi-
community partnerships and alliances enable small rural communities to more effectively
meet their service delivery needs, the capacity building strategies for the communities
involved, and the types of state and local policies that facilitate partnership formation.

• A Texas-based, multi-state study involving sociologists and economists is examining the
effects waste facility siting and management has on the economic, demographic, public
service, fiscal, and social dimensions of rural conmiunities in the Great Plains and the
Inter Mountain West. One produa of the study will be a Community Leader Handbook
for the Siting and Management of Waste Storage and/or Disposal Facilities.

For Markets and Trade:

• An Iowa State University economics team has combined NRI funds with funds from the
U.S. Meat Export Federation to evaluate the long-run competitiveness of the U.S. beef
industry in all of the import beef producing and consuming areas of the world.
Assessments of supply and demand conditions and current policies relative to those of
the U.S. have contributed to long-term projections and strategic plans by the Meat
Export Federation. Several new market opportunities were discovered and some
previous unknown trade barriers were exposed.

157

« A team of economists at the University of Delaware and the Economic Research Service

of USDA is evaluating how changes in market reforms and growing incomes in Qiiiia,
the pending GATT membership applications of China and Taiwan, and Hong Kong
reverting back to China in 1997 will alter world prices, trading patterns, and U.S. trade
shares of grain, feed grains, oil seeds, and cotton. As a Qrst step, the researchers have
found largely price inelastic demands for most food commodities, limited substitution by
Chinese consumers among commodities due to price changes, and meat, poultry, fruits,
sweets, and other foods as the most responsive to changes in consumer incomes,
indicating long term trade opportunities in these areas.

• An economist in Kentucky has found that demands for frozen beef in South Korea and
frozen pork and some chicken parts in Taiwan may offer potential export gains for U.S.
producers, as market distribution and production systems in these countries (especially
South Korea) are modernized, trade barriers are reduced, environmental problems are
resolved, and U.S. beef is uniquely identified.

• A University of Missouri economist has found that failure to reach a consensus on food
safety regulations at the European Community level has led to the development of
national legislation and to the application of idiosyncratic, often voluntary regulatory
practices that in turn may influence trading patterns of U.S. firms, geographic location of
production, and the nature of vertical coordination across market sectors.

t A University of Maryland research team, that is examining the effects of the Free Trade

Agreement with Mexico on agricultural production, consumption, and trade, has
established a consortium with researchers in several Latin American countries. A
conference and briefing session are planned for policy makers and other researchers.

• Studies at Purdue University addressing alternative modes for international food sales
and characteristics of exporting firms have found substantial complementarity between
foreign direct investment by U.S. food companies and food exports to the United
Kingdom. If export subsidies for value-added food products also encourage foreign
direa investment by the same U.S. food companies, then policy-led export
encouragement should be tailored to the charaaeristics of the exporting firm.

These reports indicate that good work is imderway. As these projects and others are completed,
the socio-economic information base for policy analysis and decision making will be substantially
enriched ~ especially in areas of markets, trade and rural development Moreover, researchers
conduaing these projects report substantial satisfaction with the NRI grants. These funds have allowed
them to augment their local support base, tie into national and regional programs, add significant
CTedibility to their research programs, serve as a lever for attracting additional funds, and have facilitated
extensive interdisciplinary, multi-state work, and in some cases international collaboration. Thus, the
benefits of the NRI program are extending well beyond the provision of funds alone.

Besides the specific focus on markets, trade, and rural development, however, nimierous other
economic and social issues also warrant consideration for inclusion in the NRI research agenda. A
current agricultural economics research priorities project sponsored by CSRS, ERS, and USDA, based on
10 focus groups of research users, identified high priority areas such as equity effects of government
policies, regulatory costs and benefits, consumers' willingness to pay for avoiding safety risks, and the
economic trade-ofk involved in sustainable agriculture. Also, included among these topics are the
continued industrialization of agriculture and its implications for farm, resource, credit and development
policies; more effective methods of risk management in agriculture, both in the private sector and

158

throuEh public poUcies; the economics of environmental and resource management; human capital
development in rural areas; innovative ways of creating wealth in rural areas; and famUy strategies for
coping with economic hardships.

These issues, and others not cited, are not directly reflected in either the Markets, Trade, and
Rural Development Program of the NRI or m the other NRI programs. Changing the name of the
Markets, Trade, and Rural Development Program of the NRI to Economic and Social Issues would
maintain the current focus while broadening the scope of social science work. Such a change would ako
pro^de OexibUity for social science research to respond to new issues, and it would achieve consistency
among the six major research areas of the NRI and those of -he National Assoaation of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). TOs change together wtth expanded f^n^'ng of the
so^al science research program of Ihe NRI might reduce the need for social saenusts to seek speaal
grants from Congress to address important policy and research questions that would otherwise go
unfunded in the agricultural research agenda.

Special Research Grants

COSSA endorses and supports the recommendation by NASULGC for $1 million of funding in
FY 1995 for the special research grant Expanding Re.search to Maintain Capacity to Provide a Stable
and T«:hnically C^petent Workforce. The agricultural research estabUshment must have ready access
to an accurate, current information base about the communities and families from which it expeos to
draw a technically able workforce. This research initiative mil meet this need and contribute to the
research base for the nationwide Youth-At-Risk program established by the Extension Service, USDA.
and the Extension Committee on Policy of NASULGC, and it will contribute to other emerging
initiatives on families and communities.

COSSA also endorses and supports the recommendation by NASULGC ^^^^ million of
fundine in FY 1995 for the special grant Rural Economic and Soaal Development (1890). This project
w^U address a critical need in^he southern U.S. to gain ground towards alleviating ^^^ P^^^^'^l^
permit the people involved to empower their families and communities for positive development Tie
1^90 institu\^.ls are motivated and positioned to provide leadership in this area. Tl"^ ;^f;^^^;;;f^.
focus on barriers to family and community development; incentives for new linkages and partnerships,
infrastructure needs; business and job opportunities; enhanced development of human capital and
leadership; and other critical needs.

Economic Research Service

TTte Economic Research Service (ERS) carries out four very important functions and performs
them very weU. First, the ERS Situation and Outlook program provides information and analysis about
short and long oin conditions affecting food, agriculture, and resources, both home ^ff/°^^.^^.
Substantial u^ is made of this infonnaUon throughout the U.S. Second, research and <lf.'^/'f^^^P™^'"
proJrZ of the ERS have included congressionally mandated research projects, cooperauve studies with
other federal agencies and universities. USDA priority projects, and agency miuatives.

Third, the widely used and highly valued economic and social Indicators of ERS include fiMndal
and economic data on farm income, farm assets and debts, productivity, resources and numerous other
mlrr Fourth, the staff analysis program of ERS has been rapidly expanding 1"'' •» f^^T^^
"elands for timety and responsive analyses providing infonnaUon and decision making on cnucal pohcy
and programmatic issues.

159

In the USDA restructuring proposal ERS will relocate from its own assistant secretary of
economics to inclusion with the set of agencies under the new assistant (or under) secretary of research,
education, and economics. This new location will enhance the ability of ERS to work with other
research, education, and service agencies, while conducting the traditional functions cited above. Having
suffered a significant reduction in its funding in FY 1994, COSSA urges the Congress to reject the
administration's request for another reduction for ERS in FY 1995, and to maintain FY 1994 funding
levds so that it can carr]' out its important responsibilities.

Thank you for the opponunity to present our views.

77-387 0—94-

160

g g g re

X X X v
U V U Q

£ E E E
< < < <

« «= _ S «
•S ■= C V c.

= £Zzzo£:

O -c c g c

Z ODai 3

i= D 3 D ^

11-. -

U U O U 3 X

161
REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

WITNESSES

DR. TED BATTERSON, DIRECTOR, NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL AQUA-
CULTURE CENTER, FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT,

DR. C.G. SHEPHERD, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL AQUA-
CULTURE CENTER

LESTER W. MYERS, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, DELTA
WESTERN, INC.

DR. DAVID A. SMITH, PRESIDENT, FRESHWATER FARMS OF OHIO, INC.

DR. KENNETH K. CHEW, DIRECTOR, WESTERN REGIONAL AQUA-
CULTURE CENTER, SCHOOL OF FISHERIES WH-10, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON

DR. VICTOR MANCEBO, DIRECTOR, NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL AQUA-
CULTURE CENTER, RESEARCH, 201-B, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHU-
SETTS, DARTMOUTH

DR. KEVAN MAIN, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR TROPICAL & SUB-
TROPICAL AQUACULTURE, THE OCEANIC INSTITUTE

WALTER LANDRY, PAST-PRESIDENT, LOUISIANA AQUACULTURE AS-
SOCIATION

HAROLD BENOIT, CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PROMOTION
AND RESEARCH BOARD

DR. LINDEN BURZELL, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER,
AMORIENT AQUAFARMS

RICHARD CROFT, POHNPEI NATIONAL PRODUCTS

ROBERT RHEAULT, PRESIDENT, SPATCO, INC.

DR. THOMAS HOPKINS, BIOMETRICS, INC.

GARY ARNOLD

FERN WILDER, HY-ON-A-HILL TROUT HATCHERY

LARRY BROWN, OWNER/OPERATOR, FOUNTAIN BLUFF FISH FARM

DAVIS ISAACS, FISH HATCHERY MANAGER, AQUATIC CONTROL, INC.

CURT STUTZMAN, AMERICAN TILAPIA ASSOCIATION, TREASURER/
SECRETARY

KEN BEER, THE FISHERY

DONALD CAMPBELL, FIRST ASCENT FISH FARMS

CHRIS NELSON, MURRAY ELEVATORS

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Ted Batterson, and panel, the U.S. Regional
Aquaculture Centers. Thanks for joining us.

Mr. Batterson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Skeen, I am Ted Batterson,
Director of the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, and it
is a privilege to come here today to testify on behalf of all the re-
gional aquaculture centers.

It is my pleasure and honor to introduce to you a prominent
member of the aquaculture industry who will provide this oral tes-
timony. This individual is Dr. David Smith, president of Fresh-
water Farms of Ohio. Mr. Smith.

Mr. David Smith. After all that, someone crazy enough to be a
fish farmer this last winter.

Mr. Skeen. You made a good campaign.

Mr. DURBIN. Frozen fish.

Mr. David Smith. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Members of
the subcommittee. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to
you about aquaculture and the subcommittee has always been a
good supporter of this new industry and we surely appreciate that.

One of the things that we have really seen happen that we are
very excited about still is that the regional aquaculture centers

162

have been a good industry lead, a response to problems and grow-
ing pains in this young industry.

Probably some of the major types of problems that we are tack-
ling now are in a couple categories I want to touch on very quickly,
the first of which would be looking at waste management concerns
and environmental type strategies to make sure that aquaculture
develops in this country on a sound environmental base with eco-
nomic matters considered.

Our present position now where the centers are even conducting
interregional and joint studies within the centers because these are
national problems, and the industry feels very strongly about these
types of priorities.

So that there is a couple of attacks are being taken now, one of
which is the development of more efficient diets, so that a new ex-
pression might be these are diets that want not, waste not, because
you are looking at providing diets that don't have extra nutrients
going into the downstream.

We are looking at the developing of those type of nutritionally
complete and very efficient diets. We are looking at some of the
major problems that I think the fish farmers look at when they
start talking about waste management strategies, best manage-
ment plans, the types of things that other farmers are also having
to deal with now is to looking at what are appropriate types of
technology that are farmer friendly and that can be used in a sig-
nificant way.

I am sorry that our other fish farmer was supposed to be here
from down south isn't here to testify also, but any crawfish farmer
down there will tell you they surely know the value of wetlands for
their production of crawfish, and I think a lot of us are seeing that
that is a place where wetlands can be used positively for waste
management, not only aquaculture but other types of farms.

We are seeing a nice move now toward integration of aquaculture
in with conventional types of farming where aquaculture plays a
key role in the management problems that are faced. Personally we
have been involved in setting up aquaculture facilities that help
solve some of the problems of dairy farmers and some of their
waste, not only from manure and things like that, from their treat-
ment lagoons, but also from their milking parlors, ice cream plants.

We are able to use constructed wetlands, able to use
aquacultural lagoons that strip out in the way of a usable product.
So we are excited about how aquaculture fits into that scheme of
things.

I think that we are also very pleased with the strides that have
been made as far as making the most out of very meager extension
support from the States in aquaculture. The system of coordination
now between the different States, and I speak from personal expe-
rience in the Midwest area, that the extension agent from each of
the States now work very closely together so there is not a lot of
duplication in the production of very important public information
efforts.

There has been some new things. They have tried teleconfer-
encing this last year that was within our region, producing new
materials, and I hear you talking about getting information out to
the public, and we consider that a key part is production of videos

163

that will address the very heavy demand that we see for aqua-
culture in new people that want to get into this industry but don't
know how to do It, and we surely don't want to see the number of
people that want to get into this industry to have a negative expe-
rience, to fail, and we really need to get the best of our knowledge
that we presently have out there to these people and continue to
research those problem areas that need to be understood better

Frobably the third and finally thing I want to touch on is the—
in this young industry we really don't have large corporations that
are able to fund a lot of research to address industry problems and
we really, in our area at least, not so much anymore in the south-
ern region, but we lack marketing infrastructure. We lack informa-
tion that now the USDA sponsored regional centers are starting to
provide, starting to provide some basic marketing information so
that people can have some idea of what is going on out there and
u"l^u ^^cisions based on economic realities as far as planning
what they do in either planning a new operation or an existing one
so we feel that is a very strong need and as this industry is grow-
ing, we are kind of outgrowing our niche markets in the Midwest
and trying to produce a product that has— really is an international
commodity in the global marketplace, and we see some real prom-
ise there, but we are having difficulties in reaching that goal
T ^d in. closing, I guess I would just like to point out a phrase
1 heard from an investment person recently that said that aqua-
culture IS an industry in focus for the future, and we really feel
strongly that the subcommittee's continued support of the regional

fn'g fuTure'a re'ality' ^""" ' "^"''^ ^'^^ '" ^^^"^ '^^' P^^^^^'

Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks for your testimony, and this subcommittee
IS counting on your success because we have made significant in-
vestments in aquaculture and believe that it has a bright future

1 have had an opportunity over the past year to visit several
areas where aquaculture research is under way, both in IlHnois
and outside the State, and I think this is an area that is often over-
tunit he^e ^^''''^^'^^ ^^- ^^ ^^^® ^^^^ potential and great oppor-

fKL*^''^l°''-®.u'^^i^^ ""^^^ encouraging things you told me is that
this work with the regional centers is starting to lead to an ex-
change arid transfer of information in marketing and other areas,
arid that is absolutely critical for the growth of this industry. We
will continue to do our very best to fund that type of effort in the
future and you have a lot of friends here

Mr. David Smith. Thank you, Mr. Durbin

Mr. Durbin. Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Smith, I think
that aquaculture has really added a new element to diversification
m agriculture and it is becoming a very important part of it.

Ihis holds a lot of promise. I think the funding that we put in
tnese centers has done a good job and now if you can find some-

i^^ ^® ^^^ ^^^^® in ^®^ Mexico with no water.

Mr. David Smith. There is a lot of work on reuse of water.

Mr. bKEEN. Reuse of water? We use our several times.

Mr. David Smith. That is right.

164

Mr. Skeen. We have the gi'eatest water in the world. It is 90 per-
cent rock, 10 percent moisture.
Mr. DURBIN. Dried fish. We can do that.
Mr. Skeen. Yes, we raise them dry.
[The information follows:]

165

Testimony submitted to the

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

DR. TED R. BATTERSON, DIRECTOR

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTER

EAST LAiNSING, MICHIGAN

March 1, 1994

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to submit
testimony on behalf of the Regional Aquaculture Center Program. We are truly appreciative of the
Subcommittee's support for this program over the last seven years. Funding appropriated for the Regional
Aquaculture Centers in fiscal year 1993 was $4 million. I am submitting this testimony to urge you to increase
the support for the Centers to the fully authorized level of $7.5 million.

The North Central Regional Aquaculture Center serves the industry and consumers in the 12 states
of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South
Dakota, and Wisconsin. This fertile section of the country produces abundant grains and soybeans that can
be processed for fish feeds. We also have spectacular water resources for aquaculture within our boundaries.
These include U.S. portions of four of the five Great Lakes, and rivers and streams that make up the Missouri,
Ohio, and Upper Mississippi River drainages. The 60 million people residing in this region are mainly
concentrated on these water bodies. They have a long tradition of using fish as a major source of protein in
their diets.

In 1993, an estimated 890 million pounds of commercially caught fish and shellfish were consumed
by residents of the North Central Region. On the supply side, probably less than 5% of regional consumption
can be accounted for by commercial capture fisheries and aquaculture ventures from our lakes and rivers.

^'"'°" Pago 1

166

Consequently, fish consumption in the North Central Region was a major factor in the $2.2 billion U.S. trade
deficit in edible fishery products reported by USDA for 1992.

Fish consumption has become expenswe for people In the North Central Region. Demand has risen
in response to increasing awareness of health benefits denved from fish in the diet Rsh from traditional U.S.
ocean fisheries are being consumed by increasing populations in coastal states. The supply of reasonably
priced, good quality ocean products to our inland markets has diminished substantially over the last decade.
Pnces for fish in our grocery stores and on menus in our restaurants have spiralled upwart. Meanwhile, much
of the recreational^ caught fish are environmentally contaminated and could potentially be a health risk.

If I may suggest Mr Chaimian and Members of the Subcommrttee, the time ,s cleariy at hand to move
aggressively to increase regional aquaculture production using our many water resources that are not
contaminated. We also need processing technology and market development programs to make use of new
and non-traditional aquaculture species and products.

The aquaculture community of the North Central Region is very appreciative of the steps Congress
has taken to improve our fish supplies and reduce the trade deficrt in fish products. USDA's Regional
AquacurturB Center Program Is one such inrtiative. The North Central Regk^nal Aquaculture Center (NCRAC)
works with four other centers on an integrated approach to a well developed and sustainable aquaculture
industry in the U.S.A. and te territories. Programs of the centers are driven by needs of regional industries,
articuteted through strong Industry Advisory Councite. TofH^otch teams of research and extension specialists
from universities and public agencies in the North Central states began executing wort< plans to solve
problems of the industry in May 1989. Wort, is accomplished using in-place people and facilities. No
expenditures are made on brick-and-mortar or institutional overt,ead. At this time, NCRAC has ten projects
online. They involve each of the 12 regional states. 38 aquaculture scientists and extension people, and 16
universities and puWk: agencies. Analysis of economics and marketing and genebc improvement of regkDnal
strains of cultured trout, walleye, yellow perch, and sunfish are thrusts of the program. Improvement of
technology for regional culture of hybrid striped bass is also underlay. Projects on crayfish, bait fish, and
aquaculture waste management are now in their second year of activity. Aquaculture specialists in USDA's

Page2
Battanon

167

Cooperative Extension Service are making Information from ttiese projects available In the region and across
the country.

While a good start has been made to serve needs of the industry and consumers, additional regional
problems of high concem are left unattended. Least-cost nutrition for newly cultured species, policy for
genetic engineering of cultured fish, and fish health and food safety are among them. On hold, Is a large pool
of expertise In our publicly funded universities and agencies that can deal with these concems.

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your support of the Regional
Aquaculture Center Program. Funding over the past years has been put to good use in this program. We
respectfully request that funding at the authorized level of $7.5 million be provided so that this important
program can conduct the full range of activities necessary for development of the industry and continued
reduction of our large ti^de deficit

Battefson Paga3

168

Testimony submitted to the

AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

conceming

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

MR. LARRY BROWN

OWNER/OPERATOR

FOUNTAIN BLUFF FISH FARM

GORHAM, ILLINOIS

March 1, 1994

I appreciate the opportunity to express the importance of aquaculture in the state of Illinois. My
partners and I are entering our twenty third (23rd) year as aquaculturists We have 225 acres of production
ponds and two holding/loading facilities in southern Illinois. Our fish farm is the largest in the state of Illinois.
We raise a variety of fish for pond and lake stocking and for human consumption. Most of the fish are sold
within the state, however, some are sold to neighbonng states. We have also supplied large channel catfish
to the Illinois Department of Conservation for the "Urtjan Fishing" program. I have also been a member of the
Illinois Aquaculture Industry Association since 1987 and served on the board of directors for two years.

Aquaculture in the United States is presently the fastest growing segment of US agnculture.
However, it supplies only 10 to 15 percent of the U.S. seafood needs. Over 60 percent of the seafood
Americans consume is imported. This level of importation makes fish and shellfish the second largest
contributor to the trade deficit among natural products, surpassed only by petroleum. Wrth global demand for
fisheries products expected to grow seven-fold over the next 35 years, and with natural supplies of fish and
shellfish now being harvested at maximum sustainable yields, the U.S. has an opportunity to develop a
gtobally competitive aquaculture industry to serve its own consumers and the global mari<etplace. That can
help to revitalize rural America.

Page 1
Brown

169

Aquaculture In Illinois is still in it's infancy as an industry, but growing. There are more than 100
"aquaculture facility" permit holders, resulting from about a 20% increase each year for the last six years.
Several are part-time and small-scale fish fanners; about twenty (20) derive a major part of their income from
aquaculture. The Illinois aquaculture industry looks to the State Department of Agriculture and, more
importantly, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for strong leadership in support of this emerging new
agricultural industry. In this regard, I strongly encourage you to support the U.S. DA. North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center by fully authorizing the appropriation of $7.5M for the Regional Aquaculture Centers.
Funding for the Centers will lead to more research on a variety of species suited to the five regions, generate
economic and mart<eting information, enhance the extension of existing and new aquaculture information, and
eventually lead to another significant use of our Illinois com and soybeans - fish food.

Brown Page 2

170

Testimony submitted to the

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

MR. CURTIS STUTZMAN

SECRETARYn"REASURER

AMERICAN TILAPIA ASSOCIATION

KALONA, IOWA

March 1,1994

I present my testimony behalf of the 200 members of the American Tilapia Association. Tllapia, a fish
endemic to the Nile River in Northern Africa, is growing in popularity as a cultured fish in this country due to
its substitutability in the market with fish like cod and orange roughy and because it is easily cultured on a
grain-based diet in intensive systems. I personally serve as Secretary/Treasurer to this fish species
association and I have personal involvement in Kloubec Aquaculture, L.C. based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

I have also been personally involved in the national effort to bnng aquaculture into the high school
agriculture classrooms as a new approach to teaching applied agnculture science. At Linn-Mar High School
in Marion, Iowa, enrollments in agnculture classes rose 300% after a pilot aquaculture program was
implemented there. The school administration changed their course from trying to cancel the ag program to
becoming one of its most vocal supporters. Regional Aquaculture Center personnel and extension agents
have been very involved in this program and with of hundreds of other ag programs across the country.

I wish to personally rise in support of the Regional Aquaculture Centers and in particular the North
Central Regional Center of which I have become personally familiar as a new member of the Industry Advisory
Council. It is reassunng to me as an aquaculturist and as a taxpayer to see industry advice being taken
seriously by researchers. The guidance that these Industry Councils give make sure that the scarce national

Page 1
Stutzman

171

resources that we have for aquaculture development are spent with commercial interests in mind. This new
system really does work and the research has been responsive to changing industry needs.

However, Congress has not fully funded this effort in the past I urge you to consider funding the
Regional Aquaculture Center program at Its full authorization of $7.5 million. Aquaculture is a young and
developing industry. The American consumer's Interest in leaner protein sources and more vanety in their
diet has created a massive seafood trade deficit In fact seafood products is this country's largest food import
deficit item. Short of cutting consumption, the only way to reduce this deficit is to develop a viable aquaculture
industry in this country. Ocean supplies are diminishing as pollution and overfishing take its toll.

The catfish industry, a U.S. aquaculture success story, was made possible by a coordinated effort
from the private fish famners, university researcher and extension specialists. The United States needs more
catfish success stories. The new species that are being developed under the North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center programs such as walleye, yellow perch, hybrid striped bass, and Tilapia have great
potential to be catfish success stories.

In the Tilapia industry, we have seen what happens when opportunities are missed. U.S. institutions
were slow to recognize Tilapia as a viable fish product in the U.S. mart<et This lack of foresight was due to
the fact that Tilapia is not a fish endemic to the United States. However, Tilapia is well received in the mari<et
here and we have the water resources to produce the fish. Due to the lack of coordinated effort ft-om
extension and research, almost two-thirds of the 46 million pounds of Tilapia we consume in this country is
grown overseas. The lack of research monies for aquaculture does hamper our development and does
effectively add to our trade deficit in seafood. I strongly urge you to consider funding the Regional Aquaculture
Centers at the full $7.5 million level. Thank you.

Stutzman Page 2

172

Testimony submitted to the

AGRICULTURE. RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

conceming

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

MR. DAVID A. ISAACS

FISH HATCHERY MANAGER

AQUATIC CONTROL, INC.

SEYMOUR, INDIANA

March 1,1994

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony
In support for the Regional Aquaculture Center Program. My name is David Isaacs, I am employed as Fish
Hatchery Manager by Aquatic Control, Inc. Our company has been in the fish management business since
1966 and we have seen a lot of changes in the aquaculture industry at the state, national, and international
levels. I am presenting this testimony on behalf of our company as well as a board member, and past
president of the Indiana Aquaculture Industry. I am proud to be one of the founders of the Indiana Aquaculture
Association and to have served as its charter president

As a member of the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Indiana has already seen positive
results from the Aquaculture Center Program. Much needed industry surveys, data collection, liaison between
the producers and the policy makers, as well as basic research projects have all provided insight to the needs
and requirerDents of the aquaculture industry in our region. I strongly support the continued support for this
effort. I believe the time has come and it is nowl

Aquaculture provWes farmers with a profitable alternative crop, helps reduce our national balance-of-
payment deficit and provides employment and income opportunities in rural regions of our country. The
growth of the aquaculture industry in the US has global implications. Although the US is the world leader in
traditional agricultural production, we face a great challenge to obtain the same position in aquaculture

Pagel

173

production. Many other countries have had much greater emphasis placed on their development of a strong
aquaculture Industry by their govemments. The US must make every effort to provide the needed support
for this industry in all areas of the nation. Isolated areas of the US have already seen aquaculture grovi> into
a major economic factor. There is no reason the same cannot be realized nationwide.

The funding provided in the past for the Regional Aquaculture Centers has allowed a good beginning.
Initiation of the Regional Aquaculture Center program by the Congress has stimulated a startup of programs
that have been generally appreciated by the industry. The current level of funding has been very restrictive
on development of research and extension programs given the great needs of this rising industry. I now
challenge you to give serious consideration to increasing the funding level to the full authorized level of $7.5
million. This increase in funding will enable greater accomplishments in a shorter period of time. Time is of
the essence for the aquacultijre industry in the US. If we continue to take a wait and see attitude, we will find
ourselves playing catch-up to the rest of the worid. I believe we owe it to the private investors who are willing
to invest their time and capital in the development of the aquaculture industiy in the US to provide adequate
federal funding to support the aquaculture centers as a support group. Without adequate funding, the
Regional Aquaculture Centers cannot develop tiie full range of activities necessary for the continued
development of the aquaculture industry in the US.

'*"« Page 2

174

Testimony submitted to ttie

AGRICULTURE. RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

conceming

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

DR. DAVID A. SMITH, PRESIDENT

FRESHWATER FARMS OF OHIO, INC.

URBANA, OHIO

March 1, 1994

"Aquaculture is an industry in focus for the future." To those of us who have been worthing hard at
making our piece of that industry viable, these are bittersweet words indeed. They were spoken to me by a
vice-president of corporate financing for a major investment company headquartered here in the Midwest.
That executive was responding to what he had learned about our industry from U.S.D.A. sponsored economic
reports on the Situation and Outlook for Aquaculture in the North Central Region. The grovrth potential for
aquaculture in the Midwest left him, as with many others, bubbling with exciting visions of what could come
to be. Opportunities for new companies, new jobs, new support industries, new export products, all "just
around the comer." These potentialities excite fish farmers as well, but those with hands-on experience know
full well how difficult it can be. To work with species of fish that are marginally domesticated, fed with
expensive diets less than optimally nutritious, then processed and marketed with little infrastructure or
guidance, can leave one wondering when the future for aquaculture will finally come into ftxus. And yet in
spite of these difficulties, risks and financial hardships, aquaculture is grovnng. Lots of growring pains pertiaps.
but pushed on by the needs of the natron, and the economic forces of the international maritetplace.

The North Central Regional Aquaculture Center has been responsive to the needs of the young
aquaculture industry of the Midwest New domestroated fish species are desperately needed by the private
sector to boost development of major fish farms in the Mklwest but the low level of funding allocated the
Aquaculture Center is providing a skjw response to this major bottleneck. The devetopment of these new

Pagal
Smitti

175

breeds of fish suitable for a temperate climate is presently concentrating on species sucfi as walleye, yellow
perch and hybrid bluegills. From our perspective in Ohio, the once robust perch fishery from Lake Erie is no
more, and the mar1<etplace in Ohio must depend on limited supplies of imported perch from Canada and
Poland. Retail prices for this popular Midwest fish have remained around $7-10 per pound for several years.
Research priorities include appropriate fingerling technology, commercial production methods, and nutritional
studies to develop cost effective feeds that utilize the vast agricultural feedstufls of our region.

The updated adage about "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish farm
and you feed him (and ten others) for a lifetime" is particularly appropriate in these times of economic troubles
and increased demand for federal monies. The main reason I spend volunteer hours in support of this
research sponsored through the USDA's Regional Aquaculture Centers is that I strongly believe there is no
better example of what our govemment can support In order to strengthen the economy, reduce trade deficits
and provide a growing new agricultural industry with the potential to create new jobs, and produce a healthy
and wholesome food supply for all Americans to enjoy.

Please give serious consideration to supporting a higher level of funding for adequate aquaculture
research through the Regional Aquaculture Centers. I would like to request on behalf of the aquaculture
industry that funding be extended to the fully authorized level of $7.5 million.

Smitti

176

Testimony Before

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

Concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

Written Statement By

MR. LESTER W. MYERS, PRESIDENT AND

GENERAL MANAGER, DELTA WESTERN, INC.

INDIANOLA, MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee, we
appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of
the Regional Aquaculture Centers. My name is Lester Myers
and I own and operate a catfish farm near Inverness, Missis-
sippi. I also serve as President and General Manager of
Delta Western, Inc., Indianola, Mississippi, the largest
catfish feed mill in the United States. As Chairman of the
Industry Advisory Council for the Southern Regional Aqua-
culture Center, I have been actively involved with the
development and progress of these Center programs.

The Regional Aquaculture Centers provide excellent
opportunities for industry representatives to have direct
inputs into their programs including identification of
issues that are of critical importance to our industry. As
a result, research and extension scientists learn first-hand
what is needed to help solve industry related problems. The
accomplishments thus far from these programs are impressive
and we commend the foresight Congress had when they author-
ized the establishment of the Regional Aquaculture Centers.
All segments related to our industry will continue to rely
on additional up-to-date research information if U.S. aqua-
culture is to reach its maximum potential.

Catfish remains the major fresh-water species produced
in the U.S. and in recent years farm production values have
exceeded $400 million annually. Baitfish, crawfish, orna-
mentals and trout are among other important species in the
Southern Region which contribute an additional $150 million
annually to our economy. Although the potential for aqua-
culture in the U.S. looks favorable, all producers are
facing serious economic problems. Low prices for products

Page 1

177

sold at the farm level and high costs of production, mean
that much more technology is needed by this industry. Lower
production costs, improved harvesting and handling prac-
tices, and techniques to maintain good water quality are
essential to increase profitability of U.S. production and
to help reduce our country's dependence on aquaculture
imports .

Much technical information has been developed from the
Centers projects and this is very helpful to newcomers in
our industry as well as the most experienced producers.'
Nationwide distribution of the information obtained results
in maximum benefit of dollars invested in research.

In the Southern Region we have completed nine research
and extension projects since the Regional Aquaculture Center
programs began in 1987. A large number of scientists from
different universities and agencies collaborated on each of
these. On-going projects work on effluents to assure that
aquaculture production is compatible with good environmental
practices and two projects dealing with product quality
assurance are providing valuable information to maintain top
quality products for the U.S. consumers. In addition, two
projects to be initiated in 1994 will develop techniques for
improved feed efficiency, pond management and other produc-
tion practices. Results from these projects will benefit
the entire U.S. aquaculture industry.

Those of us representing the aquaculture industry are
extremely pleased with accomplishments made thus far by
these Regional Center programs. Because of these achieve-
ments, we have now reached the point where longer-ranged
studies can be undertaken to help address some of the very
complex problems facing producers today.

In summary, we feel that additional valuable infor-
mation will be forthcoming from these Center programs if
increased funding is made available. Representatives of the
aquaculture industry are convinced new research holds the
key to our future success. The authorized level of funding
for the five Regional Centers is $7.5 million. The total
amount appropriated for the Centers for FY 94 was $4
million or $800,000 per Region. We strongly request your
consideration of the 1995 FY budget to provide $7.5 million,
the full authorized level of funding for the five Regional
Aquaculture Centers.

Again, we would like to express our sincere apprecia-
tion for this and other valuable support you have previously
provided our industry and these programs.

Thank you.

Page 2

178

Testimony Before

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND

RELATED AGENCIES

1994

Concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

Written Statement By

Mr. Walter Landry, Past-President

Louisiana Aquaculture Association

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present testimony to your
Subcommittee in support of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. My name is Walter Landry,
and I am a sugar cane fanner and aquaculture producer. I currently serve on the board of
the Louisiana Aquaculture Association, having previously served as President of that
Association. I have also served as President of the national Striped Bass Growers
Association, and on the board of the National Aquaculture Association.

I have been involved in agriculture and related industries for my entire career, and
have witnessed the importance of university research and extension in the sugar cane
industry for many years. In recent years, I have seen these same forces put to work for
aquaculture producers in the southeastern U.S. through the framework of the Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center. Through the assistance of a number of research and
extension professionals from many states involved in this organization, I have diversified my
fanning operations to include hybrid striped bass, redfish and catfish production.

Industry growth has continued for a number of years for U.S. aquaculture producers,
but foreign aquaculture production threatens to dwarf oiu" country's industry in the future.
U.S. consumption of farm-raised seafood continues to increase, but unfoitunately much of
this expansion has benefited growers in other countries. Over half of the $2 billion worth
of shrimp imported into the U.S. in 1992 were farm raised. Similarly, Atlantic salmon now
comprise most of the salmon imports into the U.S., and most of that supply is farm-raised.
Imports of other aquaculture products such as tilapia and various shellfish species already
represent significant dollar amounts, and are expanding rapidly. Our nation's aquaculture
producers need the continued support and assistance of the Regional Aquaculture Center
system to remain competitive in the future.

179

Another important point to consider is that worldwide harvests of wild seafood
appear to have approached or finally reached their maximum levels. According to the
Umted Nations, m 1989 the global commercial harvest offish, crustaceans and moUusks was
estmiated at a record 1003 million metric tons. FoUowing 12 straight years of increases
estimated hanrests declined to 972 miUion metric tons in 1990 and to 963 million metric
tons in 1991. Many fisheries experts believe that harvesting rates are exceeding natural rates
of replenishment m a number of commercial fisheries throughout the world, including many
m U.S. waters. Based on population trends, even if per capita consumption of seafood
remains flat m this country we will need significantly greater suppUes over the next several
decades, as will the rest of the world. These supplies can come from only two sources-
imports from other nauons, or domestic aquaculture production.

f T u^? ^'h ^""S^^ ^5 *^o^ ^ renewed interest in our industry by giving the Office
of Technology Assessment $400,000 to conduct a study addressing the current technological
status of U.S. aquaculture production, identify new technologies for domestic aquaculture
producer, evaluate production systems and policy relating to aquaculture development in
selected foreign comitries, assess roles of federal, state and private agencies in development
of domesac production, and develop policy options for Congress. AdditionaUy, the National
Aquaculture Devdopment, Commercialization and Promotion Act was introduced by
Senator Akaka (HI) m July. Numerous co-sponsors, including both Senators from
L^msiana, have smce signed on to this legislation. Although some changes may be required
ttZh . ?H ^^«''°",'^^' ^^'^ ^^'e'^ce points out that lawmakers in Washington and
hroughout the nation have begun to reaUze the need to support a strong aquaculture
mdustiy m this country. I hope your Subcommittee wiU conclude that this t4e of support
IS worth mvestmg in. kf^'i

The Regional Aquaculture Centen provide a cost-effective approach to coordinating
research aiid extension resources from a number of sutes. We are all aware that state
budgets which provide most of the support for universify-level aquaculture research and
extension personnel are mcreasingly strained throughout our nation. The efficient
framework of the Regional Aquaculture Centers is needed more than ever to provide the
fish farmers of this country with the technical support necessary to remain competitive in
nn.ll'^° "^^^^J°g foreign competition and provide our nation's consumers with high-
quahty, domestically-produced products. ^

.«ict ^'l"^*^^^ producers in Louisiana and throughout the country recognize the past
assistance and support of this Subcommittee. In Ught of the points oulhned in this

ofllnnn r Tl^ '^^' ^'''' o '°°'^'^'' ^'^^^ ^" f^y authorized $7.5 million amount
of support for the five existmg Regional Aquaculture Centers in the FY95 budget At no
tune m the past has this support been more urgenUy needed.

RegionXaSltSe SitS"^^ ^° °°" ^^^ °^" '^^"^^"^ '' ^"PP°^ ^- ^"^^

180

Testimony Before

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND

RELATED AGENCIES

1994

Concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

Written Statement By

Mr. Harold Benoit, Chairman

Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and Research Board

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

\Ai. Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee: It is indeed a pleasure to have
the opportimity to offer testimony in support of the five Regional Aquaculture Centers. I
am Harold H. Benoit, a crawfish producer from Morse, Louisiana. I also serve as chairman
of the Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and Research Board and I am on the Board of
Directors (treasurer) of the Louisiana Crawfish Farmers' Association. I have held both of
these positions for several years.

The Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and Research Board strongly supports the concept and
structure of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. The Centers encourage collaborative
research and extension programs designed to complement and strengthen existing programs
provided for by the Department of Agriculmre and other public institutions. Members of
the Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and Research Board have been impressed from the
beginning with the Center concept. These centers can fund research extension activities that
are beyond the scope of the Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and Research Board.

The authorized level of funding for the Regional Aquaculture Centers is $7.5 million.
Actual annual funding to date, however, is well below the authorized level, with only $3.75
million appropriated for the 87-91 fiscal years. For the 92, 93 and 94 fiscal years, funding
was $4.0 million, divided equally among the five Centers ($800,000 each). The total
authorized $7.5 million for the existing five centers will once again be requested for FY95.
Full funding is essential for the aquacultiu-e industry to maintain an edge on foreign
competition in the next century. Inadequate funding will reduce our abilities to cut
production and processing costs and thereby hamper our ability to compete in the global
market. Our crawfish industry's domestic tailmeat market is presently feeling the adverse
effects of low priced imported tailmeat from China.

The Louisiana crawfish industry, as we know it today, began about 30 years ago. There are
approximately 115,000 acres in crawfish production. More than 1,600 individual farmers

181

produced 54 million pounds of crawfish in 1993. The industry employed approximately
15,000 people in our state, and the on-farm value of production was approximately $27
million in 1993. Crawfish aquaculture now occurs in some 25 states. As with most new
agricultural crops, much help is needed in the areas of production, harvesting, quality
assurance and marketing.

We would like to enqjhasize that crawfish production costs, particularly harvesting costs,
must be decreased to ensure profitabilit)- to producers. Research and extension efforts to
address these important areas are now under way through projects funded by the Southern
Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC). Results from these projects wiU be extremely
beneficial to our industry. Aheady, preliminary results from these studies indicate that the
number of traps per acre and trapping days can be reduced without a negative effect on
production. Employment of these management techniques by producers, although the
project data has not yet been finalized and published, confirm a considerable reduction in
production costs and as an added benefit, some producers report larger, more desirable
crawfish being harvested.

The U.S. imports 70 percent of the seafood it consumes. The crawfish industry is unique
because we exported 7.7 miUion pounds valued at $14.8 miUion to Europe in the first half
of 1993. This is a 13-percent increase in quantit>' and a 9-percent increase in value fi-om the
first half of 1992. In the last 2 years, the export market for crawfish has steadily grown
The total value of 1993 exports is likely to triple the $52 million exported in 1991. This
export market represents only a very small part of our balance of trade but is indicative of
the potential for expanded exports of U.S. aquaculture products. Louisiana crawfish are
miportant components of the world market, however, our industry is experiencing serious
competition from both China and Spain. Support from the centers through research is
necessary to maintain our competitiveness and continue to lead the crawfish global market.

The consumers' perception of seafood safety is always of primary concern to the crawfish
mdustry. Incidents of irresponsible reporting of unsanitary and/or health-threatening
practices by producers, harvesters and/or processors of seafood products are occasionally
pubUcized by the media. Studies funded by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center
regarding food safety, such as the projects addressing aquaculture efQuents, microbial
contamination and residual contamination of processed crawfish, catfish, and trout products
are of paramount importance in countering these "public awareness" and, in many cases,
erroneous reports. These studies will show how safe our products are and help regain public
confidence.

The ongoing study on effluent management fi-om aquaculture facihties will provide good
saentific data to assist state and federal regulators in their attempt to monitor effluents
fi-om crawfish and caifish ponds and raceways and also ensure quality weUands and aquatic
envuonments. The microbial study wiU evaluate the best methods of detection and
reducuon of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. The specific objectives of the residual
contaminauon project is to conduct a testing program for residues to determine any real or
potential problems relative to the safety of southern aquaculture products, thus inaeasine
consumer confidence.

182

Results from numerous Regional Aquaculture Center projects have already enhanced the
position of aquaculture as an alternative agricultural crop, not only for the Southern Region
but also for other regions of the country. Each project that is funded has input and review
from research, extension and industry personnel so that practical, well-integrated programs,
relevant to industry needs, are selected.

Again, we encourage funding at the authorized $7.5 million level for the five existing
Regional Centers. We are excited about the Regional Centers because we know they are
working toward addressing our industry problems.

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
Regional Aquaculture Centers.

Sincerely,

Harold H. Benoit, Chairman
Louisiana Crawfish Promotion and
Research Board

183

Testimony Before

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

Concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

Written Statement By

DR. C. G. SHEPHERD, DIRECTOR

SOUTHERN REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTER

STONEVILLE, MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of the
Regional Aquaculture Centers. The aquaculture industry
continues to be a growing part of the U.S. economy, and the
support this Subcommittee and other members of Congress
provide for work to assist and improve this industry has
been most helpful.

The Regional Aquaculture Center programs were author-
ized by Title XIV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1980
and the Food Security Act of 1985 (Subtitle L, Sec . 1475 [ d] ) .
The designated regions are Southern, Western, Tropical/
Subtropical, North Central and Northeastern. Their programs
coordinate aquaculture research and extension activities to
enhance viable and profitable commercial aquaculture produc-
tion in the United States for the benefit of producers,
consumers and the American economy. This work complements
existing research and educational programs conducted by
state and federal agencies. Technical expertise is provided
by research and extension scientists from institutions
throughout each region serving on committees for each
project developed. User inputs into the Center programs are
assured since industry representatives participate in the
decision-making processes via Industry Advisory Councils for
each region.

The authorized level of funding for the Regional
Aquaculture Centers is $7.5 million annually. The FY 94
appropriation was $4.0 million divided equally among the
five Centers. We would like to request your support for the
full authorized level of $7.5 million for these five centers
in FY 95.

Page 1

184

Aquaculture, with a current production value approach-
ing a billion dollars, is one of the most rapidly growing
segments of U.S. agriculture. However, a trade imbalance
for U.S. fishery products still exists and currently exceeds
several billion dollars annually. Many issues and problems
face the industry that must be addressed before the full
potential for profitable production can be attained in the
U.S. Much useful information has already been developed
from research and extension work support by the Regional
Aquaculture Center programs and this progress will continue
if adequate funding is provided.

There is a highly commendable level of interest among
aquaculture scientists in the Southern Region to work
cooperatively on projects to address issues that are of
regional and national concern. There is broad-based repre-
sentation from throughout the region for both research and
extension inputs and scientists from all thirteen states in
the Southern Region, plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Is-
lands, have participated in our projects. Since 1987, the
Southern Regional Aquaculture Center has funded projects in
the areas of marketing and economics, aeration, aquatic
health management, nutrition, harvesting technology, exten-
sion publications, effluents and food safety. Two new
projects will deal with areas for improving production
efficiency through nutrition and development of improved and
more efficient culture practices.

Hundreds of research and extension publications plus
approximately 20 videos have been completed by scientists
working on projects for the Regional Aquaculture Centers.
These are available nationwide to producers, processors,
representatives of the feeding industry as well as those
seeking up-to-date materials for educational purposes.
Results from these Center programs benefit new and experi-
enced producers and are very useful in helping innovative
agriculturists determine whether or not a particular segment
of aquaculture is a feasible venture for their level of
financial resources and management skills.

These Regional Aquaculture Center programs have also
attracted significant non-federal contributions for partial
support of the their projects. For example, during the
91-93 fiscal years in the Southern Region alone approxi-
mately $1.2 million of non-federal funds were provided by
cooperating institutions to partially support projects
developed by the Regional Center.

The Regional Aquaculture Center programs enable us to
develop and coordinate aquaculture research and extension

Page 2

185

activities throughout the nation and obtain maximum benefit
from research dollars. Directors of the five Centers and
USDA representatives work together to collaborate efforts
among the Regions to address national aquaculture issues.
We respectfully request that funding at the authorized level
of $7.5 million be provided for the 1995 FY budget for these
extremely important and successful programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony.

Page 3

186

Testimony

to the

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration

and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations

1994

concerning

The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture

Written Statement by

Dr. Kevan L. Main, Director

Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture

Honolulu, Hawaii

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture and the other four Regional Aquaculture Centers. We appreciate the
Subcommittee's support for the Regional Aquaculture Centers during the past seven years. The total
funding appropriated for all Centers during fiscal year 1993 was $4 million. I am presenting this
testimony to strongly urge expanding that support to the authorized funding level of $7.5 milUon for
the five regional aquaculture Centers.

The Regional Centers offer a singular means of coordinating and employing the aquaculture
research, development, demonstration and training expertise of the entire nation. The Centers work
to expand the commercial aquaculture industry in direct response to that industry's needs as

Dr. K. Main

Page I

ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER

The Oceanic Institute • Makapuu Point • Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795 • PHONE: (808) 259-7 951 » FAX: (808) 259-8395

ADMINISTERED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF HAW AD & THE OCEANIC INSTITUTE

187

recognized in the National Aquaculture Development Plan. The Centers are unique in that they seek
the direct involvement of industry members when planning and implementing projects. The
Regional Aquaculture Centers, which are administered by the Department of Agriculture,
complement its existing research and extension programs.

Aquaculture, in the broadest terms, is underwater agriculture rather than a new science or a
recondite enterprise. Like land-based farming, aquaculture requires substantial research and
development support to expand its technical and economic base and reach its full potential.

The Regional Aquaculture Centers are positioned to take best advantage of regional
aquaculture opportunities throughout the nation. The centers assist industry with developing
regionally applicable production methods. The Centers are programmatic rather than institutional,
serving as a core of information exchange and regionally based research and education.

Imports of foreign fisheries reached a record $9.9 billion in 1992. Edible seafood imports
accounted for $5.7 billion of that figure. Yet in the same period, the U.S. exported only $3.7 billion
worth of edible seafood products -- a trade deficit of $2 billion. In addition, the trend has been for
the United States to import increasing amounts of its edible seafood fi-om Asian countries. Increased
aquaculture production could only benefit the domestic seafood market -- and U.S. consumers -- by
providing safe, high quality products at lower prices and decreasing U.S. reliance on imports. The
regional Centers program aids this growth by providing the research and development support
necessary for improved culture techniques.

The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, in operation since 1987, will initiate
its seventh annual work plan on April 1 , 1 994. I offer you the following highlights of the significant
achievements and plans of Center-funded projects.

Disease Management in Hawaiian Aquaculture: This project takes a two-pronged approach
to solving aquaculture disease problems. The first component will develop strategies to mitigate
losses of aquaculture crops, including Chinese catfish, tilapia, seaweed and ornamental fishes. The
project's second component will develop a computer software program that will help farmers to
identify and treat diseases of cultured tilapia. The program, originally developed with fiinding fi-om
the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture, will be revamped to run in the popular
Windows operating environment and on Macintosh computers.

Dr. K. Main p^^2

188

Potential Drugs and Chemotherapeutants for Marine Shrimp: Selection, Evaluation and
Approval: As a direct results of this project, the Food and Drug Administration approved Western
Chemical Company to market formalin to treat penaeid shrimp diseases. The compound will make
U.S. shrimp farmers more productive and competitive in the marketplace.

Library Aquaculture Workstation: The Pacific Regional Aquaculture Information Service
for Education, known as PRAISE, was instituted with funding from the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquaculture in 1988. It has since established remote workstations at six sites in Hawaii
and two sites in Guam. At the remote sites, users can perform database searches for the latest
scientific information on an infinite variety of aquaculture topics 24 hours per day, 365 days a years.
Workstations will installed at more sites remote sites in the coming year.

Aquaculture Extension and Training Support: Through this project, five American-affiliated
Pacific island nations receive aquaculture seed-stock, on-site aquaculture training and extension
services from an aquaculture extension specialist. This service is vital to the development of these
nations' infant aquaculture industries.

Sponge Aquaculture Demonstration Project and Differential Growth Rate Studies in
Cultured Commercial Sponges: The first of these projects ftmded the establishment of a sponge
farm in the Federated States of Micronesia, Five local individuals have been trained in sponge
culture techniques and assisted with starting their own farms. The second project will refine sponge
culture techniques to improve productivity and profitability.

Introduction of New Aquaculture Species for Biological Culture Assessment: Two new
species of warm-water abalone and twelve species of tropical ornamental fish imported under the
project are showing extremely promising growth rates.

Development ofThreadfin (Polydactylus sexfilis) Fry Production Technology: In its first
year, this project achieved survival rates of 60 percent in this highly cannibalistic fish. The project
will resolve bottlenecks in 67 production technology.

Improvement of Tilapia Stocks in Hawaii: This project will take the first step toward
unproving Hawaii's tilapia aquaculture industry by documenting the technical and regulatory status
of tilapia stocks and strains in Hawaii, nationally and internationally.

Page 3
Dr. K. Main

189

Mangrove Crab as a Model for Development of Quarantine System to Screen Species for
Aquaculture in Guam: This project will establish an aquatic animal quarantine and screening facility
in Guam and will investigate the feasibility of culturing mangrove crab.

The scope and variety of these projects demonstrate the breadth of the center's contribution
to developing the aquaculture industry. We believe an even greater contribution would result if the
Regional Aquaculture Centers receive funding at the fully authorized level of $7.5 million. We
request your assistance and support to bring the nation's aquaculture industry to fruition.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony.

Dr. K. Main „ .

Page 4

190

AQUAFARM

(808) 293-8531

FAX: (808) 293-5391

TELEX RCA 723 8416

PO BOX 131, KAHUKU. HAWAII 96731

Testimony
before the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related
Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations
1994
concerning
The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture
Written Statement by
Dr. Linden Burzell
Vice President and General Manager
Amorient Aquafarm Incorporated
Kahuku, Hawaii

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of the Center for
Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture. or CTSA. I am Linden BurzeU, Vice
President and General Manager of Amorient Aquafarm Incorporated in Kahuku,
Hawaii. I have also had the privilege of serving as chairman of the Center's
Industry Advisory Council for the past seven years.

As a businessman and scientist. I appreciate the Center's distinct role as
a link uniting industry and research to work toward the common goal of
developing an economically sound tropical and subtropical aquaculture industry.

Dr. Linden Burzell

Page 1

191

The Center's recognition of the need to integrate industry priorities and scientific
research ensures that its program directly serves commercial producers.

Each year, total U.S. seafood imports far outweigh U.S. seafood exports --
and the shrimp market is no exception. In 1992, U.S. imports of shrimp rose 10
percent to 595 million pounds with a value of $2 billion. In the first half of 1993,
shrimp imports rose another 4 percent from a year earlier. However, during the
same period, U.S. shrimp exports totaled 15.7 million pounds -- only 2 percent of
imports. Thus shrimp producers see an enormous potential for expanding their
markets — both domestically and abroad.

As the aquaculture industry grows, it will not only provide a reliable, safe
source of high quality protein for the American diet, but it will also create new jobs
and generate tax revenues, thereby strengthening the economy. However, like any
fledgling industry, aquaculture requires support and nurture to develop to its full
potential.

During my tenure as chairman of the Industry Advisory Council, the Center
has provided that vital support. Commercial producers are asked to define
industry problems, and then the region's scientific expertise is tapped to conduct
research that will solve those problems. The solutions have been arrived at via
various routes, including education, training, technology transfer, addressing
disease issues and government regulations, marketing and economics, and
revitalizing or initiating aquaculture activity throughout the Pacific. Of primary
importance, each route was mapped out in direct response to an industry need.

Although the Center's research projects have been underway for only one
to six years, commercial producers in the region and throughout the nation have
already reaped enormous benefits.

As a shrimp producer, I have directly benefitted from a Center-funded
project to identify and test drugs for treating diseases in shrimp hatcheries. As
a result of the project, the Food and Drug Administration approved a Washington

Dr. Linden Burzell Page 2

77-387 O— 94-

192

state chemical firm to market Formalin for use in shrimp nursery and grow-out
systems. This is the FDA's first approval of a compound for shrimp culture and
will offer the domestic shrimp industry a competitive advantage against foreign
shrimp growers, who do not face stiff regulation of drug use. This project provided
a cost benefit of $10 for each $1 of funding.

A project to study aquaculture effluent discharge — regulation of which
poses a major obstacle to industry development — established a base of knowledge
regarding efQuent characteristics and potential environmental impacts in Hawaii.
Now all five Regional Aquaculture Centers have united in a joint effort to improve
the permitting process for aquaculture effluent discharge.

A project titled "Pacific Regional Aquaculture Information Service for
Education" ensures that even those in the most remote locations will have easy,
inexpensive access to the latest scientific information on aquaculture. During the
period from September 1, 1992, through September 1, 1993, users performed
more than 6,500 database searches that would have cost more than $330,000
through a commercial service. The project provided a cost benefit of $20 for each
$1 of Center funding.

Such progress in so short a time clearly illustrates that the Regionad
Aquaculture Centers' unique approach of spotlighting industry concerns offers
rapid, effective results. The investment in the regional aquaculture centers has
yielded high returns thus far and will continue to do so. Ebcpanding the funding
capabilities of the Centers would afford even greater results. I therefore request
that you approve the authorized full funding of $7.5 million for the Regional
Aquaculture Centers program.

Thsink you again for the opportunity to testily before you.

Dr. Linden Buizell Page 3

193

POHMPEI NATURAL PRODUCTS

P.O. Box 428
Kolonia, Pohnpei Island
FSM 96941
(691)320-5374

Testimony before the

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related

Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations

1994

concerning the

Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture

Written Statement by

Richard Croft

Pohnpei Natural Products

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

My name is Richard Croft. I own Pohnpei Natural Products, located in
Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. I am also Vice Chairman of the In-
dustry Advisory Council for the Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquacul-
ture. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony in support of the
Center.

As a businessman, I support the Regional Aquaculture Centers' ability to
make a substantial contribution to the nation's economy. As a resident of a
U.S. -Affiliated Pacific Island nation, I appreciate the Center for Tropical and
Subtropical Aquacultiure's assistance with broadening our narrowly based econo-
mies.

194

The Regional Aquaculture Center program allocates resources to develop-
ing and improving domestic aquaculture, which will provide higher quality,
lower cost seafood products. This is foresighted as a lack of investment in aquac-
ulture, combined with a growing world population and declining stocks of wild
species, could lead to higher prices and increased dependence on imported fish-
ery products.

As a commercial aquaculture farmer, I have a vested interest in CTSA's
success. In an attempt to broaden the Federated States of Micronesia's eco-
nomic base and provide new opportunities for its citizens, the FSM is pursuing
new industries. The FSM government and the territorial governments of other
Pacific Island nations have rated aquaculture as a high priority for several
reasons. Aquaculture has the potential to aid economic development by provid-
ing a continuing enterprise, to increase employment opportunities, to improve
nutrition among Pacific Islanders and to offer the potential for a significant
export product.

Hawaii and the Pacific Basin have extensive resources: the environment,
abundant pristine seawater and climates that permit year-round culture of
valuable aquatic species. Furthermore, extensive research and practical ex-
pertise in aquaculture are available through universities, private institutions
and commercial producers.

Although aquacultvire ofiers vast potential and governments in the region
are pinning much hope to it, the industry can only flourish if it receives mean-
ingful support. The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture extends
that integral sustenance. By sponsoring projects that focus directly on industry
problems. The Center for Tropical and Subtropical Aquaculture links the region's
considerable resources to make the dream of a viable aquaculture industry be-
come a reahty.

I sincerely hope that the Center's endeavors and accomphshments will both
endure and grow in the coming years. I urge members of the committee to vote
to fund the Regional Aquacultxire Centers at the fully authorized appropriation
level of $7.5 million.

195

NORTHEASTERN REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTER

Dr. Victor J. Hancebo, Executive Director, NRAC

Gary Arnold

Dr. Thomas A. Hopkins, President, Biometrics Incorporated

Robert B. Rheault, President, Spatco, Ltd.

Fern Wilder, Hy-On-A-Hill Trout Hatchery

196

Testimony Before

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, and RELATED AGENCIES

1994

cnnoeming

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

Dr. Victor J. Mancebo, Director

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. I am the Director of the Northeastern Regional
Aquaculture Center (NRAC) which is located in the State of Massachusetts at the University
of Massachusetts Dartmouth and serves the aquaculture industry in the States of Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The mandate from the U.S. Congress in establishing the five Regional Aquaculture Centers
under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was to administer funds for
aquaculture research, development, demonstration and extension education with the goal of
enhancing viable and profitable conunercial aquaculture in the United States. The Regional
Aquaculture Center programs are intended to benefit aquaculture producers, consumers, suppliers
and the American economy. The motivation in 1985 when the Centers were established was to
help a new and emerging agricultural growth industry become more competitive and help
eliminate the gap between U.S. consumer demand and supply for quality seafood. Generally,
the jjer capita consumption of seafood in the U.S. has increased while the natural fishery
catches are perceived by many to have reached levels of maximum sustainable yield. To
satisfy the denrund for seafood products in the U.S. has required an escalating importation of
seafood products. Presently the U.S. imjxirts some $9 billion per year of fisheries products.
This is the largest contributor to the U.S. trade deficit among agricultural products, and the
second largest, after petroleum among all natural resources products. In 1989 these imports
resulted in a $4.9 billion trade deficit for all fisheries products and $3.1 billion for edible fish
and shellfish. It is now estimated that foreign-grown aquaculture products constitute some $800
million of our fisheries imports.

The population is clearly increasing, and the supply of seafood will be increasing in the
upcoming years and decades. Aquaculture can clearly expand and help provide the quality
seafood which is and v^l be in demand both in the U.S. and abroad. The aquaculture industry
has demonstrated the caf>acity to grow. U.S. aquaculture production more than quadrupled in
the 1980s - an average growth of about 32% f)er year. The farm gate value of aquaculture
products reached an estimated $760 million in 1990. Of extreme importance is the estimated
300,000 full-time jobs coming from the industry. This growth capacity is still inherent in the
industry and with continuing supp>ort the industry can make significant contributions and
continue growing into the next century. By contributing to a well-run network of Regional
Aquaculture Centers the U.S. Government is contributing to the economic well being of its
country by encouraging the domestic production of quality seafood thereby lowering our trade
deficit and providing new jobs in the private sector.

197

The Centers achieve their goals by taking advantage of the best aquaculture science, education
skills and facilities available in their regions. These are combined in cooperative efforts with
the private and commercial sectors of the Aquaculture industry. The cooperative efforts have
been highly successful. At NRAC we are currently funding 20 projects. These projects represent
a combined effort involving 30 major Universities and Institutions working along with a private
sector component of 28 corporations and private growers. The ability of the Regional
Aquacultiire Centers to bring the aquaculture indushy and research communities together in
collaborative working arrangements is one of the outstanding successes of the program. ^4RAC
meets with representatives of all State Aquacultiire Associations in the Northeastern Region in
sit down sessions where research priorities are established by industry representatives
themselves. Priorities are then coursed through the NRAC system where a 24 member Council
composed of equal numbers of researchers, extension agents and industry representatives mold
the priorities info workable units which are then released for proposal development and
funding. Through every step of the process, including ongoing shidies, indushy is involved with
the NRAC process. The Regional Center programs are designed in this uniquely innovative
fashion to ensure that the valuable dollars allocated to the program are used in a manner
which IS always beneficial to the aquaculture indushy.

NRAC is now in its sixth year and funded projects are showing impacts on the aquacultiire
industry. Using the cooperative approach to solving problems which are identified and
pnonhzed by indushy, NRAC projects are working towards developing genetically superior
crops, improvmg nuhition and lowering the cost of feeds, understanding marketing and economic
issues, profiling consumer preferences for seafood, helping clarify regional state and federal
regulations which direcUy impact the aquacultiire industry, developing means of detecting
pathogens present in fish without damaging the specimen, gaining information on oysters so as
to help understand perplexing and unexplained massive mortalities in juvenile stages
investigating the phenomenon of sh-ay voltage as a possible inducer of sh-ess and mortalities in
h-out hatcheries, and developing a captive, domesticated sh-ain of striped bass to eliminate the
need for bringing spawners in from the wild.

NRAC funded researchers have now completed 12 major projects. Reports are coming in which
are being, or will be, disseminated throughout the Northeast research and industry
communities as well as nationally through the other Regional Aquacultiire Centers. Completed
projects include a major project on the genetic improvement of oysters for resistance to MSX
disease, an analysis of the economics and marketing of farmed finfish, attempts at genetic
manipulation of oysters through manipulation of chromosome numbers, genetic manipulation
and sex conh-ol in shiped bass, an extension networking program to help the viability of the
indushy and the networking capability of the regional extension agents, written clarification
of state and federal regulations directly impacting the aquacultiire indushy in the Northeast
non-lethal methods of defecting pathogens in fish, and a better understanding of fish nutrition
and development of lower cost feeds using alternative, non-h-aditional ingredients.

The MSX disease resistant oyster project, one of the eariiest funded projects of NRAC was to
develop and make available to the oyster cultivation indushy strains of the American oyster
which were resistant to, or showed improved growth and survival when affected by the
parasitic oyster disease known as MSX. The MSX disease has had a profound effect on the
oyster growing industiy in the Northeastern United States. From a high of 90 million pounds in
the 1930's the production of oysters in the U.S. has dechned by roughly 60% with most of the
losses suffered in the Northeast region. Initial results indicated that MSX-resistant oyster
sh-ains developed by Rutgers University, the lead instihition, grew and survived significantly
better than local sh-ains in areas affected by MSX. Secondary infections of an unrelated oyster
disease (Dermo) subsequently decreased the effectiveness of the MSX-resistant sh-ains- the
results were so promising, however, that industiy interests remain sh-ong and a follow-up 5-

198

year study is underway studying the oysters through commerdal field trials using established
oyster growers.

In the IMRAC funded nutrition project researchers at the University of Maine and the Center for
Applied Regional Studies in Boston, MA have preliminary results which indicate the
feasibiUty of incorporating a fish processing waste product (dogfish wastes) into Atlantic
Salmon diets. This work could result in lower cost feeds to the indushy as well as alleviate a
waste disposal problem for local dogfish processors.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that this testimony provides you with information concerning
the relevance and need for the Regional Aquaculhire Centers. We have appreciated your
support over the past 6 years and are now respectfuUy requesting that the annual funding for
this imporUnt and relevant program be brought up to the auUiorized level of $7.5 million so
that the program can continue with its ongoing work as well as increase its scope to further
hasten the development of this job creating, food production industiy.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your continuing support of the
Regional Aquaculhire Center Program and for the opportimity to subnrut this testimony.

199

Testimony Before

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

Gary Arnold
RR #3, Box 97A
Surry, ME 04684

Mr. Cliainnan and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for opportunity to speak on behalf
of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. I am a past president of the Maine Aquacullure
Association and participated in development and start-up of aquaculture operations producing
Atlantic salmon and steelhead trout. I also provide aquaculture advisory services.

Having served as a member of the Technical/Industrial Advisory Council for the Northeastern
Regional Aquaculture Center, I provide a producer perspective on the Regional Aquaculture
Center (RAC) program.

The RAC structure is perceived as a mechanism to efficiently link industry participants to state
and federal research capacity. Center operations target collecting, understanding, and
responding to industry needs. The concept developed by those formulating enacting legislation,
was meant to create a new, uncluttered line of communication and rapid-response capability.

The Centers have become prominent locations for collecting and prioritizing industry needs in
order to match resources and research expertise. If a need can be handled virith Center resources
fine, but a unique element of the RAC program is direct linkage into USDA offices. The RAC
program is overseen by the Aquaculhire Coordinator of the Office of Aquaculture, based in
Washington DC, which coordinates aquaculture programs in several divisions of the USDA.
Problems beyond Center capabilities can be advanced alone or aggregated with those from
other regions, and brought to the attention of persons in offices with appropriate programs and
resources.

The Aquaculhjre Coordinator also serves as the Chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture. Thus further advantage of the RAC struchire is the opportunity for conveying
mdustry needs across agency boundaries into other departments with major responsibility in
aquaculture and fisheries.

The program, since inception, was intended to strengthen linkage between industry and
government and sh-eamline the process for accessing government resources and capabilities.
Sponsoring legislators recognized the industry's importance and it's geographic diversity.
They also benefited from observing evolution of some cumbersome programs supporting
h-aditional agriculture.

Though underfunded since establishment, the Centers succeeded in connecting with key
production segments of the industry. Progress reports for all Centers, not just the Northeastern
Regional Aquaculhire Center, show results from generating true indushy-driven research.
Connection between Regional Centers and USDA-Washington is well established.
Coordination among USDA aquaculture programs is improved. The JSA meets on a regular basis

200

and the various federal agencies involved in aquaculture are developing strategic plans to
compliment the one formulated in USDA.

The Regional Aquaculture Centers are poised to become the industry's primary communications
cond^an av«?ue for technology transfer and route for receiving/distributing industry mput at
the federal level. The program needs to be funded at the fuU operational levels requested.

The chaUenge at hand is not just to expand and support aquaculture production but to stimulate
and service diverse indusby segments such as those involved in municipal wastewater
treabnent, groundwater protection, integrated agricultural production, sustainable farming,
reclamation of mined land, and bioremediation. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for past support and recognition of the national and mtemational
importance of this expanding industry. To develop an economically viable, f"^'-°™;"^ntally
sound, competitive domestic aquaculhire indushy, industry participants must benefit fully and
quickly from advances in technology and access to federal support programs.

The RAC sbiicture is an innovative and progressive method for linking industiy and government
to advanuge. Hease act to increase funding to $7.5 million, the authorized amount when this
industry was on half it's current size.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.

201

Testimony Before

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

Dr. Thomas A. Hopkins, President
Biometrics Incorporated

P.O. Box 129
Boyds, MD 20841-0129

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
the behalf of the USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers. I am President of Biometrics
Incorporated and the Maryland Aquaculture Association, Inc. and I am writing at this time to
urge your continued support of the USDA Regional Aquaculture Center program and the
Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, in particular.

I have been a significant participant in the development of this program over the past five
years and am happy to report to you that the program has become an essential contributor to
the success and future of the aquaculture industry in the United States.

As I am sure you are aware, aquaculture is the fastest growing element of the agriculture
mdustry. Production must increase nearly tenfold over the next thirty years to satisfy demand.
The trade deficit in this component of natural products is nearly $5 billion annually, second
only to oil.

As this is an important industry in its growth phase there are some special needs we face. I
wish to relate the elements of the program that has a significant positive influence on the
aquaculture industry in my region, the northeast.

1 . Programs, including research, are focused on short-term benefits to the industry. The
Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center has, in fact, become increasingly sensitive to
the needs of the industry and has promoted means for assuring that sUtus.

2. The Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center has made significant and effective efforts
to improve communication vdthin the industry and the aquaculture community at large.
Soon a computer-based network will serve the industry in the northeastern region due to
their support.

3. An assessment of the state of the industry, including its economic impact has recently been
published.

Improved effectiveness of federal and state-supported extension services has been
another focus of the Center's efforts.

Significant progress toward domestication of striped bass, an important species for
culture, as weU as to the environment, has been supported by the Northeastern Center. In
addition, the Center has supported development of dietary components for this species.

202

6 RecenUy significant progress has been made toward the off-season spawning of the
striped bass - a very significant advance toward the success of this industry.

7. Improvement in regulatory constraints, a major industry concern, is the focus of Center
supported activities.

8 A better understanding of the industry's compatibility with the environment
par^cularly regarding discharge, has been yet another activity supported by the
Northeastern Center.

We appreciate your support of this program. We urge that you consider that the Regional
Aquaculture Center program funding be increased to the authonzed $7.5 million.

Mr Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your continued support of this
program which has such relevance to the success and future of the mdustry.

203

Testimony Before

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

Robert B. Rheault
President, Spatco, Ltd.
1121 Mooresfield Road
Narragansett, RI 02882

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to have the opportunity to
speak on behalf of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. As the President of the Ocean State
Aquaculture Association and an oyster farmer, I am writing to urge your continued support for
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Regional Aquaculture Centers.

I have been involved with the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center in one form or another
since its inception. 1 particip>ated peripherally during the early years of NRAC's development
as the center struggled through the difficult and unavoidable process of developing innovative
approaches to prioritizing and funding research. Over the past year I have served on NRAC's
Technical/Industrial Advisory Council. I feel confident that NRAC has now matured to a point
where the structural and administrative hurdles have been cleared and we can now get down to
the real task of funding quality research and extension projects.

While I recognize the difficulty in getting new appropriations in the current fiscal climate, I
feel it is tinne for the USDA to fully fund the RACs and release the full amount allocated for
the Centers. We have established a functional framework for prioritizing research objectives,
identifying top researchers, and disbursing funds in a responsible and effective manner. We
have organized a massive volunteer effort by research, extension and industry advisors to
administrate a relatively small budget. Our industry needs the USDA's full support, and the
NRAC is in a position to be able to ensure that these funds are well spent.

Aquaculture production in the U.S. has been growing at 20% per year since 1980. At the same
time the U.S. ranks tenth among nations in aquaculture production and our rank slips every
year. Imported fishery products are responsible for a substantial portion of our trade deficit. If
the U.S. has any hope of retaining a leadership role in aquaculture production, it lies in solving
some of the technological problems that impede the growth of our industry. The Regional
Aquaculture Centers play a critical role in surmounting these barriers. In the northeast region
NRAC has supported several projects that have benefited the aquaculture industry. Please
allow me to enumerate some of NRACs best success stories.

• Research has led to development of genefic strains of disease resistant oysters that hold
the potential to revive the once great oyster industry of the Chesapeake Delaware
region. These strains are now being distributed to growers throughout the region.

• Management techniques have been developed to mininuze the impact of a devastating
new oyster disease that threatens the entire New England area. Researchers are
attempting to identify the causative agent in the hopes of finding a cure.

204

• NRAC has recently published a regional Situation and Outlook Report, a valuable tool
in identifying trends and demonstrating the economic impact of our industry.

• Several projects have been developed to strengthen our Extension Services and improve
the dissemination of important ii\/ormation to our industry.

• Research has led to non-lethal, rapid and less expensive methods for the detection of
fish disease allowing disease inspection of valuable broodstock animals.

• Research on the domestication of striped bass is leading to the development of reliable
on-demand spawning induction methods.

• Several projects are working towards improving diets for various species and life stages of
fish. Understanding the nutritional requirements is vital to improving artificial feeds
and should lead to better yields and improved profitability for many producers.

• One of the best results of NRAC's work has been increased conununication and interaction
among the various players in the aquaculture community. By bringing together people
from industry, extension and academic backgrounds NRAC has improved the ways in
which research priorities are identified and projects are developed to solve our problems.

Our industry is grateful for your support of the Regional Aquaculture Centers and we value the
research efforts that these funds enable. We feel it would be appropriate at this hme for you to
consider increasing the funding of these centers up to the full authorized amount of $7.5 million.
We have identified twelve research priorities for the next funding cycle and 1 fear that we
will not be able to adequately fund all of the quality proposals that we anticipate receiving if
our budget is not substantially increased. Considering the growth rate of the aquaculture
industry and the problems our wild-harvest fishery is facing, now is the time to recognize the
importance of the Regional Aquaculture Center program.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your support and for the
opportunity to subnut this testimony.

205

Testimony Before

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND

DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

1994

concerning

SUPPORT FOR THE REGIONAL AQUACULTURE CENTERS

written statement by

Fern Wilder

Hy-On-A-Hill Trout Hatchery

P.O. Box 308

Plainfield, NH 03781

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the Regional Aquaculture Centers. My husband and I own Hy-On-A Hill Trout
Hatchery which our family has managed for over 20 years, raising brook and rainbow trout for
stocking purposes. 1 am writing at this time to encourage your continuing support for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Regional Aquaculture Centers.

Being a current member of the Technical/Industrial Advisory Committee for the Northeastern
Regional Aquaculture Center, I am well aware of the program's effectiveness and contributions
to the Aquaculture industry in our region. Some of the benefits that have been derived from
recent NRAC funded research are as follows.

1 . Categorized information concerning existing laws and regulations for aquaculture will be
made available for wide distribution through electronic mail. Recommendations have
been developed for changes in the legal framework so that policymakers can understand
the legal and operational needs of aquaculture operators in order to make more informed
decisions concerning aquaculture ventures.

2. Nutritional research has determined that certain supplemental components improve
growth and survival in bass. Examination of hydrolyzed fish processing wastes as salmon
feed ingredients has revealed varying degrees of palatability of different forms of
ingredients. If commercialized, this finding may have a direct impact of lower feed costs
for the salmon net-pen industry.

3. MSX-disease resistant strains of oysters have been developed which are expected to
increase survival, growth, market value and MSX incidence in the American Oyster.

4. The recent development of non- lethal sampling methods for detecting fish pathogens for
fish health inspections will reduce the heretofore forfeiture of live products.

5. A consumer survey to assess perceptions and attitudes toward seafood quality and safety
was developed. Marketing strategies to better position seafood products and to increase
niche market profitability for both restaurant and at-home consumption have been
explored. Super-chilled aquaculture products to extend shelf-life and quality were
examined. The development of a directory of value-added aquaculture product ideas for
species cultured in the Northeast is in progress.

206

6. Nine different cohorts of striped bass have been cultivated and evaluated to be able to
identify a basis of one or more lines for domestication, vital to the full development of
striped bass and striped bass hybrid culture.

7. The recently published " Northeast Region Aquaculture Industry Situation and Outlook
Report" has identified (1) an estimate of private aquaculture production and value for
the region, (2) future opportunities and current problems facing the industry, and (3)
priority research directions based on industry need. This report can be used to identify
the current status and trends in the industry and in setting research priorities by industry
participants, extension personnel, legislators, policymakers, researchers, and potential
investors.

8. The newsletter," Northeastern Aquaculture," provides a forum for NRAC information
useful to industry, and is distributed to over 3,000 recipients, mostly in the northeast but
also in other states and foreign countries. Better informed people result in better
commuiucation and cooperation.

9. An outgoing project to develop a regional aquaculture extension network will enhance the
transfer of useful information and provide a link between industry and the research
community.

10. Current exploration for a computer communication system is expected to create the
capability for networking industry, education and research groups without extensive
equipment or training providing an impact on the profitability of the industry.

11. The stray (neutral-to-earth) voltage project has identified a unique problem to
aquaculture that could have extensive ramificatior\s for aquaculture. Where stray
voltage exists, nuissive fish mortalities can be prevented by electrical monitoring and
modification of electrical grounding, thus benefiting the aquaculture industry by
increasing production and efficiency.

Today, aquaculture has become the fastest growing segment of agriculture in the country and is
poised to become a major growth industry of the 21st century. With global seafood demand
projected to increase 70 percent by 2025, and harvests from capture fisheries stable or declining,
aquaculture would have to increase production by 700 percent, a total of 77 million metric tons
annually, to meet projected demand. Since 1960, per capita consumption of aquatic foods in the
United States has increased by 49% and is projected to double by the year 2020.

The United Slates imports more than 59% of its seafood. This dependence on imports adversely
affects the United States trade balance and contributes to the uncertainty of supplies and
product quality. Aquaculture production in the United States lags behind world standards and
currently accounts for the less than 9% of United States seafood production, compared to the
world average of 16%. In 1990, the United States ranked only tenth in the world in aquaculture
production based on total value of products.

We want to thank you for your past support of this progranv and will appreciate continued
support. We request that an appropriation increase to the authorized level of $ 73 million be
allocated for the next budget jrear. FMeral efforts are critical to nurture aquaculture
development in order to keep pace with the needs of the industry. Without federal
appropriations, much of the research for new ideas and new findings for increased efficiencies
and production would not be possible.

Thank you (or the opportunity to submit our testimony.

207

Testimony before the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drue
Admmistration and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations

concerning

Support for Regional Aquaculture Centers

Written Statement by

Kenneth K. Chew, Director

Western Regional Aquaculture Center

Unviersity of Washington

School of Fisheries

March 1994

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I wise to speak on behalf of the
Western Regional Aquaculture Center (WRAC). one of the five regional aquaculture
centers designated through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage cooperation
and collaborative research and extension programs that would assist the aquaculture
industiy. These efforts have regional and national in^Ucations in Ught of the grovmg
acceptance and increasing consumption of seafoods. AsDirectorof the WRAC
Administrative Office, for the past seven years I have seen a growing interest in aquatic
animal and plant culture and marketing by all sectors of the aquaculture community. All
twelve states in the western region provide input on what is needed to encourage the
development of this critical area of aquatic husbandry under this USDA program. Many
governmental, state, and local agencies as weU as industiy people are working together to
develop consensus of needs to encourage and promote aquaculture research and extension
for the western region. This joint approach has been the key for succcssfiil projects
developed and crossed over into several states, addressing regional problems that serve as
an impediment and/or constraint to Uie production of aquatic products. The industry's
input is critical, and coupled wid> a well structured technical commitiee of WRAC. makes
this program innovative and has already resulted in a clear assistance to die development of

208

aquaculture for our region through the development of solutions and extension workshops
to clarify problems to the growers of aquaculture products.

Looking ahead into the next century and beyond, we can expect consumption of fish and
shellfish products in the United States to continue to rise. Thus it is no secret that in order
to meet these demands more seafood products need to be imported from outside our
country. Further, it is known that because of these demands, it has created a substantial
trade deficit in the United States. Most developing countries abroad are moving at a very
fast pace and encouraging aquatic animal and plant husbandry and, in some cases, with
government financial support and incentives. The establishment of the five Regional
Aquaculture Centers by Congress provided greatly needed support for research and
extension in aquaculture which before had been largely overlooked. It is no secret that the
availability of wild stocks is level or declining, and aquaculture now must be encouraged to
pick up the slack to increase seafood production for the growing populations of the United
States and elsewhere.

The five home office directors for the Regional Aquaculture Centers are in regular
communication with each other and meet at least twice a year to exchange ideas and
regional needs. These directors constitute the National Coordinating Council, and
encourage a close working relationship on projects that might cross regional boundaries
involving two or more regions.

Continued support of the five Regional Aquaculture Centers is critical to the development
of aquaculture in the United States. Significant aquaculture activities and growth in the
United States is expected to continue each year because of the demand for seafood
products. Thus, much of the research and extension activities associated with the regional
centers will have very broad and supportive implications to the nation and its economy.

209

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I urge you to support funding for the
five Regional Aquaculture Centers to the full authorized level of $7.5 million. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to provide this testimony.

210

Testimony before the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations

concerning

Support for Regional Aquaculturc Centers

written statement by

Kenneth E. Beer

The Fishery, Inc.

Gait, California

March 1994

My name is Kenneth Beer. I am president and principle shareholder of The Fishery, Inc.,
a fish hatchery and farm producing white sturgeon, striped bass, and channel catfish. I am
past president of the California Aquaculture Association and have served on the advisory
boards of the West Coast Aquaculturc Foundation, Sea Grant Advisory Committee, and
California Farm Bureau Aquaculture Commodity Group. I presently serve on the Industry
Advisory Council for the Western Regional Aquaculture Center (WRAQ and am testifying
in support of the Regional Aquaculture Center Program.

We have been in business for 18 years. When we started in the mid-70's, channel catfish
culture was a new industry, striped bass fmgcrling culture was conducted by a handful of
state and federal hatcheries, and white sturgeon had never been reared. Now over 400
million pounds of catfish are grown each year, and several million pounds of sturgeon and
striped bass are grown in California.

Our involvement with white sturgeon was direcdy related to university research which
demonstrated the techniques required to spawn wild broodstock. Today, with assistance
from WRAC funding, we are spawning the first generation of 10 year old domestic
bnxxlstock. The advances in striped bass culture have occurred due to major rcsearch
efforts conducted to support both government and commercial hatcheries. I mention these
species because I am most familiar with them, but it applies to many odier species as well.
The aquaculture industry is so new that relatively small amounts of money spent on
research can easily create new industries, new products, and new technologies.

211

The Western Regional Aquaculture Center, one of five Regional Aquacultuie Centers, has
demonstrated its success in coordinating cooperation between many states, institutions, and
a diverse industry. Research conducted to date has benefited many sectors of commercial
aquaculture. Particularly beneficial is the interchange between researchers and industry
over a wide geographic area. We have found that severe problems in some areas are much
less so in others, providing clues in and of itself to potential solutions. The coUaboi^tive
nature of the research has also brought diverse viewpoints and strategies together. This
mechanism has proven to be a valid approach for channeling aquaculture research.

Choices in spending public fiinds wiU always be difficult. In government, just as in
business however, you must spend money to make money. The potential returns from
aquaculture research arc enormous. Imports of fish and fish prxxiucts are second to
petroleum in natural resource imports. With the United States water resources, this is

criminaL The public is clamoring for fresher, healthier, purer food prtxiucts, and it won't
get them unless the United States develops an industry to produce them.

There are no government subsidies for producing (or not producing) fish. If you're in the
aquaculture business you sink or swim by your ability to grow and seU your product. This
is how it should be. The industry, however, is desperate for knowledge. Which of the
thousands of aquatic species are candidates for commeiual aquaculture (remember 10 years
ago sturgeon was unknown to U.S. fish farmers)? How can they be grown and sold?
These questions arc appropriate research questions that are best answered by a
collaboration between industry and the research community. This is what WRAC has
provided for us on the west coast Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
urge that the existing five Regional Aquaculture Centers be funded at their fiilly authorized
level of $7.5 million.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit this testimony.

212

Testimony before

The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations

concerning

Support for the Regional Aquaculture Centers

written statement by

Mr. Christian Nelson

Nelson & Sons, Inc./Silver Cup Fish Feed

118 West 4800 South

Murray, UT 84107

March 1994

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Christian Nelson. I am
Vice President of Research, Silver Cup Fish Feeds, a sole manufacturer of fish feeds since
1957. I am a sitting member of the board of the United States Trout Farmers Association.
I am a sitting member of the board of the Utah Aquaculture Association. I am also a
member of the Industry Advisory Council for the Western Regional Aquaculture Center.

I have been active professionally in the field of fish feeds and fish nutrition for 14 years
and have traveled extensively throughout the United States and the world. During this time
I have seen many problems and some solutions to issues that face my industry. More and
more I have seen the problems to many and the solutions to few. One bright light that I
have seen though, has been research partially funded tiirough Regional Aquaculture
Centers that has allowed different researchers to band together to solve problems that have
been insurmountable in the past There is right now a nation-wide waste water
management initiative. The glue that holds this initiative together is funding fixjm the
Regional Aquaculture Centers.

213

I realize that the budget deficit must be reduced, but an investment in the growing
aquaculture industry wiU increase jobs, increase federal revenue, and reduce the trade
deficit many times over the investment Therefore I strongly urge you to support funding
forthe Regional Aquaculture Centers at the full authorized level of $7.5 million.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and I urge your support of this
very critical appropriation.

214

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES OF AG-
RICULTURE AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES (AASCARR)

WITNESS

DR. ANSON ELLIOTT, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICLXTURE,
SOUTHWEST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Anson Elliott. Hello again. We have your testi-
mony and it will be put in the record and brevity really is rewarded
by this panel, if that is any incentive.

Mr. Elliott. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct honor to
be here this evening and appear before you. I am Anson Elliott and
I am department head of agriculture at Southwest Missouri State,
and I presently serve as President of the Agriculture Administra-
tors in the nonland grant universities which goes by the name of —
or the acronym of AASCARR, and so we represent about 60 univer-
sities and we produce about 25 percent of the undergraduates in
agriculture.

While we are very involved with public service and applied re-
search, our main thrust then is providing BS degrees to individuals
in agriculture.

I am here to tell you that we are very supportive of the Presi-
dent's budget request for higher education in USDA, with the ex-
ception of the amount on the challenge grants. In the past it has
been funded at $1.5 million and we are urging for an increase of
that, as we have told you in private before.

The challenge grants have had a real history of success and in
the record then there is several illustrations of that. We had at
Texas Tech with the ag communications curriculum, that involves
many of the things we know are so important today as we try to
communicate the story of agriculture and renewable resources.

Others have been — the Kentucky grant has an enhancement of
undergraduate programs for the environmental concepts, and that
is another real interesting project that involved the land grant in-
stitution as well as all the non-land grants joined together with
that important topic.

The San Luis Obispo one had to do with global sustainability in
agriculture, another curriculum innovation that could be trans-
ferred to many institutions across the country, and there is a whole
list of others.

I might tell you that in 1990 when this program began, there
were 200 proposals and only 20 could be funded, so that is 10 per-
cent. The discouragement rate has set in and so there has been
fewer than that that has been received each year. Last year — or
this year about 115. Still about 20 being funded. So that is — it is
an excellent value.

Besides each of the program's funding — matching in these funds,
and most of them are about in the $50,000 range, they are selected
on the basis that they will be networked across many institutions
across the country, and they will be leveraged then in an impact
way in topics that involve many — they don't — they are not local in
scope in their purpose.

So we have joined — the AASCARR institutions have joined with
the land grant — the academic program deans and we are both in
agreement, which this group will serve at least 95 percent of all the

215

undergraduates in agriculture, getting degrees in agriculture. We
would urge the increase of this $1.5 and we are saying that we
could certainly use a $5 million budget in trying to make an im-
pact, a bigger impact in this critical issue of agricultural education.

Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much. Dr. Elliott. We met earlier
today and had a nice discussion about the challenge grants and
how important they are to the colleges and universities, and I will
be sharing that conversation and your testimony with the other
Members of the subcommittee.

Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you for your appearance. Dr. Elliott. We ap-
preciate the work that you are doing and thank you.

Mr. Elliott. Thank you, so much.

[The information follows:]

216

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

One Dupont Circle/Suite 700/ Washington, DC 20036-1192

202/293-7070 202/296-5819 (FAX)

James B. Applebcrry, President

Edward M. Etanendorf. Vice President for

Governmental Relations

Testimony

to the

Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration

and Related Agencies

pven by

Dr. Anson Elliott

Chairman, Department of Agriculture

Southwest Missouri State University

on behalf of

American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture

and Renewable Resources

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

March 1, 1994
Washington, DC

217

Mr. Chaiman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before you today
on behalf of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) which
represents over 375 public colleges and universities across the nation. 1 am Anson Elliott,
Presidem of the American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable
Resources (AASCARR), an affiliate of AASCU, and Chairman of the Department of
Agriculture at Southwest Missouri State University. AASCARR represents 60 public
institutions which offer baccalaureate degrees in the food, agricultural and natural sciences,
and annually graduates 25 percent of the undergraduate degrees in agriculture awarded in the
United States. AASCU's Rural Mission Focus group is comprised of 165 rural colleges and
universities. These institutions are committed to teaching, service and research in support of
their respective regions. AASCU, AASCARR and the Rural Mission Focus group are united
in their commitment to rural revitalization and are actively working together to address the
concerns of rural America.

My remarks today will focus on the importance of funding programs in agriculture
education and rural development.

The American food and agriculture system is the worid's largest industry. Assets
exceed one trillion dollars and account for over 16% of the GNP. It's size and competitive
position in the worid economy is due to the ability of the American work force to master
scientific knowledge in place of natural resources and untrained labor. Colleges and
universities have played a key role in the food and agriculture industry's transition from an
economy based on raw material to one reliant on strong technical skills and analytical
thinking. By working closely with the USDA, the agriculture schools of colleges and
universities have enabled the United States to maintain its competitive edge.

To maintain this position and to meet the nation's needs, it is imperative that colleges
and universities continue to review and revitalize the undergraduate curriculum, develop
strong links with business and industry, update laboratories and equipment, attract and retain
minority and non-traditional students, and have access to current technology.

218

AASCU and AASCARR support the President's budget request for Higher
Education Programs at USDA, with the exception of the amount requested for the
Institutional Challenge Grant program, which is currently funded at S1.5 million. We
recommend an increase of S3.5 million for a total of $5 million for FY 95.

In 1993, 110 grant applications were submitted for the Institutional Challenge grant
program. Unfortunately, funds were available to support only 23 grants. Increased funding
for challenge grants will greatly enhance the educational capacity needed to ensure that
students are prepared to meet the technical demands of a global economy and the 21st
century.

The goal of the Institutional Challenge Grants program is to stimulate and enable
colleges and universities to provide the quality of education necessary to produce graduates
capable of strengthening the nation's food and agricultural scientific and professional work
force. The projects are designed to: address a regional, state, national, or international
educational need, involve an irmovative approach that addresses a need as well as serving as a
model to others, encourage and facilitate better working relationships in the university science
and education community as well as between universities and the private sector, to enhance
program quality and supplement additional resources and result in benefits which will likely
transcend project duration and USDA support.

The Challenge Grants program has a history of success. Examples of outstanding
programs that have been developed as a result of an institution receiving a Challenge grant
include:

1993 Texas Tech University, "Enhancing the Agricultural Communications

Curriculum." This program will develop a competency-based curriculum for
agricultural communications programs in the United States. Objectives include: assess
the competencies desired in graduates from the perspective of agriculture
communications specialists, develop a model agricultural communications curriculum,
develop curriculum guidelines based on the model curriculum and disseminate the
model curriculum and curriculum guides through the United States.

219

1993 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, "Interdisciplinary Team
Teaching for Global Agricultural Sustainability." The project's objectives are to
integrate and syntliesize the broad range of developments in the interdisciplinary study
of global agricultural sustainability into a core curriculum of four new interdisciplinary
courses-Food Chain Systems I,II, III and IV. The courses will be required of all
students in the college. The new curriculum will be supported through the
incorporation of innovative teaching methodologies including interdisciplinary team
teaching, multimedia technology, computer self-teaching and cooperative learning.

1992 Morehead State University, "Enhancing Undergraduate Programs: Development
of an Educational Model for Environmental Concepts in Agriculture." This joint
project from the Kentucky Regional Consortium for Curriculum Enhancement in
Agriculture involved four AASCARR institutions. The objectives included: enhanced
faculty preparation in environmental concepts for agriculture and food sciences,
definition of an educational model for incorporating concepts of environmental
responsibility and regulation into existing agriculture and food science educational
programs, refinement of and educational model and development of discreet
curriculum modules which address individual aspects of the educational model and
implementation and evaluation of an educational model through the use of curriculum
modules at participating institutions.

1991 University of Wisconsin-River Falls, "Undergraduate Faculty Enhancement in
Biotechnology Applications." Visiting scientists from the biotechnology industry
provided faculty and undergraduates in the College of Agriculture with techniques and
illustration of current applications of biotechnology in agricultural and food science.
In addition to faculty enrichment, this program provided new teaching units.

1990 California State University, Fresno, "Advanced Learning Technology in Animal,
Plant and Human Nutritional Sciences." This program allowed the agricultural
faculty to develop advanced learning technology in animal, plant and human nutrition
sciences. State of the art electronic technology was implemented by using computers
and a variety of multimedia techniques.

1990 Texas A&I University, "Faculty Transculturation for Teaching in an Equally
Bicultural Environment." This program addressed teaching in a bi-cultural

220

environment and recognized the importance of Hispanic and members of other ethnic
groups to the future of the agriculture work force. This program was a national
cooperative effort among universities with regional workshops conducted in California,
Arizona and Texas.

The innovations the above institutions of higher education have incorporated into their
programs transcends their campuses and are utilized by a number of the nation's schools of
agriculture and natural resources.

During the development of the President's FY 95 budget, the FCCSET committee,
which has since been replaced by the National Science and Technology Council, and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended a significant increase in funding for
higher education programs at USDA. We believe that the Challenge grant program would be
a suitable place to start.

Increased funding of $3.5 million for the Challenge Grant Program for FY 95,
will greatly multiply the speed and significance of the changes that are and must be
made in our college curricula, thereby ensuring that our graduates are competitive in an
increasingly technical and global environment.

I believe it is significant to note that the members of AASCARR and the National
Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges prepare essentially all of this
country's graduates in agriculture and natural resources and are in agreement that the
Challenge grants program is a vital avenue towards strengthening this country's
competitiveness in the agriculture arena and funding for this most important program must be
increased.

With the changing role of rural America, institutions of higher education located in
rural communities have become a major source of resources, employment, cultural
opportunities, health care, and technology for their communities. These institutions are an
integral part of their communities, it is nearly impossible to delineate clearly where the

221

university ends and the community begins. Rural institutions of higher education are
committed to the success and vitality of their communities and are willing to use their
resources and their strategic position to encourage rural development.

The Distance Learning and Medical Link Grant Program is one example in which
institutions of higher education are working with their local communities. This program
enables rural areas to acquire technology and encourages medical facilities and area schools to
work together to provide access to courses and other types of information that members of
the community would not otherwise have available to them. The goals of this program will
help us to achieve the standards set forth by Congress and the President in the Goals 2000:
Educate America legislation. We are very concerned that the President's budget request for
FY 95 proposes to reduce funding for this program from $10 million to $5 million. AASCU
recommends, at a minimum, funding for the Distance Learning and Medical Link Grant
program be maintained at SIO million, its FY 94 funding leveL AASCU encourages the
continued support of this important program in order to develop the use of
telecommunications technology in rural America.

Institutions of higher education continue to play a major role in the food and
agriculttire industry and in our nation's rural areas. Congressional support for federal
programs that link higher education institutions to the food and agriculture industry and rural
areas will assist in maintaining the nation's competitive edge and will aid in revitalizing our
nation's rural areas.

On behalf of AASCU and AASCARR, I appreciate your efforts to ensure that the
quality of life for all Americans continues to improve.

222
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE

WITNESS

DR. RUDY WODZINSKI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL,
FOOD AND INDUSTRIAL MICROBIOLOGY OF THE PUBLIC AND SCI-
ENTIFIC AFFAIRS BOARD OF THE AMERICAJ^ SOCIETY FOR MICRO-
BIOLOGY AND PROFESSOR OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND MICROBI-
OLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Rudy Wodzinski with the American Society for
Microbiology. I will bet you v/ere cringing when I was saying I was
a liberal arts major and needed some help in science.

Mr. Wodzinski. I was a liberal arts major too when I was an un-
dergraduate, then I saw the light. I really appreciate the oppor-
tunity to appear before you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Skeen. I am
Rudy Wodzinski, I am a professor of molecular biology and microbi-
ology at the University of Central Florida, but I am really here in
my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Agricultural and In-
dustrial Microbiology, and we are part of a public scientific affairs
board and we do look at legislation that appears before Congress
having to do with microbiology, but we also look at budgets and we
try to give our professional judgment on these budgets as to what
we think should be done.

What I would kind of like to do is to get away from the script
here and just go to some tables and — because a lot of the previous
witnesses have talked about the need for the initiative, the Na-
tional Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, and I think
that a lot of it can be summed up in a graph that I gave you, a
nice colored graph that I gave you, if you will take a look at that.

I think you will see a number of major milestones here. In 1978
the competitive grants program was started as CRGO. In 1985 the
biotechnology initiative was started with a $20 million budget. In
1991 was the first appropriations for the NRI.

Now, the question always comes out, what did you get for your
money. I think that is asked quite often. Just for the heck of it on
the plane on the way in today I added all this up to see what this
all added up to. It is like $751 million. What kind of perspective
is that? What has happened?

I saw a figure the other day in APHIS that there were 658 appli-
cations having to do with biotechnology since 1988. Now, I am not
going to try to claim that every one of those applications was the
result of this, but many of those things could not have been done
because there would not have been the fundamental research in
order to permit those to happen.

That is especially true with a lot of the material in plants and
other types of areas, so this fundamental base is absolutely nec-
essary, and I ask myself the question, what would happen if we
were really funded at the levels that were authorized? In this grant
it shows that the initial authorization in 1978 was $40 million and
if we put it in 1978 dollars, we haven't reached it yet. I think that
is an important thing to get across.

You know, one of the things that is very disconcerting and 1
would like to call your attention to I believe Table 1 here which is
a comparison of USDA, NSF, and NIH, and just looking at the
granting situation and what does occur. With USDA, the average

223

grant is for 2.1 years for $59,000. With NSF it is for 2.6 years at
$76,000. At NIH it is for four years at $218,000 per year. These
are per year figures.

So the question becomes, why is it always so much less for agri-
culture? Don't they need as much money? One of the things that
I think has happened is we have had a real transition in the type
of research that is being done at a fundamental basic level. The
type of research that is needed with agriculture doesn't differ very
much on the cost of it as it does from NSF, and that is a really
important point.

It means that the cycle on the grants is much shorter, much
more time is spent. You might ask the question, what does $17,000
do? That means there is another graduate student for a couple
years that was not supported, part of the training part. There is
also that much research that was not done on that particular
grant.

See, they are always behind. So in looking through as to what
is required for the appropriations, I have shown you these types of
numbers in the past, but what I did was in Table 2 here was to
look at the various program areas, look at the number of proposals
and what would it cost to bring it up on parity with NSF.

In other words, at $76,000 per year for 2.6 years, and what
would it be for each of the program areas, and in addition, I added
one other thing, because I think this is really important. In this
committee, the overhead that is generated is 14.7 percent. It has
been capped for a number of years.

We always talk about the needs for infrastructure. The commit-
tee is very good about taking care of buildings for certain areas,
but then there is the cost for the scientific equipment. Many uni-
versities, the way overhead, after it is generated, it is a real cost,
but after it is generated, scientific equipment is bought with it with
quite a bit of those dollars.

Well, when you don't generate tne overhead, you don't get the
scientific equipment. So what I am asking is that you put a 10 per-
cent on for competitive grants for equipment, for scientific equip-
ment. It is very expensive these days, $6,500 to $100,000 for a
piece of equipment that is needed for the kind of research that is
being done in many of these areas and that should be awarded
competitively, and then that would permit able researchers.

You know, there are times when we are only too happy to take
some of the equipment from the ARS lab. That is how bad it is as
far as the equipment infrastructure at some of the universities. So
I think this is a necessary thing. So what I did is added a 10 per-
cent on there.

We are asking that it be funded at $182 million, but I would like
to ask something more even, that really there be a commitment for
the future to have some kind of an orderly increase each year
which was kind of in the farm bill originally. It was in it and I
know, Mr. Chairman, you said it is a lot easier to authorize than
appropriate, but I think the sense of the farm bill was that the ap-
propriation increased each year — or the authorization increased
each year which would enable the appropriation.

I don't think there is any doubt about the need for the funds for
the initiative. I think it is there. I think too that it impinges and

77-387 O— 94-

224

impacts on so many other areas of your budget. You know, this
morning there was talk as far as the school lunch program, food
stamp program. As the cost of food goes up, that program also goes
up, and it goes up quite significantly. This is one way to hedge it.

I have never seen prices go down, but maybe — they stay as pro-
ductivity goes up, but maybe they stay even. I am being cynical in
that part, but that is really what does happen, so it really truly is
an investment to try to stabilize that section.

I also would like to stress a couple of other things and that is
the need to increase the budget within ARS. It was flat last year.
It meant they lost people. It was relatively flat the year before. It
meant they lost people.

It means that you are losing scientists in one of the vital areas
that is needed for development of many of these types of projects
and to try to get these out to the farmer that they be used.

Mr. Skeen, you asked a question of one of the other individuals
saying, well, why don't you people set some priorities. We did try
to set some priorities. We also belong to an a coalition called Co-
Farm, which is the coalition on funding agricultural research mis-
sions. It started four or five years ago with nine societies. There is
now 16 societies, 150,000 scientists belong to that.

We put our collective heads together to try to point out where
there are the opportunities where money should be spent, and you
will be getting a message from them and a brochure from them. So
we are attempting to do that on the science basis, try to provide
that kind of information.

I have also listed I think on the last page of the testimony of the
areas besides ARS, the need for the pathogen reduction program.
I believe the President's budget has an increase of $14 million for
that. That is a necessary program. I think we are all aware of what
the problems are there, and last year when I testified, we talked
a little bit about the animal care program and why scientists know
that there is a need that there be inspections because that does
help us to do our job.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. If you have any questions

Mr. DURBIN. Dr. Wodzinski, your Table 2 would call for about a
70, 75 percent increase in funding for university research. I would
like to see that happen. I am sure you would too. It won't because
we are faced with a deficit reduction package which even makes
the farm bill authorization figures obsolete.

We are dealing with an effort to bring this deficit down and it
is cramping our style in terms of research dollars.

Mr. Wodzinski. You know, Mr. Chairman, but what can we do
to try to get that increased as scientists? Could you give us some
advice? How can we get that up to a level it should be that would
be appropriate? Because you can look at this whole history.

We have seen other budgets go up like NSF, NIH for science. For
agriculture science, to use a euphemism, it sucks hind tit, let's face
it. It doesn't get it. And yet the need is there.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say in defense of NIH that they are still
only funding 22.3 percent by your table of the requested amount
that is actually being awarded, so there are people at NIH who
come to us regularly and say that they are not getting nearly
enough money for medical research, in light of those grants that

225

have been approved and yet can't be funded, so we are up against
it.

I think it is very short-sighted but I will be very blunt with you.
I think some of the money that we are investing in space stations
and super colliders, no longer, and some of the other things, Star
Wars and the like is a total waste of money in comparison to these
funds which you are talking about, but I think we agree more than
we disagree, but we are faced with a deficit reduction regimen that
makes it tough.

Mr. WODZINSKI. It is the perspective. In the fix it crosscut for bio-
technology, they say $4.3 billion they spend for biotechnology. We
look at the initiative, it is $100 million, 2.5 percent for the fun-
damental part of agriculture. It is really low. It is all out of per-
spective to how it contributes to the GNP and everything else, to
exports.

It seems like it doesn't make a lot of sense and I think you sense
our frustration.

Mr. DURBIN. I do. I share it. Mr. Skeen.

Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Dr. Wodzinski, we
share your frustration. We are going to have to deal with this
budget situation, but on the other hand, this committee got to
make this system work somehow or another, and you can't do it
without any money.

So what we have done time after time is prioritize or go with the
ones we thought are very essential. Agriculture is the greatest bag
of all to come in and do the cutting on because once again, SO per-
cent of what we have is mandated programs in the agricultural
budget. Twenty percent of it or so is the discretionary accounts.

Right now they are formulating another budget-cutting plan that
takes 15 percent right off the top of all research activities and it
doesn't make good sense at all.

Mr. Wodzinski. You got rid of your electorate by being too effi-
cient in a way.

Mr. Skeen. We have got the American people so attuned to the
fact that they can take for granted the food and the fiber produc-
tion in this country because it didn't cost them anj^hing. They still
got the attitude that somewhere in this world there is a nebulous
group called agriculturalists. We never see them. We never hear
them or anything.

The only association we have with them is when we go to the su-
permarket. It is all neatly packaged. We don't get our dainty hands
dirty digging for it or scratching for it, or shaving it or raking it,
or whatever we have to do.

So it is our job to try to sell these programs to these people and
defend them.

Mr. Wodzinski. It is only 2.5 percent of agriculture, but every-
body eats.

Mr. Skeen. I know. I told them you are all involved in it. I was
in the service with a young man one time from New York and he
said, what do you do. I said, I am a rancher in real life, or my fam-
ily is in dairy business. He said, what is that. I said, we milk cows
and fill bottles. He said, why don't you just go to the store and buy
them.

Mr. Wodzinski. Cut out the middle man.

226

Mr. Skeen. And that is a terrible problem we have with this
thing, and we try to represent you folks. The Chairman kids a lot
about being a liberal arts major, but he has become quite an agri-
culture scientist in one respect or another so we are going to give
him a degree.

Mr. DuRBlN. We will have this on the record.

Mr. Skeen. In philosophy or something, agricultural philosophy.
An3rway, we try to keep these programs going and thanks to people
like you who give us the pointers. I can understand your point of
view.

We have got our money's worth out of the research in this and
the American people have been the great beneficiary. They don't
have one idea where it came from.

Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. Thanks for your testimony. Batting cleanup tonight.

Mr. Skeen. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are only about an hour late.

Mr. DURBIN. Not bad, government time.

[The information follows:]

227

STATEMENT

OF THE

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

Presented by

Rudy J. Wodzinski, Ph.D.,

Chairman, Committee on Agricultural, Food and

Industrial Microbiology of the

Public and Scientific Affairs Board of the

American Society for Microbiology and

Professor of Molecular Biology and Microbiology,

University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

before the

House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the

House Appropriations Committee

Public Witness Hearing on the
FY 1995 U.S. Department of Agriculture

March 1, 1994

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY • 1325 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. • Washington, DC. 20005 • (202)737-3600

228

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Rudy J. Wodzinski and I am a Professor of Molecular Biology and
Microbiology at the University of Central Florida. I am here today in my capacity as
Chairman of the Committee on Agricultural, Food and Industrial Microbiology of the
American Society for Microbiology (ASM). The ASM wishes to submit for your
consideration and the record, the following comments on the fiscal year (FY) 1995
Budget for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The ASM, a scientific,
professional organization, is the single largest biological sciences organization in the
world, with an active membership of over 40,000. Many of these individuals are actively
engaged in activities in/or directly related to agriculture. Most of our members are
bench scientists employed in academe, research institutions, government and industry.

The research activities of our members have contributed to the generation and/or more
efficient production of agricultural products via biotechnology and classical techniques
that enhance the quality of life and prolong the lives of all citizens. In addition, our
members are very concerned with the safety of agricultural products. Our comments
are targeted to bring to your attention the resources that are required by the USDA in
FY 1995 that will permit USDA to accomplish its mission and enable USDA to fulfill the
mandates of Congress. ASM's comments are directed to specific areas of the USDA
budget including the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
(NRICGP), Higher Education Grants, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), and the Animal Care program within the Animal
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Our society strongly supports the aims of the Coalition on Funding Agricultural
Research Missions (CoFARM). ASM actively participates with other professional
societies in formulating research directions and needs for agricultural research. We
endorse the recommendations of the more than 150,000 scientists that comprise
CoFARM.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if in considering the present economic climate that I
did not take this opportunity to point our several important historical aspects of
agricultural research that relate directly to the National Research Initiative (NRI). During
the past 25 years, scientists have recognized and recommended that the agricultural
science base be expanded. Congress responded to the requests in 1978 by authorizing
$40 million for the Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO) and appropriating
$14.4 million. In 1985, Congress increased appropriations for the Biotechnology
initiative by $28.5 million, and in 1990, the NRICGP was adopted in the Farm Bill.
Congress authorized $500 million for the NRICGP and appropriated $73 million in 1991.

A comprehensive plan to enhance six areas or agricultural research was formulated by
the Board of Agriculture (BOA) of the National Research Council (NRC). The plan with

229

minor modification was adapted by the USDA and endorsed by a majority of scientists,
commodity groups and members of Congress interested in agriculture. Congress
authorized the plan to be implemented at a level of $150 million in FY 1991 and
increased by $50 million/yr. until the recommended and authorized level of $500 million
w^as reached. If the original plan was followed, the FY 1995 NRICGP budget would be
at $350 million. The budgetary recommendation of $50 million/yr. has not been
followed for any one year. Additionally, when one applies 0MB GNP deflators to
convert the levels of funding for any one year between 1 978 and 1 994, it is apparent
that these fundamental programs in the CRGO and the NRI have never been funded at
the level of $40 million authorized in 1978 (Table 1). It is interesting to note, that since
FY 1988 658 biotechnology permits and notifications have been issued by APHIS.
Many of these potential products would have not been possible without the fundamental
science generated by the CRGO and the NRI. How many more potential products and
what degree of impact on the agricultural economy would have been generated if the
program was funded at the recommended levels?

Agricultural research programs lag far behind the programs in medicine because
agricultural scientists do not have the same level of knowledge about plants and
animals important in agriculture that medical researchers have about man or organisms
important in medicine. The challenge in agriculture is much more difficult than in
medicine because there is a larger number of important animals, plants and
microorganisms that must be studied. Also, the products or commodities that are
generated from agriculture research do not command as high a price as medical
developments. This dictates that the agricultural research system must be much more
efficient and therefore, requires a higher degree of knowledge. The NRI is a plan to
obtain that knowledge.

The NRI is an important and necessary program which provides the basic
information that is absolutely essential if the United States is to maintain its
preeminent position as the world leader in agriculture and provide its citizens
with the security of a safe and abundant food supply. Jobs related to agriculture
can be preserved only if the United States maintains its position as an efficient,
environmentally sound, producer and exporter of safe, nutritious food. The NRI has
integrated prior research programs into six program areas recommended by the
National Research Council's (NRC) Board of Aghculture (BOA) in "Investing in