April 12, 1976
Page 10498
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas is in sympathy with the effort by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I did discuss a somewhat similar proposal during consideration in the markup by the Budget Committee. My recommendation was not accepted, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a portion of the transcript of the Budget Committee hearings, which will reflect the discussion by the committee of a matter somewhat similar to that now raised by the Senator from Kentucky.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Senator BELLMON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point. Back in 1969 the total cost of the subsidies paid the producers was $4.1 billion. At that time the agency that administered those programs had a total employment of almost 23,000.
At the present time those subsidies are down to $800 million, which is roughly a fifth where they were and yet we still have 13,000 people working in that department. All I am raising is the point, could we have report language?
Mr. Chairman, I am very nervous about our getting into an appropriations committee's area of responsibility. I am not sure how we go at this.
Senator DOLE. Mr. Chairman, the Senate Agriculture Committee did recommend a $28 million increase for research. I think that was the purpose.
I remember the hearings. It is difficult to transfer some of these employees into research. They don't have the background and training. So I am not certain just how we do it.
My suggestion is we stay with the current policy figure of 2.4 and 2.0 and that would leave enough in the ballpark anyway that we are talking about.
Chairman MUSKIE. On those numbers there is a slight variation. But the President's numbers are 2.3 and 1.9, are they?
Senator BUCKLEY. Yes.
Chairman MUSKIE. And current policy is 2.4 and 2.0. The authorizing committee is 2.4 and 2.1, and the Appropriations Committee is 2.3 and 2.2.
How do you make a distinction between these two?
Mr. GILES. Mr. Chairman, the distinction is the Appropriations Committee comes in with the same numbers. The President's number on BA in respect to outlays went up $500 million for commodities credit net outlays for the price support programs.
Chairman MUSKIE. Is that just a different estimate?
Mr. GILES In their judgment it should go up to $500 million and the Agriculture and Forestry Committee went up only $209 million.
Chairman MUSKIE Which of the two is the best estimate?
Senator DOLE. The current policy sort of falls in the middle there.
Senator CHILES. The Agriculture Committee would have the best estimate.
Senator DOLE. I might say we don't have any cut insurance in our recommendations.
Mr. BROWN. It is just an estimating difference, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the point made by the transcript is that there is no recommendation by the Budget Committee as to how a reduction of outlays of $100 million below the current policy would be achieved. There is no specific assumption about research and extension service funding.
The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma just pointed this out in greater detail, and he has identified two areas in which it would not be unreasonable to expect a reallocation of resources that would result in savings.
It appears that savings from the administration of price support programs also may be possible. There has been some discussion about specific price support programs, and there is some legislation now pending in the House and in the Senate which might reduce the costs in that area.
It might also be possible, as pointed out by the Senator from Oklahoma, to have consolidations of offices within a county, which would reduce the administrative costs, cut personnel, and save money, without necessarily reducing the amount of important services.
The budget target recommended in this category is in the same spirit as eight other budget categories. It is sort of a challenge. It is based on evidence supporting a reasonable expectation to save Federal dollars in the providing of important services.
The Senator from Kansas, as a member of both committees, supports the effort to further increase this country's productivity in agriculture. The budget targets recommended by the committee do not imply otherwise.
We must be certain, however, that this effort is undertaken as efficiently as possible, and that is the very point just made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.
The Budget Committee did take note of the recommendation of the administration, of the Appropriations Committee, and of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. But I share the view expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma that if there are changes and additional expenditures that cannot be foreseen, we can take another look at this in September.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to clear up the record on this subject. I have a communication from the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture and State Experiment Station of the University of Maine at Orono. It highlights the importance of this kind of research. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT ORONO,
Orono, Maine,
January 12, 1976.
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
The following is to provide the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with examples of recent and future research at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Approximately 40% of our funding comes through the federal grant programs of the Hatch and McIntire-Stennis Acts which are essential to the successful continuation of our research programs.
Potatoes are the most important agricultural crop in Maine, which is the major production area for the Northeast sector of the United States. Maine production represents approximately 10% of the total U.S. crop. Control of the late blight disease (the cause of the Irish potato famine) is a major problem for potato production areas in the Northeast. For many years successful control of late blight has been possible only by extensive use of fungicides which are expensive and have potential environmental hazards. Through many years of research and cooperation with work done at other states, successful methodology has been developed whereby disease incidence can be detected and forecast so that application of fungicides can be reduced as much as 30% to 50%, depending on weather conditions. Not only can the use of pesticides be reduced but better disease control is achieved so that total production for market is increased. When fully adopted by potato growers, estimated savings in Maine alone will be in excess of $1,000,000 per year. In the long run these savings accrue to the consumer as well as to the farmer. In addition, the environmental hazard is being reduced.
Each year substantial losses occur in potato storage and marketing channels due to fusarium rot of potatoes. Over the past eight to ten years, the Agricultural Research Service and theMaine Agricultural Experiment Station has been cooperating on research to reduce these losses.
Recently a chemical treatment was proved to be effective, and the Food and Drug Administration has approved its use. Farmers are already adopting the practice. While more difficult to estimate the reduced losses, the benefits could well be as significant as the savings in control of potato late blight.
The land in Maine is approximately 85% forested and represents a major resource to the state and the northeast. It provides a substantial part of the paper and wood products for the northeast states as well as offering a prime recreation area for this densely populated sector of the country.
It also has great potential as a renewable source of energy for an energy deficient region.
Our current research includes the concept of more complete utilization of this resource. After harvesting the merchantable bole or tree trunks; the branches, leaves and stump have been left in the woods to rot. In addition, there are many species of trees and 'puckerbrush' which have had practically no commercial value in the past. Much of our research is directed toward converting these "wasted" materials to wood chips so that they can be used to heat homes, manufacture chip board for construction purposes, and even converted to animal feed. Significant progress has been made in developing an automated wood chip burner for use in home heating and for moderate size commercial buildings. Other methods have also been considered for utilizing this renewable energy resource.
Realization of the full potential of our forest resource is threatened, however, by two major insect problems. One is the spruce budworm which has invaded the commercially important spruce-fir forests and is devastating approximately 5,000,000 acres. Despite substantial research effort already, much more effort is needed to manage this serious pest.
Secondly, biting black flies seriously limit multiple use of the forest for recreational purposes. A new species that persists throughout the summer has been identified recently. This has become a major problem in the state and needs a much expanded research program to effect some measure of control. Preliminary work is underway in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service, but a much expanded effort is necessary to develop control measures.
These are but a few selected areas of research which are of benefit not only to the people of Maine but to the Northeast region and oft times to the country as a whole.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment in this manner and trust that the information will be useful to your committee.
Sincerely,
EDWARD H. PIPER,
Assistant Director.
Mr. MUSKIE.Mr. President, I agree with Senator BELLMON and Senator DOLE that the Budget Committee, in setting its overall totals in this function, did not intend to, does not intend to, and made no decision to discourage the research activities of the Department of Agriculture.
I want the legislative history to be clear on that point, whatever happens to the amendment offered by my good friend the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have remaining.
First, I point out that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) and the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) are extremely valuable members of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. They certainly havea grasp of the needs of the American farmer. With great regularity and frequency, they represent those needs in the committee activities and on the floor of the Senate.
With respect to this amendment, while we all know that research is important, and while the members of the Budget Committee state firmly that they do not intend that the figures they have settled upon here would in any way cause a reduction in research and extension efforts, we have to realize that the expenditures which fall under budget function 350 are the only place where there is any give. The only place where substantial reduction can be made by plan is the category of agricultural research and services.
The other categories are price support and related programs and farm income stabilization. These are entitlement programs; and by law, whatever the figure is that falls under this category must be paid. There is no give in these programs.Whatever farmers are entitled to receive under the law, they will receive.
So that only leaves agricultural research and services. In my judgment that is where the slack will have to be taken up.
The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON), on a number ofoccasions, has tried to bring about more efficient operation of the ASCS, and he is to be commended for doing that. He has presented some figures here about the difference in the volume of business the ASCS handled a few years ago. Of the $4 billion figure that he mentioned, I think it is accurate to point out that some $3 billion were direct payments to farmers which did not have to be processed and handled by the ASCS. So the volume of business has not changed to that extent. I point out that in 1972, the personnel costs for this agency were $166 million. In 1977, these personnel costs have been reduced to $158 million, an $8 million reduction in actual dollars.
In real terms, considering the pay increases that have been put into effect during that period, this essentially represents about a 30 percent reduction in the personnel costs of this agency from 1972 to 1977. So I think we can already see that the volume of business has been more than compensated for by a reduction in the actual cost of operating the ASCS.
I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that, as we pointed out in the Agriculture Committee, the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing and Stabilization of Prices, which I chair, will very soon hold hearings on the operationof the ASCS. We will be looking into their efficiency and determining whether or not there are ways in which we can further improve their operational procedures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DOMENICI). The time of the Senator has expired.