Timber supply concerns assume increased importance when viewed in the context of established national policy with regard to environmental enhancement and energy conservation. Wood products are much less energy-dependent than competing materials, and their renewability must not be overlooked. Increased production of wood products, however, must be maintained without damage to the environment, and with due regard for non-consumptive uses of the forest resources. Outdoor recreation, green space, wilderness, watershed protection and wildlife habitat enchancement seem likely to continue to reduce commodity production from much of our forest land. Research can develop ways to meet these many conflicting demands and thus increase the contributions of our forests now and in the future.

Again, we deeply appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 11743. If we are able to pass this legislation, it will go down in history as one of the more significant achievements of this century. We commend the sponsors of this significant legislation.

FISCAL 1977 BUDGET REQUEST

The following budget request (Table 1) having been authorized by the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) at its February 1974 meeting, and discussed at the 1974 Summer meetings of the Experiment Station Directors in each of the four regions, and by representatives of the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee, as well as by the Home Economics Subcommittee of ESCOP and by ASCUFRO is hereby presented for approval. Authority for making this presentation before the Executive Committee, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges was granted by the Executive Committee, Division of Agriculture, NASULGC_on November 19, 1974, at which time the following budget request was approved by the Division:

TABLE 1

INCREASE IN FUNDS REQUESTED FOR SUPPort of Research Programs in the StatES FROM FEDERAL Sources [CSRS], Fiscal Year 1977

Item

No. Component

1 Increased Operating Costs

2 Improved Productivity of Crops

3 Improved Productivity of Livestock & Poultry

4 Improved Environmental Quality and Conservation of Natural Resources

5 Food and Human Nutrition

6 Family Living

7 Improved Timber Supply and Use of Forest Land

8 Rural Development

9 CSRS Administration

Total

Increase Requested

1 $10,376,190

7,900,000

5,300,000

6,715,000

2,875.000

2,000,000

3,500,000

7,060,000

1,470,650

2 47,196,840

Includes a 10 percent increase based on fiscal year 1976 appropriation to maintain programs at current level: Hatch $8.215,390, McIntire-Stennis $746,200; Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee $1.270,600, and Rural Development $144,000.

2 This total (exclusive of the amounts included for increased operating costs. CSRS administration, and Specific Grants under Public Law 89–106) amounts to $31,850,000, which is essentially one-third of the three-year total authorization suggested to the State Agricultural Research Institutions by the Executive Committee, NASULGC, at the November, 1973, meeting of the Association at Denver, Colo.

Mr. ALDRICH. Following Dr. Anderson, we will now call for comments about how this relates to the Extension dimension of the program.

We have Dr. Roland H. Abraham from the University of Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROLAND H. ABRAHAM, DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Dr. ABRAHAM. My name is Roland Abraham, Director of the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Minnesota, and here to speak on behalf of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy. We are appreciative of the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 11743, the National Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976. My statement reflects the views of the Policy Committee of the Directors of the Cooperative Extension Services of the Land-Grant Universities.

Ever since the establishment of extension services in the early part of this century, the findings of the research workers in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State agricultural experiment stations have been the keystone in the efforts of extension workers to help the farmers of our country improve their husbandry. Over and above the contribution to domestic food supply are the contributions which these efforts have made toward the world's food needs and incidentally building our domestic balance of payments. Many competent observers of the progress of American agriculture to its present high productive level have expressed the view that this progress is the result of the combination of progressive farmers, service enterprises, and the research-extension team. Extension workers have drawn upon the experiment station and the USDA research in developing recommended practices which producers can employ in their farming operations. In turn, extension workers in concert with producers have identified problems requiring further investigation and reflected these to their experiment station colleagues for study.

Because we regard the continued flow of research so vital to continued high levels of efficient production of food and fiber in American, extension directors believe the significant step envisaged in H.R. 11743 should be taken to more nearly assure the continued flow of improved agricultural technology from the research in conducting nutrition education leads us to the view that continued and, hopefully, expanded research in human nutrition to undergird our extension programs is likewise important to the well-being of American people, and others around the world. Therefore, we wholeheartedly endorse the principle of support for maintenance and growth of agricultural and nutrition research which would be afforded by the proposed Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976.

Optimum pay-off from this added investment in research requires a strong cooperative extension system in the States to interpret and disseminate new information. Thus we believe it is important and necessary to recognize the need for such resources as will enable cooperative extension services in their assigned role of interpreting and conveying to farmers and other users, in applicable form, the results of expanded and intensified agricultural and nutrition research. Specifically, this will be important to maintain the productive capability of the research-extension team. Beyond the communication and

dissemination of new information by extension, there continues the need to convey presently known production practice recommendations. to new farm operators and to those who are not yet utilizing known information. This is also true for homemakers and others with respect to information bearing on human nutrition. Therefore to assure greatest national dividends from the research which would be fostered by H.R. 11743, we recommend that similar resources be provided to maintain and improve the capability of the State cooperative extension services to perform their traditional dissemination and educational role under existing legislation and guidelines.

Again, I wish to express the appreciation of State extension directors for the opportunity to speak in support of the proposed Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976 and of the need for corollary adequate support for the cooperative extension function

Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. Chairman, in the same fashion that research underlies, the supply of information which has moved via extension to the practicing agriculturalists, so does research and scholarship undergird the undergraduate as well as graduate teaching function of our institutions.

To comment about this in relationship to present instruction, I would like to introuduce Dr. Charles B. Browning, dean of resident instruction, College of Agriculture, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. B. BROWNING, DEAN, RESIDENT INSTRUCTION, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN-ELECT, RICOP

Dr. BROWNING. The Resident Instruction Committee on Organization and Policy (RICOP) would like to go on record as supporting H.R. 11743, 11744, the "National Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976." We would like to commend Congressman Wampler for his leadership in bringing to the attention of the Committee on Agriculture the "findings" set forth in the bill-particularly the fact that agriculture and agricultural production are indeed "a national resource and should be supported by a strong system of agriculturally related research." In addition, we would like to bring to the attention of the House Agriculture Committee several things we feel are of extreme importance and directly related to this proposed Act.

Agricultural research is important-for all those reasons indicated in the proposed bill and many others. But of just as much importance to this "national resource-agriculture" are the educational programs that prepare scientists and engineers with the training and education. necessary to conduct agricultural research. These educational programs are not only important, but indispensable. We hope to communicate to the House Committee on Agriculture in the following brief passages some of the things we think are important to have, for the most part, been overlooked or ignored in the national effort to support agricultural research and education.

The teaching programs in our schools and colleges have grown. in size and importance in concert with the growth and development of the companion Agricultural Experiment Stations during the past 100 years. This is a relative comparison since the teaching programs generally make up only 8-12 percent of the total agricultural Research-Extension-Teaching budget within a State.

Undergraduate student enrollment in agriculture and related programs in the 70 member institutions of the NASULGC increased approximately 160 percent from 1963 to 1975. The long-term trend in enrollment is shown graphically on an attachment. In the fall of 1975 there was 92,161 undergraduates compared to 81,736 in the previous year-a 12.8 percent increase. Not only have our enrollments increased but our educational mission has changed-become more complex. In addition to our curricula dealing with a highly technical production agriculture, our programs must continuously adapt to an expanding need relating to the marketing, processing, and distribution of food and fiber. Information relating to the compatibility of agriculture and a quality environment, conservation of natural resources, and proper utilization of renewable natural resources must be translated into viable educational programs to meet the needs of our students.

With less than 6 percent of this Nation's population engaged in production agriculture some might find it difficult to understand these enrollment increases. However, with numbers in production agriculture steadily declining the importance to the Nation and the world of the training and ability of these few become more important than ever. In addition, the educational programs of all the agriculturally related activities become more numerous and important in our everincreasing complex society. It is important to recognize also that the students coming into our programs, although better prepared educationally, are less well prepared in terms of their background experiences and knowledge of agriculture. Another change of importance is that more than 25 percent of the students enrolled in our programs

are women.

Graduate student enrollments in agriculture and related sciences increased 15 percent from 1974-1975 with a total of 27,717 in our 70-member institutions. These graduate education programs training and educating our agricultural scientists and extension specialists are truly a national resource-the only source of the scientists required to keep our research current if we are to provide the technology necesssary to meet the food and fiber needs of this country and world in the future, and if we are to continue to have the trained manpower for our effective technology dissemination system the Agricultural Extension Service.

Although the bulk of agricultural research is performed in Agricultural Experiment Stations associated with our State universities and land-grant colleges, other institutions such as the USDA and private industry are also involved in research and development. But only our State universities and colleges are engaged in the graduate education programs so vital if we are to continue to meet the manpower needs in terms of well trained and educated agricultural scientists and engineers. There is no other source of this manpower. It is also important to note that if this Nation is to make an impact on the food and fiber needs of the emerging nations of the world, one of the most important and effective ways will be through graduate education programs for foreign students so that they may return home with the knowledge and ability to improve food production in their countries. Technology transfer without trained manpower in-country is not adequate nor successful. Even though Federal dollars have

supported these foreign student education programs through U.S. AID and similar activities, it must be recognized that individual States have shared a large portion of this expense through such things as out-of-State fee waivers, relatively low tuition cost and the physical facilities and faculty necessary to provide for these educational oppor

tunities.

Higher education, in general, is facing difficult times. The States. are finding it difficult to adequately support quality educational programs. The first programs to suffer have been and will continue to be at the graduate level. It would seem reasonable that a "national resource" such as educational programs in agriculture should justify national support. Agricultural research and agricultural extension have a national image-a recognized national importance and a national body. the agricultural committees of both the House and Senate, concerned with their vitality. Agricultural education has none of these. The effectivenss and logic of the interrelationships of the functions of Teaching, Research, and Extension have been amply demonstrated in our State programs. Most of our teachers hold joint appointments as research scientists. These functions cannot be separated if optimum outputs at the lowest possible costs are expected. Oftentimes our agricultural research system is viewed by those who study it as being unique and a model for the world. The truly unique characteristic of our system is the combined functions of Teaching, Research, and Extension in our land-grant colleges. The Federal Goverment does not expect the various States to totally support agricultural research and extension programs. In fact, about 60 percent of publicly supported agricultural research is funded by the Federal Government. Why should the Federal Government expect the closely related and indispensable area of education in the various agricultural sciences. to be supported totally by the various States?

In closing, we would like to summarize by stating our belief that none of the "Purposes" of the proposed bill No. 11743 as stated in section 2(a) will be fulfilled without the indispensable agricultural training and educational programs, both undergraduate and graduate, of our State universities and colleges-programs that have grown beyond the support they are now receiving.