I do not know just how to approach this. We could have further documentation. Many of the members would be interested in that exclusion which you mentioned. They would also be interested in broadening the use of resources we have to what many of us regard as the more practical level of pure research.

So I want to thank you for being here.

I would invite any further documentation and testimony you might have from your university or the other universities that you represent. Do I assume from this that the American Association of University Agriculture Administrators has taken a position on this? In other words, they have formed this position and have this reservation and you are speaking for that group?

Dr. DOLLAHON. That is correct.

Mr. BALDUS. That is a significant point. I want to thank you for bringing it to us.

Mr. BROWN. Are there any further questions?

[No response.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Dollahon. Thank you for being here.

Our next witness is Mr. Robert B. Delano, vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Delano is here in his capacity as vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I hasten to add that he is also president of the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation. He is a friend of mine for many years. I want to welcome him here today.

Mr. BROWN. I am certain that expresses the views of the entire committee.

I am pleased to know that you represent the Farm Bureau in the State of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. DELANO, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. DELANO. Agricultural research in America has a proud and successful heritage. Two hundred years ago our colonial forebearers were fortunate if they could produce enough to feed their own families. Today an American farmer produces enough for himself and 55 other people. This compares favorably with a farm worker in Russia who produces enough for only seven others or a farm worker in France who produces enough for 14 others. Clearly, however, the great strides in American agriculture have not been taken accidently. As a society we made decisions and set priorities which helped make this nation the great agricultural power it is today.

Publicly supported agricultural research in this country began over 100 years ago. Since then, our agricultural production has steadily increased as farmers and ranchers have adopted many technological advances developed by the cooperative efforts of the USDA and state agricultural experiment stations operated by the land grant colleges and universities. This successful combination of agricultural scientists working with farmers and ranchers has resulted in significant improvements in such areas as crop varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, animal breeding, and feeding.

Of course, these improvements benefit all citizens and not just the American farmer. Current Farm Bureau policy succinctly describes

the importance of this research as follows: "Adequate research is the basis for more efficient production and marketing; lower costs and new food; forest and fiber products. This leads to improved living for all Americans."

We cannot afford at this time to relax our efforts in agricultural research. Many new challenges confront modern agriculture which demand greatly expanded research efforts.

In the next 25 years the earth's population will expand by 2 to 3 billion people and increased demands for food and fiber will accompany this growth.

Currently only two areas, North America and Australia, are capable of consistent net exports of grain. Stated more dramatically, the U.S. accounts for 50 percent of the agricultural commodities moving in international markets.

To make matters even more difficult, it will no longer be possible for this country to meet growing demands by increasing planted acreage. Most of the good land in this country, and even some marginal land that was idled under government programs, has been brought back into production in recent years.

It is, therefore, evident that research will be the key to our ability to expand future production to meet growing domestic and foreign demand.

Farm Bureau policy presently lists a number of areas that we believe can benefit from further research. They include research to find: One, solutions to national energy problems; two, better solutions to agriculture's environmental concerns; three, acceptable controls for diseases and insects; four, new crop varieties with higher nutritional values and varieties suitable for mechanical handling and processing; five, cultural practices to improve soil and water conservation; six, solutions to marketing problems; seven, additional uses for agricultural byproducts; eight, improved productivity of crops in terms of yield per acre and nutritional value; and nine, improved techniques for the conversion of feed to livestock products.

Obviously, the importance of adequate agricultural research for the future has been well documented. Unfortunately, its importance is not reflected in current USDA expenditures. Total appropriations for agricultural research for the fiscal year 1976 are only $478 million out of a total USDA budget of $13.5 billion. This means that research accounts for only a little more than 3 percent of the total USDA budget. This does not appear to be an appropriate response to the challenges facing agricultural research which we have just discussed.

The trend indicated by a close look at USDA budget for the period 1969-1976 is very alarming. Congress has allowed traditional agricultural programs such as research to become secondary to domestic food programs. These programs, primarily the food stamp program, accounted for $1 billion of the USDA budget in 1969 but jumped to $9 billion in 1976. With well over one-half of the USDA budget now carmarked for domestic food programs, it is time for the Congress to reverse this trend and to start directing the USDA back to the problems of food and fiber production.

H.R. 11743, introduced by Congressman Wampler, would be a solid start toward the realignment of our priorities for Federal expenditures in agriculture. This bill would properly emphasize agricultural research

as a distinct mission of the USDA. It also would provide a workable mechanism for farm and industry organizations to join with representatives from government and the scientific community in establishing and reviewing national priorities and policies for agricultural research. Most importantly, it would authorize much needed additional funding for agricultural research. As the USDA and the state agricultural experiment stations have demonstrated in the past, we can expect any monies invested in agricultural research to pay rewarding dividends.

We are particularly pleased with section 7 of the bill which would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive grants available for food and agricultural research. We feel that the competitive grants will be a useful tool in efforts to obtain the best possible research.

We urge this Committee to move quickly and to favorably report H.R. 11743. In so doing, you will be taking a most important step toward reestablishing concern for food and fiber production as the top priority of the USDA.

Thank you, Mr. CHAIRMAN.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Wampler?

Mr. WAMPLER. No questions.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Baldus?

Mr. BALDUS. I have one short question.

Under competitive grant programs, where it says "research institutions, organizations, and individuals," I would presume that that means corporations would then become available under that.

Is that your understanding?

Mr. DELANO. I would defer to Mr. WAMPLER. I am not familiar with the details of the bill but only the general concept.

Mr. WAMPLER. I would say that section 7 of the bill says, "research institutions, organizations, and individuals for the purpose of carrying out agricultural and food research." Under that definition it could include corporations.

Mr. BALDUS. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Thornton?

Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to commend Mr. Delano for an outstanding statement and presentation.

I personally am of the view that the Department of Agriculture has done an outstanding job of disseminating scientific research results into the field. We may now be at a stage where the inventory of useful new scientific advances may be growing small.

Great attention then needs to be given not only to product-oriented research, but also to basic research, such as developing more efficient chlorophyll conversion of the sun's energy into food products.

Do you have any comment as to whether you think more basic research should properly be accented as well as the product-oriented research?

Mr. DELANO. This would always be appropriate.

Relative to energy, there are many areas here which are certainly needed.

Of course, I am conscious in my own state of the economic pressures on the financial resources of our state. We see them at times failing to appropriate enough money for cooperative research programs at our land grant university.

Mr. THORNTON. I am concerned that the very effectiveness of the agricultural research establishment and its dessemination into the field may have inhibited adequate funding attention to this very important effort in recent years.

In other words, the fact that we have been able to supply the nation's food and fiber with a small segment of our population may have lulled some parts of our nation into a sense of security. We must be sure that sense of security is not misplaced.

Mr. DELANO. I agree.

You may be saying that possibly our success has hurt us.

Mr. THORNTON. Rather, that we must make sure that our successes do not hurt us.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Thorton.

Thank you, Mr. Delano, for your testimony.

Our last witness this afternoon is Mr. S. J. Richey. He is the Associate Dean of the College of Home Economics and Assistant Director of the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Mr. WAMPLER. This is merely coincidental that we have so many Virginians here today.

I would seriously like to welcome Mr. Richey here. He is a man who has a vast reservoir of knowledge on the subject matter before us. He is a constituent of mine. I would certainly like to welcome him here today. I know the Committee will benefit from his testimony.

Mr. BROWN. I would say that if he is a constituent of yours, he is well aware of your leadership on this Committee and the services that you have rendered to agriculture.

We are happy to have him here today.

STATEMENT OF S. J. RICHEY, VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATORS OF HOME ECONOMICS, AND NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ADMINISTRATORS OF HOME ECONOMICS

Mr. RICHEY. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee as a representative of the American Home Economics Association, the Association of Administrators of Home Economics, and the National Council of Administrators of Home Economics.

Agriculture research has traditionally included research on the well-being of rural families and the stability of families throughout our society. As research concerned with the production of food and fibers is a most important concern of this committee, we believe that research on the consumer aspects of agriculture, including the health and well-being of the American family, is equally important.

Our interpretation of the definition of agricultural research is that the consumer and family aspects are included in the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935 and the Purnell Act of 1925.

Recognition of this part of total agricultural research is important and, in the viewpoint of the organizations I represent, should be explicit in the new legislation.

Agricultural research has included human nutrition work for many years. But the nutrition component has been severely limited in the past. Our knowledge about the nutritional requirements of the human is not nearly as clear as our understanding about the nutritional needs. of our farm animals and household pets.

Participants at the conference "Research to Meet U.S. and World Food Needs," sponsored by the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee and held in Kansas City in July 1975, ranked nutrient requirements of the human very high as a research need area.

The "World Food and Nutrition Study," a report of the Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended greatly increased support for research on nutrition and food science to determine the nutrient requirements, nutritional status, and food consumption patterns of people.

Research seems to have been most limited in the nutrition of normal people as contrasted to patients with various maladies.

Agricultural Experiment Stations and other institutions have the necessary core of expertise to accomplish the goal of human nutrition. research. Much of this expertise is located in colleges and departments of home economics. But this small core requires additional support and additional researchers if progress is to be made in the near future. We should recognize, too, that nutrition problems exist within the context of families who face a myriad of other difficulties. The disciplines within home economics have for many years attempted to provide assistance to individuals and families in their real environment. The assistance to families in solving nutrition problems must accompany the concerns for housing, clothing, transportation, personal goals-all of which are related to the economics of the family.

We support with enthusiasm the central focus of this legislation, the National Agricultural Policy Act of 1976.

Increased support of agricultural research programs is essential to the nation's well-being and to the individuals and families of this nation. Because sufficient funds to accomplish all research will likely never be available, we can support the concepts of coordination to achieve goals with minimum expenditures of funds and personnel.

We support further the idea of establishing priorities rather than attempting to work on a wide range of problems with no particular mission in mind.

The pending legislation proposes substantial grants to land grant colleges and universities and to State agricultural experiment stations for mission-oriented research. We are concerned that human nutrition and people-oriented research will be forgotten or given a very low priority, as it has in the past. We wish to suggest that this type of research be written into the legislation as a recognized mission of the agricultural research system.

The legislation proposes the establishment of a National Agricultural Research Policy Committee within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Should this committee be comprised totally of productionoriented persons, the potential for excluding nutrition and familyoriented activities is considerably enhanced. We believe it is most