important that this committee have at least one representative with understanding and appreciation for human nutrition and peopleoriented research. We wish to suggest that this need be recognized and incorporated into the legislation.

Aside from these concerns, the organizations I represent believe the National Agricultural Research Policy Act of 1976 has real merit and will further enhance the vital role of agricultural research.

I appreciate this opportunity to present these views and thank you for your consideration of our concerns and opinions.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Richey.

Mr. Wampler?

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Richey, I want to thank you for a very fine statement. I find myself almost in total agreement with what you have said.

It certainly was not my intent in drafting this bill to exclude or downgrade the essential functions which your organizations represent in terms of people-oriented research.

I might say that in the makeup of the Advisory Committee, as contemplated by the legislation before us, there is a provision in the bill for a representative from a national consumer organization.

I realize this is not what you were advocating or what you have suggested. However, it would be one, we trust, who would have a particular interest in these two areas that are suggested.

Also, it is my attention at the appropriate time to offer an amendment to the bill which would expand from one to four the representation from the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

It could very well be that one of those four individuals would have the particular appreciation or expertise which you are concerned about.

Let me say that I think everyone on this Committee is deeply appreciative of what you and the organizations which you represent have done, what you are doing, and what we trust you will continue to do in the future.

It may very well be that while we cannot accomplish everything you want in the present bill before us, we hope, through the appropriation process perhaps, to give you the type of assistance that you need.

Also, there is a distinct possibility that additional legislation will be introduced which will give more emphasis to the programs that you are carrying out through a different funding formula. This could be different legislation or amending the existing law.

I have serious reservations as to whether or not this particular bill is the proper vehicle to try to accomplish what you have placed before us.

In the bill itself on page 4 it says,

Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture. The individual appointed pursuant to subsection [a] of this section shall coordinate all research, and disseminate all research information, relating to agriculture, food production, and nutrition conducted or financed by or affiliated with the United States Department of Agriculture.

The purpose of that language is abundantly clear-that they have the discretion and the authority to allocate some research dollars

in the field of nutrition. To me, that is absolutely essential if this bill is to achieve its purpose.

Mr. RICHEY. I appreciate that.

We do not have that copy of the bill before us.

Mr. WAMPLER. I might say that I think this is draft number three. Perhaps there will be other revisions.

We are fully aware of the contribution of nutrition and we certainly want to take care of it.

I thank you very much for coming. I also thank your associates who are with you. You have been very patient.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Thornton?

Mr. THORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to share in the expressions just made by Mr. Wampler. It was a very outstanding presentation.

I have no questions.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Richey, for your testimony. This has given us an important input into our work. I am sure it will be given serious consideration by the Committee.

The committee will stand adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing adjourned.]

[Additonal statements and correspondence submitted to the committee follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SEIBERLING A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. CHAIRMAN: The House Agriculture Committee should be commended for holding hearings on the need to expand and revitalize the nation's agricultural research programs. At a time when American agriculture is being called upon to feed more and more of the world's rapidly growing population, we must give higher priority to agricultural research efforts. As a sponsor of a bill-the Food Research and Development Act-which is similar to HR 11743 and which is also pending before the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on this important legislation.

In recent years, federal funding for new food production techniques has lagged far below the level needed to keep pace with the worldwide demand for food. In 1955, 10.7 percent of the total USDA budget was allocated for research and development. That investment paid off handsomely both in terms of relatively low food prices for American consumers and a favorable balance of foreign trade. Since 1955, we have had a 50 percent increase in food production. Food experts now tell us that within the next 20 years, a 100 percent increase in world food production is needed. Yet only 3 percent of the USDA buget is being spent on research.

Perhaps more startling is the fact that of the total $21.3 billion federal R. & D. budget request for fiscal 1977, agriculture accounts for only $507 million, or about two percent while military R. & D. accounts for 11.2 billion-or 52 percent! This is certainly one of the great ironies of our misplaced national priorities.

Unfortunately, this same imbalance exists on a worldwide basis. According to Ruth Sivard, author of World Military and Social Expenditures, 1976, "military related R. & D. takes an estimated 25 percent of all the scientific manpower in the world and 40 percent of all R. & D. spending. Of the total public funds allocated to R. & D. in the European Community, approximately one-quarter is spent for military purposes. The proportion is higher in the two superpowers. The United States in the 1975 fiscal year spent 52 percent of publicly-funded R. & D. for military purposes and the proportion is estimated to be 50-60 percent in the Soviet Union."

In this same report, in a section on Nutrition, Ms. Sivard points out that with half a billion people suffering the ravages of severe malnutrition, foreign agricultural aid is about 1 percent of world military expenditures. The author then discusses what could be done with the $15 billion a year which would be available if world military expenditures could be curtailed by just 5 percent. I think these alternatives would be interesting to this committee, and I would like to include this brief section at the conclusion of my remarks.

The state agriculture experiment stations, which conduct a major part of the Nation's agricultural research, are still operating at federal funding levels of a decade ago. The total scientist man-years at the stations has decreased by almost 200 since 1965. Moreover, the stations have had to decrease the number of scientist man-years on basic food research in order to devote more manpower to environmental quality and food safety research.

In addition to insufficient funding, the agricultural research programs have suffered from misguided research priorities, poor research management, and a low level of research quality in recent years. A 1972 study by the National Academy of Sciences noted these and other deficiencies in government funded agricultural research. The report faulted the government's research programs for failing to give greater priority to basic biochemical research-particularly in the areas of photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation for lack of appropriate peer review procedures, and for insufficient use of competitive grants. Although the Department of Agriculture has restructured its research activities to some extent in response to the report, these criticisms are still valid.

I hope the Agriculture Committee will closely examine the organization and administration of the Department's research programs and adopt appropriate measures to correct the management problems which have stifled agricultural research in the past. In my opinion, the provisions of HR 11743 will do much to overcome these problems.

I also urge the Committee to set new guidelines and priorities for agricultural research efforts which recognize the limitations of our natural resources and which seek more efficient, renewable food sources for the future. Unfortunately, we cannot hope to meet the world's food needs simply by perfecting existing food production techniques or transfering our technology to agriculturally underdeveloped nations. To feed the people of India by using American food production methods would require more energy than that country now uses for all purposes. According to some experts, if all other nations adopted the protein-rich US diet and our heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and mechanization for food production, the world's present known fossil fuel reserves would be exhausted in 28 years-and this projection does not include the use of energy for food processing and transportation.

Increased use of vegetable and non-animal foods for human consumption and the development of more efficient methods of feeding livestock are necessary if we are to meet the food needs of the future. An estimated 40 percent of the average American diet is derived from animals. Such food is inefficient and expensive to produce. It takes up to 21 pounds of vegetable protein to produce just one pound of beef protein. The USDA has estimated that the manure from American livestock contains as much protein as the total US soybean crop.

Vegetable protein is far more efficient and economical to produce. An acre devoted to the production of cereals can produce five times more protein than an acre devoted to meat production. An acre devoted to legumes, such as peas and beans, can produce ten times more. Moreover, it takes about eight times less water to produce a diet based solely on vegetable protein than it does for a beef and vegetable-based diet. With water supplies for crop irrigation becoming a precious commodity in many areas, this is an important factor to be considered.

It is obvious that we must learn to depend on less wasteful sources of protein if we are to meet the world's future food needs. I hope the Agriculture Committee will take appropriate steps to insure that our agricultural research efforts are geared in this direction.

In the long run, however, the National Academy of Sciences has warned that "increases in agricultural output will depend largely on research results not yet in hand." A 1975 Academy report based on a 3-year study of US agricultural capabilities paints a very grim picture for the future unless we embark on the development of new food resources. According to the report, we cannot rely on expanded farmlands or increased fertilizer applications for meeting our future food needs-there are natural biological ceilings which will constrict food production based on current techniques.

It is thus essential that new, innovative food production techniques be given high priority in the nation's agricultural research effort, and I hope the Agriculture Committee will include appropriate guidelines for this purpose in the legislation it reports to the House. At the time I introduced the Food Research and Development Act in the 93rd Congress, I inserted a number of articles in the Record on a variety of new, more efficient food sources and techniques which have the potential for increasing food production levels several-fold. One article focused on a team of scientists at the University of Wisconsin who are attempting to utilize the protein in foodstuffs which are commonly discarded as waste-carrot tops, pea and potato vines, and plant vines. Another article dealt with research on a amazing microscopic plant which yields over 15,000 times as much protein per acre as wheat, produces a new crop every

four days, and has a higher protein value than milk, beef, or soybeans. Yet another article told of research on "single cell" protein produced from tiny micro-organisms nourished on old newspapers and cow manure.

Food products from discoveries like these would probably be unacceptable to the eating habits of the American people. But they could be used to replace the 200 million short tons of feed grains fed annually to livestock in the United States, freeing it for human consumption.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement to the House Committee on Agriculture, and I commend the legislation to revitalize the agricultural research effort in this country. I hope that it will result in the adoption of effective legislation by the Congress to enable American agriculture to better respond to the world's growing food needs.

[EXCERPT OF ARTICLE BY RUTH SIVARD FROM WORLD MILITARY AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1976]

Nutrition

The world food situation is more precarious than at any time since World War II. Whole nations are ravaged by hunger. The increase of food production has slowed down at a time when population in many countries is growing at an unprecedented rate. In the developing world, food production per capita has been on the decline during the 1970's.

Viewed against already existing deficiencies in food consumption, the worsening of the supply situation_represents a hardship of alarming proportions for the poorest of the world's population. Excluding the centrally-planned economies of Asia, For which comparable data are lacking, at least 460 million people were believed to be suffering from severe protein-energy malnutrition in 1970, 30 million of them in developed countries, the remainder in the developing.

At mid-point in the decade of the 1970's, the number of severely malnourished is now much greater. Many of these are young children. Malnutrition, ranging from severe to milder forms, is believed to affect about half of all the young children in the developing world. Even with increased domestic production and commercial imports, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that in 10 years the number of severely malnourished people in the developing countries alone could reach 750 million.

Malnutrition plays a leading role in illness and mortality rates. In the Far East alone more than 100,000 children go blind each year as a result of Vitamin A deficiency. In Latin America, over half the deaths of children under five years of age are found to be due to nutritional deficiences. In less direct ways, famine affects the progress of entire nations, weakening the population, stunting mental development, slowing productivity, breeding despair.

The provision of adequate nutrition on a world-wide basis is now a problem of such dimensions that it cannot be solved in the short term. There are, however, immediate measures that can be taken to meet emergency needs and to accelerate agricultural production. Some of these are included in the list on this page. While most of the requirements for action on the food deficit must be carried out by the countries themselves, external assistance from the industrialized countries is essential for the developing. The total of development aid specifically for agriculture rose from about $2.5 billion in 1973 to $3.5 billion in 1974. To achieve the longer term production increase in the developing countries which was proposed in the World Food Conference in 1974, additional external assistance of $2-3 billion annually is believed to be needed. The amount is equivalent to about 1 per cent of the present military budgets of the developed countries.

Alternatives

If world military expenditures could be curtailed by 5 percent, the yearly saving would be

$15.0 BILLION

What could $15 billion do to reduce the world's vast social deficit? Here are some possibilities in the form of international cooperative programs for peaceful purposes, and their estimated annual costs. Each is a significant addition to existing programs. Together they would represent a start on a formidable fund for peace.

For 200 million malnourished children, supplementary protein feeding to insure full brain development.

68-938 - 76-11

$4 BILLION

For poor countries on the edge of famine, increased agricultural investment to enlarge food production.

$3 BILLION

Expansion of primary schools, with the addition of 100 million new places for children not now attending school.

$3 BILLION

Emergency aid and a permanent international relief force to assist disaster-stricken

countries.

$2 BILLION

World-wide program for prevention of dental decay by fluoridation.

$1.5 BILLION

Basic education for 25 million adults now illiterate.

$1.0 BILLION

World-wide campaign to eradicate malaria.

$450 MILLION

Iron supplement to protect 300 million children and women of childbearing ages against anemia.

$45 MILLION

Vitamin supplement to protect 100 million children 1-5 years against blindness caused by Vitamin A deficiency.

STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

MR. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, few questions before mankind over the next decade will rival in importance the question of whether we can avoid widespread food shortages and famine. The serious loss of life in several parts of the world in the last few years may come to be looked on as minor events if we do not take steps now to avoid much more catastrophic shortages between now and the year 2000.

To obtain an increase in food production we have basically only two courses of action. We can increase the acreage under cultivation and we can increase the yield which we get from each acre. The second course of action, the increase in yield, is the one which has been used in American agriculture with such outstanding success. Thanks to our agricultural research system we have for many years been able to bring the fruits of scientific research to bear on the needs of the American farmer. We have begun to help those in other lands to solve their own sometimes unique problems with food production.

Our agricultural research system is celebrating an important anniversary this year. It is just 100 years ago since the first agricultural experiment station was founded. Since that time we have expanded the number of agricultural experiment stations into every state of the union and we have built up the other components of the agricultural research system. The most important of these other components is the Agricultural Extension Service which serves as the link between the farmer and grower and the scientists in our universities. As a result we have today what is unquestionably the world's most advanced and productive cooperation between the laboratory and the farm.

Agricultural research has already brought untold benefits to every American. It covers food, fiber, and forestry. It covers the production, processing, packaging, transportation, storage, and distribution of agricultural products. Dedicated scientists in the Department of Agriculture, in American universities, and in the American food industry have tackled the many questions which had to be answered before the present level of abundance could be reached. But no system is perfect. In Special Oversight hearings held by a subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee last year it became clear that the chachanging demands on our research community would also require that the research system itself undergo some adjustment and change. However, any such adjustment or change must in my view be done in a way which insures that those factors which have brought about the present success are not disrupted.