Footnotes:

Funds carried over and awarded in fiscal year 1991.

MITCHELL R. GEASLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

RICHARD R. RANKIN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, MANAGEMENT

STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. MCHUGH. Our next agency is the Extension Service, and we would invite Dr. Johnsrud and his staff to join us.

Dr. Johnsrud, we are pleased to have you here. Let me begin by apologizing. We had an ambitious program today and really these last two agencies on the agenda-including yours-are unfortunately going to be missing many of the members who have a great interest. I personally have a great interest in the Extension Service. I have learned that in our State the Extension Service does a very effective job of translating the research into practical use. That linkage is very important. Research doesn't mean much if you can't deliver it in a meaningful way to people who put it to use. Your agency does a fine job in working with the States to do that. Dr. Johnsrud, you might proceed.

ADMINISTRATOR'S OPENING COMMENTS

Dr. JOHNSRUD. Thank you.

I'm going to be relatively brief in my comments because I have submitted a statement to the record and because of the time of the day.

First of all, Extension Service's mission is to draw from the wealth of research and try to make good common sense out of it in terms of information and education programs for the producers, consumers, youth and adults that are dealing with the tough issues of today. The budget we have submitted reflects our focus on those issues.

One of the things I would like to comment is that there has been much concern around the country about what is happening to State budgets, because the Cooperative Extension System depends heavily upon State and county appropriations. We are pleased that the budget that we are submitting at the Federal level has substantial budget resources for issues that are facing the public.

At the same time, the State fiscal situation is rather difficult in some States. It is in that arena that we are trying to be responsive from the Federal level to the needs of States. We recognize that

(547)

these are difficult fiscal times and that some programs are going to go by the wayside in terms of what States are providing.

I also would say that State extension services are faring like the rest of State agencies in terms of their fiscal situation. In some cases there are increases, in some it has held even, and in others there are reductions.

FY 1993 BUDGET REQUEST

Let me turn to the fiscal year 1993 budget that we have proposed. The $417 million budget is two million dollars less than the current appropriation. But I would hasten to point out that the $9.5 million that was appropriated for a 5-year program to enhance the facilities for Extension programs at the 1890 land-grant universities, is completed and is not in the fiscal year 1993 budget.

In terms of specific initiatives, $15 million of requested increases relate to farm safety, pest management, youth and families at risk, food safety, EFNEP, and water quality. The base program funding has no increase requested for the 1862 institutions and approximately $3.35 million for the 1890 land-grant universities. A large portion of increase is targeted to small farms and to youth and nutrition programs.

Let me get specific for a moment about the water quality request. We are proposing a $2.1 million increase. We would not be expanding the number of demonstration sites or the hydro logic units, but to enhance training for State Extension staff in the water quality area.

In the area of youth and families at risk, we are requesting an increase of $5 million. The private sector continues to step up and be a partner almost dollar-for-dollar with Federal appropriation in this area. The same is true with State appropriations. The amount of dollars that we are recommending for fiscal year 1993 will allow for programs in approximately 120 communities in fiscal year 1993, as compared to 90 communities in 1992.

I would mention briefly the increase of $175,000 the area of pesticide impact assessment because it relates to earlier discussions with the other agencies about agriculture and the environment. Also we have a modest adjustment requested for food safety.

I would call to your attention that we do have a $1 million request for the area of farm safety and rural health. This program is targeted to two areas. One, is the general occupational hazards reduction education program and the second is to focus on training emergency rescue teams, which is a very serious matter in rural

areas.

In pest management, we are requesting a $1.8 million increase that would specifically give attention to horticultural type of crops and the whole pesticide management area. We think that is an important part of food production, as it also relates to food safety.

In the area of nutrition, we are asking for an expansion of the EFNEP program to focus on prenatal to age 5 children and pregnant women as it relates to dealing with the dynamics that occur when you have low birth weight babies and all that accompanies that in later life.

NUTRITION EDUCATION INITIATIVE

The Secretary's initiative on nutrition education has been mentioned earlier and the primary focus for the Extension Service is in two areas. One, is to focus on WIC families with nutrition education. Of the $11 million, $7 million will be used for this program. The other $4 million will go to targeted programs on nutritional education dealing with cultural areas that are different from mainstream America, such as Hispanic and Native American communities. The $4 million would be used to design human nutrition education programs and materials that relate directly to those types of communities. Those are the two focuses the Extension Service would carry out in relation to broader USDA initiative on human nutrition.

This concludes the testimony I would make about our fiscal year 1993 budget. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have on our proposal.

BUDGET SUMMARY TABLE

Mr. MCHUGH. At this point in the record, would you please insert a copy of the table which appears on page 33 of the 1993 Budget Summary of the Department of Agriculture?

[The information follows:]

AGENCY REQUEST

Mr. MCHUGH. Using the same format as this table, would you please describe for the Committee the Extension Service's fiscal year 1993 budget request to the Department, the Department's request to the Office of Management and Budget and the OMB allowance?

Mr. MCHUGH. For fiscal year 1993 do you still estimate that 5060 percent of your budget is devoted to helping farmers solve "onfarm" problems?

Dr. JOHNSRUD. I believe that is still a fair estimate. Not only the base programs, but various aspects of our water quality programs, food safety in regards to the use of pesticides, and even some of the youth at risk projects are impacting directly on farmers and their operations. Marketing and rural leadership programs also affect farm operations.

Mr. McHUGH. How would you compare that with 10 years ago? Dr. JOHNSRUD. Extension's audiences and clientele have expanded in the last ten years. We and the nation are facing different