21 



I wonder whether the administration witnesses could tell us 

 what this would amount to in dollar terms, if they know, and 

 whether any other programs that are currently funded with section 

 32 funds will be adversely affected by this provision? 



Dr. Parker. According to an analysis. Senator Cochran, that was 

 done by the Congressional Research Service when this provision 

 was proposed two years ago in Congressman Stallings' bill that was 

 introduced, if the provisions — ^if that provision was applied to aqua- 

 culture, it would amount to something like $30 million to $60 mil- 

 lion a year in funding for research, education, market development, 

 et cetera. 



The administration's position on this is uncertain at present. The 

 administration, I believe, is in the process of evaluating the poten- 

 tial impacts and whether they pay-go provisions would apply to it. 



Senator Cochran. Pay-go? What is pay-go? Pay as you go? 



Dr. Parker. Pay as you go; yes, sir. 



Senator Cochran. I thought it was a new acronym I had not 

 heard of. [Laughter.] 



I do not know how much we appropriate now for aquaculture re- 

 search programs, but we have had support from the Congress for 

 research programs, and I suppose this would not restrict research 

 and promotion activities just to funds derived from excess section 

 32 funds. You would not read it that way, would you? 



Dr. Parker. No, sir. For the first time the administration has in- 

 cluded funding for the Regional Aquaculture Centers as part of the 

 President's budget. The regional centers are presently funded at 

 the level of $4 million a year. The authorized level is $7.5 million. 

 This section 32 provision would not affect that. 



The other programs that the administration carries out in sup- 

 port of aquaculture include a number of special grants and special 

 research grants that have been directed by the Congress, and I do 

 not believe that the section 32 would affect those either. 



Senator Cochran. Insofar as testimony from the industry is con- 

 cerned, we had a suggestion that there needed to be an updating — 

 I think Hugh Warren mentioned this — of priorities for research, 

 and he specifically mentioned therapeutic compounds referenced in 

 the bill, and that there needs to be the development of priorities 

 in this area. 



Could you identify any specific examples of how that may be out 

 of date? 



Mr. Warren. Well, I think just the fact that the report ref- 

 erences a 1985 study, which, in all fairness, I understand Dr. 

 Parker is in the process of updating anyway as part of his respon- 

 sibilities. 



But, in general. Senator Cochran, the industry could use new 

 antibiotics, certainly antifungal agents, parasiticides for parasites, 

 and then piscicides, which is available to take, for example, selec- 

 tive scale fish out of catfish ponds. And that is just generally areas 

 that we need help. 



Of course, we are always concerned, when you are growing ani- 

 mals, for their health and welfare, and obviously, you know, we 

 would love to work with the vaccines to prevent problems from 

 coming. Preventive is always the better method. 



