26 



amount of its own resources to agricultural science, but it under- 

 scores the importance to this Nation's prosperity. 



We have worked closely with the Department of Agriculture to 

 have them be a partner. We have a commitment for some support 

 from the Department. It's a bit of a disappointment, because we 

 will necessarily reduce the scope of the study, which is unfortunate, 

 given the enthusiasm we have found in the system for it. But, like 

 everybody else, the National Research Council does the best with 

 what it has, and we are hopeful that in the near future, in the com- 

 ing years, we will be able to report to you on the findings of that 

 study. 



Thank you very much. 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Offutt appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. We thank each of you. 



Mr. Smith. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I apologize for being late, but I've read each of your statements. 

 Thank you very much for being here this morning. 



Dr. Kloek, I was interested in particular in your thoughts about 

 reviewing the many contracts, the many research programs that 

 seem to have been proliferated around Government in the past 

 years without much organization. The Alar issue always comes to 

 mind as the great debacle. I wanted to ask you specifically if you 

 had thought about, in your program for a review panel, including 

 other agencies of Government research which impact agriculture 

 and, in addition, whether you would have thought about including 

 private research in an amalgamation of review. 



Mr. Kloek. Yes, the board has discussed that. I'm not quite sure 

 how it would work with a review of both public and private re- 

 search. Certainly, the board has had a lot of discussions about 

 other agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency is one 

 that comes up a lot since it does have an impact on American agri- 

 culture. 



When the UAB developed its proposal for a national and com- 

 prehensive strategic plan, we knew many agencies in the Depart- 

 ment had strategic plans. The ARS has a very good one, for exam- 

 ple. But we're looking for something at a higher level. I think this 

 national strategic plan should be set by the Department of Agri- 

 culture, with input fi"om Congress, but it would certainly be our 

 hope that the plan would set a national priority so that other agen- 

 cies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, could use it as a 

 litmus test for their programs. 



Mr. Smith. Well, let me take an example of the worst thing I can 

 think of, the Alar issue. In a hypothetical of what you have in 

 mind, let's assume that your national board was created and this 

 question on Alar came up. Would it be your thought that you would 

 look at the specifics of the research done on Alar and either rec- 

 ommend that it be reviewed or that it be endorsed or that it be 

 supported or that it be denied? 



Mr. Kloek. I want to keep a couple of things straight here. The 

 board we're proposing is limited to a review and evaluation of fa- 

 cilities. The strategic plan, however, would certainly be something 

 that could influence what you're talking about. As an example, in 



