even months of the time of much of the professional forestry staff and culminates in a "thick" report that must then pass through various administrative levels and bureaucracies for approval before action can be taken. As far as I can determine it is a long step toward transferring effective administrative control from the national forests and their regional forest offices, who are familiar with the problems, to the cavernous bureaucracies of the Nation's Capital which are far removed from the scene of management. There is already good evidence of what this is leading to. One national forest supervisor told me that expenditures for office supplies-much of it for paper-had increased from $2,000 per year prior to the obligatory initiation of the environmental impact statement reports to $12,000 for the current year. Imagine then the flood of similar reports from all of our forest supervisors. This means to me that the stifling choking hands of exploding bureaucracies-being developed in the name of protecting the environment-is well advanced toward destroying the efficiency of one of the best organizations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, namely, the U.S. Forest Service. And the environmentalist movement can take much credit for this retrogression. During my aforementioned visit to the national forests, I flew over or observed from the ground 400,000 acres of Douglas-fir forests in Oregon severely defoliated for the second consecutive year by tussock moth [Hemerocampa pseudotsuga]. This means that most of this forest will die since Douglas-fir cannot stand complete defoliation for 2 consecutive years, and especially when the defoliation is accompanied by drought as was the case this year. I have recently read that the infestation has spread to an additional 200,000 acres of timber. Now the tragedy of this situation also traces back to the environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency-EPA-who seem to be confident that they know more about managing our forests than do our excellent corps of trained foresters. The tussock moth is extremely sensitive to the insecticide DDT and one application of this insecticide-which was banned by the Director of EPA in 1972-would have brought this disasterous infestation under control. Recognizing the seriousness of this insect outbreak the Governor of Oregon requested the removal of the ban on DDT. The request was denied. Instead a newer insecticide that was reputed to be capable of controlling the insect without producing an adverse impact on the environment, as well as a virus that was purported to kill this insect, were employed. Neither treatment was effective, apparently the tussock moth prospered on both. The infestation spread. Forests are dying. What is the adverse impact on the environment caused by such an infestation? In a time when we are short of lumber, pulp, paper, and fuel, is this the way to get the best from our forest lands? It is my belief that if we contuine to put more and more power in the hands of the extremists ecologists in the environmentalist movement—including the poorly informed EPA-we will in effect be emasculating the talents of the professional foresters and agricultural scientists of the Federal, State, and private sectors. When one looks around at all the confusion and disruption that has been contributed to by the environmentalist movement during the past 3 years one cannot help but be concerned. I wish to state, clearly, however, that I never did condone many senseless abuses of pollution of the environment in the past two decades, and recognize that some good has come from the environmentalist movement which has assisted in correcting some of these abuses. But today the environmentalists are guilty of "overkill". Their activities have adversely affected the expansion and development of sources of energy and fuel, that is, hydroelectric dams, atomic reactors, petroleum pipelines. Their actions have also adversely effected the production of both nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers. I have already mentioned one of their adverse effects on control of one insect and there are many other similar cases. The general public has been brainwashed by the fear tactics that have been used by these extremists in press, television, and radio. It is my contention that not until there is no heat for our homes, and when the lights go out will the general public belatedly recognize the "overkill" that has resulted from permitting the valuable environmentalist movement to be captured and taken over by a few vociferous extremists. In closing, I wish to emphasize that we have also been very negligent in providing adequate funds to the Forest Service for replanting or reforesting areas that have been destroyed by fires, hurricanes, and epidemics of insects and diseases. This neglect becomes all the more evident when we realize that, in the future, we must begin to rely more and more on renewable resources, because of the dwindling supply of many nonrenewable resources. Forest products will be of growing importance as a raw material for transformation into many kinds of materials that can be used to substitute for products that are today produced from nonrenewable resources. Moreover, the many indirect or secondary benefits that accrue from good forest management, such as providing flood control, erosion control, favorable habits for wildlife, and opportunities for outdoor recreation are of evergrowing concern and importance to the general public. The Knutson-Vandenberg legislation passed many years ago was a very constructive step toward improving our forest management. Under this legislation, funds are made available from timber sales on national forest to replant these same tracts after they are harvested. Unfortunately, there is no provisions under the Knutson-Vandenberg Act for reforesting national forest lands that have been denuded by fires, hurricanes, or epidemics of diseases and insects. And there are vast areas that remain denuded or only partially stocked because of past disasters. According to recent estimates by the American Forestry Association there are today 40 million acres of Federal, State, and private forest lands that need replanting. It is estimated that the replanting of the denuded lands in the national forests alone would require, over a 10-year period, an expenditure of $437 million. The wise management and rational exploitation of our land resources from a national multiple-use point of view is more important than ever before in our history. Since most of the population of the United States today live in large cities and urban areas, they fail to realize that wise use of our total land resources is absolutely necessary to continue to provide our growing population with adequate food, fiber, forest products, watershed protection against erosion and floods, habitat protection for wildlife, and for recreation. I urge your committee to aggressively promote constructive legislation which will provide adequate financing to meet these important and growing needs. Such legislation is absolutely necessary for the continued prosperity of the United States. But it can also serve as a model in land use for the world. Senator HUMPHREY. Well, I tell you, we are sure indebted to you. I am having a good time these days because in years past I was advocating some of the things that you and others are at last bringing public attention to. In 1961, I wrote a report for President Kennedy, after going around certain countries on our foreign aid program. The substance of the report was, to get rid of these high-powered overeducated economists you have that are advocating steel plants all over the world and get hold of some farmers to teach people how to product food and fiber. That is exactly what was said in so many words and as a result, we did amend the Foreign Assistance Act to encourage, for example, farm cooperatives. I found our Government had only five or so people out of thousands in the foreign aid program who had knowledge of the possibilities of a farm cooperative. How can we talk about foreign assistance without including the needs of agricultural development? We were competing with the Russians to see whether we could build a steel plant faster than they could in India and we were competing with them, to build a bigger cement plant in Ghana or to dam the Volta River or something else rather than utilize our resources for what we are finally talking about today, population control and food production. Now, the present Foreign Assistance Act which recently passed in the Senate, is a result of Senator Aiken, myself, and a few others along with the leadership in the House of Representativs rewriting the whole thing, a Congressional initiative. We have put the impact on several categories-food, rural development, nutrition, public health and education, and population. That is the emphasis of that program and we almost didn't pass it, and I can't predict whether we are going to pass it now. For some reason or other the people of this country, Dr. Borlaug, feel that all we need to do is have enough food here and everything is going to be fine. They forget that food is an ocean rather than a series of little lakes. Dr. BORLAUG. We are closer to one world today than most people realize. The economies are interwoven. Our political stability, or instability, is interwoven with that of other countries. Whether we recognize it, day in or day out, it makes no difference, it is still true. Senator HUMPHREY. Are you familiar with, or do you have any faith in, what is known as the meteorologists 20-year theory on weather cycles? Dr. BORLAUG. Well, there are certainly weather cycles but whether it is 20 years or 15 years or 5 years, this to me is something that is still under question. Senator HUMPHREY. But we do have to take into consideration, do we not, what we call the cyclical pattern in weather. Dr. BORLAUG. No question about it. Senator HUMPHREY. In light of what has been said here, by Senator Huddleston and myself and yourself, in terms of today's available food reserves, what would happen if next year, for example, in the United States, due to lack of fertilizer, and there is a lack of fertilizer, there is 24-799-74. -3 a major crop shortfall. My State produces one-sixth of all the corn produced in the United States. We are one of the largest producers of soybeans. We don't have any fertilizer. I can't get anybody in Washington to listen to me about fertilizer. They don't even know how to spell it. We can't get it. And we can't get fertilizer down in Oklahoma, southwest Texas, and Kansas. Senator Dole and I called a meeting to try to get people here to come to some resolution of what would happen in this country, in the world, if we should have, like I experienced as a young man back in the 1930's, crop failures and believe me, I can remember the pattern. It got dry in the Northwest and it came across the mountains into the Dakotas and down in the grain-producing areas. I remember it like I remember the death of my father. Dr. BORLAUG. So do I. In 1934 and 1935. Senator HUMPHREY. When I think of what is happening-what I saw this year-I think of the same thing; Northwest drought, floods along the Ohio River, the lower Mississippi, exactly like it took place before. It is like reliving the whole pattern of that past tragedy. Now, what would happen if we are short of fertilizer. Our reserves are down, and they are way down below anything we have known in my lifetime, both worldwide and domestic, what happens if we get a partially bad crop in this country? What do you think would happen to the world economy? Dr. BORLAUG. The world economy-let's put it on both the basis of the world economy and individual human basis. Senator HUMPHREY. All right. Individually. Dr. BORLAUG. It will have tremendous impact on cost of living here. But in the developing nations most of which are food importers, it would be ruinous to millions and millions. And I daresay if there is a massive crop failure in the next 2 or 3 years, before the reserves are again built up, 100 million people could die from famine, and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The ice or reserve that we thought was very thick to protect against a famine in a worldwide basis has been much thinner than we realized, as has been shown by events of the past year and a half. And we won't be able to build up these stocks, unless if we are very lucky around the globe, not only just in the United States, for at least 2 years, and thus again accumulate manageable protective reserves. Senator HUMPHREY. Well, I have become much more of a man of religion in recent years because I know man hasn't saved himself. God obviously is doing it, because last year in my State we were out of fuel oil. We were within 3 days in the State of Minnesota of having to close down factories and schools, and by superhuman efforts, a trucklift coming in from Calgary, Canada, plus the warmest weather we had in 50 years, we saved ourselves. We are just beginning another winter now. We finally got the Government to move on heating oil and propane. But the Government's attitude has been that somehow or another this wasn't going to happen again. When anybody has lived as long as I have around here and finds out how cold it gets in the winter, I cannot understand these characters down here in Washington that think somehow or another it is going to stay warm again in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota in the wintertime. It just doesn't happen. I would like to take them out there and leave them outside my house in Waverly and when the wind factor makes the temperature 70 below zero. They'll at last become believers. Dr. BORLAUG. Bananas don't grow out there, do they? Senator HUMPHREY. We have too many people who have been bathing in Key Biscayne or some place in the winter. It is a heck of a lot colder up my way. Well, I am awfully glad to have you here because it gives me a chance to get rid of my frustrations. We thank you very, very much. Thank you for coming before our hearing. We are very honored. We had hoped that Secretary Butz would be here today to initiate the hearings by offering an overview of the world food situation. Unfortunately, he was not able to attend, but I would like to have inserted in the record our correspondence with Secretary Butz. We are very pleased to have with us Dr. Paarlberg as a representative of the Department of Agriculture. [The above-mentioned correspondence follows:] U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Hon. EARL L. BUTZ, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The shortages and rising prices encountered in this country and across the world this past year suggest that our world agriculture system is under strain. Certainly, at a time when so many issues are emerging in regard to world food policy, it would seem crucial that the Congress seek to understand as much as possible about the complex world agricultural system. To carry out our responsibilities in this regard, the Foreign Agricultural Policy Subcommittee and the Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices Subcommittee will begin on October 17, a series of comprehensive joint hearings on the world food situation, to explore all aspects which go into supporting and maintaining the system of which provides food to the consumers of the world. I emphasize world food production as a system. This is the perspective from which we wish to take a look at world agriculture. We are interested in what the various constraints on world food production are and what we can do to assure the world's consumers that they will have an adequate supply of food at reasonable prices. More specifically, we would like to take a look at production utilization projections, the role and availability of farm inputs such as fuel, fertilizer, technology and credit, barriers to increasing production in the food deficit areas of the world, the need for domestic and international reform and adjustment both in trade and domestic farm policies, the feasibility of various mechanisms designed to provide market stability and food security, and the interrelationship of the American agricultural production system with the world food requirements. I feel it would be only appropriate that a project of such importance might be initiated by yourself. Therefore, I would like to invite you to lead off our series of hearings by offering an overview of the world agricultural situation. For your convenience, I have enclosed a program for both the first day and for the first section of the series of hearings. I would like to thank you for your cooperation on similar endeavors in the past and ask your favorable consideration of this request. With every best wish. Sincerely, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. |