for 8 years. The major thrust of ongoing research has been oriented toward developing saltwater net-pen systems for the culture of Pacific salmon. This effort has resulted in a rapid increase in saltwater feed lot farming with an annual commercial production in Puget Sound of 1,000,000 pounds of pan-size salmon. In addition, the new technology has led to increased use of saltwater rearing as a management tool by state agencies and is providing information for the newly developing sea ranching industry. These achievements are attributable to the development and maintenance of a strong base in applied and basic research on disease, nutrition, physiology, and husbandry carried out by the Manchester staff. In spite of the advanced technology of salmon culture, many problems remain to be solved that are beyond the capabilities of the state management agencies and industry. The Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center will continue to focus its research on those problems that will promote the wisest use of the nation's salmon resources. Present facilities consist of a floating experimental net farm, a small saltwater hatchery, temporary laboratories at the terminus of a dock owned by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA), and a disease laboratory at Beaver Creek on NOAA land. Has any consideration been given to the development of a NMFS salt-water aquaculture laboratory at Manchester? If so, what facilities would have to be developed there and at what cost? A new laboratory at Manchester has been considered. The Manchester Station is located on 20.68 acres of NOAA-owned property, a short distance by car or ferry from Seattle, the NOAA West Coast Headquarters. The site is easily accessible to user groups in the scientific, academic, and industrial communities. There are 5 universities and 11 colleges within a 50-mile radius, all interested in marine resources, but none with an adequate marine research capability. The adjacent property is owned by the EPA, which is currently building a water quality laboratory. The National Marine Fisheries Service Aquaculture Experiment Station is presently using the EPA pier as a base for marine research. The working interface between the two agencies is good and benefits both. Such a laboratory would require adequate freshwater and seawater systems with environmental control of temperature, salinity, and oxygen. Fresh water is available on the property from both a creek and a proven well, with additional groundwater capability available. The saltwater quality is assured by an upwelling of clean seawater offshore and extensive tidal flushing through Rich Passage. Rearing aquatic animals and plants would require both inside and outside space for both large and small containers. Large outside pools and raceways would provide space for rearing populations to be used in physiological, pathological, nutritional, genetic, and rearing system studies. Smaller inside containers would provide a means to study smaller more manageable groups. Supporting these rearing areas would be both wet and dry laboratories to house scientific equipment. Support space would include open, covered, and dry storage for equipment, nets, and traps; maintenance shop; freezer and cool rooms for storage of specimens and feed; fuel storage area; dark rooms; library; and a conference room. Temporary quarters would also be available for visiting scientists from other units. Other support facilities would include a fish ladder and trap in the creek, a floating trap in salt water, and substrate for shellfish and marine plant studies. The cost estimate for the design and construction of such a facility at Manchester, Washington, would be approximately $4,500,000. Annual operating and maintenance cost for the new facility is estimated at $250,000. If this facility were constructed, would you foresee the need for additional Federal investment in aquaculture research on Puget Sound? There would be no need for additional federal investment in research facilities for commercial aquaculture. ECONOMIC Development ADMINISTRATION/REGIONAL ACTION STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACCOMPANIED BY: BRIAN B. WHALEN, CHIEF BUDGET DIVISION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION GEORGE T. KARRAS, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS THOMAS W. HARVEY, ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL HERBERT S. BECKER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION GEORGE MILNER, DEPUTY TO THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OF- THOMAS J. SAULINO, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL DAVID S. NATHAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PRO- Senator HOLLINGS. Our next item is Economic Development Administration, and we will take up the Regional Action Planning Commissions at the same time. a decrease of The amount requested is $2,427,534,000: $22,691,000, which provides 1,103 permanent positions. Robert T. Hall, Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Administration is accompanied by Brian Whalen, the EDA Budget Officer; George T. Karras, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Operations; Thomas W. Harvey, Acting Chief Counsel; Herbert S. Becker, Director of the Office of Administration and Program Analysis; and George Milner, and Thomas J. Saulino for the Office of Regional and Economic Coordination. We welcome you. Wouldn't you be in a heck of a fix to have to testify like Dr. White has to? Senator WEICKER. That might be good work going on behind the scenes this time. STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. HALL Mr. HALL. I have a short statement I would like to read and then answer any questions you have. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear today to discuss the fiscal year 1978 budget request for the programs of the Economic Development Administration and the Regional Action Planning Commissions. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM During the brief time that I have been with EDA, I have had the opportunity to testify before a number of congressional committees on a broad range of topics. Regardless of the amounts involved and regardless of the urgency of those other issues, let me say that none of these programs is of greater importance than the one we will discuss today. I believe that the basic programs authorized by the Public Works and Economic Development Act, as it has evolved over the years, continue to form the core of EDA's mission. Through its programs for long-term economic development, EDA has been assisting distressed areas across the nation for 12 years. I believe that now, and in future years, the greatest economic development benefits will be achieved through a continuation of these activities. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST We are requesting $339 million for the PWEDA programs in fiscal year 1978; this is $21 million less than the current appropriation for 1977. There are four areas of program reduction: First, a decrease of $5 million to the business development program; this is related to the trade adjustment activity; Second, a decrease of $10,500,000 to the technical assistance program; $7.5 million of which is related to basic technical assistance activities; Third, a $500,000 reduction in the A-95 support program to districts; and the last, a $5 million reduction to the title IX program, which again is related to trade adjustment activities. We are requesting an appropriation of $24.1 million for administration; this is a reduction of $2.6 million from the current level and is related to the proposed program reductions. REGIONAL ACTION PLANNING COMMISSIONS I will now turn to the Regional Action Planning Commission request. The revised 1978 budget request is $64,500,000 for the regional commission programs authorized by title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended. The budget request is an increase of $1 million over the 1977 appropriation, which will be used for two new commissions. There are currently seven regional commissions operating under the title V program. They include all of 24 States and parts of 8 additional States. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS The 1977 appropriation was allocated among the commissions by use of a formula, excluding certain earmarked amounts, as recommended by the Congress. The 1978 budget request is allocated on the same basis. NEW COMMISSIONS Expansion of the program is anticipated during 1977 by the establishment of new commissions. On October 23, 1976, 36 counties along the Mexican border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were designated as the southwest border region. This action was in accordance with Public Law 94-188 which stated the intent of the Congress that the Secretary of Commerce should invite and encourage the formation of such a commission. Most of the groundwork in organizing the Commission has been completed and the Commission will become operational as soon as the Federal Cochairman has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Six applications for the designation of other regions have been received and are being reviewed within the Department. It is not known at this time how many, if any, will be approved. FUNDING FOR NEW COMMISSIONS The 1977 appropriation includes $1 million for new commissions and, in preparing the 1978 budget, it was assumed that two new commissions would be established during 1977. The 1978 budget request contains $2,036,000 which will provide for the annualization of administrative costs and $500,000 each for program costs for planning and technical assistance for two commissions. PROGRAM STRUCTURE The act authorizes a technical assistance program for planning and research, demonstration and training projects, assistance to substate planning organizations, and a program of supplemental grants to State or local public bodies. The original 1978 budget sent to the Congress in January reflected a policy of not funding the supplemental grant program in 1978. The administration's review of this decision has been completed and the prohibition on funding supplemental grants is removed, although we will continue to place high priority on regional planning. This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions which you might have. REVIEW OF STRUCTURE OF COMMISSIONS Senator HOLLINGS. Mr. Hall, it might be well for you to start looking generally at all those commissions, not necessarily that the Congress will follow any recommendations. Appalachia has a lot of support because there has been a lot of good work. We started-I am talking about Bert Holmes, Governor Chuckey, David Lawrence of Pennsylvania, and myself. It is a special situation. Now I can see from this statement that every area is a special situation. If the whole country is going to be covered by commissions, we might as well lookout. It is going like topsy, and fast. You might want to look and see if the original intent is being carried out and how they are using that money and everything else. You can give it that kind of objective oversight in conjunction with your administration of EDA funds. |