I can say that we have had representations that the review is on its way and you may hear something very positive.

it?

Senator PASTORE. That matter has not gone before the House, has

Mr. BROWER. It is before the House now. I beg your pardon, it is before the House committee, but it has not been ruled on. I can only speak from what I know of the progress in the House, which was given to us by representation again.

The decision has not been reached. I think that may come out well, too. It is a matter of keeping the options open.

Senator PASTORE. Isn't this one of the things that the President talked to Hiro Hito about when he was here?

Mr. BROWER. Unfortunately, he did not talk to Hiro Hito sufficiently about it. There was a great question in Japanese relations whether it should be brought up by the Japanese or whether it should be left aside and we should hear from the President on this.

I can say that, again, I am quite aware at that point that there was a great deal of embarrassment because the Government was not able to bring it up.

This is the point at which the State Department began to look very seriously at this matter and has since talked from top to bottom and gone on record as being for it.

Senator PASTORE. Can you see the function of this university? Who will attend this university, as students?

Mr. BROWER. May I correct that? It is just terrible. It shouldn't be called a university in that sense. It is a university the way Peter Abillard would want a university. It is about world problems and it is a research and training network in the way it is done.

Senator PASTORE. By professionals?

Mr. BROWER. By professionals, postdoctoral professionals working on the matter. The three major people right now concerned are Lester and a fellow named Alexander Swapong, who is a graduate of Cambridge, a Ph. D., a black who was vice chancellor of the University of Ghana.

The other man is Ichiro Kato, who was president of the University of Tokyo all during the riots and took care of that problem and solved it.

Senator PASTORE. And you will be concerned with the problems of hunger and food supply?

Mr. BROWER. Hunger. The three areas we have been told to go into have been human and social development, use of natural resources and world hunger.

The one I can tell you the most about is the hunger matter because I worked on it personally as the matter came on.

Senator PASTORE. How about population explosion?

Mr. BROWER. The reason that that hasn't come on is that there were so many other people looking at it that they directed the council itself to another thing. You know a little bit about rats here in Washington, and the problem that they have developed recently. They are all over the world in very large populations.

One of the things we have been asked to take a look at is how you can control rats and save the grains of the world. You have a loss in food sometimes in India of as much as 30 or 40 percent

of the crop before it even comes out. It comes from the field and it is delivered to people who can eat it. That is called postharvest food conservation. That was one of the areas we were pointed into. Senator PASTORE. You mean the rats eat it up?

Mr. BROWER. The rats eat it up. Six rats can take care of what you can take care of in your lifetime.

Senator PASTORE. Say that again.

Mr. BROWER. Six rats equal one human being in consumption. That is one of the big problems. If you can't keep them-

Senator HUDDLESTON. In these areas you mentioned, aren't there other agencies of the United Nations already involved in research of a related nature?

Mr. BROWER. Well, the answer is "yes." But quite often, two things go wrong. One, the problem gets politicized. Today, for instance, the Israelis were prevented from submitting a report to WHO on a very close question of whether the health matter was solved on the west Jordan bank. They weren't even allowed to submit the paper. The academic freedom guarantee that we have here is not going to allow that kind of thing to happen.

There are also areas of problems that never get covered. The one I am bringing up, which is food technology, is not really very soundly handled right now in anything, including FAO, and so forth.

It is not a matter of looking for minor things to do. It was a matter of looking for major oversights that we thought we could help out.

Senator PASTORE. How come they picked out Tokyo?

Mr. BROWER. In this case the Japanese, or at least a section of the Japanese society, feeling very strongly that they had been looked upon as simply mercantile and adventurers in the world, wanted to say no, we really represent something quite different, we would like to move into an international area.

One of the things they thought they could really make a difference about was the combination of Western tradition with their own nature of culture. They thought if they could do this through an international venture in research and training, trying to approach the problems in this way, and welcome to Japan, the world's leading scholars, to work in this fashion.

Senator PASTORE. Do they have to build a structure for this building? Mr. BROWER. Right now they have agreed to do so. They have offered it as a gift for the headquarters.

Senator PASTORE. They will put up the building?

Mr. BROWER. Indeed.

Senator PASTORE. And this money that we are talking about is operational money?

Mr. BROWER. Right, the endowment.

Senator PASTORE. Thank you, very much.

Mr. BROWER. Yes, indeed, Senator. Thank you.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

SENATOR PASTORE. This concludes the hearings. The subcommittee will recess to reconvene at the call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 18, the hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

70-425 - 76-45

MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

(CLERK'S NOTE: By order of the Chairman, the following material, received subsequent to conclution of the hearings, will be inserted in the record at this point:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ABOUREZK

Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to present this statement to your subcommittee.

The programs of the Economic Development Administration and of the Regional Planning Commissions, like the Old West Regional Commission, are of real importance to states like South Dakota. As people working with these programs at the local level are quick to point out, funding from SDA serves to partially compensate for the largely unfunded provisions of the Rural Development Act. This Federal assistance is important for a number of reasons. For one thing, it is frequently essential to making it possible for local areas to meet the national standards being mandated by Federal law. Αε an example, implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act is going to add to the pressure for water system funding and this is an area which EDA shares with other agencies such as Farmers Home Administration.

EDA programs are important also because they frequently permit a sort of leveraging effect. In Rapid City, SD, for example, the availability of nublic works funding from 904 for streets, sidewalks, and related development, made possible the use of other programs to rehabilitate a blighted area and provide improved housing for low-income Indians and others. In other areas, EDA funding of infrastructure for industrial development, means a much-expanded local tax-base and that means more resources for other public activities.

Of course, this is what economic development is all about and it is in the nature of good economic development that it has

(703)

multiple benefits

-

including expanded employment onnortunities

which can halt or reverse the traditional out-migration of the young people from rural areas and small towns, better protection of the environment, and more efficient use of available

resources.

As you know, FDA programs have been narticularly helpful to some of the Indian tribes in my state. This is as it should be since Indian communities are all-too-frequently the most economically depressed areas around.

Data recently provided by the Treasury Department indicates that in Fiscal 1975, more than $3.2 million in EDA funds went to state and local governments in South Dakota. Since most of these outlays probably reflected in FY 74 appropriations and Congress provided increased funding levels in the next two succeeding years, it is likely that our state can expect to do even better this year and next. But, the President's proposed funding levels for EDA and the Title V Commissions in FY 77 would spell extreme hardship for states like ours in the years after that. His recommendation that we cut back funding by a half or two-thirds is absolutely incredible at a time when the demand on ED4 Congress has, in recent years, expanded

programs are growing.

the eligibility of highly urban areas for some DA programs. This being the case, increased funding is in order rather than

drastic cutbacks.

As you know, the Public Works Committee has responded to this logic and is recommending full funding of the Economic Development Administration and the Title V Commissions. While not responding completely to that recommendation, the Budget Committee, it is noteworthy, does suggest that ED4 programs be funded at this year's level plus an allowance for inflation. believe that the Budget Committee mark should be regarded as a minimum in this case.

I