[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                  AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
                  AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                                ________

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
                  ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                     JOE SKEEN, New Mexico, Chairman

JAMES T. WALSH, New York               MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   VIC FAZIO, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

Timothy K. Sanders, John J. Ziolkowski, Martin Delgado, and Joanne L.
                       Orndorff, Staff Assistants
                                ________

                                 PART 4

               RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS PROGRAMS

 Research, Education, and Economics
     Agricultural Research Service
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and
       Extension Service
     Economic Research Service
     National Agricultural Statistics Service

                              

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-290 O                    WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office            
        Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,        
                          Washington, DC 20402                          












                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS                      

                   BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman                  

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin            
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida              SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois           
RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     LOUIS STOKES, Ohio                  
JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania        
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington         
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota         
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California         
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                VIC FAZIO, California               
TOM DeLAY, Texas                       W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina 
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland            
RON PACKARD, California                ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia     
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                  
JAMES T. WALSH, New York               DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado           
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      NANCY PELOSI, California            
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana         
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
DAN MILLER, Florida                    ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin             
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California  
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky              
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director


















      DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
      ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999

                              ----------                              

                                       Thursday, February 26, 1998.

                   RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

                               WITNESSES

I. MILEY GONZALEZ, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
EILEEN T. KENNEDY, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, 
    AND ECONOMICS
DONALD BAY, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
FLOYD P. HORN, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
SUSAN E. OFFUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
BOB ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND 
    EXTENSION SERVICE
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    Mr. Skeen [presiding]. The committee will come to order. 
Okay, today we have the Department of Agriculture's Research 
agencies, the Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the Economic 
Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service. I welcome you all here, particularly you New Mexicans. 
[Laughter.]

                        research accomplishments

    The more I visit the agriculture research laboratories, and 
we've visited a great many of them throughout the country, the 
more certain I am that it underpins all of the successes that 
we've achieved in this country. It's hard to realize that 98 
percent of the folks who eat these days are dependent on 2 
percent of the population that's feeding them, and if it wasn't 
for the research that keeps us on the front edge of technology 
and that kind of production, we'd be in terrible trouble.
    We eat better with more varieties of food and cheaper than 
any other country, and only 11 percent of our disposable income 
goes for food. Our food is healthier than anywhere else. These 
are all things made possible by agricultural research, and I 
think that we do it better than any country anywhere in the 
world.
    I welcome you here, and I turn to Miley Gonzalez who's the 
Under Secretary for Research and my friend from New Mexico, 
and, Miley, if you would introduce your associates, then the 
floor is yours.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're delighted to 
be here with you this afternoon to talk about the budget 
request for the Research, Education, and Economics mission area 
at USDA, and it is my pleasure to introduce the rest of our 
team. With us this afternoon is Dr. Eileen Kennedy, the Deputy 
Under Secretary for the mission area. To her left is Dr. Floyd 
Horn, Administrator for ARS; he's a veteran; Dr. Bob Robinson, 
Administrator for CSREES; Dr. Susan Offutt, Administrator for 
ERS; and Mr. Don Bay, Administrator for NASS.
    Mr. Skeen. That's a very strong cast of people that you 
introduced.
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'm feeling very, very comfortable in working 
with this group, and their testimony has been submitted for the 
record.
    Mr. Skeen. Very good. We'll make you uncomfortable later. 
[Laughter.]

                      under secretary's testimony

    Dr. Gonzalez. Someone had told me that that would happen. 
We really appreciate the opportunity to be here. I think that 
entering into this discussion about our budget and the 
opportunity that we have of working together for the benefit of 
all of agriculture, certainly, but more specifically as you 
indicated in your opening remarks, the opportunity that we have 
through our mission area to achieve the things that you were 
indicating that are important to the agricultural industry.
    I'd like to spend a few minutes just to talk a little about 
my background. As you know, I started out in production 
agriculture over in the neighboring State not too far from 
where we are now, residents of New Mexico, and have spent the 
last number of years as part of the agricultural and extension 
education program effort at the university level.
    Based on those experiences and in my short time here, my 
observation is that this particular mission area is vitally 
important to the continuing excellence and success of 
agriculture, in this country. And leadership in the world.
    The combination of fundamental and applied research and 
statistics coupled with higher education and extension in the 
REE agencies yields a powerful partnership that serves 
agriculture well. Our research must continue to be cutting edge 
for the benefit of all Americans. We plan to communicate these 
objectives to everyone and not just those of us involved in the 
agricultural food and fiber sector. Drawing on the distinct and 
complementary capacities of the four agencies in REE, we're 
supporting the work of many of the other mission areas not only 
at USDA but other programs of the Federal partnership.
    REE-funded physical and biological research provides a 
scientific foundation for a vast array of advances both in 
agriculture and related industries. REE is committed to 
strengthening the linkages between its basic and applied 
agricultural research and the broader research agenda that's of 
interest to all of us at the national level. REE brings to this 
larger agenda excellent cutting edge research that complements 
similar excellence found elsewhere in Government, at colleges 
and universities, and in the private sector.
    We welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and with 
the administration to promote these linkages through funding 
and research directed at broader priorities and initiatives.
    I want to emphasize that the agency budgets were created 
through an ongoing conversation with our stakeholders. A 
variety of stakeholder groups, including our friends in the 
commodity program areas, the advisory committee with many, many 
representatives of the producer community, and the overseas 
folks that work with us, havebeen engaged in those 
conversations with a special interest and focus on those issues related 
to environmental, food safety, and nutrition concerns, in order to get 
a better understanding of what those real needs are.
    We're committed to listening and to the extent possible 
being responsive to the concerns and recommendations of these 
many stakeholders. I believe that we have met our 
responsibilities to formulate a budget that is responsive to 
the concerns and interests of those diverse clientele groups.

       research, education, and economics fy 1999 budget proposal

    I would like to turn now to the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for 
the agencies of Research, Education, Economics Mission Area to 
discuss some overall budget concerns and items and then to 
address some specific things through a discussion about our 
initiatives.
    The REE budget request for Fiscal Year 1999 is $1.826 
billion, a net decrease of $47 million or 2.5 percent from the 
Fiscal Year 1998 budget. Within this total, the allocation for 
research and development actually increases by $7 million or 
about 1 percent. The REE agency budgets were developed in the 
context of the administration's commitment to achieving a 
balanced budget for Fiscal Year 1999. Within that context and 
taking into consideration the almost infinite number of worthy 
goals and problems that we could address through REE, I believe 
the budget in total funding and specific initiatives represents 
a sound and balanced portfolio of public investment.
    We've had to make difficult decisions to reduce and 
redirect some resources or to terminate valuable projects in 
order to fund others of higher priority within those 
established goals. It's important to reiterate that the return 
on public investment in agricultural research and development 
is very high. The decline in the percentage of disposable 
income that we spend on food, sustained over many decades, is 
due in large part to increases in agricultural productivity 
resulting from the investments in research and development as 
you pointed out. Between 1948 and 1994, the productivity in 
U.S. agriculture grew at an annual rate of 1.9 percent compared 
to 1.1 percent for non-farm businesses and 1.3 percent for the 
manufacturing area.
    Mr. Chairman and members, I would like to discuss four of 
our major initiatives that we are proposing in this budget: the 
food genome, food safety, pest management, and civil rights 
initiatives. These initiatives are closely aligned with the 
general goals of our strategic plan and contribute to the 
achievement of several of those goals.

                         food genome initiative

    Among the major challenges the Nation will face in the 21st 
century are the need for increased high quality food 
production, a cleaner environment, and a renewable chemical and 
energy resource base. The President's food genome initiative, a 
government-wide initiative in which USDA plays a leadership 
role, will help achieve a safe and abundant food supply; meet 
the needs of a growing population worldwide, and ensure the 
global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture industries in a more 
environmentally sensitive manner.
    The food genome strategy will vastly expand our knowledge 
of genomes of species of importance to the food and 
agricultural sector. REE is carrying out considerable genetic 
research, but it does not nearly meet the need that we have. 
Therefore, as part of the President's initiative, REE is 
requesting $40 million for food genome research, an increase of 
$19 million over the estimated $21 million for the Fiscal Year 
1998 budget.

                         food safety initiative

    Food safety is the second initiative that we would like to 
talk about. The administration has taken major strides to 
improve our current food safety systems. The recent 
implementation of HACC is radically changing our meat and 
poultry inspection system which resides in another of our 
mission areas. Research proposed in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget 
will bring us further in generating new knowledge to identify 
cost effective technologies for the prevention and detection of 
existing and emerging pathogens.
    The Fiscal Year 1999 budget includes a total of $26 million 
in increased funding across ARS, CSREES, and ERS. The majority 
of the funds will focus on developing improved pathogen 
prevention and detection methods and other bioscience research 
in both ARS and CSREES. ERS requests funds to better assess the 
cost of food borne illness and to apply economic analysis in 
the development of more cost effective control methods.

                       pest management initiative

    The third initiative is pest management. Producers tell us 
they need the research community to develop the science and the 
technologies that will allow them to control pests in an 
environmentally responsible manner that also meets increasingly 
stringent food safety standards and is economically viable. 
Last October in response to this need, the Department 
established the Office of Pest Management policy within ARS.
    Another component of the Fiscal Year 1999 pest management 
initiative is USDA's multi-year integrated pest management 
initiative that relates directly to the Department's national 
goal for the adoption of IPM practices on 75 percent of U.S. 
cropland by the year 2000. The initiative includes increases to 
support enhanced research on biocontrol alternatives to 
pesticides and new control technologies, as well as to transfer 
the technologies to the producer community, a very important 
and critical component of the continuum.

                        civil rights initiative

    The last initiative that I would like to address is that of 
civil rights. In December of 1996, Secretary Glickman launched 
a major initiative to address the problems and concerns that we 
have in the Department. The Fiscal Year 1999 REE agency budgets 
represent a serious response to those concerns raised both by 
the Secretary and by our civil rights action team and were 
included as part of the small farms commission report. The 
budget also reflects a recognition that the best future for 
agriculture is one that benefits from a diverse and talented 
scientific and technological work force. We've added more 
details in our budget presentation.
    These are the highlights of the four initiatives that span 
the agencies within REE. A fuller discussion, of course, is 
included in our explanatory notes. The Agricultural Research 
Service Fiscal Year 1999 budget request of $813 million is 
slightly lower than the $824 million for Fiscal Year 1998. 
Embedded in that decrease is a net increase of $32 million in 
research. The goody bags that we provided you have some of the 
products of ongoing research that we're conducting through the 
agency and through the mission area.
    CSREES' budget decreases by $9 million to $850 million for 
Fiscal Year 1999. Funding for the National Research Initiative, 
the Department's hallmark competitive research grants program, 
is increased by $33 million to $130 million, an increase of 34 
percent. The Economic Research Service budget decreases from 
$72 million to $56 million in Fiscal Year 1999. The ERS 
conducts research and analysis on the efficiency, efficacy, and 
equity aspects of issues relating to agriculture, food safety 
and nutrition, and the environment and rural development. Our 
NASS budget for 1999 declines by $11 million due to the 
cyclical nature of the required census of agriculture which is 
included.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to 
reiterate that in the context of a balanced budget the REE 
budgets reflect a continued and strong commitment to investment 
in agricultural research, statistics, education, and extension. 
If U.S. agriculture is to continue to be dynamic and to provide 
leadership in a very competitive, global economy, and if the 
American public is to continue to enjoy the high quality, safe, 
and nutritious products of agriculture, then our national 
commitment to increasing the investment in agricultural 
research, education, and extension must continue.
    We are here to engage in a conversation with you to see how 
we arrive at those things to increase our budget, and to make 
sure that what we do through the mission area at USDA benefits 
all of the constituents that we serve. Mr. Chairman, that 
concludes my remarks, and I would open up the floor for any 
discussion and questions that we might answer.
    [Clerk's note.--Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez's written testimony 
appears on pages 895 through 909. Dr. Floyd Horn's written 
testimony appears on pages 910 through 924. Dr. Bob Robinson's 
written testimony appears on pages 925 through 943. Dr. Susan 
Offutt's written testimony appears on pages 944 through 958. 
Dr. Donald Bay's written testimony appears on pages 959 through 
972. Biographical sketches appear on pages 888 through 894. The 
Agricultural Research Service's budget justification appears on 
pages 973 through 1070. The Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service's budget justification appears 
on pages 1071 through 1180. The Economic Research Service's 
budget justification appears on pages 1181 through 1206. The 
National Agricultural Statistics Service's budget justification 
appears on pages 1207 through 1238.]

                       proposed budget reductions

    Mr. Skeen. Well, let's open up the dialogue, and, Miley, I 
don't want to take issue with you personally, but I think that 
this budget has a lot of problems.
    For one, your budget request seems to have a total 
disregard for what we put in--some of the things that were put 
in there from the congressional side of the thing. The 
Administration has interests and the Congress has interests, 
and I don't want to see them competing, because they ought to 
be going hand in hand, and I think that there's merit in all of 
them. But this budget wipes out program for wheat scab, Asian 
longhorn beetle, wheat genetics, and many others, and I know 
that you don't think that research is bad. You've been a great 
supporter of research down the line, and, once again, it's the 
backbone of all our production process.
    Wheat scab caused millions in losses to crops from farmers 
and higher costs to consumers. The Asian longhorn beetle is a 
new pest found in New York--that's a great agriculture State 
there, New York, that could wipe out whole forests and, surely, 
you think we should try to stop it before it spreads, and the 
only way to stop it is through control methods identified 
through research.
    I just wonder if when we have these budgets prepared if a 
thought is ever used to look at the merits of individual 
projects added by Congress instead of the broad brush that says 
if Congress recommends it, well, then throw them out or forget 
about them, because they're just trying to warm up the fat side 
of this thing and gain votes or some other reason, whatever, 
and I think that they ought to look at the merits of the 
program.
    And I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I 
think that we could resolve this thing much easier if we had 
some dialogue before all of these budgets are in preparation, 
and I know that various entities are interested in the genome 
theories, great; I appreciate that, and we've done a lot of 
work in that part of the research. So, I think that we need to 
have a little closer get together, getting together the minds, 
to make this thing work.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, that's correct, and I 
appreciate your supporting comments. As we looked at the budget 
and considered specific research within new initiatives and the 
continued programs--to use your example of the wheat scab. We 
have provided additional dollars in areas of greatest need. Our 
emphasis on food genome area is one such area. I would also 
invite Dr. Horn to weigh in on the discussion.
    We tried to anticipate what some of those shifting 
resources would do at the local level, and so we've begun that 
discussion and that dialogue as well. And looking within that 
the larger initiatives--to use the example of the food genome 
initiative, there are some things that we need to do with 
regard to wheat scab research that would focus on the genomic 
side of that agenda, and so there are many of these things that 
we do need to continue the discussion.
    Mr. Skeen. Well, a lot of the money--the decline in some of 
the money offered in support of these various kind of research 
projects is evident in there, because they're taking out of 
those particular categories, and without, in my belief, a lot 
of introspection as far as to what the existing program still 
is doing and what is the remedy for the scab problem and the 
rest of it. Before we jerk the plug on these things, we ought 
to know exactly what kind of a situation we're dealing with.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Exactly. Dr. Horn, I don't know if you have 
any additional comments?
    Mr. Skeen. Does Dr. Horn have something to say?
    Dr. Horn. We agree very much that these are important 
issues; these things that come along like wheat scab. They come 
along in both plants and animals, and I would tell you that you 
have provided us with a small contingency fund in the past 
several years, and that is becoming rapidly taxed. We are 
having more and more problems of this kind all the time. In 
animals, for instance, we have put money out in that emergency 
fund for Lyme disease; for vesicular stomatitis; more recently, 
avian influenza, the Hong Kong strain that we're worried about; 
BSE in cattle; E. Coli; hog cholera; brucellosis in bison, and 
so forth. In plants, we've got not only the scab but Karnal 
bunt, TCK smut, ergot sorghum, codling moth, and leafy spurge. 
These are all very high priorities, and we are the only agency 
that can respond very quickly to directing researchers on site 
and getting the methods developed.
    Now, the rationale behind cutting out these kinds of 
programs particularly when they are new is, I guess, difficult, 
at best, to rationalize, but----
    Mr. Skeen. That's praising with faint words.
    Dr. Horn. Well, I think the----
    Mr. Skeen. I understand where you're going.
    Dr. Horn. The salvation is in the nature of the proposed 
increases in areas of emphasis which I think are, in fact, very 
important.
    Mr. Skeen. Well, I think the Administration or OMB or 
whoever is turning the numbers down there needs to come up here 
and have a lesson in reality, and I know that it's necessary 
that we reduce spending in some areas and so forth, but when 
research is such an important part of agricultural production, 
I think that you can't just cut these programs off because you 
want to do genome theories programs that are more important or 
have a worldwide importance to them.
    Dr. Horn. Well, almost every one of these issues that crops 
up like this requires follow up in ensuing years, and these are 
all extremely important.
    Mr. Skeen. Well, that's great. Ms. Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 
Secretary----
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. And all of those who have 
accompanied you today. I'm really glad to have you here, and 
thank you for the bag of goodies. I was trying to get through 
to find the fire ant paperweight, and I couldn't locate it, but 
I look forward to discovering that later in the afternoon. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Skeen. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Kaptur. I will be pleased to yield.
    Mr. Skeen. Are there any labels on there, where are the 
sources of fruit?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Dr. Horn, do you have----
    Dr. Horn. You say are there labels on there?
    Mr. Skeen. Well, they're all homegrown are they not?
    Dr. Horn. Absolutely.
    Mr. Skeen. We didn't want any imported.
    Dr. Horn. There was some discussion about going down to the 
store but----
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Kaptur. That was yesterday, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Gonzalez, I know this is your first time before this 
subcommittee, and we welcome you.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much. It's great to be here.

                         agency recommendations

    Ms. Kaptur. Your long career contributing to the betterment 
of not just our country but people around the world; we're just 
thrilled to have you here with us today, and could you tell us 
how does the budget that you presented to our subcommittee 
today differ from, perhaps, the budget that you submitted to 
the Secretary prior to a budget being submitted to OMB in terms 
of the amounts of money devoted to research?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Well, within the context of the REE mission 
area and other mission areas in terms of the overall budget for 
USDA, I think we had started out with the discussion about how 
we maintain this level of excellence with regard to research 
and increase our monies for the research, extension, and 
education area. So, we've had a number of discussions. I don't 
know that it's very different, and, certainly, within each of 
the administrative units, the agencies, there may be some 
additional information that our administrators can share, but I 
think that we've made some tough decisions about how we would 
weigh some of those pieces. It's a little different than what 
we had initially started, but I think generally captures the 
importance of each of those broader categories of research and 
extension activity. We had submitted to the Secretary and then, 
of course, there is internal discussion of how some of those 
monies would be reallocated or shifted in order to stay within 
our budget constraints.
    Ms. Kaptur. Did the total budget request in your area 
change between the time it left your office and went to the 
Secretary or did it change between the time it left the 
Secretary and went to the White House?
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'm going to ask for some help from Steve on 
that answer.
    Mr. Dewhurst. It changed both times.
    Ms. Kaptur. It did?
    Mr. Dewhurst. The reason is because when the Secretary asks 
the agencies what they think they need by way of money for the 
next coming Fiscal Year, he does not put any arbitrary limits. 
They're allowed to ask for those things they think they need to 
have. Then, of course, our job is to try to fit what they need 
within a target figure we get from OMB; that's our allowable 
share of the budget. The total requests we had from the 
agencies this year exceeded that target by roughly $3 billion, 
so there was no way for the Secretary to accommodate everything 
everybody had asked for when we made our submission to OMB, and 
there were some reductions, and then there were further 
reductions as we went on through the process with OMB.
    Ms. Kaptur. In the research category, Mr. Dewhurst, did 
that number remain substantially the same?
    Mr. Dewhurst. The number was significantly less both times. 
I think these folks have their individual agency numbers, but, 
for instance, the ARS request was for $853 million in their 
initial request to the Secretary. The Department provided about 
$782 million. The final budget provided by OMB is $776 million.
    Dr. Kaptur. All right. That's the number I was looking for. 
Thank you very much.

                   agricultural utilization of wastes

    Mr. Secretary, I congratulate on publishing the long 
awaited study on Agricultural Utilization of Municipal Animal 
and Industrial Wastes, and I'm wondering if you or one of your 
associates might be able to highlight the work, any work that 
the ARS Research Service may be doing in this area?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Dr. Offutt, can you share some----
    Dr. Offutt. I think that there's a large body of research 
that occurs in both the biological and the social sciences 
about the use of municipal waste in agricultural uses. In 
addition to the report you mentioned other work that's gone on, 
we've worked very recently with EPA on the question of sludge 
and what's in sludge and whether or not it can be used on 
agriculture and particularly in the Pacific Northwest, so we 
find ourselves in the Economic Research Service looking at 
situations in which low cost fertilizers are sought by farms, 
but it may have some externalities in use; there may be 
something about the material that makes it unfit for use as 
fertilizer either because it creates problems on the fields or 
later on.
    Ms. Kaptur. We know quite a bit about this issue in our 
region of the country, and I would only encourage you in a 
world that is seeking organics and soil compliments to really 
give some attention to this. For example, I represent--the 
major city in my district is Toledo, and we completely use all 
of our sewage material. It is reused; it is mixed; it is 
pasteurized, so all the organics aren't killed, and the heavy 
metals are removed. There are plenty of technologies in this 
country that can accomplish that, and those materials are now 
being used on our farm fields and just used on our local 
university, actually, to do some landscaping around a major 
site at that university.
    I think that looking at what's happened to soils in our 
country and around the world, and some of the additional manure 
that is being generated by all creatures, all living creatures, 
this is a huge undertaking for us to think about--the way that 
we reuse these materials--and I think USDA and EPA should be 
encouraged further along these lines. And it was--Mr. 
Secretary, I'll just let you know--pretty disturbing that it 
took several years for the Department even to clear this 
report.
    So, I happen to be someone that is very interested in those 
research activities, and you would have support here in that 
regard. You've done quite a bit of work in composting, for 
example, and that has yielded results right down to the farm 
level now, but in this area, it really isn't just EPA's job, 
but I think it's USDA's mission as well.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Kaptur, I 
think there's some other information, perhaps, that I would ask 
Dr. Horn to talk about, because I'm sure that we've done this 
in cooperation with some of the other mission area work.
    Dr. Horn. We have about a $1.5 million dedicated 
specifically to municipal wastes. We have a much larger program 
on solid wastes in general. We are aware of, for instance, the 
possible impacts of municipal wastes on organic products, 
organic certified products, and we're doing quite a bit of work 
on managing such things as heavy metals and synthetic 
chemicals. There are about 325 million tons of municipal solid 
waste that in one way or another could be available to be 
spread on land, and these are the biggest problems. I know 
there is also an issue as to whether or not certified organics 
should include vegetables and fruits and so forth grown on land 
to which municipal sludge has been applied, so we are trying to 
clarify that.
    On the positive side, the application of sludge, or 
municipal waste, that includes a lot of aluminum can cut back 
on the release of ammonia and slow down the movement of 
phosphorous which often times are implicated in the pollution 
of water, surface water, and nutrient enrichment that causes 
other problems in the water supply. So, we have quite a bit of 
work going on in this arena.
    Ms. Kaptur. May I ask, what about animal waste 
reutilization?
    Dr. Horn. Well, of course, we have a tremendous amount of 
work on virtually all livestock solid wastes, and these range 
from treatment of one sort or another to composting as you've 
indicated. We are also looking at ways of modifying animal feed 
so that the waste will be less injurious to the environment. 
You may have seen the news release that came out on low-phytate 
corn a few weeks ago. This is the part of the corn that's not 
available to monogestric animal and by reducing that, we are 
limiting what passes through the animal and into the manure. 
There's an estimate that we can actually reduce phosphorus 
levels in the poultry manure on the Delmarva Peninsula by up to 
20 percent.
    Ms. Kaptur. If there's any way you might give me a very 
brief summary of some of what you've verbally done now, I would 
very much appreciate it in this general area.
    Dr. Horn. Great, we would be happy to----
    Dr. Gonzalez. We'd be pleased to provide that.
    Dr. Horn. We'd be very pleased to do that.
    [The information follows:]

                       Animal Waste Reutilization

    ARS has developed a National Program entitled, Animal 
Manure, Waste Utilization, and Management. Research is being 
conducted at 21 ARS locations to develop management practices 
to integrate animal manure use into sustainable agricultural 
systems while protecting environmental quality and human 
health.
    ARS research at several locations has shown that nutrients 
in manure can be used to meet crop requirements. Research at 
Kimberly, Idaho, has demonstrated that animal manure can be 
used to remediate degraded soils by increasing organic matter 
levels, thus reducing erosion, increasing water infiltration 
rates, increasing water storage for plant use, and increasing 
plant rooting depth.
    Research on composting of manure has been conducted at 
Beltsville, Maryland; Clay Center, Nebraska; and Lincoln, 
Nebraska. Composing reduced the weight and volume of the manure 
while abating odors and destroying pathogens. Composted manure 
can have enhanced value in the horticulture industry as growth 
media and for biocontrol of soilborne plant diseases. Recent 
research at Beltsville, Maryland, has indicated that mixing, 
blending, or co-composting of manure with municipal or 
industrial waste can result in a more valuable product for 
agricultural and horticultural uses.
    Research is being conducted at Florence, South Carolina, to 
show that nutrients in liquid manure and wastewater can be 
concentrated and recovered to produce high-value, low-volume 
fertilizers. Research at Clay Center, Nebraska; Beltsville, 
Maryland; and Tifton, Georgia, has demonstrated energy 
production from manure through methane generation.

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Doctor, do you know what percentage 
of funding in the national research initiative goes to land 
grant v. non-land grant institutions and how that might compare 
to previous years?
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'm going to turn to Dr. Robinson to help 
answer that question.
    Dr. Robinson. It's roughly about 30 percent that goes go to 
non-land grant universities. I don't have the number directly 
in front of me, and I'll certainly be glad to get that to you, 
Ms. Kaptur. I did misstate it, 32 percent instead of 30 percent 
goes to non-land grant universities.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you and one final question on 
this first round. Doctor, I wanted to ask you will we find an 
alternative to methyl bromide prior to its scheduled phase-out?

                     alternatives to methyl bromide

    Dr. Gonzalez. I think Dr. Horn has been diligently working 
on this particular issue, and we're----
    Dr. Horn. This is, obviously, a very, very serious problem 
for the United States and many other countries around the 
world, and the answer is no, not one single solution 
replacement. There is no silver bullet. Methyl bromide was a 
silver bullet to replace EDB years ago. This time we don't have 
anything on the shelf that we can use like that. We are working 
on a broad array of physical and cultural practices that crop 
by crop, section by section of the Nation can be quite useful, 
but the key is to make these things economical so that our 
industries can stay profitable and stay in business, and that 
is, indeed, a challenge. We are somewhat optimistic that in 
many cases we will meet the challenge, but there is still a 
awful lot of work outstanding. We have about $14.7 million in 
work now which is up three-fold from what we started out with 
when this first became a major issue. We are actually 
cooperating a great deal with industry on full scale research 
activities both in California and Florida where these are big, 
big issues. So, I guess we would say we are somewhat 
optimistic, but we are not certain that we can find solutions 
to all of the problems facing U.S. industry.
    Ms. Kaptur. What's your timetable on that, Doctor?
    Dr. Horn. Two thousand and one. We've got to have it before 
this is taken off the market. There is a very important 
newsletter put out specifically on this subject by the 
Agricultural Research Service, and you have the latest copy of 
that in your bag, and we would be more than glad to provide 
that as well as quite a bit of information that's on the 
internet with regard to our programs. There's a tremendous 
amount of industry interest in this.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman and Ms. Kaptur, we do have some 
additional activities that are going on, and Dr. Offutt's going 
to share with us some of the upcoming workshops that are on 
this particular issue.
    Dr. Offutt. Thank you. One of the important things is not 
just whether there is a substitute for methyl bromide, but 
whether you can use it and stay in business. So, the economic 
viability of substitutes are very important, and we've been 
working with our colleagues in the Ag Research Service and the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to gather together 
expertise that will represent both understandings of the 
biological properties of the substitutes and their efficacy in 
use in production, but also look at the economic impacts of 
that. Can a producer incorporate them into their production 
systems and remain commercially viable? We're also looking at 
broader questions such as what happens in other countries' 
which use methyl bromide? How does that affect our trade flow 
as well as the domestic availability of supply? And I ask to 
mention that only because the first of those workshops will be 
held next week in Florida, so we've begun by focusing our 
efforts in areas in which growers are most likely to feel the 
affects of restrictions on methyl bromide use and where they 
need to begin to work right now as they have been with our ARS 
colleagues on adopting substitutes.
    Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I'm finished at this point, but I 
just want to say, you know, we are so lucky to have this 
caliber of person and persons working for the people of the 
United States and the world, really. What you do in your 
specific mission area is just so important to our political and 
economic strength as a country; to our future, and what you're 
able to teach other people of the world. I have been so 
impressed with the full range of research activities, and I'm 
just very proud as an American to have you engaged in the way 
you are. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. I'll second the Lady's motion. Very good. Mr. 
Nethercutt.

            reductions in funding for agricultural research

    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 
ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I agree with Ms. Kaptur's 
summary of the importance that you provide to American farmers 
and to the Department. That's why I feel like this is groundhog 
day again. You know, the old movie, Groundhog Day where the guy 
keeps waking up to the same song and so forth? And maybe you 
say the same thing about my complaining about the reduction in 
funding for ag research. That's a real high priority of mine, 
because I represent the eastern part of Washington State; rich 
in peas and lentils and potatoes and wheat, and we have a great 
part of the country for agriculture, and we have a great need 
for ag research. So, I--Dr. Horn and Dr. Robinson and the rest 
of you, I know you're committed to a strong policy of ag 
research. Our frustration--my own frustration is that we see 
coming out ofthe administration--not necessarily by you, but 
the administration--a reduction in our capabilities. What are we $83 
million down? I think this year is a time when we're seeking to be as 
competitive in the world market as we possibly can to have our 
Government partner with partners on the ground to help them sell crops. 
A very great concern to all of us I would say to you, is that the 
survival of basic research is critical to the survival of free market 
farm programs. I don't mean to lecture you. I don't need to do that, 
and I'm not intending to. I just want you to know how strongly I feel, 
not the least of which is a specific instance, the Prosser Research 
Station, which is located outside my district but in my region. I want 
to make sure we have a good record of the importance of that particular 
station. We fought last year when it was cut to get it back in; The 
other members of the subcommittee and myself and other Members of 
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. I am frustated that we're 
fighting this battle again. I'll say one more time that cutting these 
research stations at a time when we need enhanced research; good 
research for a lot of commodities can have a chilling effect on our 
ability to get good research scientists. You can't just go get them 
this year and get rid of them next year and get them the next year; it 
just doesn't work. So, you know how I feel, I hope. I just want to be 
sure this subcommittee understands the importance of the Prosser 
Research Station. Can you, for the record, tell us, Dr. Horn or 
anybody, how many commodities are researched at that station?

                   closure of ars prosser laboratory

    Dr. Gonzalez. Dr. Horn, if you would, please.
    Dr. Horn. At the Prosser Station we conduct a number of 
projects on potatoes. We also have work on alfalfa and peas and 
lentils, and we do a cooperative project with the Washington 
State University on hops. I would like to begin with your 
comments about recruiting scientists and retaining scientists 
under these circumstances. This has been difficult. This is the 
second year in a row we have made an effort to explain to 
potential candidates for scientific positions what these 
funding uncertainties mean. We actually have about 140 
scientific vacancies in ARS right now of which 70 are 
identified with the add-ons of a year ago. Last year we held 
all of our vacancies to determine what was actually going to 
happen and who might have to be reassigned and so forth, and 
that actually caused much more disruption than we anticipated. 
This set us back, and actually we lost some FTE slots in that 
process as well. This year, we are reexamining that policy, and 
we are proceeding with recruiting cautiously as we learn 
additional information we will relay that to the people who may 
be interested in these jobs. We are pursuing the recruiting 
process based on what we know about the Fiscal Year 1998 budget 
until we know more about the 1999 budget. So, there is no 
slowdown in that thus far. I have been very concerned for a 
long time about the decrease in the number of scientists in 
ARS. Not too long ago, we had 3,400 scientists and now it's 
1,900 or less. So, we are concerned about that.
    We currently have seven projects at Prosser of which three 
would be retained under the proposed arrangement and four would 
be lost. The ones that would be lost include the production and 
germ-plasm evaluation aspects of the potato program, but the 
virology activity would be retained. Last year it was suggested 
it might go to Aberdeen, Idaho, but that isn't appropriate as 
we learned because of a number of things that you told us but 
also because there are no such viruses in Aberdeen. The idea 
this year would be to consolidate with a program in Corvallis, 
and then we would lose entirely the alfalfa virus and alfalfa 
disease program. The peas and lentils research would go to 
Pullman, Washington where we do have additional work. We would 
renegotiate our relationship with Washington State University 
on the hops research.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Well, thank you, and at least you're 
thinking about it. I hope this is an academic discussion; that 
we're not going to do that, and if I have my way, I'll make it 
as clear as I can on this subcommittee that we don't want to do 
that. The conditions in Oregon are different than the 
conditions in Washington. I'm informed there are about 100 
crops that are studied at the Prosser Station. The potato 
commission just put about $0.5 million into upgrading that 
facility on the strength of--I'll suggest to you--that it would 
be there.
    Dr. Horn. I attended the Western Washington Horticulture 
Society meetings this year, and I was absolutely amazed at the 
diversity of cropping systems in western Washington, and I 
agree with that.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I don't want the record to misunderstand--I 
have no quarrel with all of you. I think you're trying your 
best, and you're doing good work. But I do have a quarrel with 
people in the Administration who do not take the 
recommendations of all of you who have a clear sense of the 
mission of agriculture research in our country. You tell the 
Administration what you need, not want, but need, and then 
you're cut, and I think that's wrong. Now, I know we have to 
fit a size 13 foot into a size 10 shoe sometimes, but let's cut 
someplace else, and I have some ideas about where we can cut, 
believe me. [Laughter.]
    If I can just ask a couple of quick questions--Dr. 
Robinson, on page 18 of your written testimony, you explain 
that formula funds for our universities will be cut by about 9 
percent. This cut, in combination with the elimination of the 
Prosser Station, raises serious questions for me. It means 
really that Washington State, with over 230 food, feed, and 
seed crops, could be severely shortchanged by the President's 
budget. I think it's especially of concern when you look at the 
Asian situation relative to having foreign competitors undercut 
our prices. I'm just wondering if you feel the President's 
initiatives are really able to keep American agriculture 
competitive, and whether spending on these global change 
initiatives have helped us compete with Canada, for example. Do 
you have any comment on that?
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Chairman.
    I guess the way I would respond is not dissimilar to the 
way that both Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Horn responded earlier, 
realizing that we all feel the need for a larger pie for 
conducting research and education in this country, because of 
the problems you just outlined, in terms of remaining 
competitive and dealing with the issues that we have between 
production and the environment.
    One of the things that this budget tried to do was to focus 
on some of the areas for the future that hold a good deal of 
promise to achieve those goals. The food genome activity that 
is highlighted, for example, in the CSREES budget; the activity 
of increased funding of about 30 percentin the National 
Research Initiative, with focus on some of those real high priority 
areas that you articulated.
    The unfortunate thing is that we didn't get a larger pie, 
and as a result of that--and there's pretty broad consensus 
about these areas being high priority. There were cuts that 
occurred in order to compensate for those increases, and the 
process you're aware of, and it's a difficult one to come 
within the constraints of the budget.
    Mr. Nethercutt. The Fund for Rural America had $36.1 
million available for research, education, and extension 
grants, and my understanding is that funding has been available 
since January 1 of last year, and some of the universities have 
told us that they've been extended grants under the Fund for 
Rural America for this money, from that particular fund, and 
those have been now retracted.
    I also understand there was a briefing scheduled recently, 
a few weeks ago from the Department, regarding this fund, and 
the use of it, and association with universities, which are a 
very important component, it seems to me, of scientific 
research as it relates to ag products, and pest resistance, and 
disease problems, and yield increases.
    So, what happened with regard to the use of that money from 
the Fund for Rural America? Why was the briefing stopped? Why 
is it taking so long to get this money out where it ought to be 
to do good research for farmers?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nethercutt, let me address 
that question. We were in the process of getting ready to make 
announcements about where we are with regard to the Fund for 
Rural America, and we went back to double check in terms of the 
approaches that we've taken. We've gone through what I consider 
an excellent review process for the actual proposals that were 
submitted for that fund. We wanted to be equally sure on the 
management side so we've gone through and carefully reviewed 
the process and the steps that had been taken. We delayed that 
for that reason. In fact, we're in the process now of moving 
that forward and making those announcements.
    We're also looking here within just the last day or two--we 
had hoped to do it before we had this hearing--but because of 
making sure that everything is in place, in terms of the 
notification to the universities and other recipients, we 
delayed it. We're also looking for an opportunity, going back 
to this discussion of highlighting the importance of 
agricultural research and the things that we're doing with 
regard to the mission area, to look for an opportunity to give 
the Fund some additional visibility, if you will, in that 
process.
    So, we delayed in order to make sure that we had all of the 
pieces in place. I've asked Dr. Eileen Kennedy, to oversee that 
process to make sure that we've taken care of dotting the i's 
and crossing the t's with regard to that the effort. So we're 
ready to do that, and I'm hoping we'll be able to make that 
public announcement, before the end of next week.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Well, that would be great, because I think, 
again, there's uncertainty out there, especially with regard to 
the budget being reduced. I think the researchers; and families 
are not sure where they're going, and universities are now 
apparently skiddish. I think it's in your best interest to do 
it, and be firm about it, and have it be clearly understood, 
what, how much, and where, and then not retract it.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Exactly. And we were aware of the concerns. 
In working with the Advisory Committee, they were very much 
engaged as part of that process. We made sure they understood 
that we were taking steps, to make sure that everything was 
done correctly, and that we would be making those announcements 
very, very soon.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Great. Well, thank you all, and thank you, 
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, all of you.
    Mr. Skeen. Let me ask you in connection with that one 
question there, what's been the reaction from the universities 
at this point?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    We have had mixed reaction. As the Congressman indicated, 
the concerns of not knowing in terms of when the process would 
be completed. We had involved the Advisory Committee with 
process, consistent with of the legislation.
    We've visited the university community. In the last 2 or 3 
weeks we've talked to a number of the committees on policy--or 
for all three of the areas; the experiment station, extension, 
and the other programs. They were aware of what we were doing 
at this time, and that we would get an announcement out just as 
quickly as possible.
    I don't know, Dr. Kennedy, if there's anything else that we 
might share with the committee.
    Dr. Kennedy. Part of what we are trying to do in the Fund 
for Rural America, is, number one, look at issues in a cross-
cutting kind of way. So rather than simply looking at 
agriculture production in isolation, look at agriculture 
production, environmental issues, community development, world 
development issues. So that's one plus.
    A second part of this very intensive process was trying to 
bring together a blend of institutions. Given that we're 
looking at cross-fertilization and cross-issues, we also 
thought it was important to look at a range of institutions, 
and that has happened. And I think you're going to be 
pleasantly surprised when you see the list of awards.
    Yes, it's the traditional state land-grant universities, 
and we see that as very positive, but in consortium with 
institutions that have not historically participated in USDA 
research. Dr. Gonzalez's expression, dotting the i's and 
crossing the t's. There are certain pieces of paper and 
processes we need in place, in order to make sure we've done 
our job. Things like, procedures normally dictate that we have 
to have a management plan in place before we can make an award. 
Well, for institutions that are not used to bidding on USDA 
grants, this is something they may not have been expecting to 
present.
    So, we really are in the final stages of having this all 
there and rolling it out. I think what comes across, and the 
response we've been getting is, this is a new look at research. 
It's much more problem-oriented, in a way that brings in a 
range of institutions that have expertise, including the land 
grant universities.
    Mr. Skeen. Just a word of warning, for your information 
too, that the longer that the Fund for Rural America, 
moneydoesn't get appropriated and spent, the more jeopardized it is 
around this carnivore-eating, fund-swallowing group of folks up here.
    Mr. Fazio.
    Mr. Fazio. You might add budget-pressured subcommittee. 
Obviously, I share many of the same concerns that the chairman 
does, and others who've spoken, about the research issues. And 
I think if you all start to feel bad, you should realize that 
we did the same for the Secretary when he was here at the 
beginning of this process; and he pointed to OMB, just as I'm 
sure all of you will.
    We have, obviously, not enough money to go around, and it's 
pretty obvious to me that we are doing a little bit of a shell 
game. We're cutting plant research components at ARS about as 
much as we're increasing them in NRI. And the new research 
initiatives get a lot more visibility, but when we increase the 
animal component of NRI 5.5, we make a concomitant reduction 
over in CSREES.
    So, it seems to be hard for us to understand what's going 
on here, and perhaps you'd like to just tell us why you think 
it's more important to spend the money, without matching 
programs in one area, instead of where we would have normally 
anticipated it be spent. What is the benefit out of the new 
research initiative funding, in lieu of what we have attempted 
to do in the past in the ARS program and the CSREES program?
    Again, under special grants particularly, we have a lot of 
involvement from our commodity groups. George mentioned his 
Potato Commission participating in outlaying money to help 
upgrade the facility.
    Would you give us the rationale?
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'll attempt to answer your question. Mr. 
Chairman--Mr. Fazio, let me put it in this context, because I'm 
not sure I can give you an exact answer. Having just arrived 
into this process----
    Mr. Fazio. You're the best one to answer.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Part of the discussion has been that we are 
looking at this competitiveness component that's been under 
discussion. At the same time, I think part of my concern and 
part of our concern, as we've talked with the agency 
administrators, is that we maintain that base that you're 
talking about. At some point we've made such an investment over 
such a long period of time for institutions and other partners 
that are in this research program, that while we're building 
toward this competitiveness, we need to be cautious that we do 
not undermine, for lack of a better word at this moment, the 
capacity for those institutions and programs to continue to 
function with the excellence that we've had. And so I think 
that's part of our struggle internally as well, as we engage in 
this discussion; that while we're trying to build 
competitiveness, we don't take away the ability to be 
competitive and to have that capacity.
    Mr. Fazio. I couldn't have said it better myself.
    Dr. Gonzalez. It's especially important in regard to the 
inclusiveness of our agenda. We have tried to include in this 
process minority institutions, and others who have not been 
engaged in the research arena with regard to USDA research 
efforts. So it becomes a very complex approach to what we're 
doing. And so I appreciate the question.
    Mr. Fazio. You've taken your cut at it, and you fully 
expect that we'll take a different cut at it, I assume. I 
think, looking at all of you, I understand you've been through 
this process before, and it's understood that we sometimes 
readjust the priorities of any administration.
    I do understand the need for competitive grants, I do, but 
I also think you put your finger on the need to make sure we 
don't destroy the infrastructure. A lot of our best research 
institutions depend, to a large extent, on these traditional 
programs as a way of making sure they can be in the 
competition.

                western human nutrition research center

    I'd like to specifically ask about the Western Human 
Nutrition Center. Everybody here, I'm sure, was aware that we 
had a problem at the Presidio, as that institution moves from 
the Army to the Interior Department. We're no longer going to 
have an Army hospital there; we're going to be moving the 
Nutrition Research Center.
    It seemed to me everyone was supportive, certainly this 
committee was, moving in to UC-Davis. I assume it still is, and 
I assume the administration is, but lo and behold, there is no 
money to do it.
    Does anyone have any idea how that might have happened?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman--Mr. Fazio----
    Mr. Fazio [continuing]. Of an example related to what we 
call the Washington Monument syndrome here, when we assume that 
the Congress will put the money in if the administration 
doesn't, so we put up something that doesn't fly. Is that 
really what we experienced on this one?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, I'm going to ask Dr. Horn to help me 
with the response.
    Mr. Fazio. Be honest with me, Floyd.
    Dr. Horn. I'll help you as much as I can.
    Mr. Fazio. Thank you.
    Dr. Horn. We have six Human Nutrition Centers and we are in 
fact proposing funds in this budget for programs in all six. 
The Western Human Nutrition Center is right up there amongst 
them, because they're doing some superb work.
    I think you're talking particularly with regard to the 
facility----
    Mr. Fazio. Funding of the move.
    Dr. Horn. Yes----
    Mr. Fazio. Davis, as you know, is willing to give the folks 
some temporary housing, until they're able to, with your 
cooperation, complete a new home, but with the Department of 
the Interior about to jack up the rent, it would only make 
sense for USDA to move.
    Dr. Horn. No, and it's an extraordinary opportunity. They 
have offered an ideal site, and I think our people are quite 
excited about the prospect of going there. But you are 
absolutely right, Congress did provide $1.7 million in the 
fiscal year 1998 budget for the design of this facility, and 
partial funding for construction of $3.5 million. There is a 
requirement for an additional $12.3 million to finish the 
project.
    There is another issue that you made mention of, and that 
is the actual cost of moving. And the accelerated rate at which 
we have addressed this issue is actually going to save quite a 
bit of money, because there won't be a need for an intermediate 
move. But still, well in excess of a million dollars will be 
required to actually make that move. We are, I suspect, 
planning to take that out of our funds,although we don't know 
exactly where from.
    Mr. Fazio. Would you need a reprogramming for that, or do 
you have that within your available funds?
    Dr. Horn. That may be necessary.
    Mr. Fazio. We certainly hope you'd proceed with that.
    Dr. Horn. It would not be needed in 1999. This need is as 
of this time.
    Mr. Dewhurst. Certainly, we would notify the Congress when 
those decisions are made, as to how this was going to be done.
    Mr. Fazio. Well, we look forward to that decision being 
made, and your finding a way to make sure it gets done. And 
we'll come back, I hope, with the support of my colleagues, and 
reiterate what we said last time, and you'll get the money you 
asked for, and weren't fortunate enough to get. And we will 
have gone through the dance of legislation, as they refer to 
it, I guess.
    Anyway, I wanted to thank Dr. Offutt for the help that 
she's done in dealing with the issues of our technical trade 
barriers. The ERS study we talked about yesterday--I won't go 
into it again here. But it really is very good of you to follow 
up on our request of last year to fight our sanitary and phyto-
sanitary restrictions, now $5.5 billion of non-tariff trade 
barriers really need to be addressed. And I appreciate the 
interest that you've shown.
    I just wanted to say in furtherance of comments that Ms. 
Kaptur made, I think the methyl bromide issue is a major crisis 
for this country; certainly it is for my part, California. I'm 
going to be working with the administration, with Congressman 
Miller of Florida, to try to make sure that we have the same 
standard amending in effect our Clean Air Act as the Montreal 
Protocol requires of our competitors around the world, which 
would mean we bring it into conformity with 2005; probably with 
other things like essential use criteria that might allow us 
some additional exemptions.
    I've been one who has been urging the committee over a 
number of years to fund a research area. I think we've made 
some, but not a lot of progress, and I think there's a 
tremendous concern out there; not just the orchard industry 
that I represent, but people who have packing house 
requirements. We're faced with again these phytosanitary 
requirements. The Japanese wouldn't take our prunes, if we 
didn't have the ability to use a product like methyl bromide 
before we shipped them; we have to fumigate them.
    I mean, this is an ongoing concern. I think it can be 
handled in a way that's safe for the human applicator. It is, 
however, a global warming issue; we have to resolve it. And I 
hope we can be more productive even than we have been in the 
expenditure of the funds that I think Congress has been rather 
generous in providing in the area of more research and 
alternatives.
    Does anyone want to comment any further on that?

                             methyl bromide

    Mr. Horn. I'd like to make one comment that I think could 
become very important. About half of our resources in this--and 
I said earlier it's about $14.7 million in total--half is post-
harvest. In that post-harvest component, some of our scientists 
have been working on recovery systems that would in fact not 
release any methyl bromide into the atmosphere, and even those 
will be of little use if we don't produce and/or use methyl 
bromide because of the law. So, some consideration should be 
given to that technology; it's pretty good.
    Mr. Fazio. I appreciate that. That's a very optimistic 
point to close on, because I think we may go longer than any of 
us would want, before we find a really effective alternative in 
capturing the emissions, as we have been able to do in other 
areas where we had air quality issues at least--is perhaps a 
positive way to go. And continue to emphasize the human health 
and safety aspect of it too, which I know has become an issue 
when this issue gets debated at the state level.
    Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions about noxious 
weeds in California and insect pests in Florida and California. 
And I'll put those in the record. I thank you very much.
    Thank you all. I appreciate the good work you do. I don't 
want you to let my minor frustration imply that I'm not very 
happy with much of what's done. I guess I'm shooting the 
messenger here, as we so often like to do in Congress.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Skeen. Only slightly wounded.
    Mr. Bonilla.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Chairman.
    Dr. Gonzalez, I'd like to start with questions involving 
the concern over the increasing age of producers in this day 
and age, and the fact that we may lack in many areas of trying 
to get younger people involved in getting into the production 
side of agriculture.
    This budget has focused a lot on production loans. Perhaps 
getting more knowledge and information to our producers is also 
a key, and doing it in a user friendly way. I'd like you to 
tell me, if you could, what has USDA done, or what plans do you 
have to get some of this research information down in the 
producers in a user friendly way, and to people who are 
studying agriculture?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Bonilla.
    We pursue this issue from a little broader perspective in 
terms of the issue of education and training and who will farm 
the land. The recent report on the Small Farm Commission I 
think addresses some of these same issues and concerns that 
you've identified. Certainly from a background that I have in 
agriculture education and extension to get those research 
results to the local level, to the producer, and to the 
constituent that most can benefit from those, I think that's 
part of that continuum.
    And I will also invite the rest of the team to perhaps 
respond to parts of that question.
    We think it's absolutely important when you look at the age 
of our farmers. I said to a group just recently that I still 
continue to get advice from my father-in-law, who's a retired 
farmer. But if you've been a producer, I don't think you ever 
retire from that process; there's always advice to be given. We 
look at the younger population, and identify the various areas 
where we will be able to recruit, train, and retain those young 
persons to become the next generation, as we move into the 21st 
century in production agriculture.
    So, while we talk about the scientific and extension 
component as being fundamentally important to the process, I 
think it's also very important that we look at who's going to 
be involved in that production, and the research community, and 
where our scientists will come from. When we talked earlier 
about the question of diversity in a broadperspective of 
bringing our minority institutions into this agricultural research 
extension education agenda, I think it's important that we broaden the 
scope, and begin to look to those institutions.
    I think within this mission area in terms of education, 
training, technical assistance, there's opportunity to reach 
out beyond the community where we've been to get additional 
resources and additional folks involved.
    We've recently started the discussion with the Department 
of Education, for example, at the K through 12 level. They're 
the ones that really have authority and weigh in on education. 
But there is an opportunity for agricultural education to be 
enhanced with what we do at the higher education levels, I 
think there's a great opportunity for that linkage.
    Certainly, when you look at the 1994 land grant university 
community, the HSI institutions; we need to identify the 
opportunities for those folks, 1890's as well as 1862. 1890 is 
more of the traditional approach that we have in our overall 
research and extension community.
    So when we look in the broader perspective of addressing 
those questions, certainly in the area of production, we need 
to tell that message--we need to be sure that young people 
understand the opportunities that are available in agriculture. 
Sometimes those of us who started out in production agriculture 
because of that background were able to move into the science 
and education, and the extension part of that community.
    I will also ask if there are any other--Dr. Robinson, if 
you'd like to add to the discussion.
    Dr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Bonilla. Just to expand on a 
couple of points that Dr. Gonzalez said, because I think we're 
in a bit of a unique situation. Anywhere in the world that I 
travel--and Dr. Gonzalez just reported a trip that he recently 
made to China, and we run into the same situation.
    One of the most interesting things that most countries are 
trying to do, is to duplicate what we have in place to transfer 
technology from the research community to the user. The 
cooperative extension system, with which the U.S. government is 
the federal partner through CSREES at USDA, is an enormous way 
to transfer that research. And I think it has been doing a 
marvelous job.
    We have begun some new initiatives--Dr. Gonzalez mentioned 
the Small Farm Commission Report. Within the Agency we have 
found an initiative, dealing with small farms, to ensure that 
we are meeting the needs of a diverse group of people, because 
that group of 2 million farmers that the chairman referred to 
is a rather diverse group, ranging from very large to very 
small. And ensure that both are researched--as--size neutral, 
focused on the main issues, and that research is extended to 
the user community.
    Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate that. In listening to your 
comments about trying to get the Department of Education 
involved, I also sit on the subcommittee that works with them, 
and I would, in my humble opinion, I would rather see USDA 
working directly with some of the university systems, and ag 
research programs that already out there in place, because 
that's where the rubber meets the road. There's a little bit of 
bureaucracy at the education department that might stop you 
from accomplishing what you want. So I just thought I'd throw 
that out.
    You mentioned the Hispanic-serving institutions and the 
1890 and 1994 land grant program, which was leading me to my 
next question. There was not a funding increase request for 
HSIs. The administration states it wants to target more 
research dollars to minority and disadvantaged areas, but 
didn't follow through specifically with Hispanic-serving 
institutions, and that's a cause that I champion, as well as in 
other subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. And I'm 
wondering why not the follow-through if there's a commitment.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bonilla, I think the 
commitment is there. If I recall correctly, while those don't 
show up, those dollars for the HSI, part of the budget--I don't 
think they show up separately under the CSREES piece, but it's 
under the civil rights initiative. We were at $1.5 million in 
the 1997-1998 budget, and I think it's up to $2.5 million in 
the 1999 request. Those were some of the things that we were 
working on diligently prior to this budget discussion, because 
we wanted to be sure that, as we deal with the Secretary's 
interest and his support for that area, that we wanted to go 
and take a look at those budget areas with both 94s and HSIs. 
So I think it's there, but----
    Mr. Bonilla. You're telling me there is an increase, 
funding request for HSIs, is that correct?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Okay. I've been corrected. You were right. 
The 1997 budget had $1.5 million, $2.5 million for 1998, and 
it's the same request for 1999.
    Mr. Bonilla. Well, as you know, a lot of the communities 
that are in our part of the country, the chairman and I are 
neighbors, even though we're in different states, and I'd 
consider you a neighbor as well coming from a neighboring 
state, there's a lot of interest out there among the Hispanic 
communities in this country, and I would strongly urge the USDA 
to look at the Hispanic-serving institution avenue for getting 
the message out.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Absolutely. And the request that we made, I 
was just reminded, was for $3 million. We were actually looking 
for an increase in our budget for the 1999 request, but we're 
at $2.5 million from our original discussion.
    Mr. Bonilla. So there is an increase, is that correct? No?
    Dr. Gonzalez. No, there isn't--in our early discussion, 
before we got to the point of the actual budget request that 
you have before you, we had talked about asking for an increase 
at that point. But if you look at 1998 and 1999, it's level in 
terms of the actual request.
    Mr. Bonilla. The next question I have, is USDA has 
authorization to make competitive grants to high school 
agriculture education programs, to assist with implementing 
cutting-edge programs into our ag education classrooms. 
However, you've had this authorization now for 2 years, and 
have not requested funding for this program, and have chosen to 
request new funding for other projects and grants programs.
    My question is, what types of priorities and standards do 
you use to determine where you choose to place competitive 
grants funding priorities?
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'm going to ask Dr. Robinson to also assist 
me with the question. Under thatauthority, I'm not sure that we 
had appropriations to deal with the secondary education level of 
program in the previous budget request. So, I think that when we go 
back and look at the approach to what we've been doing with regard to 
education; that we have a long-term commitment. It's not just a 
cyclical kind of an approach.
    But I'm going to ask Dr. Robinson to help me with the 
details of that approach.
    Dr. Robinson. If I may just continue the line that Dr. 
Gonzalez has laid out, we did get authorization for this 
program in the 1996 Farm Bill. The implementation of that has 
been somewhat difficult, because of the demands on resources 
generally, and as a result of the demands--and many of those 
this committee has articulated this morning, in terms of the 
trade-offs that were made--there has not been either a request 
or an appropriation to implement that program, since its 
authorization was in place.
    I might point out, and Dr. Gonzalez is really leading a new 
effort in conferring with the Department of Education, and 
trying to find new ways to bridge the gaps, and to be able to 
develop new partnerships, using what authorities that we may 
have and what authorities they have to improve the science 
education base that feeds into the higher education program. 
The higher education program has been ``the'' focus of what we 
have done thus far in USDA. But Dr. Gonzalez has led a rather 
significant set of discussions, even though he's been here for 
only 6 months, with his counterparts to try to improve that 
relationship.
    Mr. Bonilla. I appreciate you all being here today. I think 
my time has run out, but I will have maybe another question or 
two to submit for the record, and I'd appreciate a prompt 
response. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonilla.
    Mr. Skeen. Ms. DeLauro. The patient Ms. DeLauro.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome and thank you very much. I'd like to join my 
colleagues, first of all, commending the research that all of 
you do, and the improvement that you have made in health and 
nutrition in this country. And also to associate myself with my 
colleagues' comments on how concerned I am by the cuts in the 
research funds.
    I represent New Haven, Connecticut, which has the first 
agricultural experiment station in the country, and they've 
done an incredible job of treatment of pesticide, waste and 
soil, natural predators, to combat gypsy moths; a whole variety 
of issues as others have. So, my hope is that this is something 
that we are going to watch carefully in this committee--how we 
are able to in fact maintain this level of research, the same 
high quality of research that we have, given the decrease in 
funds.

                         food safety initiative

    Let me ask you a question about food safety, if I might.
    We have heard a lot of testimony in support of the 
President's food safety initiative, and as the research arm of 
the Ag Department, how are we going to deal with--or how the 
food safety initiative is going to be translated into food 
safety improvements? What are the concrete results of this 
effort?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, Ms. DeLauro. We have a couple 
of different ways of addressing that particular issue, and the 
question. Within that food safety initiative, there are a 
number of federal departments that are involved--FDA, EPA, HHS, 
and USDA, and several of the REE agencies that are here, with 
regard to that research agenda. And we have research and 
extension programs in support of the ongoing regulatory 
activities in FSIS and in the food safety mission area. We 
provide the research base for a lot of things that the 
department will be doing. When we had that discussion a couple 
of weeks ago, we really focused on the fact that we are 
providing the research base, the scientific side, for a lot of 
the decisionmaking, whether it's the regulatory part or 
providing education for young people, or the processors, the 
workers, those that are engaged in that food industry 
component.
    The person providing leadership for our mission area is Dr. 
Kennedy. So I'm going to ask Dr. Kennedy to perhaps share some 
additional detail about what we're doing.
    Ms. DeLauro. Terrific, thank you.
    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you. We recently formed, at the request 
of the National Science and Technology Council out of the White 
House, an Interagency Working Group on Food Safety Research. 
And the purpose is to actually look at all the federal agencies 
who have a role in food safety research. The research that 
we're carrying out, first and foremost, has to support the 
regulatory agencies. So in the case of USDA, we are looking at 
what the specific FSIS needs are to support HACCP 
implementation, and Food and Nutrition Service needs to 
implement their food programs. We're taking a very broad 
approach, looking at from farm to consumer, and asking at each 
of these points, in what system what are the research needs. I 
think one of the aspects of this effort that is much different 
than the past is the emphasis on prevention. We're not 
abandoning efforts on better, earlier, more rapid detection 
methods, that will continue to be a part of our research, but 
more so than ever before, collectively the agencies are moving 
in the direction of research related to prevention.
    And what we're hearing from our industry colleagues is this 
would be enormously positive; that rather than thinking about 
earlier, better detection methods for E. coli, salmonella, 
whatever, wouldn't it be nice to have research which leads to 
better ways to prevent those problems?
    I'll use one example as illustrative, but there are many we 
can give. ARS, as an example in this preventive approach, is 
looking at investing in probiotics. We're using naturally 
occurring, nonpathogenic bacteria, given to chicks shortly 
after birth to actually prevent the establishment of 
salmonella. So, you're preventing it at the source, rather than 
getting into the processing and distribution.
    I see this approach to a governmentwide research agenda as 
enormously positive. We're actually collectively looking at the 
comparative advantage of each agency, and at each of those 
intervention points, and asking what should we be doing. I 
think what we'll be seeing is, are results that show that the 
preventive efforts in the food safety research agenda are going 
to leverage our research dollars much more effectively.
    Ms. DeLauro. You're looking at prevention. My colleague, 
Mr. Fazio from California, tells me we have about 22 agencies 
who are engaged in the issue of food safety, and you're looking 
at prevention. Do you knowwhat others are looking at? I think 
this is a good course, and one that we should follow.
    Are the 21 other agencies who have jurisdiction, or partial 
jurisdiction in this area, also looking at prevention, or is 
everyone making the determination as to what their own priority 
is going to be?
    Dr. Kennedy. And this is part of the all sitting at the 
same table at the same time, with the FDAs, the NIHs, our 
agencies, and really putting our heads together, and saying, 
``These are the high priority issues.'' We have come to the 
conclusion that there are four areas. But first in those areas, 
as one of these broad themes, is prevention. It's prevention, 
detection, intervention, and communication.
    Collectively--and the Interagency Working Group about which 
I speak, is co-chaired by Dr. Bill Rabb, who's Science Advisor 
to Dr. Shalala, so HHS is also well represented. Collectively 
the group has recently agreed on terms of reference of 
developing this research agenda, and prevention is top on the 
list.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. That's very helpful. I think that's 
helpful in getting some idea how food safety is being 
coordinated. In the long-term these steps move things more 
quickly, and in a more organized way, ultimately benefitting 
the safety of really the American public.
    I have a particular concern in my state of Connecticut, and 
that's with the debilitating effects of Lyme disease, and I 
wanted to ask a question on this area. And I again thank you 
for your efforts in trying to help find a cure for this 
disease.

                         lyme disease research

    There was a February 13th ``New York Times'' article, 
reporting Dr. Clive Jones of the University of Connecticut, 
together with researchers from Oregon, discovered that the 
number of ticks and mice that carry the ticks were linked 
directly to the number of acorns in a forest.
    Can you comment on this research, and how it affects the 
direction of REE funded Lyme disease research, what is the 
funding level for regional Lyme disease research?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask Dr. Horn to 
help us with the response.
    Mr. Skeen. Fine. [Laughter.]
    Ms. DeLauro. Next time I go into a forest, Dr. Horn, I'm 
going to look for the acorns.
    Dr. Horn. Well, it's the white-footed mouse and it's the 
black leg deer tick that we are talking about here. And 
actually, oak trees do cycle. There's an article in ``Science'' 
magazine recently about this, and oak trees do cycle every 5 to 
7 years where there are tremendous increases in the number of 
acorns. And the mice thrive on the acorns, and therefore become 
common. One of the intermediate stages of the ticks and their 
development is that mouse. And so the theory is, more acorns, 
more mice, more ticks, and the deer get more heavily infested, 
and the incidence of Lyme disease increases.
    The science article is actually quite good, but it does 
point out that the jury is out on this ballistic malice as to 
whether or not these things happen. In fact, the nature of our 
research program--which as you know, is quite new--is more 
built around the idea of trying to keep the ticks from 
infesting the principal host, white tail deer, in the 
northeastern states at least. And we have a program underway, 
actually generated from our research at Kerrville, Texas, but 
being implemented in the four states of Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, and Rhode Island. And we have basically invented a 
mechanism with sort of a liquid soaked--a acaracide, the 
chemical that kills the ticks, and some corn beef that gets the 
deer to go in there. And by timing this exactly right, we can 
get the deer to in essence apply to themselves this acaracide 
that keeps the ticks away, and it's been extremely successful.
    We brought some pictures of this project. Actually, it's 
the back of a deer's head, with and without the so-called four 
poster, and inverse order, with and without the ticks. So we 
would be glad to show you this.
    Ms. DeLauro. I'm familiar with this, as we did it at the ag 
station in the City of New Haven. We had a demonstration of 
this effort, and brought the community together to understand 
what we were trying to do, and the role of this committee, in 
looking at this.
    Dr. Horn. We believe this to be the key. We've worked with 
a lot of other types of ticks down through the years, and 
dealing with the principal host we believe to be the key.
    Now, one of the problems we're going to have to continue 
working on is that ticks can develop resistance to acaracides. 
And so we'll be continuing work on those lines. But this 
technology, we believe, particularly in the more heavily human 
populated parts of the northeast could be quite useful.
    Ms. DeLauro. What is the funding level for regional Lyme 
disease research?
    Dr. Horn. We have that information right here----
    Ms. DeLauro. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
    Dr. Horn. In fiscal year 1998 we had $891,600 at the 
appropriated level, which includes $157,500 that goes to Yale 
School of Medicine. And the projection for 1999 in this budget 
is down to $516,600.
    Ms. DeLauro. You're going from $800 down to $500?
    Dr. Horn. That's correct.
    Ms. DeLauro. That's a proposal. How does that allow you to 
continue to expand the effort that is working in four states? 
It's a good effort.
    Dr. Horn. We agree that it's a good program, and, of 
course, it was based on new funding. A great deal of our 
contribution, incidentally, is in-kind, and we have assigned 
some of our Texas program people to this effort in New England. 
So it isn't quite as bad as it looks, but it certainly is going 
to be difficult.
    Ms. DeLauro. Not as good as it can be.
    Dr. Horn. Not as good as it can be.
    Ms. DeLauro. Well, that gets me back to my first comment, 
and this is my last comment, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the 
time.
    We on this committee, we're really very concerned about the 
cuts in the research effort, and this is a serious problem in 
Connecticut, and there are other places that have other kinds 
of problems that are being addressed in a very good way--a very 
good way--by the good work that you do. But we're going to 
really try to probe and look into where we are losing the 
research capacity to make a difference in the health and safety 
of people in this country with a whole variety of areas, 
whatever region of the country we are from. It seems to be very 
shortsighted if we have the capability and we have the 
beginnings of trying to deal with some of the critical issues 
that we face, and then all of a sudden to not be able to make 
this difference. Nobody is suggesting that resources are 
unlimited. We've come a long way from that kind of a 
philosophy, but the issue is, where are the priorities and how 
we can be vigilant in those priorities and prevent us from 
slipping back in some areas where we have made real progress.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'll 
have to say that the lyme disease in deer tick is very 
important in my district, too, and for me here, because 
Berkeley Bedell retired because he was bitten by a deer tick 
and got lyme disease, and was replaced by Fred Grandy, who 
decided to retire, and I took his place. So I wouldn't be here 
if it wasn't for a deer tick. [Laughter.]
    See, it is important, isn't it? [Laughter.]
    I want to welcome Mr. Gonzalez. I understand your in-laws 
farm in Paulina?
    Dr. Gonzalez. In Paulina, yes, sir.
    Mr. Latham. Great. Well, if you're up that way, stop in and 
see me.
    Dr. Gonzalez. We will do that.
    Mr. Latham. In my district.
    I have one question, I guess, or a couple of questions for 
Dr. Horn. I understand in the budget proposal a position for 
soybean research at Iowa State, Reid Palmer's position, 
$177,000, is not included. Is that your recommendation or is 
that from OMB?
    Dr. Horn. It was not a recommendation of the agency. I was 
not privy to the discussions between the agency and OMB, but my 
recollection of the documents I saw is that was not a 
Department recommendation.

                            ANIMAL DISEASES

    Mr. Latham. Okay. And I guess I have a--you know how 
important the pork industry is for Iowa, being the No. 1 State 
in the Nation, and the concern I have as far as with diseases 
that affect swine. What are some of the recent animal diseases 
that have, are having a negative impact or potential for 
negative impact in especially the swine industry, but I guess 
livestock?
    Dr. Horn. This is probably one of the most important things 
we've discussed lately, and as I mentioned earlier, this is 
what we find ourselves spending our contingency funds on. We 
seem to be having an increased number of these outbreaks, and 
in particular, with regard to swine, we have porcine 
reproductive and respiratory syndrome, post-weaning wasting 
syndrome, hog cholera, and foot-and-mouth disease, not so much 
in this country, fortunately, but we have to be ever vigilant 
to see that they don't get here.
    Now there are new varieties of many of these diseases 
coming out all the time, and in the case of this post-weaning 
wasting syndrome, we don't even know the etiology of this, but 
it causes tremendous mortality in small pigs. Hog cholera, or 
as it's known in Europe, classical swine fever, has become a 
tremendous problem there, and tens of thousands of hogs are 
dying or being killed to prevent the spread of that disease, 
and it's out of control. That's actually quite close to this 
country as well, in that they have it in the Dominican Republic 
and in Mexico, and we are not at all sure that we can stop all 
of the influx of the products, meat products, at the border 
that might spread that disease to this country. So we are very 
worried about that.
    Mr. Latham. Okay.
    Dr. Horn. And then, of course, the foot-and-mouth disease 
outbreak in Taiwan brought everyone's attention to the 
devastating effects of that disease as well. So in swine those 
are the ones, but we have equally difficult problems in cattle, 
poultry, sheep, and other things.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. What programs has ARS put in place in the 
last, say, couple of years in response to emergency situations, 
and are there additional programs that you----
    Dr. Horn. Well, again, referring to the emergency 
situations we've dealt with?
    Mr. Latham. Yes.
    Dr. Horn. We just heard a little bit about one of them, in 
that we put some contingency funds into Lyme disease, and then 
the Congress helped us in following up with some appropriated 
funds.
    Vesicular stomatitis reoccurs occasionally, and we don't 
fully understand that disease. We've put some money into that, 
and have actually taken advantage of these outbreaks to try to 
determine what the causative agents are and how to manage them.
    Avian influenza that we're hearing about out of Hong Kong, 
is a new strain that's potentially devastating to this whole 
poultry industry in the U.S., is one that we've put money in; 
BSE, spongiform encephalopathy in cattle that is the rage in 
Europe----
    Mr. Latham. It's easy for you to say. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Horn. No, it took----
    Mr. Latham. Did you get that, the court reporter? 
[Laughter.]
    Dr. Horn. We're trying to develop vaccines against 
brucellosis in bison which may constitute the last holdout of 
that disease in this Nation.
    Pfiesteria in seafood. We have declared that if agriculture 
is a part of the problem, we'd like to be a part of the 
solution. Dioxin is a case of a toxicant that we've dealing 
with. We've got others in plants, but those are the major 
animal diseases.
    Then, more recently, we've had an emphasis on Johne's 
disease. Johne's is extremely important to the dairy industry 
and the beef industry. That is a para-tuberculosis problem that 
is very slowly growing in the animal, and infestation or 
infection is far before, earlier in life than the clinical 
aspects becomes apparent. I guess we have estimates of almost 
two-thirds of the dairy herd in this country having it. There 
is an effort in the industry to clean up our dairy herd, so 
that we can export our cattle, and they won't be discriminated 
against. It's a big problem.
    Mr. Latham. Understanding the tremendous importance to the 
livestock industry as far as the research on animal diseases, 
do you think the budget reflects--I mean, we're going to have a 
lot of new diseases coming in. Is it adequate, the request, do 
you think?
    Dr. Horn. Well, there's no way in this budgetary 
environment to do what's adequate, in my opinion. I think that 
this is a terrible problem. Most of our facilities that handle 
these kinds of issues are extremely expensive to operate and 
keep in good repair. I believe the day will come when we have 
to deal with these issues, and I don't think we're going to be 
able to catch up as fast as we'd like. We do have funding in 
the ARS budget at least for animal emerging diseases. And in 
last year's budget we actually accommodated some emerging 
diseases in plants.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. Dr. Offutt, last year the subcommittee 
directed ERS to do all of the studies and evaluation reviews of 
the Food Stamp, WIC, and Child Nutrition programs. In last 
year's budget justifications for ERS, the Food and Consumer 
Economics Division won praise from the Department. Yet, this 
year no such praise was included in the budget materials. 
Should we assume from this that the Department has suddenly 
lost confidence in this division of ERS, and if so, what 
happened? Dr. Offutt, if you would, please? I'm sorry, I did 
mean to direct it to you before.
    Dr. Offutt. Thank you. The Fiscal Year 1999 request asks 
for the support for the programs in the Food Nutrition Service. 
So I certainly want to make the case that it's not that this 
activity is not critical, because we all agree it is. I don't 
think that reflects the administration's position in Fiscal 
Year 1998, and, no, it's not a reflection on the capabilities 
of the Economic Research Service in the least.
    Dr. Gonzalez. And I may add, just thinking about 
thequestion, we have gone through the process to develop a plan for how 
we're handling the resources this year, with ERS taking leadership. We 
just yesterday finished a briefing, working with the mission areas, as 
to how we're going to conduct that program. Our plan for this 
particular effort in the current year is to ask the two Deputy Under 
Secretaries to provide the leadership, as we work across the mission 
areas.
    Mr. Latham. From my understanding, ERS does all the 
evaluation studies for the other agencies in USDA--FSA--I'm not 
going to go through all these acronyms, but across the board. 
If ERS should not do them for the Food Nutrition Service, 
should it not do them for the other agencies? I mean, it really 
does seem like there's a confidence problem. Last year there 
were such glowing reports, and this year it's moot on the 
subject, basically, and apparently, they don't have confidence 
to have you do it in Food Nutrition.
    Dr. Offutt. Well, I think there are clearly two models for 
assigning the responsibilities for carrying out program 
evaluation and research, and the Department of Agriculture has 
traditionally pursued them both. As I said, the 
administration's preference is that the Food Nutrition work be 
located in those program agencies, but, again, I don't know 
that that reflects the fact that the work that ERS does for 
other program agencies is somehow inadequate. It's a choice, 
and the administration's expressed its preference for FNS, 
although, as Dr. Gonzalez has explained, for the Fiscal Year 
1998, in which we have the responsibilities, we're taking them 
very seriously and we will do a good job. Quite frankly, I 
think that our efforts in Fiscal Year 1998 will improve the 
program in future years, wherever the activity takes place.
    Mr. Latham. Did you take note of the difference between 
last year and this year as far as the glowing report?
    Dr. Offutt. I only read my good press. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Latham. You could run for office. [Laughter.]
    Okay. I just want to tell you, I think this is the most 
important thing for the future, as a farmer myself, and your 
priorities may be with animals and grains and soybeans; being a 
soybean/seed person and a soybean and corn farmer, I'd 
obviously like to see that side of it, too, but----
    Dr. Horn. It's almost half actually.
    Mr. Latham. Research is the future for agriculture, and as 
we reduce the spending on the other side here, and hopefully, 
get the Government out of it, it is one very vital role that 
we've got to continue, and I appreciate your work. Thank you.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
    Dr. Offutt, we have a great deal of confidence in your 
ability to do these studies. I just wondered, do you have any 
of that briefing material that was given to you, if we could 
ask for you to----
    Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do have the material.
    Mr. Skeen. We'd like to have any briefing materials that 
were given to you.
    Dr. Gonzalez. We provided them for Under Secretary Watkins 
and her staff, and so it was the first opportunity for them to 
take a look and have the dialog and the discussion. As soon as 
we have resolved any differences that we might have had in 
terms of strategy, we will provide those to you.
    Mr. Skeen. We would appreciate--the rawer the evidence, the 
better, the sooner we'd like to have it.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. All right, sir.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 32 - 35--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                       1997 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. Skeen. Mr. Bay, you've been sitting over there, and 
we've neglected you terribly. [Laughter.]
    We're going to readjust this thing. According to your 
witness statement, Fiscal Year 1999 is the fifth and the final 
year of the Census of Agricultural cycle. Last year, NASS 
provided a table for the record showing a six-year Agricultural 
Census cycle, with an estimated $20 million in cost for the 
Fiscal Year 2000. Is the Census of Agriculture cycle every five 
years or six years?
    Mr. Bay. I appreciate getting a question, even that 
question. [Laughter.]
    The Census Bureau has referred to it as a six-year cycle, 
but really one of the years has part of two Censuses in it. It 
really is a five-year cycle, but because of the fact that we 
don't finish up the one census before we have to start working 
on the next in the same Fiscal Year, is why it has been 
referred to as a six-year cycle.
    Mr. Skeen. Will you be seeking the $20 million for the 
Fiscal Year 2000 for the Census of Agriculture, or are you 
already funded?
    Mr. Bay. I don't think we have had a chance yet to look 
forward to the year 2000.
    Mr. Skeen. Well, we'll anticipate you asking for that 
funding.
    Mr. Bay. Okay. We will----
    Mr. Skeen. What does it cost to run that?
    Mr. Bay. What does it cost to run the census?
    Mr. Skeen. Yes.
    Mr. Bay. It----
    Mr. Skeen. Haven't you been given some kind of----
    Mr. Bay. This is the peak year of the census----
    Mr. Skeen. Oh, the peak year for the census.
    Mr. Bay [continuing]. Because the questionnaires were 
mailed out this Fiscal Year; they're coming back in right now. 
I just returned from Jeffersonville this morning, where we're 
processing the census questionnaires. We have 2 million 
questionnaires [sitting there] being processed at this time. 
This is the peak time. That's why we have a decrease in our 
request for Fiscal Year 1999----because we have the large 
postage costs and some of the other processing costs this year 
that will drop next year.
    Mr. Skeen. I see. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let's see, who do I want to start with here? Dr. Offutt,the 
questions that were asked regarding the nutrition programs and the 
research that's being done, this is an area that I have a great 
interest in and spoke a lot about it last year before the various 
witnesses from USDA. I'm not aware of the extent of what you've been 
able to do in one year. However, I'm asking you, if I am particularly 
interested in the waste associated with the School Lunch Program at the 
schoolhouse cafeteria level, who do I go to within USDA to have that 
issue looked at? I've even talked to the Inspector General about it, 
and it's like that game you used to play when you were a kid with the 
walnut shells--you keep looking for who's really responsible, and you 
can never find it. But I just want you to be aware, whatever happens 
inside that Department, that at least one Member of Congress views the 
waste of food as horrendous. We said this when the Secretary was here, 
and I'm saying it again.
    Now somebody's got to go out there and measure the tons of 
thrown-away food in those bins all over this country, and if 
they don't like carrots, then let's turn it into souffle. If 
they don't--we've got to make sure that--if the nutrition 
directors at the cafeteria level don't know how to prepare a 
menu, then we have to do it for them. But the excuse that, ``We 
can only buy this from USDA,'' you know, on the reduced-cost 
program, and then you watch the kids throw tray after tray 
after tray away, and then the Department comes up here--not you 
in particular--and says, ``But now we need more money for the 
School Nutrition Program.'' It really is difficult for someone 
like myself, when I have seen the waste that I have seen in my 
years in office.
    So I guess I'm asking you, who over there thinks about this 
in some coherent way and is actually doing the research at the 
schoolhouse level?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, we're going to ask Dr. Offutt 
to continue with a response, and also, Dr. Kennedy has been 
involved in this discussion and maybe can add some comments to 
that question.
    Ms. Kaptur. I invite you to my district, if you have no 
other district in America to look at.
    Dr. Kennedy. I may have actually a somewhat different way I 
look at this. I started out my research career actually in 
applied nutrition, and a lot of my work before I went into 
international work was related to domestic nutrition 
interventions. If you look at the history of the programs--the 
school lunch 50-year history, food stamps, a little bit less 
WIC--one characteristic, I think, that what has kept the 
programs so successful is that they've actually responded to 
changing needs. So when you look at the Food Stamp Program, 
elimination of the purchase requirement eliminated a barrier to 
participation. Many of you remember that when the WIC program 
first started out, there were fairly loosely-defined 
eligibility criteria. There was no income screening when WIC 
first started as a pilot project basis. The nutritional risk 
criteria were not very well specified. The range of services 
were different than they are today. Because of research, the 
programs have been finetuned.
    Now let me get to the school feeding programs. I think one 
of the issues--and I think Dr. Offutt will speak maybe a little 
bit more specifically to the research agenda--but one of the 
issues really relates to: What are we trying to do with our 
school feeding programs? These programs, the School Lunch 
Programs, started as a result of some issues related to World 
War II, such as the fact that we had soldiers who, because of 
poor nutritional status, didn't get inducted into the Army. The 
School Breakfast Program really emerged out of the 1969 
recommendations of the White House Conference on Food, 
Nutrition, and Health; the children were going to school 
without breakfast. There was an emphasis there on a certain 
target that these programs were trying to provide as far as 
level of benefits.
    Now in the data that come out of USDA--and I'd like to take 
my hat off to our National Nutrition Monitoring System, the 
continuing survey of food intake by individuals, we know that 
we still have at-risk populations. So, clearly, when one looks 
at the spectrum, what the School Lunch Program is trying to do, 
and the School Breakfast Program, is really address nutritional 
needs of a very heterogeneous population.
    I have a third-grader who, by choice--not because I work 
with Agriculture--chooses to participate in the School Lunch 
Program. If you ask him why, there is some food-related 
reasons. He happens to like the food, but he also likes going 
through the line; there are friendly people. I mean, we could 
clearly give him a bag lunch, but he likes the School Lunch 
Program.
    Now the level of nutritional benefits that he needs to get 
from a lunch, just from a nutritional point of view is only 
half of the lunch. He would make up the difference from other 
resources. The problem, when you look at part of that 
heterogeneous group, the children getting free and reduced 
price lunches, we know, again from our survey data and other 
survey data, that those programs meet the disproportionate need 
of low-income children. In fact, they don't meet all their 
need; they meet a third for lunch and a quarter for breakfast, 
which raises the question, in the context of what the School 
Lunch Program, is trying to do, ``how do you have a lunch 
program that has a Federal standard that really is meeting a 
variety of needs across a broad spectrum of children?'' So I 
think some of what we're thinking about, in conjunction with 
FNS, is this new vision, as we're going into the 21st century. 
We know that there are needs on the low end--under-consumption 
children who are income-constrained. What the programs are 
trying to do, in response and as part of that, looking at 
complementarities with other programs like the Secretary's 
Gleaning Initiative, but how does it hook into other parts of 
food assistance programs? Then we're looking at the upper end 
of the income spectrum: What are the nutritional needs of 
children who are full-paying children?
    I think there is this continuing need for programs to 
evolve to meet the changing participant needs. I think we're 
looking at, with what the goals of the program are, what's the 
best way to get there. This really feeds into some of the 
research we've been discussing on program operation and program 
integrity and the new wave of these programs. What are their 
objectives and How are they accomplishing them?
    Ms. Kaptur. Doctor, do you measure the waste in these 
programs at the local level?
    Dr. Kennedy. In some places we do. At the University of 
Arizona, they've had a very active program, looking at the 
amount of waste. When one talks about programoperation/program 
integrity, that's part of that. One of the issues is how much of that 
is driven by the appeal of the meal--I mean, it's foods that children 
don't like--versus how much is driven by the modus operandi used to 
deliver that lunch----
    Ms. Kaptur. Can you tell me, though, in a year, in a Fiscal 
Year, how much of our tax dollars are wasted, if you were to do 
a food-equivalency/dollar-equivalency ratio, based on your 
studies in Arizona and elsewhere? How much is thrown away? We 
can make an estimate on that. What would that estimate be?
    Dr. Offutt. We do know there are about 96 billion pounds of 
food that are wasted each year. That's about 27 percent by 
weight of all the edible food in the country. Ninety-five 
percent of the food loss is plate waste. Most of that comes 
from homes, as well as food service areas.
    Because of the Secretary's general interest in gleaning and 
reducing food loss, we have embarked upon a program that we 
think will lead us to estimates of the source of plate waste, 
because we don't know now exactly how much is food service, how 
much is home, what creates it.
    What we did, I want to point out, the Economic Research 
Service got a fund for rural America grant with the University 
of Arizona, the famous ``garbologist''--and people make fun of 
them----
    Ms. Kaptur. No, we need them.
    Dr. Offutt [continuing]. But they're the ones who know how 
to answer your question. So I don't know what the answer to 
your specific questions about plate waste in school lunch, but, 
clearly, this is the intersection of two sets of our 
responsibility, and we are able to track food consumption in 
different outlets, public or not. So I think we will be able to 
answer your question someday soon.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I appreciate that, and I wanted Dr. 
Gonzalez to hear this, in your new responsibility, because I've 
been asking about it for a while. Every child in this country 
needs to be fed well, so that their brains grow, and that we, 
as adults, figure out a way to do this, and to have it happen, 
so it is acceptable to them, and that we eliminate what I 
consider a sacrilegious food loss that occurs right at the 
grade school level. They learn the bad habits very early on.
    From the taxpayers' standpoint, we shouldn't be paying for 
carrots and peas, and all these things, peaches, to be thrown 
away. There needs to be a more careful study, and something 
isn't happening. Something in the system isn't working, when 
you get this kind of waste, and it's got to be billions on an 
annual basis when you look at the whole country and the amount 
of money that we put into these programs across the whole 
Nation, and the number of meals that are fed every day. I like 
the garbologists; I'd like to meet them, because they can tell 
us a lot about ourselves and about our tykes out there. And if 
we can influence our school meals planners, our governors, 
those in charge of these programs, well, isn't that our job?
    Dr. Gonzalez. If I may respond, to just add to the 
importance of the issue that you raise, we are delighted, of 
course, to have a Deputy Under Secretary that has a background 
in the area of nutrition. When we talk about these issues in 
terms of the production of food, we need to continue to talk in 
terms of the continuum from production to consumption, and then 
all of those issues that you've raised as a part of that 
continuum. Again, as we look at the areas of priority and the 
research and the extension and education piece that goes with 
that, I think it's tremendously important. So thank you for 
that question.
    Ms. Kaptur. I'm interested in whether the food waste is 
equal across all districts, if high-income students throw away 
their food, if low-income children don't have enough. I mean, 
there ought to be some way that we measure this, so that we get 
a feel for it, and right down to the school district level, 
help them eliminate that waste. So I guess my point is made, 
and I would look forward to an early--any additional 
information you can provide us on this in some coherent manner, 
so we can make intelligent choices about how to speak with the 
Food Nutrition Service people and others at the local level.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 41 - 49--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to follow up on something that Mr. 
Bonilla had talked about, which was the education issue. And, 
Doctor, you're very sensitive to that, and I could see the 
faces of your associates there on this one. I have a couple of 
thoughts that I'll share with you, I've shared with others.
    One is, if you come to Washington as a child and you go to 
these different buildings, and millions of children do every 
year, you're unlikely to come to the Department of Agriculture, 
only because it looks like a business building, but you're 
probably likely to go to the Museum of History and Technology 
and go through there. If you go through the section that deals 
with agriculture, you would never seek agriculture as a career. 
If you go through the computer section, Hewlett-Packard and all 
these other companies have donated all kinds of money to put in 
those--you know, they get up there and they do the machines and 
everything.
    You at USDA, your particular area, with the resources 
you're connected to across this country, could have the 
highest-tech exhibit in that museum. You have films. You have 
research. You are high-tech, but you should have something more 
there than a covered wagon, or whatever they have, under the 
stairwell and back of the elevator. This is the most productive 
agriculture; this is the most important industry. Everyone in 
the world comes here to learn from us. So that is a very simple 
thing that people can accomplish. We can challenge our 
companies to help us do that. I bet nobody's ever done that. We 
could influence kids right there in the Nation's Capital.
    Now for those who can't afford to come to the Capital, if I 
look at my own school district--and you maybe can identify with 
some of this; I represent about 32 school districts--
agriculture as a career, I'm not sure the son or daughter of a 
farmer isn't even on the radar screen. I don't know what they 
think agriculture is, but they probably don't even have a very 
good name for it.
    Now our Ohio State University, through Co-op Extension--I 
think they call it the School of Agriculture, Food Sciences, 
and Environment, or something like that. In the city of Toledo, 
which is not a rural area, we have an agriculture component to 
our educational system at the high school and junior high 
level. They have trouble with enrollment, mainly because the 
people teaching that program don't know what careers are 
available to the students when they graduate, so they don't 
attract students.
    Therefore, over the years--and I can't believe we're the 
only place in America where this has happened--the students who 
go to that school tend to be learning-challenged students. It 
became the program for those who couldn't pass the SATs and the 
ACTs at the same level as their contemporaries.
    And we've been meeting with some of our school officials 
back home. It was interesting to me that I had to invite in the 
people who represented our Co-op Extension. They had never 
really made the connection between our urban school districts, 
and if God has distributed abilities equally, there have got to 
be some kids in that system who are interested in production 
agriculture, who are interested in floraculture, horticulture, 
in more than just planting the seed, but talking about the germ 
plasm of the future, what is it going to look like. We aren't 
reaching them.
    Some of our farmers are there. Some of our new ranchers are 
there, who come from families who haven't looked at an egg, 
don't even know what an acre is. I guess I've witnessed from 
Ohio, where agriculture is our largest industry, a real 
breakdown somehow with our urban school systems, and even some 
of our rural school systems, and the Co-op Extension. Now 
they're in some of the schools with Future Farmers of America. 
They're doing some of that, but I don't know really what they 
end up getting. They're certainly not directing kids into the 
career programs.
    I'm sort of laying out the problem to you, and as you think 
about how to fix it, this is just another example you can put 
on your plate of what's happened in one area where we've tried 
to connect the resources of our land grant to at least one 
urban district and said, well, you know, how can you work 
together; how can you learn from each other; how can you change 
the image of a child going in this program, where their parents 
don't say, ``You'll never get a job. There's no future in 
agriculture.''?
    And, yet, we have ice cream companies that can't get people 
who have dairy science specialties. We've got all these 
companies that look for people with those backgrounds, and 
they're not getting them out of the junior high and high school 
level.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if it's 
appropriate for me to stand up and cheer those comments, but I 
think they are exactly on target. You've hit on some areas of 
discussion that we have certainly started in terms of telling 
the story differently and highlighting those opportunities that 
we have for young people.
    I'm going to Hershey, Pennsylvania on Monday to do a 
ribbon-cutting ceremony for an urban agricultural program. 
Horticulture is the focus of that program.
    We have 26 urban ag education programs around the country, 
and that's, I think, part of the message that our agricultural 
educators need to hear. So I would invite you at some time when 
you were available, on a program to talk to some of our folks, 
because we've been talking to ourselves over a long period of 
time, and that message that you've just communicated needs to 
get out to a broader audience, if we're going to make a change.
    Ms. Kaptur. How do you reach the people in charge of the 
school systems?
    Dr. Gonzalez. We've started that discussion. In fact, in 
the Visioning 2020 program meeting that was held in October, 
San Antonio--we invited members of other communities to come, 
both in and out of education, to talk about the importance of 
education in agriculture as well as about agriculture. I think 
that's what broadens that agenda for us in terms of reaching 
young people who have not seen the science and technology.
    We've just engaged this discussion with the Department of 
Education for the March 1999 to go to Epcot with sort of a 
food, land, and people display that we can take on the road, 
and change the image that we've so well stereotyped for 
agriculture.
    Ms. Kaptur. When you go into the Smithsonian, the first 
thing you ought to see is one of those big satellite maps, 
where they do the careful application of various techniques and 
products to the soils. I mean, there ought to be some kind of a 
global thing. I mean, it would be just so--oh, I wish I could 
design it myself, but it can be done, and Ithink Members of 
Congress would support that effort. You almost don't need us; it can be 
done administratively.
    But I thank you for your openness to that. We'll try to 
look forward--if the agricultural educator in charge of my 
district can be invited.
    Dr. Gonzalez. We will invite them.
    Dr. Robinson, I think, would like to make some comments as 
a followup.
    Dr. Robinson. Perhaps, Ms. Kaptur, just to respond to a 
couple of specific things--I take onboard and I think your 
advice is really sound advice for the future of careers in 
agriculture.
    We do have two or three things ongoing, though, that might 
interest in. One, we are investing with the Smithsonian in an 
exhibit dealing with sustainable agriculture. It grew out of a 
request that actually came to the Smithsonian. That perhaps is 
a beginning in what could end up being a broader exhibit in the 
future. Certainly, we would welcome your input as we move in 
that direction.
    A second factor, which I think speaks to your point--and it 
is a small one, true, but it is beginning--we do have a new 
Director of Ag in the Classroom, which is a program that is 
directed specifically to trying to help teachers bring 
components in their program that deal with what is agriculture, 
how does it relate to the science, something far more than the 
covered wagon stereotype that you laid out. So that, too, is 
another program that we have ongoing.
    Two more that I would bring up have to do particularly with 
some of the urban programs in 4-H and 4-H-related programs. For 
example, we participate with the Forest Service in a program in 
urban forestry, where kids have an opportunity to participate 
in project activities, where they get some sense of what's 
going on. We do something similar in urban gardening, where 
young people have an opportunity to begin to understand some of 
the science and complexities of agriculture. It is only a 
start, and your point is very well-taken.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for responding to that. I have a 
couple of quick questions just in terms of research dollars.
    I noticed in the full budget submission, on page 10-42--
and, again, this goes back to the agriculture/municipal waste 
reuse issue--several projects have been eliminated: 
agricultural waste utilization, animal waste--I'm not sure what 
that is, but is this an indicator that somehow the Department 
doesn't think that manures and organic waste, and its reuse, is 
not as important as I think it is?
    Dr. Gonzalez. I'm going to ask Dr. Horn to----
    Ms. Kaptur. It's on page 10-42.
    Dr. Gonzalez [continuing]. Help us with that answer.
    Dr. Horn. No, it doesn't indicate that, and, in fact, I 
think what that must be is some of the work that was 
categorically eliminated, in that it was new last year. Yes, 
that's exactly what that is. It does not indicate that at all. 
We are keenly aware--I mean, the commodity groups that we work 
with indicate this is their highest priority.

                          HYDROPONICS RESEARCH

    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Doctor, might I also ask you, where 
would the Center for Hydroponic Research be in the United 
States? Are there particular research stations--or where does 
one look for expertise in that area within your system?
    Dr. Horn. We have no center for activity like that, but we 
do work with a number of locations that have hydroponic 
programs. I believe that the University in Delaware has a major 
program for contained production of high-value vegetable crops, 
lettuce, in particular. We have systems that link animal 
agriculture--in particular, aquaculture--to hydroponic systems 
at some of the 1890 institutions, and we have collaboration 
with those. The one that I know best is at Langston University, 
where there is a combination of catfish production, and the 
effluent from the catfish system is used in the production of 
fruits and vegetables. There are also----
    Ms. Kaptur. Where is that, sir?
    Dr. Horn. That's in Oklahoma, Langston University in 
Langston, Oklahoma.
    But these are not large-scale hydroponics programs. We have 
a fairly unique activity within the confines of DisneyWorld in 
Florida that's a futuristic look at how production will look 
years from now, and that is a demonstration of the potential of 
hydroponics.
    Ms. Kaptur. Is that in Epcot Center?
    Dr. Horn. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Kaptur. We ought to have it at the Smithsonian, too.
    Dr. Horn. It's in the Land Pavilion at Epcot.
    Dr. Gonzalez. A couple of the groups that we are working 
with from the land grant university community on hydroponics 
and other research.
    I'll ask Dr. Robinson to also provide us with some 
additional information.
    Dr. Robinson. A couple of the projects I think you referred 
to on page 10-42 among some of the grant activities that the 
Department's budget does not contain.
    But there is, in fact, a lot of activity ongoing. I don't 
have a list of those projects now, but certainly would be 
willing to get a list for you in terms of projects that 
universities have underway----
    Ms. Kaptur. I would be very appreciative of that.
    Dr. Robinson [continuing]. In hydroponics or other areas 
that you have an interest in. Because that research is ongoing 
at a number of locations, in addition to the one that--
    Ms. Kaptur. Why does Korea have more hydroponic growing 
than we do? I know their land base is very different. Is that 
why?
    Dr. Robinson. Well, the land base certainly is one of the 
big factors. They have quite a different characteristic in 
their land base, and quite a different population pressure than 
we do, but other than that, I can't adequately address your 
question.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, Dr. Gonzalez and Drs. Robinson and Horn, 
any summary information you could give me on the way in which 
this research is being done in hydroponics, how its arrayed, or 
what its purposes, would be of interest.
    Dr. Gonzalez. We'd be very pleased to provide that.
    [The information follows:]

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Supported 
                Research on Hydroponic Plant Production

    There are approximately a dozen CSREES supported research 
projects that involve hydroponic/soil-less plant production. 
Projects in New Jersey, New York and Ohio are focused on 
engineering controlled environment greenhouses including 
hydroponics. The use of waste water from aquaculture systems 
for hydroponic plant production is being studied in Illinois, 
the Northern Marianas and the Virgin Islands. North Carolina 
and Tennessee are investigating the potential use of seedling 
greenhouses for hydroponic culture of vegetable seedlings. New 
York and North Carolina are working on nutrient formulations 
for Soil-less Culture. Connecticut and Hawaii are studying 
hydroponic culture systems for production of vegetables and 
ornamentals.
    Many other CSREES supported research projects employ 
hydroponic culture as a research tool in basic plant science 
research.

                          Hydroponics Research

    ARS conducts research on the utilization of wastes and 
byproducts from aquaculture to produce high-value plants in 
hydroponic production systems.
    This research program focuses on using hydronically-grown 
plants to clean up water impaired by nutrients and organic 
pollutants from aquaculture. Concurrent with treating the 
aquaculture waste water, there is the potential for plants to 
recover treatment expenses through sale of high-value food and 
non-food products.
    The ARS research program is conducted at Kearneysville, 
West Virginia, in cooperation with the Freshwater Institute, 
Shepherdstown, West Virginia.

                         colorado potato beetle

    Ms. Kaptur. Let me ask quickly, if you can just tick down 
these--Colorado potato beetle, have we given up on it?
    Dr. Gonzalez. No.
    Ms. Kaptur. Are we doing research? I couldn't find it in 
any of my backup materials here. What do we do about these 
walls of beetles that come at us from Indiana and Ohio?
    Dr. Horn. We have a very limited number of programs 
dedicated to areawide pest management of economically-important 
pests, and the Colorado potato beetle is one such critter, and 
we are generating a number of different technologies, some of 
them beneficial insects, some of them diseases of insects. Our 
intention is to select that for emphasis. That's a very serious 
pest, and we have not given up on it at all.
    Ms. Kaptur. If you could, again, provide a little more 
detail on what has been budgeted in that area, it would be 
appreciated.
    [The information follows:]

                       Integrated Pest Management

                          area-wide management

    The research conducted employs biologically-based or other 
pest-specific technologies that can lead to substantial 
reductions in the reliance on broadly toxic chemical pesticides 
and in the long run result in large savings to agriculture and 
the environment. Currently, ARS does not conduct area-wide 
management research in Ohio related to Colorado potato beetle. 
However, in FY 1998, ARS is devoting $3,563,000 to research on 
Colorado potato beetle at six of its locations across the U.S. 
For example, in Beltsville, MD, our scientists are developing 
ways to make biological control agents more effective in IPM 
systems to control this serious pest, as well as developing 
feeding stimulants in combination with environmentally-safe 
toxins for IPM programs. We are also breeding new potato 
cultivars for Colorado potato beetle resistance. At Ithaca, NY, 
we are developing new fungal strains as biological control 
agents of Colorado potato beetle. At our facility in Columbia, 
MO, we are developing mass rearing technologies for Colorado 
potato beetle predators to be used in augmentation biocontrol 
programs. In Wapato, WA, our scientists are developing both 
classical and augmentative biological control strategies and 
scientists are developing both classical and augmentative 
biological control strategies and incorporating these 
strategies, along with cultural tactics and transgenic and 
traditionally bred potato resistance, into IPM systems. Our 
scientists in Fargo, ND, are developing the nutritional 
information necessary to package artificial diets acceptable 
for quality rearing of Colorado potato beetle predators and 
parasites. And finally, our scientists in Weslaco, TX are 
developing new and improved technologies using food process 
engineering to mass propagate, harvest, store, ship, and 
release quality assured parasites to manage agricultural pests 
such as the Colorado potato beetle. Each of these ARS locations 
is working as a unified and coordinated team on this pest 
problem.
    The insects targeted in the area-wide pest management 
program include codling moths, cotton bollworms, tobacco 
budworms, corn rootworms, and stored grain insects. ARS 
anticipates initiating other area-wide pest management programs 
on insects, plant pathogens and/or weed pests as these programs 
come to completion and resources are released.
    The objectives are to establish and implement area-wide 
pest management IPM research and action programs for high 
priority agricultural pests such as insects, organisms causing 
plant diseases, and weeds, as a part of the USDA IPM 
initiative. Specific aims of the program include: establishment 
of partnerships and collaborations; demonstrations of the 
positive impacts and advantages of an area-wide IPM approach; 
and the adoption of area-wide pest management systems by 
farmers.
    Currently, ARS' budget includes $5,944,000 for area-wide 
pest management research which is conducted at Manhattan, KS; 
Stoneville, MS; Sidney, MT; Brookings, SD; and Yakima, WA.

                             nursery crops

    Ms. Kaptur. Also, with floraculture and nursery production 
growing in terms of its importance in agriculture, why have the 
dollars for that been eliminated in the budget submission?
    Dr. Horn. We feel strongly that we are underinvested in 
this. It's fourth highest, I believe, in farmgate receipts. The 
nursery and floral crops industries, because they are not 
either necessarily food or fiber, don't get very much 
attention, but, as you say, it's a very rapidly-growing 
industry.
    What we are starting to look for now is whether or not 
there is, in fact, a public science role and a national role 
that we should be involved in, and the answer to that seemingly 
is, yes, in two particular areas of emphasis. One is 
environmentally-positive technologies that can be used either 
for remediation or efficient and profitable use of land, and it 
is a very environmentally-positive activity, and then still 
another is economical alternatives for some crops that are not 
held in such high regard as they used to be; for instance, 
tobacco. It takes a very high-value crop to offset what a 
farmer used to earn in tobacco production. These kinds of crops 
may have a place.
    So our intention is to look for opportunities to enhance 
this program. I should say, a lot of what we do, and what we 
would do, with an enhanced program applies to other 
enterprises--the tree fruit industry, for instance. But we are 
very cognizant of nursery and floral crops. We have been 
meeting with the industry for 18 months now, and they have 
given us priorities for their work, and we feel a commitment 
there.
    We have major programs, of course, at the Arboretum, which 
is an ARS facility. We have McMinville, Tennessee, Miami, 
Florida, and some work in the Northwest in Oregon. So it is a 
part of our program, but it's only about a $7 million program, 
and for an enterprise that's fourth highest in farmgate 
receipts, it's probably an under-investment.
    Ms. Kaptur. It's amazing how fast it's grown in our own 
State really.
    Dr. Horn. I think you have more greenhouse space than 
anywhere.
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes. We thank you for--nothing you ask you 
don't have something to say about, Doctor--an amazing man.
    Dr. Horn. It's this army of helpers that I have here. 
[Laughter.]

                        beltsville modernization

    Ms. Kaptur. And I have to ask this question: Dr. Gonzalez, 
what are the long-range plans for the modernization of the 
Beltsville facility, and how long do you think it will take?
    Dr. Gonzalez. Well, I think I'm the person engaged--again, 
one more time--with that, and I have had an opportunity to go 
outand visit that facility and take a look at some of the 
remodeling and the work that's being done out there. As many times as 
I've been to Washington, I really hadn't had time to go out and do that 
tour. We've only done half of it; we're still working on getting back 
out to get acquainted with the rest.
    Someone made the comment earlier about the research 
extension and education agenda that we have in this country, 
that all other countries are trying to emulate. I think 
certainly, when you talk about the premiere in agricultural 
research, we have an opportunity there. A lot of people come to 
visit our Beltsville facility. Because of the fine work that we 
have done there and the success that we've had, we need to 
continue to build on that past experience.
    Dr. Horn.
    Dr. Horn. Thank you.
    Actually, the upgrading of the Beltsville facilities, which 
really was an effort to keep them up to code, and keep them up 
to cutting-edge science requirements, was in fact originally 
dubbed, I believe, the Renaissance 2000 Program. At that time 
we envisioned something in the order of $20 million a year that 
would be required to keep that infrastructure intact and 
operative and up to snuff.
    In fact, what happens, year to year, that varies 
considerably because it's necessary for us to build something 
functional. So some years our request will be quite a bit 
higher and some years it will be quite a bit lower, and it goes 
project by project.
    There are two major activities in Beltsville. One is the 
National Agricultural Library and one is the Beltsville 
Research Center. To date, we've had $205 million appropriated 
to the Beltsville Center, which leaves a $98 million 
requirement over an extended period of time. Our guideline is 
still something on the order of $20 million a year, with a lot 
of variation.
    And then the other item would be the library. The total 
projected cost of keeping it up and running right is $20 
million, and, to date, $2.5 million has been appropriated, and 
the remainder, therefore, would be $17.5 million.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for all of your testimonies 
today. I want to thank the chairman for his forbearance.
    And I would say to Dr. Gonzalez, I issue you a personal 
challenge: that by the time you and I leave Washington, that 
agriculture is high-tech is represented at the Smithsonian. If 
we accomplish nothing less, we will have done something for the 
future.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Absolutely. We're on target. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. I want to add my thanks to you folks, because 
our admiration for you and your skills and your intelligence 
and the work that you do, and you have done year after year, we 
appreciate very, very much. We may scramble over this money 
problem, but the main thing we're getting done is supporting 
agriculture. It's important to us in the United States.
    We're going to confer on all of you the ``Ph.D. in 
garbology.'' [Laughter.]
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Skeen. This lady has more ideas in a minute than I can 
ever have in a year.
    Dr. Gonzalez. But those would be honorary degrees, right?
    Mr. Skeen. Absolutely, honorary.
    The other thing is that you have to put up with a lot of 
Members of Congress who the closest they ever came to farming 
was pushing a basket down an aisle. [Laughter.]
    So I appreciate this visit very much, and I want you to 
know that we admire the work that you do, and we also admire 
the interaction that we have and the conversations that we 
have, the research that you do, because you keep us as the No. 
1 producing nation in the entire world in agricultural 
products. Thank you once again.
    Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Clerk's note.--The following questions were submitted to 
be answered for the record:]



[Pages 58 - 1238--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]












                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                   Research, Education and Economics

1997 Census of Agriculture.......................................    36
Agricultural Utilization of Wastes:
    Municipal Waste..............................................  9-10
    Animal Waste................................................. 10-11
Alternatives to Methyl Bromide.............................11-12, 19-20
Animal Diseases.................................................. 28-29
Beltsville Modernization......................................... 56-57
Biographical Sketches:
    I. Miley Gonzalez............................................   888
    Eileen Kennedy...............................................   890
    Floyd P. Horn................................................   891
    B.H. Robinson................................................   892
    Susan E. Offutt..............................................   893
    Donald M. Bay................................................   894
Budget:
    Agency Recommendations.......................................   8-9
    Reductions...................................................   6-8
    Research, Education and Economics FY 1999 Budget Proposal....   3-5
Civil Rights Initiative..........................................     5
Closure of ARS Prosser, Washington Laboratory.................... 13-15
Colorado Potato Beetle...........................................    54
Education in Agriculture......................................... 50-53
Evaluation Reviews of the Food Stamp/WIC/Child Nutrition Program. 29-30
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program................... 32-35
Food Genome Initiative...........................................     4
Food Safety Initiative.........................................4, 24-25
Fund for Rural America........................................... 15-18
Hydroponics Research............................................. 53-54
Integrated Pest Management/Area-wide Research.................... 54-55
Lyme Disease..................................................... 25-28
Methyl Bromide Research....................................11-12, 19-20
Nursery Crops.................................................... 55-56
Nutrition Programs/Food Waste.................................... 36-49
Pest Management Initiative.......................................     4
Research Accomplishments.........................................   1-2
Reductions in Funding for Agricultural Research.................. 12-13
Technical Trade Barriers.........................................    19
Undersecretary's Testimony.......................................  1-57
Western Human Nutrition Research Center.......................... 18-19
Witness Statement of Dr. Gonzalez................................   895

                     Agricultural Research Service

Aflatoxin Research..............................................116-117
Africanized Bees................................................162-166
Agricultural Research Investment.................................    58
Alcohol Consumption.............................................158-159
Animal Facilities Modernization (Beltsville).....................   249
Animal Germplasm................................................142-144
Animal Health Consortium........................................124-125
Animal Health Research..........................................132-134
Aquaculture Research............................................118-120
ARS-Owned Aircraft..............................................225-226
Asian Long Horn Beetle..........................................157-158
Avian Influenza.................................................134-135
BARD............................................................242-244
Bee Laboratory, Weslaco, TX............................227-228, 249-250
Bees:
    Africanized Bees............................................162-166
    Honey Bees...................................................   166
Biodegradable Plastic...........................................121-122
Biological Control of Insect Pests...............................   255
Biomedical Research.............................................260-261
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation..............122-126
Blue Tongue.....................................................132-134
Bollweevil/Bollworm Research....................................135-137
Brucellosis Research............................................132-134
Bt Crop Varieties...............................................250-251
Budget:
    Project Terminations......................................... 60-69
    Implementation Plan.......................................... 70-85
    Budget Request History....................................... 88-91
Building and Facilities.........................................224-231
Canola Research.................................................137-138
Centers of Excellence............................................   115
Citrus Root Weevil (Diaprepes)..................................138-139
Citrus Tristeza Virus...........................................139-140
Consultants/Extramural........................................... 86-88
Contingency Fund................................................232-233
Cooperative Agreements........................................... 93-97
CRADAs..........................................................115-116
Emerging Infectious Diseases..................................... 59-60
Ergot Disease in Sorghum.........................................   160
Explanatory Notes................................................   973
Facilities Requirements.........................................226-227
Facility Replacement Backlog....................................228-231
Federal Research Funding........................................257-258
Food Genome, Plant and Animal....................................   260
Food Safety Research............................................150-151
Foot and Mouth Disease..........................................120-121
Formosan Termite Research.......................................213-214
Floriculture and Nursery Crops Research................240-241, 247-248
Fruit and Nut Research..........................................126-132
Fruit Fly Research..............................................140-141
Fungal Phytase...................................................   161
Germplasm, Plant and Animal............................141-144, 251-253
Global Change Research..........................................156-157
Grape Phylloxera.................................................   145
Grape Virology Research..........................................   146
Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Research..........................   147
Guayule Research................................................160-161
Hog Cholera.....................................................120-121
Honey Bee Research...............................................   166
Hops Research...................................................161-162
Human Nutrition Presidential Initiative................151-154, 259-260
Human Nutrition Research..................99-100, 112-113, 249, 256-257
Human Nutrition Research Centers................................101-112
Human Pathogens..................................................   259
Implemenation Plan............................................... 70-85
Integrated Pest Management......................................147-150
Iowa State Construction Project.................................114-115
IR-4 Research (Minor Use).......................................166-168
Jointed Goat Grass Control Research.............................168-169
Kenaf Research..................................................169-170
Laboratory Closures..............................................    92
Lapsed Salaries.................................................. 97-98
Late Blight Potato Research......................................   192
Leflar School of Law Agricultural Library (NAL)..................   234
Locoweed Research................................................   170
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture...............................171-172
Lyme Disease Research...........................................172-174
Management Costs................................................. 58-59
Methyl Bromide Research.........................................175-179
Mormon Cricket Research..........................................   147
Mushroom Research...............................................179-180
NAL Information Centers.........................................235-238
NAL Library Fees................................................233-234
NAL Object Class Table..........................................234-235
Nal Repair and Maintenance.......................................   239
Narcotics Control Research......................................180-181
National Arboretum...............................................   181
National Plant Germplasm System........................141-144, 251-253
New Corps.......................................................181-183
New Research Facilities.........................................224-225
Noxious Weeds...................................................253-254
Nursery Crops..........................................240-241, 247-248
Nutrition Intervention..........................................256-257
Object Class Table............................................... 92-93
Office of Pest Management........................................   245
Patents..........................................................   116
Peanut Research.................................................183-184
Peas, Lentils, and Legumes......................................185-186
Pecan Research...................................................   186
Phytoestrogen Research..........................................186-188
Pfiesteria Research........................................154-156, 248
Plant Gene Expression Center....................................188-189
Plant Germplasm........................................141-144, 251-253
Postharvest Pathogen Reduction Food Safety Research.............. 98-99
Potato Research.................................................189-192
Preharvest Food Safety Research..................................    98
Project Terminations............................................. 60-69
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Ms. Kaptor...................................................   247
    Mr. Kingston.................................................   249
    Mr. Bonilla..................................................   250
    Mr. Latham...................................................   251
    Mr. Fazio....................................................   253
    Mr. Serrano..................................................   256
    Ms. DeLauro..................................................   260
Repair and Maintenance..........................................231-232
Research Reauthorization Bills...................................   246
Scrapie.........................................................132-134
Soil and Water Research.........................................193-201
Soybean Research................................................201-205
Soybean-Based Ink...............................................205-206
Staffing Research Facility......................................219-223
STEEP II/III Research...........................................206-207
Subtropical Horticulture Research Station, Miami, FL............241-242
Sweet Potato (Silverleaf) Whitefly..............................207-210
Swine Research..................................................114-115
Taxol Research..................................................210-211
TCK Smut.........................................................   193
Technology Transfer.............................................211-213
Tropical/Subtropical Research...................................214-215
Tuberculosis....................................................132-134
University Human Nutrition Research..............................   113
Urban Pest Control..............................................215-216
Utilization Centers.............................................216-218
Weslaco, Texas Facility.........................................227-228
Wheat Disease...................................................218-219
Witness Statement of Dr. Horn....................................   910

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University......................270, 568
1890 Facilities Programs.......................................570, 718
4-H Youth Enrollment.............................................   677
Aflatoxin Research, Illinois.....................................   286
Agency Audits....................................................   274
Agrability.......................................................   665
Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Research Program, Iowa............   293
Agricultural Development in the American Pacific.................   613
Agricultural Diversification and Speciality Crops, Hawaii........   288
Agricultural Diversity/Red River, Minnesota and North Dakota.....   291
Agricultural Education Programs................................720, 735
Agricultural Information Technology............................731, 733
Agricultural Waste Utilization, West Virginia....................   615
Alliance for Food Protection, Nebraska and Georgia...............   295
Alternative Crops................................................   581
    Canola.......................................................   582
    Hesperaloe...................................................   583
    North Dakota.................................................   297
Alternative Marine and Fresh Water Species.......................   299
Alternative Salmon Products, Arkansas............................   301
Animal Genome Mapping............................................   281
Animal Health and Disease Research...............................   572
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium............................   303
Animal Waste Management, Oklahoma................................   619
Apple Fire Blight, Michigan and New York.........................   307
Aquaculture Centers..............................................   577
Aquaculture Food and Marketing Development, West Virginia........   315
Aquaculture Research:
    Illinois.....................................................   309
    Louisiana....................................................   311
    Stoneville, Mississippi......................................   313
Babcock Institute................................................   317
BARD...........................................................262, 322
Barley Feed for Rangeland Cattle, Montana........................   320
Beef Improvement, Arkansas.......................................   682
Biodiesel Research...............................................   325
Biographical Sketches:
    B.H. Robinson................................................   892
Biotechnology Risk Assessment....................................   276
Broom Snakeweed..................................................   328
Buildings and Facilities.......................................654, 724
Capacity Building Grants Program...............................569, 601
Center for Agriculture and Rural Development.....................   621
Center for Animal Health and Productivity, Pennsylvania..........   330
Center for Human Nutrition, Maryland.............................   623
Center for Innovative Food Technology, Ohio......................   332
Center for North American Studies................................   625
Center for Rural Studies, Vermont................................   334
Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture, Maryland.............................   336
Citrus Decay Fungus, Arizona.....................................   338
Coastal Cultivars................................................   340
Competitive Grants...............................................   564
Competitiveness of Agricultural Products, Washington.............   342
Cool Season Legume Research......................................   345
Cotton Reserch, Texas..........................................347, 732
Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding, New Jersy..............   348
Critical Agricultural Materials..................................   575
Critical Issues..................................................   350
Dairy and Meat Goat Research.....................................   352
Data Information System..........................................   627
Delta Rural Revitalization Mississippi...........................   354
Delta Teachers Academy...........................................   685
Drought Mitigation...............................................   356
Ecosystems, Alabama..............................................   359
EFNEP..........................................................671, 723
Environmental Research, New York.................................   361
Environmental Risk Factor/Cancer, New York.......................   365
Expand Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma...................................   367
Expert IPM Decision Support System...............................   369
Explanatory Statement............................................  1071
Extension Activities.............................................   659
Extension Specialist:
    Arkansas.....................................................   688
    Mississippi..................................................   690
FAIR Act.........................................................   717
Farm and Rural Business Finance, Illinois and Arkansas...........   372
Federal Administration...........................................   610
Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request................................271, 679
Floriculture, Hawaii.............................................   375
Food and Agricultural Policy Institute, Iowa and Missouri........   377
Food and Agricultural Sciences...................................   729
Food Irradiation, Iowa...........................................   380
Food Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut........................   382
Food, Nutrition, and Assistance..................................   719
Food Processing Center, Nebraska.................................   385
Food Safety Initiative.........................................387, 668
Food System Research Group, Wisconsin............................   389
Forestry Research, Arkansas......................................   391
Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, Arizona and Missouri........   394
Generic Commodity Promotion, New York............................   396
Geographic Information System....................................   631
Global Change....................................................   398
Global Marketing Support Services, Arkansas......................   401
Grain Sorghum, Kansas............................................   403
Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable Agriculture..........   405
Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture....................................   634
Hatch Act........................................................   264
Higher Education.................................................   602
Hispanic Education Partnerships Grants Program...................   599
Hispanic Serving Institutions..................................721, 734
Human Nutrition:
    Iowa.........................................................   407
    Louisiana....................................................   409
    New York.....................................................   411
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.....................   414
Improved Dairy Management Practices, Pennsylvania................   416
Improved Fruit Practices, Michigan...............................   418
Improved Pest Control............................................   605
Income Enhancement Demonstration.................................   692
Institute for Food Science and Engineering, Arkansas.............   420
Integrated Cow/Calf Management...................................   694
Integrated Pest Management/Biological Control..................423, 661
Integrated Production Systems, Oklahoma..........................   425
International Arid Lands Consortium..............................   427
International Programs...........................................   715
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium....................................   429
IR-4 Program and Pesticide Clearance.............................   282
Jointed Goatgrass................................................   432
Landscaping for Water Quality, Georgia...........................   434
Livestock and Dairy Policy.......................................   437
Lowbush Blueberry Research.......................................   439
Maple Research...................................................   441
Mariculture, North Carolina......................................   636
McIntire-Stennis Forestry Grants.................................   267
Michigan Biotechnology Institute.................................   443
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance.....................   446
Midwest Agricultural Products, Iowa..............................   448
Milk Safety, Pennsylvania........................................   450
Minor Use Animal Drugs.........................................284, 452
Mississippi Valley State University..............................   638
Molluscan Shellfish, Oregon......................................   456
Multi-Commodity Research, Oregon.................................   458
Multi-Cropping Strategies for Aquaculture, Hawaii................   460
Multicultural Scholars Program...................................   678
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment................   716
National Alternative Fuels Laboratory............................   617
National Biological Impact Assessment Program....................   462
National Center for Peanut Competitiveness.......................   641
National Education Center for Agricultural Safety, Iowa..........   698
National Research Initiative.....................................   722
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund......................   598
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, New Mexico..............   464
Nonfood Agricultural Products, Nebraska..........................   466
Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico.....................   468
Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico............................   470
Pasture and Forage Research, Utah................................   472
Peach Tree Short Life, South Carolina............................   474
Peer Panels......................................................   612
Pest Control Alternatives, South Carolina........................   476
Pesticide Applicator Training....................................   663
Pesticide Clearance..............................................   478
Pesticide Impact Assessment...............................484, 603, 664
Pest Management Alternatives.....................................   482
Phytophthora Root Rot, NM........................................   487
Pilot Technology Project, Wisconsin..............................   700
Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene Cataloging, New 
  Mexico.........................................................   489
Plant Genome Mapping.............................................   278
PM-10 Study......................................................   643
Postharvest Rice Straw, California...............................   491
Potato Research..................................................   493
Poultry Carcass Removal, Alabama.................................   495
Preharvest Food Safety, Kansas...................................   497
Preservation and Processing Research, Oklahoma...................   499
Questions Submitted For the Record:
    Chairman Skeen.............................................262, 724
    Mr. Bonilla..................................................   729
    Mr. Serrano..................................................   721
Rangeland Research...............................................   580
Range Policy Development, New Mexico.............................   702
Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project.............................   502
Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs.......................   504
Rice Modeling....................................................   506
Rural Development Centers.................................508, 584, 674
Rural Development, Oklahoma......................................   704
Rural Development through Tourism, New Mexico....................   706
Rural Policies Institute.........................................   511
Rural Rehabilitation, Georgia....................................   708
Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado....................................   513
School-Based Agricultural Education..............................   730
Seafood Harvesting, Processing and Marketing, Mississippi........   515
Small Business Innovation Research Program.......................   595
Small Fruit Research.............................................   517
Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources......   519
Soybean Cyst Nematode, Missouri..................................   521
Spatial Technologies for Agriculture, Mississippi................   523
Steep III--Water Quality in Pacific Northwest....................   525
Sustainable Agriculture:
    Michigan.....................................................   530
    Nebraska.....................................................   532
    Pennsylvania.................................................   528
    SARE Program...............................................585, 669
Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat, Montana...........   534
Swine Waste Management, North Carolina...........................   536
Technology Transfer Projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi...........   711
Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management, Louisiana...........   538
Tobacco Research.................................................   276
Tropical and Subtropical Research................................   540
Urban Pests, Georgia.............................................   543
Vidalia Onions, Georgia..........................................   545
Viticulture Consortium, New York and California..................   547
Water Conservation, Kansas.......................................   549
Water Quality....................................................   552
    Illinois.....................................................   646
    North Dakota.................................................   650
Weed Control, North Dakota.......................................   555
Wheat Genetics, Kansas...........................................   557
Witness Statements:
    Dr. B.H. Robinson............................................   925
Wood Biomass.....................................................   713
Wood Utilization Research........................................   559
Wool Research....................................................   562
Youth-at-Risk Program............................................   670

                       Economic Research Service

Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS) Survey.......758-759, 817
Analytical Information Needs of Small Farmers..............768-771, 831
Asian Economic Crisis............................................   807
Available Funds.................................................749-750
Basic, Applied, and Development Research (Public and Private 
  Sectors).......................................................   815
Budget Request...................................................   782
Budget and Staff Years...........................................   813
Commodity Procurement Operations.................................   781
Commodity Policy Reform........................................797, 800
Communications, Utilities and Miscellaneous Charges..............   751
Conservation Title of the 1996 Farm Bill.........................   808
Coordination with NRCS...........................................   761
Credit in Rural Areas......................................779, 787-788
Data Purchases...................................................   778
Discontinuation of Reports.......................................   829
Effects of Policy Changes on Commodity Price and Farm Income 
  Variability..................................................797, 800
Electric Utility Deregulation...................................772-773
Environmental Quality Incentives Program........................804-806
Equipment........................................................   754
ERS Employees Switching to FERS..................................   786
Explanatory Notes................................................  1181
Farm Income.....................................................755-757
Federal Crop Insurance Policy....................................   799
Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform.............................763-767
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research............736, 738-748, 818-827
Food Safety.....................................................773-775
GAO Findings and Recommendations................................811-812
Global Climate Change...........................................809-810
Global Food Assessment Analysis.....................................798
Integrated Pest Management.....................................762, 803
Joint Extension/WIC Nutrition Education Initiative...............   780
Linking Agricultural Productivity, Public Investment in R&D, and 
  Competitiveness................................................   801
NAFTA..........................................................778, 783
National Research Council.......................................789-790
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program........   775
Natural Resource Inventory Data..................................   760
Nonmetro Nonfarm Earnings and Jobs by Industry...................   784
Obligations by State.............................................   777
Office of Energy.................................................   802
Ongoing Services.................................................   828
Printing and Reproduction........................................   751
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Chairman Skeen...............................................   736
    Mr. Serrano..................................................   831
R&D Contracts and Agreements.....................................   752
Research Work for Other Agencies...........................737, 791-796
Returns on Agricultural Research.................................   830
Risk Management Needs of Disadvantaged Farmers...................   799
School Lunch Program.............................................   748
Status of Reports.................................778-779, 787-788, 797
Supplies and Materials...........................................   753
Trade Barriers...................................................   814
Travel...........................................................   751
U.S. Agricultural Land under Foreign Ownership...................   785
User Fees........................................................   776
Witness Statement of Dr. Offutt..................................   994

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Advisory and Assistance Services (25.1)..........................   868
Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey..........880-881, 971, 
                                                              1220-1221
Appropriation Language...........................................  1215
Aquaculture Census..............................877-878, 970, 1221-1222
Available Funds and Staff Years...............................1209-1211
Benefits to Former Personnel.....................................   873
Budget Requests........................................861-862, 970-972
Census of Agriculture (1997):
    Authorizing Legislation......................................  1215
    Budget......................................................970-971
    Changes......................................................   834
    Cycle Costs.................................................834-835
    Efficiency from Integration...............................972, 1219
    FY 1999 Request..............................................    36
    Response Rates...............................................   836
    Toll-free Number.............................................   832
Commodity Database...............................................   837
Cooperative Agreements..........................................846-854
Cooperative Research............................................844-845
Customer Service (Toll-free Number)..............................   875
Efficiencies..................................................972, 1219
El Nino Impact...................................................   887
Enumerators................................................838-839, 840
Explanatory Notes.............................................1207-1238
Farms:
    Minority Owned...............................................   833
    Number of, Land in..........................................863-864
Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff-Years..............  1223
Horticulture/Greenhouse Pesticide Use...........879-880, 971, 1218-1219
International Technical Assistance..............................838-839
Internet:
    Accesses.....................................................   882
    Free Subscriptions...........................................   882
    Home Page....................................................   882
Justification of Increases and Decreases......................1218-1222
Mann Library.....................................................   886
Migrant Workers.................................................882-883
Milk Production.................................................883-885
Minority-Owned Farms.............................................   833
National Resources Inventory.....................................   837
Number of Farms, Land in Farms..................................863-864
Object Classes:
    Advisory and Assistance Services (25.1)......................   868
    Changes......................................................   874
    Object Class Schedule........................................  1213
    Other Services Object Class (25.2)..........................869-870
    Purchases from Government Accounts (25.3)...................871-872
Ongoing Services.................................................   842
Other Services Object Class (25.2)..............................869-870
Passenger Motor Vehicles.........................................  1214
Pay Costs........................................................   972
Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff-Year Summary..............  1212
Personnel Compensation...........................................   873
Pesticide Information...........................879-880, 971, 1218-1219

Program Changes.................................................875-877
Project Statement................................................  1217
Purchases from Government Accounts (25.3).......................871-872
Purpose Statement................................................  1207
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Chairman Skeen..............................................832-886
    Mr. Serrano.....................................................887
Reimbursable Surveys............................................855-856
Reimbursements...................................................   873
Remote Sensing..................................................874-875
Reports:
    Discontinued.................................................   842
    Fees (Subscription).........................................842-843
    Internet.....................................................   882
Special Surveys.................................................857-860
Staff Year Costs.................................................   881
State Costs....................................................841, 882
State Office Funding...........................................841, 882
Status of Program.............................................1224-1238
Strategic Plan:
    Customer Outreach............................................   866
    Data System 2000...........................................866, 867
    Leadership Program...........................................   867
Subscription Services............................................   865
Summary of Increases and Decreases...............................  1216
Toll-free Number...............................................832, 875
Washington, D.C. Costs and Staffing..............................   881
Witness Statement...............................................959-972