    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
                      AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH 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             ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia           MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
     GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,       SAM FARR, California
    Washington                        ALLEN BOYD, Florida
     HENRY BONILLA, Texas
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa
     JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, 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.

      Henry E. Moore, John J. Ziolkowski, Martin P. Delgado, and Joanne L.
                           Orndorff, Staff Assistants
                                    ________

                                     PART 4

                   RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS PROGRAMS

                                                                       Page
     Research, Education, and Economics...............................    1
         Agricultural Research Service................................  113
         Cooperative State Research, Education, and
           Extension Service..........................................  467
         Economic Research Service....................................  915
         National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 1021

                                    ________
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                    ________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     64-010                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

     RALPH REGULA, Ohio                    DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
     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               STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
     TOM DeLAY, Texas                      ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
     JIM KOLBE, Arizona                    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
     RON PACKARD, California               NANCY PELOSI, California
     SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama               PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     JAMES T. WALSH, New York              NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                 ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma       JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
     HENRY BONILLA, Texas                  JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
     JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan             ED PASTOR, Arizona
     DAN MILLER, Florida                   CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
     JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                MICHEAL P. FORBES, New York
     RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey   CHET EDWARDS, Texas
     ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi          ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
     GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,              Alabama
       Washington                          MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
     RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,            LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
       California                          SAM FARR, California
     TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                   JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                  CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa                      ALLEN BOYD, Florida
     ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
     JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
     JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
     KAY GRANGER, Texas
     JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
     VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia

                     James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

       AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
                    RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2001

                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2000.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                   WITNESSES

    I. MILEY GONZALEZ, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
    FLOYD P. HORN, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
    SUSAN E. OFFUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
    CHARLES W. LAUGHLIN, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH,
        EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
    R. RONALD BOSECKER, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
        SERVICE
    STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
        Mr. Skeen. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    morning.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Good morning.
        Mr. Skeen. Today we have with us the good folks who manage
    the USDA's research, education, and economic programs, and we
    are always delighted to have you here because you bring these
    shopping bags. But you have got one thing that bothers me in
    there, the one that looks like it is dynamite. They tell me
    they are beef strips. Those have exploded. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Skeen. This year we have provided nearly $2 billion for
    these programs, which is evidence of strong bipartisan support
    that you have from this committee. I have said many times that
    research is really the foundation of the best agricultural
    system in the world, allowing a very few farmers and ranchers
    to feed 270 million Americans and many more people overseas. It
    also enables us to compete successfully with much lower costs
    to producers than in other countries.
        I say this because in the draft supplemental legislation we
    have put a limitation on the mandatory research program. We
    have done this every year, and as we do with other mandatory
    programs, simply to get savings to meet all the other requests
    that we have for spending.
        Every year in our supplemental we are instructed to
    identify one or two items that at least partially offset the
    cost of the supplemental, and this year we have identified the
    mandatory research and the Fund for Rural America.
        I mention this only because I don't want anyone to
    interpret this as a sign of opposition to research, because it
    isn't. It has been the mainstay of providing good agricultural
    produce in this country.
        At any rate, that is the fiscal year 2000 supplemental
    issue and we will discuss it separately. We are here today to
    discuss the fiscal year 2001 budget. And with us we have Dr. I.
    Miley--otherwise known as ``Smiley''--Gonzalez, the Under
    Secretary of Research, Education, and Economics. But before I
    ask Dr. Gonzalez for his testimony, I would like to ask Miss
    Kaptur if she has any opening remarks.
        Miss Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, we
    have a competing hearing with Secretary Cuomo on the VA-HUD
    Subcommittee, so I am going to be doing musical chairs this
    morning, and I want to apologize to the Under Secretary and to
    members of the committee, and I will have to ask some of my
    colleagues to help pinch-hit for me here. But I wanted to say
    for the record, Dr. Gonzalez, how impressed I have been with
    your work and with your deep concern, not just for research as
    pure research, but also as dissemination, our youth, various
    humanitarian and development activities that actually occur
    under your purview there at USDA, and your special efforts to
    try to help our 1890s colleges. I know we have talked about
    that, and just, in general, the breadth of interests that you
    have and your tremendous ability to operationalize those ideas,
    which isn't always the case with many people who come here and
    talk to us theoretically about how some things might happen.
    You actually make them happen, and I just want to welcome you
    to the committee. And this area of ARS and research and
    education is just so important to the future of agriculture and
    the ecosystem in our country and the world. You have the major
    responsibility there.
        I just have to say also for the record, Mr. Chairman, this
    Under Secretary actually went over to the Smithsonian and has
    taken a look at the agricultural exhibit, the pitiful
    agricultural exhibit over there. And I hope some day this
    committee can hold a hearing over there so that people can
    really get a sense of what we tell the world about agriculture
    through the Smithsonian and what we don't. And I want to thank
    you personally for making that effort.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur. I know that it will result in positive change
    in the years ahead, so we look forward to your testimony. Thank
    you very much.
        Mr. Skeen. Doesn't she put that in nice terms?
        Dr. Gonzalez. It is great.
        Mr. Skeen. We are going to do this as long as you are
    smiling. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Gonzalez. We are going to do this.

                           Introduction of Witnesses

        Mr. Skeen. Before we proceed, I would like to recognize for
    the first time as a witness before our subcommittee Ronald
    Bosecker, who is the new Administrator for the National
    Agricultural Statistics Service, and Charles Laughlin, the new
    Administrator for the Cooperative State Research, Education,
    and Extension Service, and we welcome you, gentlemen. We wish
    you the best in your new positions and we look forward to
    working with you.
        Now at this time we would like to have your opening
    statement. Miley, you are a great friend. Good to see you here.
    Are you going to do this in English or Spanish?
        [Spanish.]
        Dr. Gonzalez. Either way.
        [Spanish.]
        Mr. Skeen. Bueno.
        Dr. Gonzalez. I think we will do it in English because my
    notes are written that way. [Laughter.]

                               Opening Statement

        Dr. Gonzalez. It is a delight to be back and to visit with
    this committee and provide our testimony for the fiscalyear
    2001 budget recommendations, and also joining us today, in addition to
    the two Administrators that you have introduced, Dr. Floyd Horn, our
    Administrator for ARS, and Dr. Susan Offutt, our Administrator for ERS.
    So they are also with me. And joining me at the table is Mr. Steve
    Dewhurst from our office of OBPA at USDA, and I am sure you know Steve,
    since he has been up here many times.
        Mr. Skeen. A lot longer than I have been up here, I can
    tell you that. It is always nice to see his face because you
    know he's a real gentleman who knows his business. Look at him
    blush.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed.
        Mr. Skeen. We appreciate you.
        Dr. Gonzalez. As a follow-up to that, each of our
    Administrators has submitted written testimony for the record,
    and I have provided some lengthy material that I am not going
    to read. I am going to just go through it and highlight a few
    of the examples of the work that we have done at USDA and with
    our partners across the country that highlight the things that
    you were talking about in your opening statement and that I
    think underscore the importance of the research, education, and
    economics mission area activities for, not only USDA, but for
    our citizens across the country. So I do want to spend a few
    minutes to do those highlights.
        The REE budget that we are discussing reflects strong
    continued support for the REE programs and a recognition of the
    contributions that research, education, and economics,
    statistics and extension programs make in solving the newly
    emerging and continuing pressing challenges facing agriculture
    and the Nation. We appreciate the strong support received from
    Congress in our appropriations for fiscal year 2000. The
    President's fiscal year 2001 budget provides $2.2 billion for
    the four REE agencies, an increase in program level of about 3
    percent above fiscal year 2000 for the conduct of research,
    education, economics, extension, and statistical programs.
    Increases are requested for all four agencies in top priority
    programs.
        The REE mission area agencies have a proud history over
    many decades of finding solutions to the challenges confronting
    farmers and ranchers and others involved in agriculture,
    resulting in a high return on the Federal investment for our
    Nation, a Nation that enjoys a plentiful, affordable, and safe
    food supply. This remarkable history of success continues
    today.

                            research success stories

        I would like to share just a few of the extraordinary
    number of the recent successes that we have had. As you
    indicated, the products that are in those bags that you have
    are examples of some of the results of our research success.
        Fruit growers will benefit from an improved biological
    control agent for fire blight, a bacterial disease of apples
    and pears which causes serious production losses each year.
        New soy-based inks will provide more environmentally
    friendly inks and open new markets for producers of vegetable
    oils.
        Many farmers will potentially benefit from a new corn
    germplasm line that resists formation of aflatoxin, a
    carcinogenic toxin caused by fungus that can accumulate in
    infected corn, peanuts, and may other oilseed products.
        All of the Nation will potentially benefit from improved
    water and air quality made possible through producer adoption
    of newly developed methods for using cover crops that
    eliminates the use of some pesticides without reducing
    productivity.
        Research suggests that nutritional deficiencies in infants
    have a major impact on cognition and brain function, leading to
    deficient academic skills, such as reading and arithmetic.
        Farmers will benefit from a new comprehensive publication
    describing risk management tools and strategies at the farm
    level.
        Trade negotiations representing national interests and
    those of farmers can now use a new classification scheme for
    assessing the economic impacts of trade barriers, such as
    sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
        Users of statistics on cattle will benefit from the first-
    ever combined U.S. and Canadian cattle publication providing
    information for both countries.
        As we take great satisfaction in the REE agencies'
    tremendous success and the extraordinary possibilities of
    today's cutting-edge research and technology, we must
    acknowledge that new times demand new emphasis on our programs
    and new ways of doing business. I would like to take this
    opportunity to discuss just a few of these new developments and
    how we are responding to them.

                          globalization of agriculture

        In a very real sense, the domestic agenda is a global one.
    Everything happening domestically has global ramifications.
    This is just as true for agriculture as for any other area of
    our national life. The 21st century has brought globalization
    to all aspects of the food and fiber system, from competitive
    markets around the world to diseases that know no national
    boundaries, to collaborative research among nations to solve
    common problems.
        The REE agenda increasingly reflects that fact. The
    agencies are actively working with scientists and research
    institutions around the world, as well as collecting statistics
    and conducting analyses that look at U.S. agriculture as part
    of a world system. This budget includes a new initiative that
    is responsive to this new reality and builds on the current
    international activities already carried out by REE agencies.

                          consumer-driven agriculture

        A second trend that the REE programs are increasingly
    responding to is the growing influence of consumers and their
    need for confidence in the science on which government policy
    and regulatory decisions are made. We have become a consumer-
    driven society, a fact that directly affects agriculture and,
    therefore, the programs in USDA, particularly in the areas of
    food safety and the environment. Consumers and producers are
    demanding confidence in the science supporting such decisions.
        Part of this effort involves growing integration of
    research, education, and extension components of the REE
    programs, facilitating greater linkage between what scientists
    are examining and discovering and what consumers need and want
    to learn.

                the future scientific and professional workforce

        The third emphasis relates to the future scientific and
    professional workforce for agriculture, food, and natural
    resource systems. If U.S. agriculture is to keep its global
    leadership role and competitive position in the 21st century,
    it must have an appropriately trained, technical and scientific
    workforce. And given the multi-year educational training
    required, investments must be made now so that the country does
    not experience shortages in the future. The budget proposes a
    significant increase in several programs in response to this
    critical issue for the future of agriculturein our country.

                    ree collaboration across the government

        A fourth issue relates to how we do business with other
    departments across the Federal Government and out in the
    States. We know that many of the problems that our agencies
    address are complex and can benefit from partnering with other
    departments that bring different perspectives and capabilities
    to issues of common interest and concern. We are making every
    effort to collaborate with partners such as NASA, EPA, Energy,
    NIH, Labor, and the National Science Foundation.
        In our association with these departments and with the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy, we are working hard to
    create an understanding in the broader research community that
    research carried out in or supported by USDA is an important
    component of the government-wide research and technology
    agenda. In this context, it is important to emphasize that
    cutting-edge research is carried out in ARS labs and in similar
    labs at universities and other non-profit research institutions
    supported through CSREES programs.
        ERS's analysis and NASS's statistical programs make
    critical contributions to policy, trade, and regulatory
    decisions. The more the USDA research and development,
    analysis, and statistics programs are integrated in the Federal
    R&D effort, the stronger both the U.S. and broader Federal
    programs will become.
        Before turning to the budgets of the agencies, I would like
    to just highlight the six priority areas that we have
    identified.

       globalization of agricultural research, education, economics and
                                   extension

        In response to the globalization of agriculture, the budget
    proposes a new initiative of $1.5 million to facilitate the
    globalization of agricultural research, education, economics,
    and extension. While the level of funds for this particular
    initiative is modest, the magnitude of the opportunities it
    provides to the ultimate benefit of American farmers and
    ranchers is tremendous. All four REE agencies currently are
    engaged in some international activities.
        These funds would support international activities focused
    on issues specifically of interest to domestic agriculture. The
    initiative will facilitate globalization of the agricultural
    programs in land grant and non-land grant universities and
    colleges and will support research on issues of importance to
    all of the country.
        A grants program that will provide funds to bring more
    international involvement to the universities' and colleges'
    agricultural programs, including the curriculum research
    agenda, teaching and research experience, is contemplated.

                   scientists and professionals of the future

        The second initiative focuses on the next generation of
    scientists and professionals, and I discussed that with you a
    few minutes ago, and the initiative asks for a $5.9 million
    increase for that category. I think of significance is that we
    are targeting our ability to address the needs of our minority
    community and institutions, helping to increase the funding for
    our programs for Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and
    others that have been a part of that agenda.

                        food quality and protection act

        The public's increasing concern about the quality of the
    environment and safety of our food reflected in such laws as
    FQPA is a fact of life. While generally sharing the overall
    goals, producers find themselves in need of new pest control
    technologies that are effective and economically viable, while
    being responsive to public environmental and food safety
    concerns, and specifically meeting FQPA requirements. Under the
    umbrella of FQPA, the REE agencies' budgets include an increase
    of $25.4 million for ARS, CSREES, and NASS.
        Both the ARS and CSREES budgets include funding requests to
    expand work for producers to test new technologies and
    practices and facilitate their adoption. These increases to
    promote adoption of these technologies are critical, and we ask
    for your support in this particular area.

                                  food safety

        The REE component of the Food Safety Initiative in the
    fiscal year 2001 budget provides an increase to ARS and CSREES
    totaling $14 million, and that includes increased funding
    through the National Research Initiative.

                             agricultural genomics

        The fifth initiative is in the area of agricultural
    genomics, and you will see in my testimony that we have gone
    through and identified a number of areas where the leadership
    of USDA is critical to the process. We are the leader in the
    President's Food Genome Initiative, and we have had great
    success at this point. Our request is for an increase of $14.8
    million in the fiscal year 2001 budget--an increase over the
    fiscal year 2000 level.

                         agricultural research service

        I would like to turn just briefly to the budget request
    that you have before you for each REE agency. For ARS in the
    fiscal year 2001, budget the request is $894 million in ongoing
    research and information programs, a net increase of $64
    million or 7.7 percent over our fiscal year 2000. To partially
    offset these increases, the budget also includes redirection of
    approximately $42 million in current programs to fund higher
    priority programs and initiatives of nationwide interest.
        There are a number of details about the additional request
    within the ARS budget, and I will go back and review those as
    we get into the questions and answers.
        The fiscal year 2001 does propose $39.3 million for
    buildings and facilities budget, of which $9 million is
    designated to plan and modernize our ARS and APHIS facilities
    in Ames.

          cooperative state research, education, and extension service

        The President's fiscal year 2001 budget provides $1.096
    billion for CSREES. This includes $973 million in the
    discretionary budget, an increase of $22 million over fiscal
    year 2000. You have already discussed the other budget
    considerations that we will talk about at a later time.
        In providing critical funding to the research, education,
    and extension programs of the land grant system and other
    universities and organizations across the country, CSREES
    continues to play a central role in helping generate new
    knowledge and technology and in facilitating the transfer of
    that knowledge and technology to farmers and ranchers and
    others who will use it.

                           economic research service

        The Economic Research Service's budget reflects a decrease
    of $10 million from $65 million in fiscal year 2000 to $55
    million in the fiscal year 2001. ERS conducts research and
    analysis on the efficiency, efficacy, and equity aspects of
    issues related to agriculture, food safety and nutrition, the
    environment, and rural development. The net decreased funding
    level is due to the return of $12.2 million for food program
    studies to the Food and Nutrition Service, and is partially
    offset by increases of $2.2 million to support new or enhanced
    research. And under this new and enhanced area, the budget
    includes $1 million to conduct a close examination of the
    structural changes in the agricultural and food sectors. ERS
    would focus on determining where concentration is occurring,
    who is affected and how, exploring and developing opportunities
    for farmers with this kind of market environment, and examining
    ways in which USDA and other parts of the Government can assist
    ourfarmers in adjusting to this structural change.

                    national agricultural statistics service

        The NASS budget request shows an increase of $1.3 million
    over the 2000 budget, a total of $100.6 million due to three
    important initiatives. One of those is to expand the NASS Hogs
    and Pigs report to a monthly basis in keeping with the swine-
    reporting provisions of the fiscal year 2000 agricultural
    appropriations bill; a request for $800,000 to expand pesticide
    use surveys in order to promote science-based decisions
    regarding pesticides; and $1.4 million to upgrade and safeguard
    computer systems security so that NASS can ensure its pledge of
    data confidentiality to farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses,
    and to guarantee no premature access to data in the market-
    sensitive areas that we report on.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
    want to reiterate that the REE agencies' budgets reflect a
    strong commitment to investment in agricultural research,
    economics, statistics, education, and extension. It also
    reflects an understanding that research and education are
    critical for solving not only the problems that agriculture and
    its producers are facing today, but emerging problems and
    opportunities for the 21st century. With this continued strong
    investment, we will be ready to meet those future problems and
    take advantage of new opportunities presented by cutting-edge
    science.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and would welcome any comments
    or questions that the committee may have.
        [The prepared statements and biographies of Dr. I. Miley
    Gonzalez, Dr. Floyd P. Horn, Dr. Charles W. Laughlin, Dr. Susan
    E. Offutt and Mr. Raymond R. Bosecker follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               proposed decreases

        Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Dr. Gonzalez.
        This year the President's budget proposes over $110 million
    in decreases for research projects delivered through the
    Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service. Many of these projects have
    strong constituent support and are the type exemplified in your
    testimony, and the ARS product example bag we received today.
        The rationale used for the project termination was either
    ``not supporting national goals'' or ``non-competitively
    selected.'' What should we tell the dedicated scientists who
    are engaged in these important studies and negatively impacted
    by the budget proposal? And would you outline for us the
    process and criteria used to select the research projects
    proposed for termination and provide us with some alternative
    funding sources for these popular research projects?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we have
    had many discussions about the process that we undergo for
    making those determinations. In all cases----
        Mr. Skeen. That is nice to say, but the money keeps falling
    off of it.

                              a balanced portfolio

        Dr. Gonzalez. In all cases, I am confident that we are
    using--if I may use the example with our CSREES partnership
    with universities and colleges, and others in the research
    community, that we go through the deliberations of having a
    balanced portfolio that has those funds that are basic to the
    mission of these institutions, that continue to build capacity,
    that continue to bring the kind of science that is needed--I
    described it as cutting-edge to address pressing problems. And
    so there is a continuing dilemma of balancing the budgets for
    not only our agencies, but as we interact with those
    communities, of having the formula type of funding, as well as
    the competitive grants side of the agenda. As you know, this
    administration has been very strongly supportive of the
    competitive grants side of that agenda.
        We have had our internal discussions about how we keep this
    balance in the portfolio. The criteria that we use in going
    through, of course, vary from program to program. It is
    difficult to make those decisions just using a broad brush. I
    think we need to go back and look at the efforts. Are they
    really contributing to a national agenda for our research
    initiatives? And I have described some of those this morning.
    There are others, of course, that fit in that level of
    importance. I am not sure that I have a specific answer, but we
    try and use our processes that are in place with our community.
    Internally, at our ARS research laboratories, it is the same
    kind of discussion. Our scientists know what our national
    program leaders have identified as those areas of consequence,
    new and emerging diseases, invasive species, and so on.
        So there is a shift in our budget process to making sure
    that we are paying attention to those things that are newly
    emerging. Of critical importance to that is that we maintain
    over a long time the research basis that helps us to come up
    with answers in more or less a short time frame. So it is a
    question that we continue to deliberate. There are a number of
    areas where I think your point is well taken that it puts our
    scientists at all levels, whether they are in-house or the
    scientists that we work with at universities, in this quandary
    about where and how long their funding is going to be
    available.
        Having said that, I think part of our dilemma is--we talk
    about this in cooperation with the support that you provide us
    as a committee--that the research agenda is not something that
    we can always respond to in 5 months or 6 months or a short
    time period. But fund it annually----
        Mr. Skeen. It is not a drive-by service.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes. We fund it annually, but those programs
    may not yield results for 3 years or longer. And so I think it
    is part of that understanding of what the research agenda
    really needs and the support that we need financially to make
    sure that we have this basis, if you will, for thecontinuation
    of those excellent research programs.
        Mr. Skeen. Did you request funding for these projects in
    the Department's budget proposal to OMB?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, I know that we discussed the
    continuation of some of those programs within the broader set
    of those initiatives, and I don't know the detail. I am sure
    that we had recommended some of those within our discussions.
        Mr. Skeen. I just wanted to know if there was any
    specifically--there goes the wonderful tone.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Do I quit or do I still answer?
        Mr. Skeen. You are doing fine. Silence covers a lot of
    territory.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, indeed.
        Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur?
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                        biobased products and bioenergy

        Mr. Secretary, I am very interested in the Department's
    biobased fuels initiative, because I have been interested in
    this general area for a very long time and have worked very
    hard on the development of our clean coal technologies, our
    hydrogen technologies, any energy technology that would wean us
    off our dependence on foreign-produced oil where we now import
    over half of what drives this economy.
        Could you put the administration's proposal in a little bit
    broader context for us? I notice in your testimony you say you
    were asking for $25.7 million in additional funds on page 8 of
    your testimony. When the Secretary was up here, he talked about
    $300 million. Could you discuss this biofuels initiative a
    little bit and how you are organized, the total amount of
    dollars that are being sought, and then what portion might fall
    within your jurisdiction?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Okay. Yes, thank you. The biobased products
    and bioenergy Executive order was signed in August by the
    President. We had already been working on a number of these
    areas related to the biobased products and bioenergy area at
    USDA and across the various agencies of the Department. We had
    a coordinating committee that we had named internally, and so
    when the initiative was signed, it gave us that additional
    visibility for us to move in partnership with the colleagues at
    Energy, at NSF, EPA, and others of the Federal departments to
    work on this biobased products, bioenergy initiative.
        So the organization as you look at broadening the scope of
    how we have worked with other agencies, there is an advisory
    committee that is to be named by Secretary Richardson to advise
    participating agencies and departments working jointly on this
    initiative. There are a number of things that we had already in
    place at USDA in our research arena for this biobased products,
    bioenergy area, and working with Forestry as well, looking at
    woody products. But certainly we have an opportunity of using
    cellulosic material for the production of fuels, in adding to
    the work that we have done in the past on ethanol and our
    biodiesel research. We have----
        Ms. Kaptur. Is that what is in our bag?
        Dr. Gonzalez. That is what is in your bag. That is one
    example. There are several products. So that our research
    laboratories at Peoria, in New Orleans, and out in California
    have been working--and other places, our Beltsville facility as
    well have been working on these promising areas of research and
    development.
        Ms. Kaptur. May I ask you, as you are answering my
    question, how much of an increase over existing programs are
    you actually seeking this year?
        Dr. Gonzalez. I would have to look at that number. Let me--
    --
        Ms. Kaptur. I know it says on page 8 $25.7 million, but I
    think the Secretary's proposal was $268 million. I don't have a
    clear picture in my mind of the administration's overall
    initiative for these various agencies and how much it is an
    increase over existing activities. Obviously, if we had done a
    good job, we would already have the answer. So we don't. So I
    am trying to get a sense of what the new initiative is.
        Dr. Gonzalez. The new initiative, using the number that the
    Secretary used, includes $150 million from the CCC for the
    fuels side of that agenda. It has been part of what he has
    described as our safety net. There is an element there for
    biobased fuels.
        Our request targets the research component that fits within
    that spectrum. There is an equal--I am not sure if it is an
    equal amount or probably a greater amount that Energy has
    requested, which also fits within the area of what they are
    doing. But specifically in our case, we are looking at our
    portion as being part of that broader--the larger number that
    the Secretary has used.
        Ms. Kaptur. From the standpoint of your researchers, how
    much of the fuel needs of this country could be filled by
    biobased fuels?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, I am going to have to turn for some
    help for an answer to that question because I don't know the
    specifics. But for those of us who gassed up this morning
    someplace, given the changing scenario in terms of our looking
    for long term, fuel security, I think there is a great
    opportunity in general for increasing the amount of fuel that
    we produce from our biobased products, whether it is corn or
    rice, soybeans. But I don't know the specific number.
        I will ask Dr. Horn to help me with that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Dr. Horn. Well, the short answer is that we are pilot
    testing right now at Beltsville on some of our own equipment
    mixtures that contain 20 percent of diesel coming from an
    agricultural product and 80 percent fossil fuels.
        In the budget, there is a $268 million figure which relates
    to the total funding overall, and in terms of the Agricultural
    Research Service, there is a request for a $14 million
    increase.
        I am not sure if that helps distinguish it or not, but the
    request for the increase is $14 million.
        Ms. Kaptur. And that would be for more cellulose-based
    and----
        Dr. Horn. Starch, cellulose-based as well. We have a number
    of research projects related to coal products, which are going
    to make a break at this economically. But it is a matter of
    grain crops, oilseeds, and animal fats being converted into
    ethanol and biodiesel, and then also some cellulosic products
    that would be more likely to be used, actually, in some other
    way for biofuels, not necessarily for biodiesel. This would be
    some other form of generating energy.
        There are crops like switchgrass, for instance, that can be
    used as biofuels to burn and produce heat and, therefore,
    become an alternative energy resource, renewable energy
    resource. But in terms of biodiesel, most of that work is with
    grain crops and oilseeds.
        Ms. Kaptur. I know my time has expired, but, Dr. Horn,if
    you could provide additional information for the record on the breadth
    of the administration's proposal and then the portions that are USDA so
    we can see what portion it is of the overall administration initiative,
    and then the parts of it that are an increase, and specifically from
    the research standpoint, what the research hurdles are from your
    standpoint. Where haven't we solved some----
        Dr. Horn. We would gladly do that, and actually there are
    other agencies here, including Economic Research Service, that
    have studied this. We could provide a comprehensive picture
    within that context.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Kaptur. And also the economics of it, if ERS has data,
    at what point do we reach a break-even in terms of producing
    some product that would be marketable.
        Dr. Horn. There are some places in the country where it is
    nearly possible now, but normally fossil fuels outcompete. Now,
    of course, the price of fossil fuel is very high right now. We
    can provide that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Mrs. Emerson?
        Mrs. Emerson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Gonzalez.
        I just wanted to highlight a real important program that is
    operated by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
    Extension Service, and that is agriculture in the classroom. It
    is something that is real important to folks in my district,
    and it does a great job of educating young people about
    agriculture and helps them understand how farmers and ranchers
    provide food and fiber to the world.
        Would you briefly, describe for the subcommittee some of
    the accomplishments of this program?

                          agriculture in the classroom

        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, thank you very much. We very much
    appreciate the support for that part of our educational agenda.
    It is an effort in addition to our own activities of ag in the
    classroom that has brought together a number of others that are
    involved in this literacy training and the understanding of the
    importance of agriculture in all of our lives, but it is
    particularly for young people. We are trying to bring a
    coalition of educational entities such as Food, Land and People
    and others, the Delta Academy, Gardening in Every School, that
    are working on these issues to help leverage some of the
    activities that we have.
        As far as successes, we have been able to develop
    curricular materials that can be put in the hands of science
    and math teachers, and, interestingly enough, we just did the
    Science for Kids Web page at ARS, and it is in Espanol as well.
    So we have both. And the language arts teachers are now able to
    use that web page for English and Spanish, if they are teaching
    language, but at the same time getting into some of these areas
    that promote agriculture in terms of occupations, research,
    whatever that piece might be.
        So we are moving ahead quickly with that particular agenda,
    and we anticipate that with the additional funds we would be
    able to move the curriculum materials development.
        Another role that is critical is to serve as a broker, as a
    clearinghouse of these materials. We provide a lot of materials
    at USDA that could be of use to teachers in the school system,
    not only within our mission area but certainly across the
    board. So we contemplate being able to use these additional
    funds to move that part of the agenda forward.
        Mrs. Emerson. As you know, it is sad that this program has
    been level-funded for so many years.
        Dr. Gonzalez. A long time.
        Mrs. Emerson. And I was real pleased to see that you all
    had increased it in this year's budget and wondered precisely
    how you were going to use the increase in money. So I
    appreciate that.
        Let me move on to another line of questioning, if I might.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Okay.

                                 food embargoes

        Mrs. Emerson. And that has to do with food embargoes. We
    have all talked about that in the subcommittee. It is for our
    producers in southeast Missouri, and really across the country,
    an issue that is vital to their future. And, obviously, we also
    know that embargoes do nothing to hurt other countries as much
    as they hurt our own producers here at home.
        You know, just as a case in point, I look at the country of
    Cuba, and specifically, back in 1962, Cuba was the number one
    export market for rice before the embargo. In 1989, Iraq was
    the number one export market for rice before the embargo. In
    1995, Iran was the number one export market for rice before the
    embargo. I just think our rice producers--and I have probably
    the northernmost rice-producing district in the country that
    they deserve better than that.
        USDA, more specifically the FAS, has produced an analysis
    that says food embargoes instituted by our Government cost
    farmers and ranchers about $500 million annually. Do you know
    if any of the four agencies in USDA's research mission area
    contributed to this analysis? Because it seems rather
    conservative compared to all the other studies that we have
    looked at.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, I am sure that we have had some
    interaction with FAS. I am going to ask Dr. Susan Offutt, our
    Administrator, if she could provide us with part of that
    response.
        Mrs. Emerson. Okay. I appreciate that.
        Dr. Offutt. Good morning. We have worked over the years
    with FAS on the implications for trade of different measures
    taken in Iraq, and more recently, we were looking at Cuba but
    in a prospective way, what may happen.
        The number may not be as big as you might anticipate
    because of the possibility of trade diversion; that is, we may
    not be selling into, say, Iraq but we may pick up a market that
    someone who takes our place in Iraq gives back. And so that
    tends to have a leavening effect on the estimate of losses to
    U.S. farmers.
        Mrs. Emerson. Okay. Have the four agencies at USDA been
    involved in any of this research?
        Dr. Offutt. Yes, certainly over the years, ERS is quite
    involved in the study of the impacts of the embargo initially
    in the 1970s, and Cuba as well. So that would be carried out in
    the context of generally how we look at trade flows in the
    world.
        Mrs. Emerson. I guess the bottom line here is I am just
    trying to figure out how serious the USDA is in really
    determining how much this is costing our producers in potential
    losses and whether or not, your estimates are credible. And I
    am not questioning the basis for the research, but just in
    comparison to, say, U.S. Wheat Associates or even CRS and other
    research projects. I thinkthat you all are just substantially
    below other estimates. And I know that our rice producers, for example,
    believe that Cuba alone is a $100 million sales opportunity for rice,
    but yet you all are just saying that we are losing $500 million a year.
    So it is of serious concern to me, and I think all of us feel very
    strongly that we have got to do everything we possibly can to open
    those markets up.
        I will save my next question for the next round, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Boyd?
        Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gonzalez, I was interested in your comments in your
    testimony on page 5 about the initiative that you all are
    undertaking to produce--or provide EPA with some science-based
    information as they try to implement--or as we try to implement
    FQPA. And I noticed, the best way I can figure, you have an
    additional--you have $56 million for FQPA-related activities,
    which is an increase, significant increase over last year of
    $19 million.
        Can you explain your role in providing this information to
    EPA and what it means for our producers? Also, how receptive or
    cooperative has EPA been in accepting the science-based
    information that your Department has provided so far?

                              fqpa implementation

        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question.
        We have, as we interact with our colleagues at EPA, looked
    for ways of increasing our involvement from the standpoint of
    not only the research, for example--and I will use the case of
    methyl bromide as one, looking for the alternatives to that.
    Another is to look at the minor-use pesticides, if you will,
    for their impact as we transition out of some of our
    traditional pesticide practices. As we go through that process
    and EPA begins their deliberations, it is important that we
    provide the science and sound data to be used in decisionmaking
    rather than other data, or anecdotal kinds of things.
        We have a number of these programs where we are not sort of
    single-line but several places where we have asked for
    increases in order to broaden the scope of what we are doing
    from a research effort. I think a critical part of that is the
    element of working with our universities and colleges that are
    doing research in their States because of the local impact that
    that would have.
        The Deputy Secretary has been the person who has chaired
    that ongoing discussion with EPA. We have a number of folks at
    his level in his office that are working with us in developing
    this plan. We have had the meetings out in California, meetings
    in Florida, a number of places, in order to get information
    from the producer side of the community that we can also use in
    shaping our overall effort.
        Mr. Boyd. From your perspective, then, has the interaction
    and the cooperation been good or--are we a little early in the
    process to determine yet how that information is going to be
    used? And do you have good cooperation with EPA in using that
    information?
        There have been some accusations that the decisions up to
    this point on the part of EPA have been made based on
    assumptions which are not science-based, and we all support the
    additional funding to help you provide the science-based data
    so that good decisions can be made. And my questions are: Is
    our money going to be well spent, and is it going to be
    ultimately useful to our producers and to the EPA? Are they
    going to be able to use it?
        Dr. Gonzalez. The question in terms of the discussions--I
    know that the Deputy has been very much involved in making sure
    that we sort of follow the science in order to make those
    decisions.
        The reason why I hesitate, the answer to the question is
    that I don't know--we probably have made some decisions prior
    to having this evidence and some of the information that we are
    now providing. It is a matter of educating our partners in
    terms of the process that we need to follow. We did some of
    that legislation early on. We are going back to revisit what
    the implications might be of that, and how it will impact our
    producer community. Part of the effort beyond the research is
    to be sure that we have the dialogue and outreach effort and
    then education on the alternatives, to some of those
    pesticides. Another element of our efforts to help our
    companies that are moving forward to get new licenses and new
    materials approved and speed that process up as well, because
    as we are looking for alternatives, part of it will be a time
    factor in terms of making sure that we can do this early enough
    for our producers.
        Mr. Boyd. I noticed that in the CSREES program level budget
    there were numerous, maybe seven or eight, programs that have a
    minimum amount of funding in your proposed budget or were not
    funded in the previous budget, everything from anti-hunger
    grants all the way to biobased products.
        Are all these new initiatives, and is that going to stretch
    us thin? What is the idea? Are some of those we are already
    doing some work in that the amount is so minimal it doesn't
    even register on these millions of dollars scale that we use
    here?

                                 funding levels

        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, your question from our perspective is
    one of great importance, as I look at budgets--and we have gone
    through these discussions with our advisory boards, the clients
    that we work with and that we serve in terms of the
    seriousness--and then look at budgets of other program areas in
    other departments, some of those requested increases are mostly
    double-digit in the millions.
        Now, knowing that we have some limitations within our
    budget process, we would like to see some increases beyond what
    we have recommended. I think it would be natural for us to say
    if we are going to look at helping to alleviate hunger in our
    communities, if we are going to look at making sure that the
    result of the research in the biobased products area results in
    additional income at the farm level. The fact that we are
    getting continued support is tremendous. What kind of impact
    could we make in a shorter time frame if those dollars were
    more?
        So I like the question. I don't know how we get to the
    point of actually increasing those into some of the double
    digits that I think are necessary.
        Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
    apologize. My light didn't go off over here, Mr. Chairman, and
    I see that one over there did. So this box over here on the
    corner is malfunctioning, just for your information. I
    apologize for going over. I would like to continue the
    questioning on the next round. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Latham?
        Mr. Latham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Miley, welcome.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Good morning.
        Mr. Latham. Good to see you, a good Paullina, Iowa, farmer
    here again. That is great. I have got three hearings going on
    at the same time here, so I apologize for kind of jumping in
    and out.
        Mr. Skeen. It is a great world, isn't it?
        Mr. Latham. It is a great world, yes. They are less
    important. Bill Richardson and Janet Reno are at the other two
    hearings. Miley is much more important.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
        Mr. Latham. Let's make that on the record perfectly clear.
        [Laughter.]

                             research terminations

        Mr. Latham. Anyway, I guess one ongoing budget item, your
    request contains termination of a soybean researcher at Iowa
    State, and I always wonder why the administration would request
    terminating this employee who has been there 12 years in the
    Plant Pathology Department, seven consecutive meritorious
    achievement citations from USDA, and we have to put him back
    every year. And I think it goes to the whole issue of any kind
    of continuity as far as research and also the feeling among a
    lot of researchers that they just as well go off to somewhere
    else because they can't depend on a job at USDA or through the
    normal process. Why is that?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, we asked ourselves some of those same
    questions. The question I think Mr. Boyd asked contains some of
    the same elements of discussion, that as we continue to look at
    new and emerging areas--and when you use the case of soybeans,
    when we look at the products that we have seen most recently,
    our diesel, the chain bar oil, fifth wheel grease, any number
    of those things--that we are going to forever be indebted to
    this research arena. We need to continue this research. Whether
    we couch those things under this new biobased area or not, it
    just seems that if it is new and emerging, we are able to
    garner support and get additional help. And my point earlier
    with another question was we need to maintain that baseline of
    research that will provide us those answers in the short run.
    And so I think we are on the same agenda.
        Somewhere along the way we need to think about how we do
    some of these things differently in order to maintain that
    support. That is why I talked about the balanced portfolio,
    that some of this will come under our competitive side of the
    agenda, but the other has to be part of our ongoing effort both
    at USDA and out with our research community.
        Mr. Latham. I would, I guess, ask: Was this part of your
    proposal to OMB, or did this come back from OMB?
        Dr. Gonzalez. My sense is, having given a broad range of
    recommendations for us to continue funding, as I indicated in
    my opening remarks, we had an increase of 7.7 percent for ARS
    and then we had to offset that with some other areas--what are
    the highest priorities and how we go through that. So it is in
    that mix of recommendations that we made, and we asked for and
    tried to highlight those areas that we continue to think are
    important when we work with them.

                         national animal disease center

        Mr. Latham. Just for the record, too, Mr. Chairman, it was,
    what, $120 million in the rescission that I think to me is a
    real high priority, and we should look at that very closely as
    far as rescinding that money.
        It is my understanding that USDA and Iowa State signed a
    letter of intent back in 1995 to secure funds for a shared BL-3
    facility. Iowa State has $3 million ready to go for this item
    and will be willing to build a wing at the National Animal
    Disease Center. Apparently, there have been some problems in
    developing a final agreement between the university and the
    Department. Can you give me an update or status report on that?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, probably related to the entire
    discussion is we have gone through our own deliberations in
    terms of a master plan for updating and upgrading our
    facilities in Ames with the combination of our ARS research as
    well as APHIS. And so we have some long-term projections. You
    will see some numbers that we provided in our testimony, and I
    think it is that combination of getting our support for the
    beginning of that process and then being able to do that
    linkage that we have with Iowa State.
        If you would like, we could provide additional information.
        Mr. Latham. I would really like to know where we are.
        Dr. Gonzalez. I will ask Dr. Horn to give us an update.
        Dr. Horn. As has been indicated, the joint proposal is
    actually one where APHIS and ARS have come together. There were
    prior to this two individual proposals that added up to an
    extraordinary amount of money, and the joint proposal is
    actually reflecting a savings of $71.5 million. The other
    advantage is that the original proposals would disrupt our
    activities at Ames for a period of about 20 years, and if the
    new proposal were funded, the construction would be completed
    in about 7 years.
        We have requested, as you will see, about $9 million in
    this budget to begin the process. There needs to be some
    discussion as to whether or not that is ideal because normally
    the design costs are about 10 percent of the overall project.
    But given that this is a very significant construction program,
    the administration has expressed some concern to make sure we
    have got it right, to make sure that the estimates are correct
    and the like. So I think that is an ongoing dialogue.
        Mr. Latham. Okay. Our red light over here works. I won't be
    able to stay, Mr. Chairman. I have got some questions that I
    would like to submit for the record.
        Mr. Skeen. If you would like to submit them, that is fine.
        Mr. Latham. Thank you very much.

               initiative for future agriculture and food systems

        Mr. Skeen. Before we go any further, I would like to make
    this proposal. Let's step back and take a look at what the
    initiative for future agriculture and food systems is all
    about. This initiative sets up a mandatory research program
    authorized at $120 million per year. It was done to avoid our
    Appropriations Committee, in my view. Of course, that is
    selfish.
        One of the main problems our committee has faced over the
    years is the increasing share of Federal spending that goes to
    mandatory programs. Across the entire budget, two-thirds of all
    the spending is mandatory, and that comes to $1.2 trillion per
    year for such items as paying the interest on the national
    debt. In our bill alone, over 80 percent of all the spending in
    the current fiscal year is mandatory for such items as food
    stamps and school lunch. And we do not know what our
    subcommittee's allocation will be for the coming fiscal year,
    but I can assure you and everyone else that it will not be
    anywhere near enough to do everything that everybody wants to
    do. All of us on this subcommittee support research. The
    problem is this mandatory research eats up our available budget
    authority.
        The choice is really very simple. We can either allow the
    mandatory program to proceed, or we can prevent that spending
    and apply those resources to congressional initiatives. In the
    past, we have prevented the spending, and I think we should
    continue to do so. If it is the will of the membership to go
    the other way, we could do that, but it will cost us dearly and
    there will be other things that we could not do.
        With that wonderful statement, I will ask Mr. Farr if he
    has questions.
        Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I always have questions. Thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Skeen. Very well. We are always counting on you.

                         alternatives to methyl bromide

        Mr. Farr. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Thank you for coming today. I was sitting here thinking
    this is, since I have been in Congress, the eighth
    appropriations process I have gone through, and I have been
    very interested in it because I think that the specialty crop
    interests of California are heavily influenced by the work that
    you do.
        I have been concerned that we have been appropriating about
    $14 million a year to find alternatives to methyl bromide. If I
    add that up, that is over $100 million that we have spent in
    the last 8 years. We asked for a report of how that money was
    being spent, and to my knowledge, it has never been produced.
    We also put language in last year's budget saying that some of
    that research or a good part of it ought to be done in the
    field because the biggest problem I have with your agency is
    when you go to the farmers, they don't know what is going on.
    And I think that there is a growing disconnect between the
    science community and the people with their hands in the soil.
        If we are going to have confidence within the farming
    community that the work of the research, the science side, is
    worth supporting, we are going to have to have better dialogue.
    This is always a battle, but in your area, particularly. I
    mean, in the drug area that we were talking about the other
    day, the drug companies put all that money into research
    because they get such a big payback for it, but in agricultural
    research, I think the Government carries the burden.
        The reason I would like to see more of your work done in
    the field. You know, it is like that old adage where it was
    asked, ``why do you rob banks?'' Because that is where the
    money is. Well, if we are going to have specialty crop
    research, we ought to go where the specialty crop research is
    done.
        So my question is: Of this $100 million-plus that we have
    spent on methyl bromide, can we get a report on how that has
    been spent? And my understanding is the language that the
    committee put in last year's report saying that this money
    ought to be spent in the field where the problem is. We have
    gotten no feedback from that. A lot of the people in the field
    feel that it is not getting there, and these are people that
    have credibility, you know, like the California Strawberry
    Commission and the University of California at Davis. So I
    would like to ask for some feedback on the methyl bromide
    research and how it is going.
        Also, I understand that members of your Department met last
    year in Monterey to discuss priorities for research with the
    research community, and the priorities that were identified
    were the application of technology to expand nursery research
    and expand weed control efficacy. Can you tell me how you are
    proceeding from that April meeting? What has been published or
    circulated and to what extent USDA ARS research has been
    modified to respond to the priorities?

                            research priority shifts

        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir. Going back to your first couple of
    questions, we can come back and give you some detail in terms
    of that report of the work that we have been doing, and the
    point of the field studies I think is an important one. We have
    taken that into consideration and tried to move forward to make
    sure that not only our own USDA research effort--not only in
    this area, but in others--is carried out in partnership with
    the universities and colleges that are doing these research
    programs and in the private sector.
        In addition to the meeting that we had in California, we
    had a session in Florida as a follow-up. Dr. Eileen Kennedy,
    who is my deputy, has been chairing those meetings. I am going
    to ask Dr. Horn in just a minute to talk a little bit about the
    effort in regard specifically to ARS.
        Mr. Farr. The question is: Has the follow-up to those
    meetings been published or circulated? And have you shifted
    your priorities to address those?
        Dr. Gonzalez. We have shifted the priorities in those
    areas. I am not sure about the publishing. I know that it was
    an ongoing effort of a committee. So I will ask for some help
    from our agency to know where we are in that regard. But the
    implications of what you are describing not only for the
    producers in California but elsewhere, are important when we
    consider that on an international scale these questions of
    methyl bromide and its alternatives and the supportive research
    effort is part of a broader agenda. The fact that as we move at
    phasing out is certainly of importance and it will have some
    tremendous implications for our producer community when others
    in other parts of the world will continue for a certain length
    of time to be able to have methyl bromide at their disposal.
        Mr. Farr. I understand all that. I think we need to talk
    more specifics.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Right. And I am going to ask Dr. Horn tohelp
    with that.
        Dr. Horn. We will try to do that----
        Mr. Farr. My time has expired, so this is on your time, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Dr. Horn. The meetings which you are making reference to
    are stakeholder input meetings. The results of those sessions
    would have appeared in our methyl bromide newsletter, which in
    itself is a response to the need to try to get the information
    out and improve our communications with producers.
        In addition to that, in the past 3 to 4 years, we have
    moved a significant amount of money to the field, and we now
    have $2.7 million in field studies that are actually selected
    by and managed by field producers. Most of that, if not all of
    that, is in Florida and California.
        Mr. Farr. That is 2.7 out of the 14?
        Dr. Horn. Yes. And we also have another $2 million.
        Mr. Farr. Where does the rest of it go?
        Dr. Horn. We have another $2 million in extramural funds
    with the universities in Florida and in California, and then we
    have an intramural research program that involves a very
    significant number of scientists that are working on these
    alternatives. Although we have a serious deadline which, thanks
    to the Congress, was extended from 2001 to 2005, this is one of
    the highest priorities we have in the agency. And we are
    communicating as best we can with as many groups and people as
    we can.
        Mr. Farr. How often do you put out your newsletter?
        Dr. Horn. Quarterly, I believe.
        Mr. Farr. Quarterly methyl bromide newsletter?
        Dr. Horn. Yes.
        Mr. Farr. Can we get on the mailing list?
        Dr. Horn. Absolutely, and we will give you the back issues.
        Mr. Farr. Can we get farmers who are concerned on that
    mailing list?
        Dr. Horn. Yes, we can. We provide this information to the
    Strawberry Commission so they could forward it to their
    members.
        Mr. Farr. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey?
        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, first of all, I just want to say to you and
    through you to Secretary Glickman a hearty ``well done'' on the
    announcement yesterday of the new organic rules.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
        Mr. Hinchey. I know that these rules have not yet been
    finalized and that there will be a continual review of what you
    have set forth over the period of weeks and months ahead. But
    this is a situation where the Agriculture Department came out
    with some recommendations sometime ago. They met with
    substantial opposition, and in the face of that, you did the
    wise and prudent thing. You withdrew, took another look at it,
    and now you have come back with something that I think is much
    more acceptable to the American people and to the agricultural
    community.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hinchey. So I just want to congratulate the Department
    and the Secretary on that, and if you would convey my remarks
    to Secretary Glickman, I would be very appreciative.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Absolutely.
        Mr. Hinchey. The statement that Dr. Horn made noting that
    in 1997 only 2 percent of farms produced half of all
    agricultural sales is something that ought to set off a warning
    light for all of us, I think. It does for me because I am
    concerned about the increasing consolidation of agriculture in
    America.
        Whenever I see that, for example, I am reminded of the
    dairy industry in New York and the fact that nationally we are
    increasingly moving to a point where we are going to have
    essentially two dairy farms in the country, and everyone else
    is going to be cut out, and people are going to be dependent
    for their agricultural products on farmers that are very
    remote, indeed. And I will just take this opportunity to note
    that I would like to see a change in the policy of the
    Department with regard to the Northeast dairy compact in New
    York and the opportunity of New York farmers to join that dairy
    compact and to work together more effectively so that they can
    get a fair price for their product that will allow them to
    continue to stay in business. That is good for them and I think
    it is good for consumers as well.
        You also note in your testimony Dr. Gonzalez that there is
    $1 million in the budget to examine what is called the
    structural changes in the agriculture and food sectors. This is
    an initiative that will look at where these concentrations are
    occurring, which I think is very good.
        I wonder if you can tell me some more about this
    initiative, how it is going to unfold, what you hope to learn,
    and what will be the benefits from it.

                       structural changes in agriculture

        Dr. Gonzalez. It is actually our Economic Research Service
    that has provided the leadership for us to move forward in that
    initiative. And as you have already indicated, it has been an
    issue of critical concern to a great many folks, certainly out
    in the small-farm community. We have some areas in our overall
    budget that will address some of that component.
        But I would like to ask Dr. Offutt, our Administrator for
    Economic Research Service, who has really provided a lot of the
    leadership for us taking a look at the economic consequences
    and impacts of this structural change, looking at who is
    affected and in what ways, and what the broad spectrum of
    impact that that will have.
        Dr. Offutt, if you would, please?
        Mr. Hinchey. And also, if you would, how the program that
    you are planning will help small farmers adjust to the
    structural changes that are taking place within the
    agricultural industry.
        Dr. Offutt. Yes. This $1 million is intended to support
    really two new areas of research. One is it builds on a base
    which looks at this phenomenon of the increasing concentration
    at the production end of agriculture. But we need to extend
    that through the marketing chain to understand how
    consolidation in upstream industries and downstream industries
    affects farmers' ability to bargain with input suppliers as
    well as to get a good price when they sell into wholesale or
    retail markets.
        Mr. Hinchey. The consolidation of the seed industry,
    forexample.
        Dr. Offutt. Yes. And to do that, we need to spend much more
    time understanding how consolidated firms work. They work by
    contracts and mechanisms that aren't familiar to many people in
    agriculture. That is one way we will help smaller and medium-
    size farmers learn how to do business. They won't necessarily
    be selling into spot markets. Those are volatile and the prices
    are probably lower.
        To do that, though, we need to collect data on retail
    prices, which the Department typically has not done--has never
    done, because a lot of the changes are driven by consumer
    demand. We can't act as if they don't exist. So we are really
    trying to take--you know, it is trite to say it, but it is a
    systems perspective. It is not something that you can
    understand in isolation from changes in final demand. So I
    think that is going to give us a better understanding of what
    really causes changes in prices to farmers.
        Mr. Hinchey. I thank you very much for that. I just want to
    assert my bias at this particular moment. I believe that
    diversity in the agricultural industry is better for the
    industry and for consumers, and so I am hoping that what you
    are doing will contribute to stopping this trend and helping to
    reverse it.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Nethercutt.
        Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
    gentlemen.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Good morning.

                           risk management education

        Mr. Nethercutt. I want to focus for a minute on the issue
    of risk management education. I think as farmers in our country
    go through the challenges of the day with respect to opening
    markets and seizing on opportunities that are going to be
    available for export sales or domestic sales, we need to focus
    better and more on educating farmers as to risk management.
    Would you agree?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Nethercutt. I am wondering what risk management
    education activities the Cooperative Extension has been
    involved in over the past 2 or 3 years?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, you know, I am delighted with the
    question. I said yes right away because it is one of those
    areas where, when we talk about the safety net for agriculture,
    we have developed a number of mechanisms and certainly risk
    management has been one of those. But critical to having new
    instruments--I happen to sit on the Federal Insurance
    Corporation group--is the actual implementation of the
    instrument, getting information on the instrument into the
    community so that they know how to use it to manage risk? As
    you look at the agenda from a research and education
    standpoint, risk management continues to grow, how our small
    and intermediate producers are able to respond to the changing
    scenario, low market prices, or whatever it is, and then how
    much insurance to buy or what are the other elements of
    decisionmaking that are a part of that.
        So we in extension have set out a couple of proposals, and
    I say ``we.'' Now I am claiming--at one time I was an assistant
    dean for extension--so I am claiming that part. But we have set
    out some proposals for increasing the working relationship
    across the board. Last year, CSREES helped with the
    implementation of the risk management education program from
    RMA. So we assisted in that process at the Federal level. And
    then we are also looking at what interaction we have with those
    agencies out in the States that extension agents--we are in
    3,150 counties--can work with. We have some level of production
    everywhere that we can continue to have a role in the
    educational process, outreach to the producer community, to
    make sure that they understand what these things are.
        Mr. Nethercutt. I have legislation I have introduced, the
    Agricultural Risk Management Education Act. Have you had a
    chance to look at it?
        Dr. Gonzalez. I have not.
        Mr. Nethercutt. Okay. It really focuses more on making sure
    that our farmers have a chance to learn about and effectively
    react to the whole risk management issue. And I am wondering if
    you can quantify how effective the administration's or the
    Department's proposal--or programs, I should say, have been to
    date. What sensitivity are you seeing in the agriculture
    community, the production agriculture community, and how do you
    quantify it? Do you give yourself an A, B, C, D, or something
    less?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Well, having been an old classroom teacher, I
    don't know about the grade, but if we are learning something,
    there may be some merit in the process.
        Mr. Nethercutt. Right.
        Dr. Gonzalez. We have had those discussions internally in
    terms of how we as an educational entity are able to help with
    the mechanics of the process. We have met with RMA, and we have
    met with others, and certainly there are a number of folks that
    do this within our university community as well that I think
    have some expertise on how to make sure that we effectively
    implement those programs.
        Beyond introducing new instruments for crop insurance--we
    did one for clams last summer and we are looking at new
    vegetables and others of our production areas--and so I don't
    know that we can quantify the effectiveness immediately. But
    certainly as we continue to work through CSREES, in our
    competitive grants area--I looked at the different budget areas
    where we are looking at risk management programs such as within
    ERS to do a better job of getting that quantification, being
    able to say this is where we are and this is where we can go.
        Mr. Nethercutt. I understand, which brings me to, a point
    that I want to make to you that I think is maybe lost in the
    budget submission, the need and the importance of special
    grants. Special grants meet that risk management need that many
    farmers have as many issues affect a particular region
    disproportionately, maybe, also, a national issue that may face
    them in terms of the management of their risk, in terms of
    research that needs to be done and is being done through the
    special grant programs. I think it is very valuable that we not
    diminish special programs and sort of nationalize agricultural
    research. I think we need to make sure we are clear on specific
    problems and specific areas that are worthy of the taxpayer
    dollars.
        Dr. Gonzalez. In terms of our SARE program, our Sustainable
    Ag Research and Extension Program, I think it is a model that
    is working at the grassroots level. We can bring any number of
    elements to bear in terms of our educational program in that
    regard. And so I very much appreciate the fact that this
    committee has given us additional funds in the past to continue
    to grow the effortunder that SARE umbrella.
        And if we can use that as a model when we have our
    initiatives for small farms, these are all part of that
    educational process that we need to include. So I thank you
    very much for that support.
        Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Miss Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to ask two research questions, which Dr. Horn
    can think about while I am asking another question regarding
    CSREES to Dr. Gonzalez.
        The two research questions are is there anywhere within the
    ARS system where you are working on transplants of tissue from
    plants or animals to humans? I know generally that is
    considered to be work that perhaps HHS would do under some
    contract. But I have been asked that question in my home
    community, particularly by pork producers who are very
    interested in raising animals that would be lab and operating
    room ready for transplant of that tissue into humans.
        And my second question on the research side, I was recently
    in the nation of Hungary. Dr. Horn, I wish you were with me--
    they were really all biochemists and incredibly gifted people.
    And they asked me a question I could not answer relative to the
    relationship between the rising levels of allergies in the
    United States and the production of pollen from hybrids and
    other crops that we may be planting now and was I aware of any
    studies that connected the two. I have to be honest and say I
    was not aware of such studies, but I am wondering if any such
    studies are going on. We know that there are substantial
    increases in allergies in this country. And they basically
    said, ``Do you know that you are all bathing in pollen every
    day, and are you aware of how that current pollen differs from
    prior pollen?'' And I really could not answer their questions.
    So I would have those two research questions to ask.
        But on the CSREES side, you are asking for $1.096 billion,
    an increase of $22 million. I know our land grants do a
    tremendous job, and I am very supportive of your efforts for
    them to extend their extension activities globally. I am not at
    all enamored with what I see AID or what I do not see AID doing
    in the area of agricultural assistance around the world, and I
    would prefer to see more of that being done by USDA, including
    CSREES.
        But my question on CSREES is I have found many of the land
    grants absolutely resistant to working with non-land grant
    institutions. And I can give you an example of that right in my
    own district, Doctor. We sit in the middle of the belt where
    woody plants and horticultural species are produced, bedding
    plants both for decorative and for food production purposes.
    And we had worked with Ohio State University to try to develop
    a germ plasm center where we could preserve some of these
    species, et cetera, and ask them to work with our regional
    universities around the State. And we do not have a campus-
    based system. Universities in the State of Ohio are all
    separate.
        I am telling you the resistance to working with the growers
    who grow and the locally based University of Toledo which has
    its own biological center, its own professors who study plants
    and so forth, you would think we were involved in the second
    World War. And the end result of all of that was the only
    function that the land grant let the local people do was the
    grow-out, none of the science, only the grow-out, sort of the
    low-tech end.
        I am wondering is there anything in the CSREES authorizing
    legislation that is creating this intransigence on the part of
    the land grants to involve other universities and professors
    around the States in which they are located?

            collaboration across research and education institutions

        Dr. Gonzalez. I am happy to report that I think we are
    moving in the direction of getting that collaborative effort
    across the spectrum of educational institutions, not only 4-
    year land grant research universities and non-land grant
    universities but our community colleges and using our 406
    programs, for example that is integrated. So we are integrating
    research, education and extension. For some time, we have done
    bits and pieces of that, but I think for the first time we have
    a mechanism to help us move in that direction.
        The other part, I think, of the opportunity that we have as
    Federal agencies is changing things by example. The
    collaboration and the partnership of CSREES with ARS, ERS and
    NASS, in terms of the work that we are doing collectively to
    help those institutions--provides an example of our in-house
    effort. At the University of Mississippi, which is a nonland
    grant university, our ARS facility, our researchers are housed
    within the Pharmacology Department looking at the new uses of
    plants and their products.
        So we are seeing examples of our moving into that area
    where the land grant and nonland grant institutions are working
    together. Texas Tech is another example where we have a
    presence, with ARS and some of our programs that we funded
    through CSREES. So I hope that we would have some time to share
    some other examples. But we are moving in the direction of
    making sure that our university and college community
    understands that the scenario for the 21st Century is one of
    partnerships and collaborations. Because we are not going to
    always be able to provide all of the funding for our research
    and science agenda from agriculture, we are going to need to be
    broader in terms of how we provide funding, as well as how we
    provide the mechanisms for this working relationship.
        Ms. Kaptur. I would just ask your administrators to take a
    look at States where you do not have a satellite campus-based
    system, mother campus to satellite campus, but rather
    independent universities and really maybe come back to me and
    take a look at those States and see how you can encourage these
    land grants to be more collegial in the way they work with
    these other institutions, particularly when those institutions
    are located in the areas where agriculture is occurring.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Exactly. If I may, the note that was handed
    to me, the Chairman made some comments earlier about the
    initiative. Planning and working through the issues with our
    community, really opened up the opportunity for many
    institutions, both colleges and universities of the land grant
    and nonland grant system, to be able to apply for those
    competitive grants and really amplify the model that I was
    describing earlier.
        So we have those things in motion. At some point, we would
    be able to provide some information for you. It is a great
    point. We want to be able to continue that because we see that
    as the future for our research and educationextension
    community.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Dr. Horn may
    have a quick answer for me on those two research topics.
    [Laughter.]
        Dr. Horn. No and no. [Laughter.]
        We are doing no research that would enhance opportunities
    to transfer either animal or plant tissues into humans. The
    closest thing that one might consider is a study using tobacco
    as a model to develop vaccines for the future. But should that
    prove successful, it would be subjected to all of the tests in
    the world through FDA and everyone else to make sure that it
    was completely safe. It is a new and novel approach to the
    development of vaccines to diseases that we may not even know
    about.
        The other question related to allergies, and we do not have
    any program currently on allergies. Historically, those
    involved in agriculture, and in particular, those workers
    harvesting seeds, have over time become allergy prone and had
    serious problems and have had to leave those jobs. That has
    nothing to do with the new varieties or releases. This is a
    hazard of that kind of work.
        The National Institutes of Health have a considerable
    effort with respect to allergies. Actually, that is a very good
    question and probably one that should be considered, but
    perhaps by them. We cannot do human work.
        [Clerk's note: Additional clarifying information provided
    by ARS follows:]

            Implications of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Allergies

                           ARS Global Change Research

        Although we are not conducting research on pollen from
    genetically-modified organisms as a source of allergens, we do
    in fact have research ongoing as part of our global change
    research program that relates increased levels of carbon
    dioxide to increased allergies. Increases in atmospheric carbon
    dioxide concentrations are well-documented and impact global
    change.
        The Centers for Disease Control have reported a marked
    increase in the percentage of allergies and asthma sufferers
    among the general population. Recent ARS research has shown the
    impact of rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide
    on the pollen produced by ragweed, an important cause of
    allergies for many people.
        What makes this research particularly notable is that it
    shows how increases in carbon dioxide concentrations that have
    occurred already increase pollen production, not just that
    future concentrations may make matters worse.
        ARS scientists grew ragweed at carbon dioxide
    concentrations that existed 100 years ago, current levels, and
    a concentration projected for late in the 21st Century.
    Compared to plants grown in a carbon dioxide environment
    typical of 1900, current levels of carbon dioxide more than
    doubled ragweed pollen production. The projection for the late
    21st Century is more than four times the pollen production in
    1900.
        Interestingly, the rise in reported allegies is consistent
    with a carbon dioxide-induced increase in potential ragweed
    pollen production over the last 40 years.
        This ARS research is the first to report a direct effect of
    rising carbon dioxide concentrations on human health. Current
    work in ARS' research program on global change, including
    increased carbon dioxide and changes in temperature and
    precipitation patterns, may reveal other important implications
    for public health.

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Thank you.
        Mrs. Emerson?

                                 Climate Change

        Mrs. Emerson. Dr. Gonzalez, actually I need your
    clarification on a couple of things that I am just a little bit
    confused about. They have specifically to do with the Global
    Change Research Program and the Climate Change Technology
    Initiative. The Climate Change Technology Initiative is a
    little bit more clear, and I commend the Agency for a lot of
    the work that you do with bio products and the Bio Energy
    Initiative. On the one hand, in your all's budget, there is
    money set aside for research into alternative energy sources,
    which I applaud. But then all of a sudden I come over to the
    part of the budget that talks about Climate Change Technology
    Initiative.
        Is that something separate and apart from the bio-based
    projects and the Bio Energy Initiative or is this all part of
    one pot?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Part of the confusion may come from the fact
    that we have taken our budget recommendations, and we have put
    them under those categories. So we have used our five goals,
    and then we have listed things that might look like they are
    across the board.
        In the case of the work that we are doing in global climate
    change and carbon sequestration and so on, there are some
    economic studies that I think are fundamental and important for
    us to be doing. There are those other areas of research where
    we are also working, ARS research, for example. So there may be
    some overlap in terms of the topics, but they are separate in
    terms of the specific requests for those areas of endeavor.
        When you look at the volunteer process that farmers are
    going through to use conservation tillage, any number of other
    mechanisms and strategies to make sure that we are producing in
    an environmentally friendly way, we have those elements. I do
    not know if you have the same material that I have. Under
    global change, we have the research program, the national
    assessment, new information for carbon cycle initiative, which
    is the $4,700,000, and mitigating climate change impacts, those
    are all different parts of that broad agenda on global change.
    Some of it is ERS, ARS and CSREES and some of it is working
    with other agencies.
        Mrs. Emerson. Do you think that the issue merits a 60-
    percent increase in your budget, particularly when we havegot
    other programs that are being cut? And I realize that for the long-term
    future, perhaps, this might be something to take a look at. But our
    farmers are hurting so badly right now, I get a little bit nervous when
    we are redirecting that much money towards something that may or may
    not, in the future, be important. And I am not saying we should not be
    doing the research. I just worry about other things that have a more
    immediate impact, not the least of which is to put money in our
    farmer's hands right now.
        Dr. Gonzalez. We will be able to provide you with
    additional information. But one large portion of that is under
    the CSREES umbrella, and that is our linkage directly out there
    to our producer community, in terms of getting application. It
    is not unlike the question that was asked earlier on risk
    management: How do we get the tools of the technology and so on
    into the field, if you will, the field studies that Mr. Farr
    talked about earlier. So that is really part of, and I do not
    have the detail in my notes here, but it is part of the effort
    to really get funding out to the universities and partners to
    move this agenda forward.
        Mrs. Emerson. Do you have any idea how much of these funds
    are devoted toward the national assessment portion of your
    activities?
        Dr. Gonzalez. It is $800,000 under our ARS request for the
    Global Change Research Program national assessment.
        Mrs. Emerson. Can you provide for me, you do not have to do
    it now, what those activities are going to be and outline them
    for me.
        Dr. Gonzalez. We will, certainly.
        [The Information follows:]

       U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) National Assessments
                Activities FY 2001 Proposed Increase of $800,000

        The current National Assessment is providing valuable
    information on the regional and sectoral differences in
    adapting to climate change and variability and identifying
    research needs. FY 2001 assessment activities will focus on
    completing the first national assessment and on continued
    efforts to involve USDA stakeholders in helping identify risks
    and opportunities, and make data, research, and information
    available to better understand the implications of global
    change on agricultural systems.
        Assessments and related research play an integrative role
    across the USGCRP areas. Assessments assemble and synthesize
    scientific results, help increase interaction among scientists
    and the public, and aid in identifying gaps in knowledge.
    Assessments are increasingly viewed as important vehicles for
    disseminating information to public policy and decisionmaking
    communities. the current National Assessment of the
    consequences of climate variability and change for the Nation
    marks a milestone in the evolution of the Global Change
    Research Program. An assessment of global change impacts on the
    agriculture sector of natural resources and the economy is an
    integral part of the overall national assessment and is nearing
    completion. An important aspect of the assessment is that it
    demonstrates a new public-private partnership that links
    research to the needs of stakeholders by providing managers,
    policymakers, and the public with information needed to
    increase resilience to climate variability and cope with
    climate change.

        Mrs. Emerson. That would be super. And can I ask you were
    these increases in your budget your increases or was OMB
    involved in making those decisions?
        Dr. Gonzalez. We have this partnership.
        Mrs. Emerson. Everyone has a partnership, it seems, with
    OMB.
        Dr. Gonzalez. I apologize for the facetiousness, but one of
    the things that happens is, beyond the things that we are doing
    within the mission area is that we have other of the agencies
    in the Department that are also weighing in in our broader
    request. So the answer is yes.
        Mrs. Emerson. And no?
        Dr. Gonzalez. And no. [Laughter.]
        We will get you the information.
        Mrs. Emerson. I would really be very grateful. And just
    also if you wouldn't mind providing for the hearing record a
    table showing how the agencies within the Department have been
    divided, as far as research goes, on both of these initiatives,
    I would be grateful.
        Dr. Gonzalez. We can do that. In fact, that is what I am
    looking at now is a table that has those by items by agency
    within the mission area.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Emerson. Excellent. Thanks.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Farr?

                                 METHYL BROMIDE

        Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow up on the
    methyl bromide. What I would like to have is a report from you
    on the total amount spent on methyl bromide research, how much
    of that was spent for crop research versus structural research
    over the last whatever years you've been spending it.
        And I want to follow up on another issue. Last year,
    Congress appropriated an additional $2 million in the
    integrated account to support farm research to be disbursed
    through grants to both academic institutions and to commodity
    groups. And I understand that since that appropriation, you
    have not even made a call for proposal. This research was, you
    know, its timing is critical. Do you know when you are going to
    make the calls for proposal and have you developed a criteria
    for evaluating those calls? And then the bottom line is when
    will the funding be ready?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Good question. I am going to ask Dr. Laughlin
    to come up and get his feet wet in answering your question,
    since this is his first opportunity. But before I forget, we do
    have some of the materials that I had broughtalong on our
    methyl bromide assessment on the phase-out that Economic Research
    Service has provided, and we will share those, and then I will turn to
    Dr. Laughlin to help me with that response.
        Dr. Laughlin. Mr. Farr, the three RFPs, as they relate to
    water quality, food safety and pest management, are projected
    to be in the Federal Register about March 31st.
        Mr. Farr. March 31st. So that makes the call for proposal?
        Dr. Laughlin. As soon as that is in the Federal Register,
    that would be the call for proposal.
        Mr. Farr. And then what is the time frame after the----
        Dr. Laughlin. Probably about two months to prepare that per
    the proposal, to have them in, and then they will be peer
    reviewed, and we will move it as fast as we can.
        Mr. Farr. And then what does that mean? When is the
    decision made for grant funding?
        Dr. Laughlin. If they are in--let us see, mid-July.
        Mr. Farr. Mid-July?
        Dr. Laughlin. That is what I would anticipate.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you.
        Dr. Laughlin. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Farr. I also understand that you are developing a
    proposal to investigate the potential of propargyl bromide. Is
    that pronounced right?

                               Propargyl Bromide

        Dr. Gonzalez. I think it is--I had it down. I had asked the
    very same question--propargyl bromide.
        Mr. Farr. Propargyl bromide?
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Farr. Do you know how that investigation is dealing
    with the priorities identified in the meeting in Monterey last
    April, where the registration prospects in California are much
    different than the Federal prospect? I mean, it is much more
    difficult in California, and yet that is where most of the
    fumigant is used. So is the Department working on those issues
    and have you communicated with the industry in identifying this
    as a research priority for ARS? And are you moving people away
    from other things to put them onto this research?
        Dr. Gonzalez. I am going to ask Dr. Horn to give me some
    help with a response to that. When you first started out, I
    thought I could answer that, but as you got into more detail, I
    think it would serve us all well if he would help us with that
    response.
        Dr. Horn. In recent weeks we have requested that $800,000
    be made available from the CCC for this priority need. These
    funds cannot normally be used for research, but in this
    particular case it is much like an IR-4 program in that
    propargyl bromide is apparently an effective alternative to
    methyl bromide, but one for which the data are not available to
    EPA to make a judgment as to whether or not it could be labeled
    for the crops that currently use methyl bromide. We also have
    similar activities with Telone and metam sodium in preplant
    conditions.
        Mr. Farr. I guess the keyness of my question goes to when
    you work out those EPA protocols, are you also taking into
    consideration the California standards?
        Dr. Horn. Yes. The group that works with this set of issues
    would involve the California Department of Agriculture. In
    fact, it was done in cooperation with California, EPA, growers
    and scientists. Now, the scientists were briefly under the
    impression that this money could be used for other needs.
    However, this money, because it came from CCC, cannot be used
    for the other things that were listed as priorities for
    consideration.
        Mr. Farr. So you carved out money outside of the
    alternative for methyl bromide or methyl bromide research. You
    have carved out a separate $800,000 to essentially qualify the
    registration of----
        Dr. Horn. These funds, if approved, would be used to
    provide the data necessary to allow EPA to make that
    determination.
        Mr. Farr. What is the time frame for that. When is the
    bottom line?
        Dr. Horn. Well, it is, like everything else in methyl
    bromide, as soon as possible. But my guess is at least one
    season and probably two.
        Mr. Farr. Two years? Two seasons?
        Dr. Horn. Two growing seasons.
        Mr. Farr. Two growing. Well, we do three in Monterey, maybe
    four. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Gonzalez. That will cut it down.
        Mr. Farr. That is next week.
        Dr. Horn. Time is short, and the water is rising.
        Mr. Farr. Pardon me?
        Dr. Horn. I said----
        Mr. Farr. What is your season? How long a period are you
    talking about?
        Dr. Horn. It can be called years.
        Mr. Farr. Years. So two years. [Laughter.]
        Dr. Horn. However, actually, much of this is used in
    greenhouses. I am not sure about this particular compound, but
    many of these chemicals are useful in greenhouses as well. So
    it is not necessarily three years.
        Mr. Farr. And the research with the methyl bromide money
    continues for other types of methodologies?
        Dr. Horn. Yes Sir.
        Mr. Farr. Okay. I appreciate it. This is clarifying.
    Perhaps we might need to get it written up a little bit more. I
    would like to send this out to people because this question is
    coming up a lot.
        Dr. Horn. But this money could not be used for other
    research purposes.
        Mr. Farr. Okay. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. Mr. Hinchey?
        Dr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would just like to follow up with Dr. Offutt, if I may on
    a subject we were on a moment ago. In the present fiscal year,
    some $4.7 million was provided to the Secretary for mandatory
    price reporting. I am wondering if you requested any of that;
    if so, did you receive it? And if you received it, how did you
    use it?

                           MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING

        Dr. Offutt. We did not request it, we did not receive it.
    We think to do the part of mandatory livestock price reporting
    that falls to us, which has to do with the collection of retail
    price data, will require an outlay of $3- to $500,000 and then
    our staff would work on analyzing it.
        Our aspect of this project requires data on meat products,
    which are random weights, so they are not just scanned with
    that little graph. It has to be collectedseparately. We have to
    collect cuts. And unfortunately we have just learned that the company
    that used to do that is no longer in the business. So we are, at this
    moment, we are unfunded, but at this moment we are also not sure how
    to--we need to find someone to do this job.
        Mr. Hinchey. Do you know if any of that $4.7 million was
    used?
        Dr. Offutt. None of it was used for that purpose, not by
    ERS.
        Mr. Hinchey. Not by ERS. Was it used by anyone else in the
    Agency?
        Dr. Offutt. You probably know, Steve.
        Mr. Dewhurst. The money, that $4.7 million was the
    Department's estimate of what it would cost the Agricultural
    Marketing Service to implement the main mandatory price
    reporting program, and that money was allocated to the
    Agricultural Marketing Service this year to get that program
    going.
        Mr. Hinchey. Okay. So that that is what it is being used
    for at the moment.
        Mr. Dewhurst. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hinchey. With regard to the mergers in the agribusiness
    industry, I know that the FTC and Justice Department are doing
    some investigations. Are you cooperating with them?
        Dr. Offutt. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Hinchey. You do cooperate with them and that work is
    ongoing. Do you have any particular resources to carry out
    those activities?
        Dr. Offutt. No. The kinds of questions they ask fit well
    with our ongoing research program; for example, on railroad
    consolidation, looking at the retail sector, as well as some of
    the work on slaughterhouses, and the recent one, the Cargill
    merger. So we tend to be able to take the work we are doing for
    other reasons and help answer their questions.

                       Crop Insurance for Specialty Crops

        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much.
        I had a question as a follow up on the question that was
    asked previously with regard to crop insurance. The crop
    insurance program has within it certain benefits and certain
    deficiencies. The deficiencies that I find particularly
    troubling are with the program's treatment of so-called
    specialty crops: vegetables, fruits, silvaculture, things of
    that nature. I am wondering if we can anticipate any
    recommendations or any activities in the Department which will
    reform the crop insurance program in a way that will make it
    more applicable and more useful to the growers of those kinds
    of specialty crops.
        Dr. Gonzalez. It has been part of our discussions when we
    meet with the board and also with our Agency. We have grown the
    programs in some of those areas that you are indicating. When I
    was down in Florida I mentioned to the group that we were
    looking at minor crops, and they said, ``Well, these are our
    major crops for us.'' And it deals with more than just the
    insurance component. Some of the other research that we are
    doing is to make sure that we have taken into consideration
    other issues as we talk about the organic rule and the
    implications of that rule. So these things are broad based, and
    it is part of our discussion and consideration when we look at
    these new instruments.
        Mr. Hinchey. Dr. Gonzalez, are there any changes that we
    might anticipate with regard to the crop insurance program
    which will make its efficacy of greater value to the growers of
    these specialty crops; again, vegetables, fruits, silvaculture,
    things of that nature?
        Dr. Gonzalez. It has been a primary focus of the
    discussions, I know, within the Agency, within RMA, but I could
    not tell you the detail of where we are right now. I would
    certainly be happy to--yes, Susan just reminded me we do the
    feasibility studies in these areas with ERS.
        Mr. Hinchey. Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate your
    inability to respond to that kind of question just off the top
    of your head.
        But if you would be kind enough to provide me with some
    additional substantive and detailed information in that regard
    with the area of what you are anticipating, what initiatives
    you may be contemplating, what are being put into effect, if
    any, and how you are moving in this particular area, generally.
        Dr. Gonzalez. We would be pleased to do that.
        [The information follows:]

        ERS has conducted about 45 feasibility studies (ranging
    from 20-100 pages each) for RMA investigating market and
    insurability issues for crops ranging from mangoes and cherries
    to rangeland. RMA is now insuring or in the process of insuring
    20 of these crops (see list below), and used the ERS reports as
    the basis for determining insurability, obtaining industry
    contacts, acquiring knowledge of the markets, etc. These
    reports were done between 1993-1998.
        There are 17 specialty crops that have been implemented to
    date (e.g., have been available to producers in pilot areas for
    at least 1 year). In addition, there are 3 that are pending
    FCIC board approval for 2001 (the board has never denied any
    requests--so far at least) and 8 pending board approval for
    2002.
        The 17 insured specialty crops that are already ``in the
    field'' include: 1) aquaculture (clams); 2) avocado; 3)
    blueberries; 4) cabbage; 5) crambe; 6) cucumber; 7) millet; 8)
    mint; 9) nursery; 10) snapbeans; 11) squash/pumpkins; 12)
    strawberries; 13) sweet cherries; 14) sweet potatoes; 15) tart
    cherries; 16) watermelon; and 17) wild rice. Three crops for
    which policies are pending for 2001 plantings are: 1) forage
    seed; 2) raspberries; and 3) blackberries. The policies pending
    for 2002 include: 1) a California fresh veg. policy (including
    cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, celery, and lettuce; 2)
    spinach; 3) cut flowers/ greens; and 4) tropical fruits and
    trees.
        ERS also provided input into the structuring of the new
    ``Adjusted Gross Revenue'' (AGR) program, which is based on a
    producer's Schedule F and is designed to provide assistance to
    specialty crop growers who have multiple crops and do not find
    the single-crop insurance programs so attractive. AGR was first
    offered this past year. ERS continues to be asked for input on
    specialty crop insurance as issues arise.

        Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Skeen. Ms. Kaptur?

                          Screwworm Facility in Mexico

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask Dr. Gonzalez, we have had other under
    secretaries before us, and I have raised the issue of the
    closure of the screwworm facility in Chiapas, Mexico, which is
    a very important facility, and it is being moved south, as you
    probably know. But from the foreign policy side and just trying
    to be a good neighbor, I have been encouraging the secretaries
    who have appeared before us to think about an initiative that
    we as a country might adopt in partnership with interests in
    Chiapas and with your major reach in research, and particularly
    perhaps related to tropical production.
        I would just beg of you to think about some initiative that
    we could incorporate in this year's budget that could transform
    the livelihoods of some of those people that live in that
    region. The facility itself employs, I think, about 600 people.
    I do not know where it is now, whether it is diminished down to
    400 or whatever. And I think that USDA'sintent is just to close
    it. I do not agree with that. I am glad we are moving the screwworm
    facility south, but I think that we ought to keep our toe in there, and
    we ought to help people deal with the major issue of the unrest there,
    at least one of the major issues, which is the lack of income. And
    there ought to be crops that we cannot produce in this country that
    would make sense.
        You have got an international agriculture initiative
    included in your budget this year, and I would really encourage
    you to look at that. We have already got some presence. We have
    got some know-how.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kaptur. And I would greatly appreciate your
    recommendation there.

                              Research With Mexico

        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Just as additional information, we
    have worked on our U.S.-Mexico Foundation for Science effort
    that Congressman Brown had helped us to initiate. And so there
    are a number of these things that are ongoing that I think is
    tremendously important to the globalization of our programs. I
    visited a couple of our facilities down there. And I know that,
    Dr. Horn has been very involved.
        Ms. Kaptur. This one is not a pretty one.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes. And we have also had quite a bit of
    discussion through our land grant and other partners of,
    especially as you look at border issues, some of the other
    research that we are doing on both sides of the border. And so
    there are some elements that are in place that will help us
    move in that direction, and we would be pleased to consider how
    we do that.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you, and I would hope that
    you would identify crops that would not compete with U.S.
    production, but in areas like coffee, and pineapples and so
    forth. You know, there is something to be considered there in
    the tropical arena.
        I know that several countries have an interest in trying to
    create an extension-like system to reach down to their farmers.
    For example, there are burgeoning efforts in Ukraine and
    Russia. There was an initiative, in fact, by a university
    called Seratov University just outside Moscow to link to our
    land grant--Ohio State. That initiative was turned down. I
    really do not understand. It was probably turned down because
    there was not any money. I do not really know. But there was an
    effort to link the entire U.S. extension system to a country
    that desperately needs to be able to bridge their
    infrastructure. They do not have roads, they do not have
    telephone systems down in those villages. They are going to put
    a satellite dish on the Seratov Campus and translate extension
    information and make it available to farmers.
        I am just wondering are you aware of these efforts to try
    to develop extension, using our land grant know-how, into some
    of these countries where food production is really essential to
    their future?

        Globalization of Agricultural Research, Education and Extension

        Dr. Gonzalez. Yes. Well, again, adding to our global
    component, our Federal level of involvement has been
    longstanding. We have had a number of things in Poland and
    Ukraine and other countries of the new independent states.
    Extension has been really fundamental to help move forward with
    some of those new economies, and we are continuing that again
    within CSREES. The university community has been instrumental
    in helping us to get extension agents from the local county
    level out and involved in those areas, whether it is on issues
    of water quality, or production, all elements of that agenda.
    So we have an ongoing activity through CSREES.
        And then, of course, in the research arena, as you well
    know, we have our four labs in France, Argentina, Australia,
    China that continue to help us move this agenda forward. And
    our linkage to the international research centers is vital. One
    of the fundamental new areas of endeavor, I think will be the
    extension component of getting that research knowledge out to
    the local level.
        So we are involved in that, and we would be happy to share
    with you. Dr. Hiram Larew in CSREES is the person who has been
    involved with that. He came over to work with us from USAID.--
    Mike McGuire and other folks in CSREES have quite a bit of
    experience. And we really rely on the university community and
    our county agents at all levels, whether it is food, and our
    domestic agenda, home economics, or youth. I think that is
    another part of this. When you were talking about Mexico and
    Chiapas, those elements of what extension does for involvement
    in local communities would help to eliminate some of those
    other social things that often occur.
        Ms. Kaptur. I would be very interested, Doctor, in knowing
    the reason for the rejection of that Seratov University
    proposal, whether it was because of lack of money. Would this
    newly authorized initiative here or newly appropriated
    initiative, if we are able to fund it, would it help efforts
    like that? Because it seemed to me to be exactly a home run if
    you were trying to extend extension activities elsewhere.
        Dr. Gonzalez. And we will look into that and see.
        [Additional information:]

        The agency is not aware of this proposal. The agency does
    not have a record that such a proposal was received.

        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, very much.
        Mr. Skeen. I think we are about to come to the conclusion.
    It is about six minutes before lunchtime. But since you
    mentioned the screwworm, I have lost my appetite for rice.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Skeen. I have doctored more screwworm situations than
    anybody else that I know of. The eradication program has been
    one of the greatest programs----
        Dr. Gonzalez. Absolutely.
        Mr. Skeen. What they are doing now is moving the laboratory
    to Panama, which was the original idea, because then you can
    control the screwworm situation, in both the southern and
    northern continents. It has been a tremendously successful
    program. And I know there have been some tough situations in
    Mexico. So we have already picked out a new place in Panama for
    the building of this facility and keeping it up so that they
    can handle the southern hemisphere as well.
        On that note, I hope I have not spoiled anybody else's
    lunch. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Skeen. I want to thank you very much.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Skeen. The presentation by your group, yourself, is
    always professional, and we are very pleased with you.
        Dr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
        Mr. Skeen. [Spanish.]
        Dr. Gonzalez. [Spanish.]
        Mr. Skeen. [Spanish.] We are adjourned.
        [The following questions were submitted to be answered for
    the record:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                 Research, Education and Economics Mission Area

                                                                       Page
    Agricultural Genomics............................................     7
    Agriculture in the Classroom.....................................    87
    Alternatives to Methyl Bromide...................................    93
    Biobased Products................................................    83
    Biography of Under Secretary.....................................    26
    Budget Request Summary:
        Agricultural Research Service................................     7
        Consumer-driven Agriculture..................................     5
        Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service..     7
        Economic Research Service....................................     7
        National Agricultural Statistics Service.....................     8
        Proposed Decreases...........................................    82
    Climate Change..................................................102-106
    Crop Insurance for Specialty Crops...............................   109
    Food Embargoes...................................................    88
    Food Quality and Protection Act..................................     6
        Implementation...............................................    89
    Food Safety......................................................     6
    Funding Levels...................................................    90
    Globalization of Agriculture.....................................  4, 6
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems...............    92
    Introduction of Witnesses........................................     2
    Mandatory Price Reporting........................................   108
    Methyl Bromide..................................................93, 106
    National Animal Disease Center...................................    92
    Opening Statement of UnderSecretary..............................     3
    Propargyl Bromide................................................   106
    Proposed Decreases...............................................    82
    REE Collaboration Across the Government..........................     5
    Research Project Terminations....................................    91
    Research Success Stories.........................................     4
    Research with Mexico.............................................   110
    Risk Management Education........................................    97
    Scientists and Professionals of the Future.......................     6
    Screwworm Facility in Mexico.....................................   110
    Structural Changes in Agriculture................................    96
    The Future of Scientific and Professional Workforce..............     5
    Written Statement of Under Secretary.............................     9

                         Agricultural Research Service

    Active Research Projects (CRIS listing).........................129-175
    Aflatoxin Research...............................................   200
    Africanized Bees................................................244-246
    Agriculture in the Classroom.....................................    87
    Alternative Crop Research........................................   406
    Alternatives to Methyl Bromide...................................    94
    Animal Health Research..........................................220-223
    Aquaculture Research............................................201-206
    ARS..............................................................   341
    ARS-Owned Aircraft...............................................   285
    ARS Profile.....................................................345-368
    Asian Longhorn Beetle............................................   241
    Avian Influenza.................................................223-225
    Biobased:
        Fuels........................................................   393
        Products....................................................373-382
        Products and Bioenergy.......................................    83
    Biodegradable Plastic...........................................207-209
    Biography of Administrator, Dr. Floyd P. Horn....................    42
    Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation...............   209
    Bioterrorism.....................................................   372
    Budget:
        Fiscal Year 2000 Highlights..................................   341
        Fiscal Year 2001 Proposed Project Terminations..............385-392
        Request......................................................   127
        Research Projects in Presentation............................   383
        Tabular Budget Displays......................................   336
    Canola Research..................................................   306
    Centers of Excellence...........................................188-191
    Citrus Root Weevil...............................................   225
    Citrus Tristeza Virus............................................   226
    Climate Change...................................................   102
    Collaboration Across Research and Education Institutions.........   100
    Contingency Fund................................................294-296
    Cooperative Agreements with States..............................176-179
    Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA's).......191-193
    Customers/Clients/Stakeholders..................................306-335
    Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests..............................369-372
    Ergot Disease....................................................   242
    Explanatory Notes................................................  1063
    Federal Pay Raise................................................   369
    Food Safety Research.............................................   180
    Fruit and Nut Research..........................................210-220
    Fungal Phytase...................................................   243
    Future Agriculture and Food Systems..............................    92
    Genetically Modified Foods.......................................   408
    Genome Initiative and Seed Stock.................................   396
    Germplasm (Plant and Animal)....................................227-230
    Global Change Research......................................6, 101, 239
    Grape Phylloxera.................................................   230
    Grape Virology Research..........................................   231
    Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket...................................   232
    Greenhouse Research..............................................   402
    Guayule..........................................................   242
    Hog Cholera and Foot and Mouth Disease...........................   206
    Honey Bees.......................................................   246
    Hops Research....................................................   243
    Human Nutrition:
        Research.................................182-187, 235-238, 305, 401
        Research, Education and Related Activities...................   187
    Information Centers..............................................   303
    Integrated Pest Management.......................................   232
    International Agriculture........................................   395
    IR-4 Research....................................................   247
    Jointed Goat Grass Control Research..............................   248
    Kenaf............................................................   248
    Lapsed Salaries..................................................   180
    Late Blight Potato Research......................................   270
    Locoweed Research................................................   249
    Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture................................   250
    Lyme Disease Research............................................   251
    Management Costs.................................................   113
    Methyl Bromide Research................................93, 106, 253-256
    Mushroom Research................................................   256
    Narcotics Control Research.......................................   257
    National Agricultural Library:
        Changes and Usage............................................   302
        Document Delivery Service Activity and Cost..................   301
        Library Fees................................................297-300
        Object Class Table...........................................   302
        Repair and Maintenance.......................................   305
    National Animal Disease Center...................................    92
    National Arboretum...............................................   258
    New Crops........................................................   259
    Object Class Table.............................................175, 240
    Office of Pest Management Policy.................................   115
    Patents.........................................................193-200
    Peanut Research.................................................260-262
    Peas, Lentils, and Legumes......................................262-264
    Pecan Research...................................................   264
    Pfiesteria Research..............................................   238
    Phytoestrogen Research...........................................   265
    Plant Gene Expression Center.....................................   266
    Potato Research..................................................   268
    Propargyl Bromide................................................   106
    Questions Submitted for the Record:
        Mr. Skeen...................................................113-393
        Ms. Kaptur..................................................393-407
    Research Facilities:
        Backlog of Facility Replacement.............................290-293
        Buildings and Facilities.....................................   344
        Facilities Requirements.....................................286-289
        New Research Facilities......................................   284
        Repair and Maintenance.......................................   293
        Staffing....................................................280-283
        Research Project Terminations...........................91, 116-127
    Screwworm Facility in Mexico.....................................   110
    Soil and Water Research..........................................   270
    Soybean-Based Ink................................................   274
    Soybean Research................................................272-274
    Staffing.........................................................   369
    Staffing of Research Facilities.................................280-283
    Statement of Dr. Floyd P. Horn, Administrator, ARS...............    28
    Steep II Research...............................................274-276
    Sweet Potato Whitefly............................................   276
    Swine Research...................................................   187
    Technology Transfer..............................................   277
    Tropical/Subtropical Research....................................   278
    Urban Pest Control Research......................................   278
    Utilization Centers..............................................   280
    Weslaco, Texas...................................................   289
    Wheat Disease..................................................280, 407
    Written Statement of Administrator...............................    28

          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    1890 Payments....................................................   494
    1890 Facilities Program.........................................905-910
    1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University........................   777
    4-H Activities...................................................   417
    4-H Enrollment...................................................   902
    Advanced Spatial Tech., MS.......................................   513
    Aflatoxin Research, IL...........................................   514
    Audits...........................................................   502
    Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants, IA...............................   520
    Agriculture in the Classroom..............................422, 480, 845
    Agrability.....................................................463, 897
    Agricultural Business Enhancement Center, OH...................428, 855
    Agricultural Development in the American Pacific.................   808
    Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops, HI.............   515
    Agricultural Diversity/Red River, MN and ND......................   517
    Agricultural Waste Utilization, WV...............................   809
    Agriculture Telecommunications, NY...............................   522
    Agriculture Water Usage, GA......................................   524
    Alliance for Food Protection, NE and GA..........................   525
    Alternative Crops, ND............................................   527
    Alternative Crops for Arid Lands, TX.............................   529
    Alternative Salmon Products, AK..................................   530
    Animal Genome Mapping............................................   508
    Animal Health and Disease Research...............................   783
    Animal Science Food Safety Consortium............................   532
    Animal Waste Management, OK......................................   813
    Anti-Hunger and Food Security Grants.............................   447
    Apple Fire Blight, MI and NY.....................................   534
    Aquaculture Centers..............................................   784
    Aquaculture Product and Market Development, WV...................   541
    Aquaculture research:
        Louisiana....................................................   535
        Mississippi..................................................   537
        North Carolina...............................................   539
        Virginia.....................................................   540
    Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
      Development....................................................   542
    Beef Industry Improvements.......................................   430
    Beef Improvement, AR.............................................   847
    Binational Agricultural Research and Development Program.........   486
    Biobased Products................................................   892
    Biodiesel Research, MO...........................................   544
    Biographical Sketch: Charles Laughlin............................    55
    Biotechnology Research, MS.......................................   814
    Biotechnology Risk Assessment..................................504, 505
    Black and Hispanic Colleges......................................   418
    Blocking Anhydrous Methamphetamine Production, IA................   546
    Bovine Tuberculosis, MI........................................430, 547
    Brucellosis Vaccine, MT..........................................   548
    Budget Decreases for Congressional Add-ons.....................498, 910
    Budget Request...................................................  1160
    Buildings and Facilities.........................................   881
    Canola...........................................................   787
    Capacity Building Grants Program..........................778, 780, 803
    Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, IA.................   815
    Center for Animal Health and Productivity, PA....................   549
    Center for Innovative Food Technology, OH......................427, 817
    Center for North American Studies, TX............................   819
    Center for Rural Studies, VT.....................................   551
    Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, MD...................................   552
    Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture, MD...................................   553
    Citrus Tristeza..................................................   555
    Clean Water Action Plan..........................................   421
    Climate Change Research, FL......................................   820
    Coastal Cultivars................................................   556
    Competitiveness of Agricultural Products, WA.....................   557
    Competitive Grants...............................................   775
    Conservation Technology Transfer, WI.............................   849
    Cool Season Legume Research......................................   559
    Cotton Research, TX..............................................   821
    Cranberry and Blueberry, MA......................................   561
    Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding, NJ.....................   562
    Critical Agricultural Materials..................................   783
    Critical Issues..................................................   563
    Dairy and Meat Goat Research, TX.................................   566
    Data Information System (REEIS)..................................   824
    Delta Rural Revitalization, MS...................................   567
    Delta Teachers Academy...........................................   850
    Designing Food for Health, TX....................................   569
    Diabetes Detection and Prevention, WA and HI.....................   852
    Diaprepes/Rootweevil, FL.........................................   570
    Drought Mitigation, NE...........................................   572
    Ecosystems, AL...................................................   574
    Education........................................................   460
    Environmental Research, NY.......................................   575
    Environmental Risk Factors, NY...................................   577
    Environmentally Safe Products, VT................................   580
    Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)............   900
    Expanded Wheat Pasture, OR.......................................   581
    Expert IPM Decision Support System...............................   582
    Explanatory Notes................................................  1166
    Extension Agents.................................................   897
    Extension Indian Reservation Program.............................   893
    Extension Specialist, MS.........................................   854
    Farm Safety......................................................   894
    Farm and Rural Business Finance, IL and AR.......................   585
    Federal Administration:
        Classification by Objects....................................   805
        Peer Panels..................................................   807
        Table........................................................   876
    Feed Barley for Rangeland Cattle, MT.............................   587
    Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request/Proposal......................495, 1160
    Floriculture, HI.................................................   588
    Food and Agricultural Policy Institute, IA and MO................   590
    Food Irradiation, IA.............................................   592
    Food Marketing Policy Center, CT.................................   593
    Food Processing Center, NE.......................................   595
    Food Quality, AK.................................................   596
    Food Safety, Alabama.............................................   598
    Food Systems Research Group, WI..................................   599
    Forages for Advanced Livestock Production, KY....................   601
    Forestry Research, AR............................................   602
    Formula Funding..................................................   481
    Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, AZ and MO...................   605
    Generic Commodity Promotion, NY..................................   606
    Genetically Modified Foods.......................................   408
    Geographic Information System....................................   827
    Global Change....................................................   608
    Global Marketing Support Services, AR............................   611
    Grain Sorghum, KS................................................   613
    Grass Seed Cropping Systems/Sustainable Agric., ID, OR, WA.......   614
    Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture....................................   830
    Hatch Act........................................................   489
    Hesperaloe.......................................................   788
    Higher Education Programs........................................   804
    Hispanic Education Partnerships Grants Program...................   801
    Human Nutrition:
        Iowa.........................................................   616
        Louisiana....................................................   618
        New York.....................................................   620
    Hydroponics......................................................   426
    Hydroponic Tomato Reduction, OH..................................   622
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.....................   623
    Improved Dairy Management Practices, PA..........................   625
    Improved Early Detection of Crop Disease, NC.....................   627
    Improved Fruit Practices, MI.....................................   628
    Income Enhancement Demonstration, OH...........................428, 855
    Infectious Disease Research, CO..................................   629
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering, AR...................   631
    Integrated Cow/Calf Management, IA...............................   857
    Integrated Pest Management.......................................   633
    Integrated Production Systems, OK................................   635
    Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Activities.........   890
    International Agricultural Market Structures & Institute, KY.....   637
    International Arid Lands Consortium..............................   638
    International Programs.........................................411, 903
    Iowa Biotechnology Consortium....................................   640
    IR-4 Minor Crop Management.......................................   642
    IR-4 Program and Pesticide Clearance.............................   509
    Jointed Goatgrass................................................   646
    Livestock and Dairy Policy, NY and TX............................   648
    Livestock Marketing Information Center...........................   832
    Lowbush Blueberry Research, ME...................................   650
    Maple Research, VT...............................................   651
    Mariculture, NC..................................................   833
    McIntire-Stennis Forestry Grants................................491,494
    Meadowfoam, OR...................................................   653
    Michigan Biotechnology Consortium................................   654
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, NE.................   656
    Midwest Agricultural Products, IA................................   658
    Milk Safety, PA..................................................   660
    Minor Use Animal Drugs.........................................510, 662
    Mississippi Valley State University..............................   822
    Molluscan Shellfish, OR..........................................   666
    Multi-commodity Research, OR.....................................   669
    Multi-cropping Strategies for Aquaculture, HI....................   667
    Multicultural Scholars Program...................................   903
    National Alternative Fuels Laboratory, ND........................   811
    National Biological Impact Assessment Program....................   671
    National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, GA...................   834
    National Education Center for Agricultural Safety, IA............   859
    National Research Initiative....................................884-890
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund......................   799
    Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, NM......................   673
    Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative, NV............................   674
    New Crop Opportunities, AK.......................................   675
    New Crop Opportunities, KY.......................................   676
    Nonfood Agricultural Products, NE................................   677
    Nutrition Research...............................................   413
    Oil Resources from Desert Plants, NM.............................   680
    Organic Waste Utilization, NM....................................   681
    Pasture and Forage Research, UT..................................   682
    Peach Tree Short Life, SC........................................   683
    Peanut Allergy Reduction, AL.....................................   685
    Peer Panels......................................................   807
    Pest Control Alternatives, SC....................................   686
    Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.......................805, 897, 904
    Pest Management Alternatives.....................................   688
    Phytophthora Root Rot, NM........................................   690
    Pilot Technology Projects, OK and MS.............................   862
    Pilot Technology Project, WI.....................................   865
    Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene Cataloging, NM.......   691
    Plant Genome Mapping.............................................   505
    PM-10 Study, CA and WA...........................................   835
    Potato Research..................................................   693
    Precision Agriculture, AL & TN...................................   837
    Precision Agriculture, KY........................................   694
    Preharvest Food Safety, KS.......................................   695
    Preservation and Processing Research, OK.........................   697
    Questions Submitted for the Record:
        Mr. Skeen....................................................   486
        Mr. Bonilla..................................................   460
        Ms. Emerson..................................................   480
        Mr. Latham...................................................   463
        Ms. Kaptur...................................................   408
    Rangeland Ecosystems, NM.........................................   699
    Range Policy Development, NM.....................................   867
    Red Snapper Research, AL.........................................   700
    Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project.............................   701
    Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs, TX and MO............   703
    Rice Modeling, AR and MO.........................................   704
    Rural Development:
        Alaska.......................................................   868
        Centers...........................................705-709, 788, 901
        Oklahoma.....................................................   871
    Rural Economic Development Through Tourism, NM...................   869
    Rural Rehabilitation, GA.........................................   872
    Rural Policies Institute, MO, NE, IA.............................   709
    Russian Wheat Aphid, CO..........................................   711
    Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing, AK................   714
    Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and marketing, MS................   714
    Seafood Safety, MA...............................................   716
    Secondary Agricultural Education.................................   460
    Small Business Innovation Research Program.......................   798
    Small Fruit Research, OR, WA, ID.................................   717
    Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources......   719
    Soybean Cyst Nematode, MO........................................   721
    Special Research Grants Table...................................760-774
    Statement of Charles Laughlin....................................    43
    Streamlined Management and Accountability........................   895
    STEEP III--Water Quality in Pacific Northwest....................   723
    Sustainable Agriculture:
        California...................................................   725
        Michigan.....................................................   726
        Nebraska.....................................................   729
        Pennsylvania.................................................   728
        SARE Program...........................................789-798, 898
    Sustainable Beef Supply, MT......................................   730
    Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat, MT................   732
    Swine Waste Management, NC.......................................   734
    Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management, LA..................   736
    Tomato Wilt Virus, GA............................................   737
    Tropical Aquaculture, FL.........................................   738
    Tropical and Subtropical Research................................   739
    Turkey Coronavirus, IN...........................................   742
    Urban Pests, GA..................................................   743
    Vidalia Onions, GA...............................................   745
    Viticulture Consortium, NY and CA................................   746
    Youth-At-Risk Program............................................   899
    Water Conservation, KS...........................................   747
    Water Quality, IL................................................   838
    Water Quality, ND................................................   841
    Weed Control, ND.................................................   749
    Wetland Plants, LA...............................................   751
    Wheat Genetics, KS...............................................   752
    Wheat Scab.......................................................   429
    Wood Biomass, NY.................................................   874
    Wood Utilization Research........................................   754
    Wool Research, TX, MT, WY........................................   756

                           Economic Research Service

    Agricultural Negotiations.......................................444-445
    Asian Crisis Task Force.......................................1009-1010
    Biographical Sketches: Susan Offutt..............................    68
    Budget Request...................................................   955
    Budget and Staff Years...........................................   957
    Carbon Sequestration..........................................1013-1014
    Conservation Program Analysis....................................  1010
    Data Purchases..................................................954-955
    Evaluation of Rural Development.................................433-444
    Explanatory Notes.............................................1317-1340
    Family Farm Report..............................................957-959
    Farm Operator Household Income..................................950-952
    Food Assistance Research.........................................   963
    Food and Nutrition Assistance Research.445-446, 915-950, 963-1007, 1013
    Food Embargoes..............................................88, 482-483
    Food Insecurity..................................................  1018
    Food Safety..........................................961-962, 1011-1012
    Geographic Breakdown of Obligations..............................  1012
    Global Climate Change................................956-957, 1010-1011
    Global Climate Change and the Kyoto Agreement.................957, 1014
    Global Research and Outreach.......................445, 1017, 1018-1019
    Mandatory Price Reporting....................................1016, 1019
    NAFTA Report.....................................................   956
    National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program........   954
    National Resource Inventory Data................................952-953
    Needs of Small Farmers.........................................393, 433
    New Projects for FY 1999........................................915-952
    Nonfarm Earnings and Jobs........................................   956
    NRC Report....................................................1008-1009
    Pest Management Practices.....................................952, 1008
    Questions Submitted for the Record:
        Mr. Skeen..................................................915-1062
        Ms. Kaptur..................................................393-454
    Report Elimination Plans.........................................   960
    Resource and Agricultural Production Issues.....................953-954
    Service Elimination Plans........................................   960
    Structural Changes and Concentration....................1015-1016, 1017
    Travel...........................................................  1013
    Unobligated Balance...........................................1012-1013
    Use of Buy-Out Authority.........................................   961
    Use of Early-Out Authority.......................................   960
    WIC Cost Containment.............................................   961
    Witness Statement of Dr. Offutt.................................. 56-67

                    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Appropriation Language...........................................  1349
    Available Funds and Staff-Years...............................1343-1345
    Average Grade and Salary.........................................  1347
    Biographical Sketch:
    Raymond Ronald Bosecker, Administrator...........................    81
    Budget Request................................................1038-1039
        Summary of Increases and Decreases...........................  1350
    Census of Agriculture:
        Census Cycle.........................78, 1021-1022, 1356, 1366-1367
        Census Response Rate.........................................  1050
    Census of Aquaculture............................................  1062
    Computer Security Architecture.................80, 1055-1057, 1353-1354
    Congressional District Publications..............................  1057
    Cooperative Research..........................................1026-1027
    Cooperative Agreements........................................1028-1035
    County Data......................................................  1051
    Delaware River Basin Pilot Project...............................  1050
    Enumerators (NASDA)...........................................1023-1024
    Explanatory Notes.............................................1341-1367
    Geographic Breakdown of Obligations and Staff-Years...........1357-1358
    Hog Survey.......................................78-79, 1057, 1354-1355
    International Technical Assistance...............................  1023
    Justification of Increases and Decreases......................1353-1356
    Mann Library.....................................................  1045
    Migrant Workers...............................................1041-1042
    Milk Production...............................................1043-1044
    Number of Farms, Land in Farms................................1040-1041
    Object Class Schedule............................................  1347
    Ongoing Services.................................................  1026
    Opening Statement of Under Secretary.............................     8
    Passenger Motor Vehicles.........................................  1348
    Pay Costs........................................................  1055
    Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff-Year Summary..............  1346
    Pesticide Data Collection........................................  1050
    Pesticide Use Statistics..............79-80, 1050, 1058-1062, 1355-1356
    Price Reporting Law...........................................1053-1054
    Project Statement.............................................1351-1352
    Puerto Rico Office...............................................  1052
    Purpose Statement.............................................1341-1342
    Questions Submitted for the Record:
        Mr. Skeen....................................................  1021
    Reimbursements:
        AID Reimbursement............................................  1053
        Available Funds & Staff Years.............................1343-1345
        ERS Reimbursement.........................................1052-1053
        Surveys...................................................1036-1037
    Reports On-line...............................................1045-1046
    Special Surveys.........................................1047-1049, 1364
    State Office Funding.............................................  1025
    Status of Program............................................1358, 1367
    Toll Free Number.................................................  1021
    Witness Statement of the Administrator........................... 69-80