[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