[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

                                
