[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                  AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD

                  AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED

                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________
     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
                  ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                     HENRY BONILLA, Texas, Chairman

 JAMES T. WALSH, New York              MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,            MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington                             SAM FARR, California
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                      ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
 RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
                                                                        

 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, Martin P. Delgado, Maureen Holohan, and Joanne L. 
                        Perdue, Staff Assistants

                                ________
                                 PART 6


               RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS PROGRAMS

                                                                   Page
 Research, Education, and Economics...............................    1
     Agricultural Research Service................................  103
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
 Service .........................................................  523
     Economic Research Service.................................... 1241
     National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 1371

                                   
                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 87-802                     WASHINGTON : 2003


                  COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                       DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California                  JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                  NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                  MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                       STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York                 ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina        MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                    PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma          NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan                ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                   JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey      JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi             ED PASTOR, Arizona
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,               DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
Washington                                CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,               ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
California                                Alabama
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                      PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                     JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama              SAM FARR, California
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri                 JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                       CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania           ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia           CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
 JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
 RAY LaHOOD, Illinois                     SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
 JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York                MARION BERRY, Arkansas            
 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
 DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
 DAVE WELDON, Florida
 MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
 MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
 ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                       

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
                RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2004

                              ----------                              

                                          Thursday, March 13, 2003.

                   RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

                               WITNESSES

JOSEPH J. JEN, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
EDWARD B. KNIPLING, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
COLIEN HEFFERAN, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, 
    AND EXTENSION SERVICE
SUSAN E. OFFUTT, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE
R. RONALD BOSECKER, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 
    SERVICE
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
RODNEY BROWN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND 
    ECONOMICS

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Bonilla. The subcommittee will come to order. We are 
delighted this afternoon to have with us Dr. Joseph Jen, the 
under secretary for research, education, and economics. Dr. 
Jen, we are happy to have you here and we welcome your 
testimony today, as well as those of your associates who 
appearing with you today.
    Ms. Kaptur is en route and will be here shortly. And we 
have members dealing with simultaneous hearings as we speak, 
all day and all afternoon, and we may get interrupted by a vote 
or two, but we will proceed with the hearing and conclude as 
promptly as we can, trying to respect everyone's schedule.
    I will yield to Ms. Kaptur for opening remarks when she 
arrives. But before I ask you to proceed, Dr. Jen, I would like 
to once again state a very serious concern that not only I 
have, but other members of this subcommittee, and this is 
something we talked about at your first appearance last year, 
about congressionally initiated research which we have 
appropriated year after year in the past. We see that Director 
Daniels has not changed his mind again. And I can assure you, 
and we will tell him directly when we meet with him 
individually or as a group, that we have not changed our mind 
either about the significance of what we bring to the table as 
members of the House of Representatives.
    So I will spare you the tutorial that I delivered last 
year. I would like to deliver it to Director Daniels directly 
and, again, have had conversations with him and will do so 
again. But it is hard to believe sometimes that somehow the 
message is not sinking through about what we have accomplished 
traditionally, we feel, in a very responsible way by working in 
a bipartisan way with this subcommittee.
    Let me try to explain our position this way. It has been 
said that the difference between basic and applied research is 
that basic research is research for its own sake. It takes a 
lot of faith for a farmer to believe that blue sky research, 
for example, is going to help him get rid of the bugs that are 
eating his crops or to cure the disease that is afflicting his 
animals in a particular season. My own view is that when you 
have a fire in front of you, you need to get some water on it 
and put it out. And that is not real helpful, to discuss the 
concept of fire, on some occasions, but you have the luxury to 
do that sometime in the future. But right now you need to put 
fires out, when our folks out there in the heartland are facing 
acute problems.
    And, you know, we, again, emphasize that we were sent here 
by our constituents to work on problems that they bring to our 
attention on a daily basis, sometimes of different magnitudes 
of importance. But that is why we are here, and I do not think 
our subcommittee is going to stop doing what we were sent here 
to do.
    In your prepared statement, you say that the budget for ARS 
proposes a cut of $149 million in current programs, mostly from 
congressionally designated funding. The budget for CSREES 
proposes a cut of $143 million from congressionally designated 
funding. This is not just trimming around the edges; this is a 
whole-scale elimination of work that we have deemed to be 
important. And I want to make that clear. It is apparent that 
our message apparently is not getting through. Perhaps this is 
the year to stop talking about the marginal dollar of research 
funding. Maybe we need to take a different approach and start 
talking about the very first dollar of research funding. Our 
subcommittee might want to build a USDA research budget from 
the ground up and stop trying to adjust an inadequate budget to 
serve our purposes.
    If we decide to do that, Dr. Jen, I think you know that the 
first dollar would be spent in Texas, the second dollar in 
Ohio, and right down the list here. And it would be a long time 
before we get around to the headquarters activities at 
Beltsville, Maryland, or the District of Columbia.
    So I hope that the point is coming across. And I know that 
perhaps you understand what we are saying and you may not be 
able to comment openly on what you truly understand about this 
subcommittee, but I want to make it perfectly clear where we 
are coming from. And that has not changed andit will not change 
if there is a different person sitting in this chair in the future and 
from now until the end of time. So that is something I hope that OMB 
understands very clearly.
    At this time, I will let you proceed with your remarks.
    Dr. Jen. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that 
consideration, for not asking me to comment on it.

                       Introduction of Witnesses

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is my pleasure 
to appear in front of you to discuss the fiscal year 2004 
budget for the research, education and economics mission-area 
agencies of the USDA. I am accompanied by Dr. Rodney Brown, 
deputy under secretary of REE, and the administrators of the 
four agencies--Dr. Ed Knipling, acting administrator of the 
Agricultural Research Service; Dr. Colien Hefferan, 
administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service; Dr. Susan Offutt, administrator of the 
Economic Research Service; and Mr. Ronald Bosecker, 
administrator of the National Agricultural Statistics Service. 
Also present is Mr. Steve Dewhurst, director of the Office of 
Budget and Program Analysis of the department. Each 
administrator has some written testimony for the record.

                           Opening Statement

    Placed in the context of current tight Government 
spendings, the REE budget that we are here to discuss today 
reflects a strong commitment to addressing the challenges 
facing our Nation's food and agricultural system. We 
appreciated your support in fiscal year 2003 appropriations. 
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes $2.266 billion 
for the four REE agencies, about the same as the fiscal year 
2003 presidential budget proposal of $2.312 billion. The 
proposed budget requests increases for certain higher priority 
programs by reprogramming some of the lower priority programs 
and eliminating some completed tasks.
    Science and technology are the foundation of the American 
food and agriculture system. These four agencies have been 
central to making the discoveries that have given us the most 
plentiful, affordable, and safe food supply any nation has ever 
known. Research investments and scientific advances have caused 
per acre yields of corn for silage and milk production per 
dairy cow to more than double in the last half of the 20th 
century, while household income devoted to food has dropped 
from 20.5 to 10.2 percent. This is a phenomenal success story, 
a story based quite significantly on the REE agencies' 
research, education, economic, and statistical analysis over 
the years.
    The environment surrounding the food and agricultural 
system is in constant flux. Today, our farmers and ranchers and 
also our value-added food industry face stiff competition in 
worldwide markets. Many countries now spend a higher percentage 
of their nation's research dollar on the food and agricultural 
system than we do. Constant attention to and investment in food 
and agricultural research is necessary to maintain our 
leadership in the world.
    A recent National Academies report on REE, entitled 
``Frontiers in Agricultural Research: Food, Health, Environment 
and Communities,'' stated, and I quote, ``Recent scientific 
breakthroughs will make it easier for agriculture to achieve 
its potential for delivering a wide array of benefits to 
society. For this potential to be realized, the agricultural 
research system must take advantage of new opportunities and 
relationships. Changing public values and needs will create new 
market opportunities and will alter agriculture's relationship 
to the food and fiber system, the environment and the fabric of 
American society. Research will support agriculture as a 
positive economic, social, and environmental force and will 
help the sector to fulfill ever-evolving demands.''
    The remarkable success enjoyed by the food and agriculture 
system in this country depends heavily on our having a 
reservoir of basic scientific knowledge. Technology and 
mission-oriented applied research as well as problem solving 
projects must draw from this reservoir of scientific knowledge. 
I appreciate very much your support of the USDA's flagship 
competitive grant program, namely, the National Research 
Initiative, with a significant increase of $46 million in the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations, raising the total funding 
level to $166 million. However, the NRI funding level is still 
only one-third of the authorized level of $500 million. As a 
competitive program, the NRI is open to the entire research 
community and provides the most effective mechanism to attract 
the best minds in the Nation to work on food and agricultural 
research, and to add to our science knowledge reservoir. For 
the fiscal year 2004 budget, we propose to increase the NRI to 
$200 million.

                                GENOMICS

    One of the most recent scientific breakthrough areas and 
one that represents immense opportunities for the food and 
agricultural sector is genomics research. Genomics is where the 
21st century's biological science is going. Genomics and 
biotechnology provide powerful tools to address many of the 
thorny problems that have challenged production agriculture for 
years. Called the ``high-speed biology,'' genomics permits 
rapid understanding and careful use of desired traits in 
microbes, plants, and animals. Where previously scientists 
worked at the cellular level, they can now work at the 
molecular level. Genomics also adds to the basic science 
knowledge reservoir. As has been demonstrated in the study of 
the human genome, studying the metabolic pathways dictated by 
genetic sequences can lead to new knowledge that has 
unanticipated beneficial applications.
    Through the study of the genetic makeup of organisms, 
genomics links the properties of genes to how plants and 
animals function. For example, genomics can eliminate the 
production of fungal toxins such as aflatoxin; prevent diseases 
in animals exposed to pathogens, such as foot and mouth 
disease; uniformly and reliably produce desirable nutritional 
characteristics in commodities such as the newly developed 
golden rice, which contains much higher levels of vitamin A and 
iron. It can develop rapid, accurate diagnostic tools for 
monitoring and detecting animal and plant pathogens, such as 
Listeria; make production friendlier to the environment, 
tapping into the natural defensive resources of agricultural 
plants and animals; reduce or eliminate the use of many 
agricultural chemicals and antibiotics and make the food 
products that consumers want.
    Molecular-level understanding of life processes is one of 
six public research and development priorities set out in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget memorandum from directors of the White 
House Offices of Science and Technology Policy and Management 
and Budget. In particular, the directors note that new 
applications in health care, agriculture, energy, and 
environmental management justify genomics as a priority. 
Agriculture lags behind the medical, the energy-related, and 
non-agricultural basic sciences in making investment in this 
area. To be a world leader in agricultural genomics, USDA 
requires a sustained investment to engage in genomics research 
and to cooperate with other Federal agencies.
    Both ARS and CSREES have significantly increased their 
genomics programs in recent years. However, fulfilling the 
promises of genomics will require additional investment. The 
President's fiscal year 2004 budget provides increases of $13 
million in ARS's agricultural genomics budget and $10 million 
in CSREES's NRI to strengthen both agencies' genomics programs. 
An increase of $1.1 million in the ERS budget will provide 
economic data and analysis that complements collateral 
biological and bioinformatics research, and serves as the basis 
for policy decisions arising from rapid genomics-based 
development in food and agriculture.

                             COLLABORATION

    In capturing the unique benefit of genomics research and 
development, USDA has collaborated with other science 
institutes, both in the U.S. and abroad. The goal is to achieve 
direct applications in food and agriculture that would not 
likely be addressed without USDA participation and targeted 
funding. USDA has worked closely with the National Science 
Foundation on the National Plant Genome Initiative and the 
Microbe Project. USDA is leading the coordination of Federal 
research activities related to Domestic Animal Genomics, 
including working closely with the National Institutes of 
Health.
    Our work with other agencies in various research areas is 
indicative of the growing collaborations in which REE agencies 
are participating. The REE agencies are working with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration on remote 
sensing, with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers 
for Disease Control on food safety, with the Environmental 
Protection Agency on implementation of the Food Quality 
Protection Act, and with the Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy on biobased products and bioenergy 
research. Additionally, the new REE strategic plan asks the 
four agencies to provide increasing research, analytical, 
statistical, and educational services to other USDA agencies.

                              BIOSECURITY

    The proposed budget provides additional funding for REE 
agencies to play a major role in strengthening the Nation's 
biosecurity. The safety of our food and security of our food 
supply are critical elements of homeland security. The budget 
provides ARS $11.5 million for biosecurity research with an 
additional amount for related research on emerging diseases 
that may be accidentally or intentionally introduced into the 
food system. Because of its size, complexity, and integration, 
U.S. agriculture is uniquely vulnerable to highly infectious 
disease and pests, particularly diseases not endemic to the 
United States. Working collaboratively with APHIS, the budget 
provides CSREES with $16 million to maintain a unified Federal-
State network of public agricultural institutions to identify 
and rapidly respond to high-risk biological pathogen outbreaks 
in the food and agricultural system. Funding of $1 million will 
support ERS efforts to improve and maintain a security analysis 
system initiated with supplemental Homeland Security funds. 
Finally, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget provides ARS 
with $22 million to finance additional security assessments and 
implement security countermeasures at the ARS research 
laboratories.
    Scientific and professional human capital is one of the 
most critical variables affecting the future of our food and 
agriculture system. Increases in the budget supporting the 
research component of REE are complemented with increases in 
education, a critical function of REE. The President's budget 
provides an increase of $1.9 million for two higher education 
programs, Institution Challenge Grants to enhance the 
institutional capacity, and Graduate Fellowship Grants for the 
development of expertise. The budget also proposes funds for a 
program to further incorporate an international component into 
teaching, research, and extension programs at land-grant 
institutions.
    I will skip the portions of the agencies' budget and come 
to a summary. In summary, I want to reiterate that, given 
current budget constraints, the REE agencies' budget represent 
a balanced portfolio, with investments in cutting-edge research 
such as genomics and in application of the research findings to 
such issues as biosecurity and food safety pathogens. The 
budget also provides new funding in education to ensure that 
the Nation has a strong cadre of professionals in the food and 
agricultural system. In addition, it recognizes that statistics 
and economic analysis are critical for informed decision making 
for all parties involved in the system. With these continued 
investments, REE will be ready to meet the challenges to 
agriculture and take advantage of the opportunities presented 
by cutting-edge science and technology.
    This concludes my statement. Thank you for your attention.
    [The prepared statements of Dr. Joseph Jen, Dr. Edward 
Knipling, Dr. Colien Hefferan, Dr. Susan Offutt, and Mr. Ronald 
Bosecker follow:]

     [GRAPHIC(S)NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Dr. Jen. It is clear that you are 
doing a lot of good work and a lot of good research over there, 
and that we appreciate your hard work.

              OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY BUDGET REQUEST

    I had a question about the office of the under secretary. 
The budget request is 35 percent higher for 2004 than what you 
have in 2003--$584,000, the request is now for $792,000. Would 
you tell us in detail what the reasons are for this increase 
and the specific components of what you need this money for?
    Dr. Jen. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the reason we made that 
request is because we have vastly increased cooperation with 
the other Federal agencies. And also with my being a science 
representative at the Federal agency level covering the whole 
area of food and agriculture, we are being asked to be members 
of a very large number ofcommittees--OSTP and many others. So 
the request mainly is to increase one or two staff assistants and some 
operating funds for travel and things like that.

         GRANTS TO SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS

    Mr. Bonilla. Okay. On the subject of, once again, the 
CSREES area, if you would give us a table showing the 
expenditures and technical assistance for Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program since fiscal year 
1997, that would be helpful. And we had a couple of questions 
related to that, you can answer all at one time. Please 
describe the award process for grants under this program, and 
if you could provide also for the record a list of grants 
awarded in fiscal years 1997 through 2002, the grantees, and a 
brief description of the purpose of each grant. And how has the 
operation of this program been improved by its transfer to 
CSREES?
    Dr. Jen. Well, if it is okay with you, Mr. Chairman, I will 
ask Dr. Colien Hefferan, who directs all these programs, to 
answer that question.
    Mr. Bonilla. Very good.
    Dr. Hefferan. I certainly can provide the committee a list 
of the grants that had been made previously. This year, when we 
were asked to take on the program, we made a decision to 
consolidate the appropriation from last year with the 
appropriation for 2003, in part because it was very late in the 
year when we took on management of the program and because we 
wanted to make a transition to longer-term grants. The awards 
had been one-year awards previously, and we wanted to institute 
some stability into the program. So by consolidating two years 
of funding and one award mechanism, this year we are 
anticipating making awards for three years to the institutions 
and organizations that receive funding.
    We are going to have the peer review panel for that program 
later in April, and anticipate that in May we will announce the 
awards. We have received 84 applications from around the 
country from organizations and universities that serve not only 
African American farmers but Hispanic, American Indian, and 
other underserved groups, and anticipate that we will probably 
make approximately 30 awards from that program later this 
spring.
    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S)NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
        
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

    Mr. Bonilla. Okay. I have a question now about the homeland 
security budget request. It includes a request for $16 million 
for a new program for homeland security under the Integrated 
Activities account. If you could tell us what this money is 
for, what are the goals in using a dollar figure of that 
degree?
    Dr. Jen. I believe that this is the network program that I 
mentioned briefly--again, Dr. Hefferan can give you more detail 
on that.
    Dr. Hefferan. As part of the Defense appropriations 
supplemental last year to the Department, our agency was asked 
to work with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to 
establish a network of laboratories around the Nation that 
could essentially serve as a backup system and a coordination 
system with the APHIS laboratories. And so collectively we 
established a network involving 17 laboratories covering both 
veterinary diagnostics and, really, a new venture into plant 
diagnostics.
    So there are--it is set up as a hub-and-spoke system, with 
5 hub laboratories in veterinary medicine. And those are all 
laboratories that are located at a land-grant university but 
also are the state laboratories for veterinary medicine. These 
are being upgraded so that they are able to, both by the 
systems that they have in place and the training of their 
staff, serve as an adjunct to the APHIS laboratories around the 
country. They were selected on the basis of their ability to 
look at pathogens that are currently high-threat pathogens for 
the country and their proximity to where the agricultural 
issues are.
    In addition, there is another set of laboratories that are 
establishing a plant diagnostics system. These are all to be 
linked together by a new secure information system that will 
link these state and university-based labs to the system that 
APHIS has with the goal of utilizing new research that the 
universities and the Agricultural Research Service are 
producing on diagnostics to substantially increase the 
efficiency and decrease the amount of time it takes to diagnose 
these high-risk pathogens.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you.
    Dr. Jen. And I believe Texas A&M and Cornell University are 
both involved in this system.
    Mr. Bonilla. Dr. Jen is learning. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Hefferan. And the appropriation that we are requesting 
for next year is essentially to maintain this system. It 
requires a lot of education for the staff members, the 
communication system, and making sure that these non-Federal 
laboratories are meeting the same standards as the Federal 
laboratories.
    Mr. Bonilla. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Jen. Thank you. Mr. 
Hinchey.
    Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, 
ladies and gentlemen.
    The 2002 Farm Bill authorized a $100-million-a-year 
competitive research facilities construction grant program for 
land-grant colleges and universities across the country. The 
purpose of that program was to enhance the security of 
agriculture in the United States against various kinds of 
threats, both internal and external. I see that there is no 
funding included in the President's budget for this program. I 
am wondering if you are relying upon theCongress to put that in 
or if this is just regarded as something that is of no or low priority.
    Dr. Jen. Well, I think homeland security is not a low 
priority at all. But, you know, it is in a year that there are 
so many items, that we have to pick and choose in some way. So 
it is a difficult decision year in terms of that. We did 
request some funding to try and secure the ARS laboratories. 
Some of them are at land-grant universities, so it is partially 
addressed in that. And I do not know whether, Steve, you have 
anything to add to that.
    Mr. Dewhurst. No, it is a question of budget, what we could 
afford.
    Mr. Hinchey. Well, you know, budgets are a question of 
priorities, what is important and what is not important. It 
seems to us that, well--I say ``us''--it seems to some people 
who are observing what the Administration is doing generally 
with regard to domestic activities concerning domestic 
security. There has been a lot of concern in a number of areas 
that you are not dealing with. It seems to me that neglecting 
to fund the facilities program is a mistake and that we ought 
to be dealing with this issue. And certainly the Congress 
thought so, because the program was authorized in the farm bill 
last year. So in any case, I think this is something that we 
need to pay attention to as the process goes forward.
    Dr. Jen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Hinchey. I wanted to join with our chairman, he 
mentioned that you are doing a lot of good research in a lot of 
areas. Your work is very much appreciated. What we need to do, 
of course, is to make sure that your research actually gets out 
into the field and is practiced.
    On page 10G-7 of the budget, you talk about 
campylobacteriosis. You say this is caused by Campylobacter. It 
is the most common cause of bacterial diarrhea illness in the 
United States. And that the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention estimate that campylobacteriosis affects more than 2 
million people a year in the United States. You go on to say 
that under the Evans-Allen program, research conducted at North 
Carolina Ag & Tech has revealed that about 66 percent of 
uncooked whole broiler chickens at supermarkets are 
contaminated with Campylobacter.
    Now, we talked about this this morning at another hearing 
of the subcommittee. And at that time, we said that research 
indicated that 43 percent of the chicken that was tested showed 
Campylobacter. But you are telling us it is even more than 
that. Two-thirds of the broiler chickens that you tested at 
supermarkets--these are, you know, ready for people to 
purchase--contained this disease. But you also say that poultry 
flocks can escape infection when the litter is changed, good 
sanitation is practiced, and cooler environmental temperatures 
prevail.

             DISSEMINATION AND USE OF REE RESEARCH RESULTS

    So my question, really, is what is the means of conveying 
the good research that you do to other parts of the department 
to make certain that the research that you conduct is actually 
being put into practice?
    Dr. Jen. We do have, I think, in place this year very, very 
tight collaborations with other mission areas. In fact, I think 
I mentioned briefly that I am implementing in REE a new 
strategic plan that stresses the fact that we need to have 
better coordination with the other mission areas, like food 
safety, what you have just said, to make sure that we know the 
priority of the most important type of pathogen we are facing 
and that we put more of a research priority on that. ARS 
actually has a fairly large program in food safety relating to 
this Campylobacter you are talking about, and is making 
tremendously good progress on it. In fact, yesterday when we 
talked with the food safety mission area, that was mentioned.
    So I think we are trying to coordinate the research 
priorities based on more of the local needs, or the constituent 
stakeholders need, the industries' need. More so, probably, 
than in the past.
    Mr. Hinchey. Could I follow up, Mr. Chairman, one more?
    Mr. Bonilla. Go ahead.
    Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate that, and I think that is very valuable and 
very good. And I think I understand what you are conveying to 
us. But my question is, how does this get into practice? What 
is the mechanism that you use? Do the other leaders in the 
Agriculture Department coordinate with your efforts? You are 
saying that all you need to do to cut down on this--not 
eliminate it, but cut down on it substantially, is have a 
cleaner environment, have greater sanitation, have cooler 
temperatures prevail. In a way, farming has turned into 
manufacturing, essentially, in many areas. And we can only 
anticipate that these kinds of problems that caused illness for 
2 million people a year are going to go up unless the research 
that you are doing has some effect, some efficacy. So that is 
what I am interested in.
    Dr. Jen. Well, I am going to let Dr. Hefferan elaborate on 
it later, but I think generally speaking, of course, we do have 
a very good extension system that is trying to get to the 
general public. I think in this particular case, it is much 
more important that we work with industry to use the research 
that we have and disseminate it through a Web page, through 
published materials, et cetera. I do not know if you can add to 
that?

                              FOOD SAFETY

    Dr. Hefferan. I will just add briefly to that. In addition 
to the work that North Carolina A&T reports here under the 
Evans-Allen program, we have an integrated research education 
extension program in food safety, which does specifically take 
research findings to the educational system, including things 
such as training for small and very small processors. We work, 
as Dr. Jen suggests, with FSIS, but we work particularly out in 
the States and in the field with the actual processors, helping 
them to establish practices that will minimize these 
activities, or these kinds of pathogens.
    I think there is an enormous amount of effort that can be 
extended in this--working with retailers. We have a large 
program, for example, in Florida that works with restaurant 
owners in management of food practices there. But there are 
many opportunities, and it is facilitated by the integrated 
research and extension program. It is not to say there is not a 
long way to go, but we certainly are aware of the issue.
    Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Latham.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, 
everyone here.

                     NATIONAL ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER

    A significant concern for me in Ames, Iowa, is 
themodernization project with the National Animal Disease Center. There 
is no request for funding for that this year. If you could just maybe 
express your opinion or your thoughts on this absence of a request, 
what it will do to the project as far as extending it, I would 
appreciate it.
    Dr. Jen. Yes, Congressman, I believe you asked the 
Secretary that question, and she has provided you a general 
answer. So I am going to ask Dr. Knipling to go into more 
detail.
    Dr. Knipling. Well, let me say, first of all, the agency 
and the department are very committed to the continuation of 
this project. I think you are familiar with some of the 
background, that this was a six-year modernization program that 
was in all of its out years scheduled to cost a total of $430 
million with incremental appropriations. We have to date 
received appropriations of $157 million, so we are well under 
way. In fact, in some respects we are ahead of schedule in 
terms of the funding stream.
    Obviously, the lack of a request in 2004 does break that 
stream. And this at a minimum, of course, would lead to about a 
one-year delay, the cost impact of which would be probably on 
the order of about 10 percent, just from the inflationary cost 
of a one-year delay.
    Mr. Latham. So about $43 million additional?
    Dr. Knipling. Just ballpark, yes. That is what we would 
guess. But we are moving right ahead with the design, the award 
of contracts and so forth. Beyond the design activity, the 
first major phase construction would be the $75-million 
biological safety level-3 large animal facility. And we have 
all of the necessary resources in hand to move forward with 
that part of the overall projects.
    Mr. Latham. What would it take to keep it on track if we 
did not fund the full amount needed? The original proposal 
would have the balance of the funding needed--in the 2004 
budget. I have heard it would take about $110, or $120 million, 
to keep it on track, would not delay it as far as the 
completion in 2006.
    Dr. Knipling. Well, any lesser amount would require some 
modification of the phasing or the sequence of activities. In 
addition to the large animal facility for which we have 
resources, we have some additional amounts already in hand. And 
we are looking now at options as to what amounts added to that, 
perhaps in 2004, would allow us to get one or more different 
phases under different scenarios. So we are in the process of 
determining those options right now.
    Mr. Latham. How much has been allocated to date?
    Dr. Knipling. In terms of contract awards to the various 
design activities, about $12 million.
    Mr. Latham. Out of 157?
    Dr. Knipling. Yes, but that is for some of the initial 
design awards. And that is in accordance with the original 
schedule.
    Mr. Latham. What was your request to OMB?
    Dr. Knipling. The department requested the full amount that 
was needed. At that time, it was $306 million, but that was 
before we had the 2003 appropriation. With the 2003 
appropriation of $33 million, the balance needed now at this 
point is $273 million.
    Mr. Latham. And that was your request to OMB?
    Dr. Knipling. Well, originally it was $306 million, but 
before we knew the 2003 appropriation level.
    Mr. Latham. All right. But you do not have a number if we 
were to get half of that or some number at this point, in the 
2004 bill, that would keep us on schedule?
    Dr. Knipling. No, I do not have a number now, but we are 
actively working with our facility engineers and our design 
people to look at some options, and we could present those to 
the committee at some later date.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. This initiative is very important for the 
area, but more importantly from a national perspective, I think 
it is so important to have that facility operating. Also, I 
think there is, about $14 million of APHIS money, that went for 
a security facility over there right now in addition to this.
    Dr. Knipling. Yes. That is in addition to the original 
plan, and that is proceeding well.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. I thank you for now. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Latham. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and 
gentlemen, welcome. Glad you are here. Thank you for your work.

                    FUNDING OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

    I am one who feels as though sometimes the agriculture 
appropriations budget gets criticized for targeted research, 
but I happen to think that we are not all the same nationally, 
that we have different needs in Washington State than they do 
in Iowa or Florida or California or New York. Or Texas. So I 
happen to think there is a defensible argument that can be made 
that says we need specific research money for specific 
problems, and it is okay to earmark those dollars. And I come 
from a district that has a land-grant university and we are 
very proud of the research work that is being done there. So I 
want to ask you if you would agree with that concept, that 
there is certainly a region-by-region need--or needs that are 
not the same nationally; that therefore competitive grants are 
fine, but on the other hand, sometimes in competitive grant 
systems you do not get the coverage that you need to meet the 
needs of agriculture producers in a particular region. Does 
that comport with your view?
    Dr. Jen. First of all concept-wise I will agree with you. 
We get questions about why USDA's research does not operate 
just like NIH--at one place and does everything. And I say it 
is not like cancer; you only need to do it in one place, 
because no matter whether it is in Washington or New York, 
cancer is cancer. There is no difference. But the soil and 
temperature and other growing conditions in the different 
States are so different; the same problem calls for very 
different solutions. So that is the regional nature, and that 
is the reason why we have almost a hundred laboratories of ARS 
throughout the whole country. So concept-wise, I would agree 
with you.
    However, I do want to defend the competitive grant, in the 
sense that regional projects can compete for a competitive 
grant just as well. Because the reason I stated it is like in 
my opening statement. It is my personal belief that competitive 
grant programs have the advantage of attracting the best 
brilliant minds to work on food and agriculture systems. And 
you do not know where they come from in the scientific field 
sometimes. Soit is the best mechanism of probably trying to 
utilize the funding for that.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I will agree with your concept on that, 
too, but my point, too, is that sometimes problems come up in 
agriculture that need an immediate research solution. And we 
cannot predict exactly what pests or disease or yield reduction 
problems might occur across the country, and sometimes you need 
to respond to that in a quick manner, and do it in a directed 
fashion rather than in a more indirect fashion.

                             CYBER-SECURITY

    But I appreciate your comments. I would also ask you 
about--I noticed in your budget request your testimony about 
information technology, cyber-security. Cyber-security is a 
potentially huge problem in the private sector as well as the 
government sector. And we do not know what the terrorism threat 
might be as it relates to hacking into computers and obtaining 
information or disrupting systems. But my sense is the 
Department of Agriculture as well as other agencies of 
Government are not as prepared as they might be. Nor is 
Congress. Nor is, you know, the business down the street. It is 
a growing problem and I think it is a potential threat that 
exists as a further disruption to our country.
    Is $3 million adequate for you to deal with what you 
perceive to be the threat, or is it something that you wish you 
could do more with?
    Dr. Jen. I am sure you are very aware of one of the 
President's initiatives, e-government.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Yes.
    Dr. Jen. The REE agencies, actually, are pretty much 
leading the USDA in terms of trying to implement the e-
government initiative. This $3 million that you are talking 
about is only for NASS, one of the REE agencies, to support 
NASS' electronic data reporting initiative, and lead the 
Department in two eGov initiatives. Cyber-security issues will 
be addressed as part of these initiatives.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Well, it is a continuing problem. I think 
we need to pay attention to it in the Government.
    Dr. Jen. Yes, I agree with you.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I am grateful for your service and for your 
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Farr.
    Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 
late.
    I essentially have three questions--one to deal with 
research in specialty crops, one to do with methylbromide, one 
with to do with organics, and with the time that is allowed, I 
will do it, and then if we have another round I will continue 
on them; if not, I will submit them for the record.

                            SPECIALTY CROPS

    But let me at the outset just state that what concerns me, 
sitting on this committee now over the number of years, is 
the--I see significant increases year in and year out for 
subsidy payments and for price supports. And yet I see the 
funding for research being flat. And it seems to me that that 
ought to be a real concern. It ought to be up there among our 
national security concerns. We learned once that the military 
could only survive as long as they have access to food. And if 
indeed we are going to put a lot more money in the military, we 
need to make sure that they have access to that food and that 
that food is, almost in all cases, U.S.-grown food.
    We have seen with specialty crops that they are value-added 
products on great demand in foreign markets, they are solid 
performers, they bring in higher returns in investment than 
many of the traditional crops. And yet the research to keep 
everything on the cutting edge is flat-lined. So what is the 
USDA doing to increase the Federal investment in agricultural 
research and especially with regard to specialty crops, value-
added products and the availability of new technologies of safe 
production and handling practices and access to new markets? 
Have you got any new initiatives in that area?

                             COLLABORATION

    Dr. Jen. Well, one of the ways, I think, that we are doing 
it is through collaboration with other Federal agencies that 
have technologies that we may or may not have, or we could find 
ways to borrow in some sense.
    Mr. Farr. An example of that?
    Dr. Jen. An example of it, that also addresses a little bit 
of, I think, Congressman Hinchey's question about extension 
happened last week in Denver. We had a USDA-NASA workshop, at 
which we were trying to ask NASA to help us use their space 
technology. They have a lot of space data and we have a lot of 
ground data. Trying to put those two databases together is 
brand-new. Geospatial technology, we call it, in some sense. We 
also announced the fact that NASA and USDA will offer a joint 
call for proposals to train the State extension specialists on 
geospatial technology for utilization in agriculture. NASA will 
pay half of it, and we will pay half of it.
    Mr. Farr. May I suggest another area you might want to team 
up? The United States Navy has a weather center in Georgia and 
one in Monterey, California, where they collect all the weather 
data in the world and then they analyze it and put it out. They 
are now working with the farmers in Salinas Valley to give them 
dew point data.
    Dr. Jen. Great suggestion. We will look into it.
    Mr. Farr. And I think that could be helpful to farmers all 
over the country.
    Dr. Jen. Yes.

                         ORGANIC FOOD RESEARCH

    Mr. Farr. But what I am worried about is that we are just 
sort of--now we do not have enough money to do research, so we 
are robbing Peter to pay Paul. We just align with partners. 
That is great, I encourage that. But is there any effort to get 
some additional funding in this category?
    Dr. Jen. Well, sir, you can do a lot of it for us.
    Mr. Farr. Will you help us?
    Dr. Jen. Could I maybe address the specialty crop and 
organic foods area that you talked about. We do have work that 
you might like to hear about. We recognized the fact that we 
needed to gain more or devote some resources to specialty crop 
research in organic foods. One ARS station that we have that is 
quite heavily into it is the Salinas station, with which I am 
sure you are very familiar.
    Mr. Farr. You do not think there is any correlation between 
that and my being on this committee?
    Dr. Jen. No. Absolutely not.
    But we recently commissioned an agricultural engineering 
firm to carry out a feasibility study on expanding that Salinas 
lab. The report is almost ready and will soon be submitted to 
the Congress.
    Mr. Farr. Well, thank you.
    Dr. Jen. Because that is part of the thing that we are 
addressing. We do recognize that organic food is growing at 
about 20 percent a year.
    Mr. Farr. The markets grow.
    Dr. Jen. We have people in the organics field on our 
National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension and 
Economics Board, the advisory board. So we are not ignoring 
organic agriculture. I think one of the difficulties we 
sometimes have when we change research programs is that we 
cannot react as fast as we might like because if you hire 
somebody who has a specialty in one area, later you cannot just 
fire them or say, you, an animal specialist, go do plants. You 
cannot do that. So changing research directions sometimes takes 
a little longer time than some of the other actions that you 
are doing. But I think we are very keenly aware of what the 
market is and what the constituents say. We hold listening 
sessions. I think in the National Research Initiative program 
that we have an organic transition grant starting, for example.
    So we are addressing that. I do not think we are ignoring 
it.
    Mr. Farr. Thank you.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Farr. Mr. Boyd.
    Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary 
Jen and to your staff, welcome. I know the members of this 
committee heard me say this before, but I want to make sure 
that you hear it. I spent my entire life in production 
agriculture, and I know that I would not still be in it if it 
was not for the work of the ARS, CSREES, the other agencies 
that you have under your purview enabling us to stay 
competitive in the production and marketing of our crops.

                    PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

    It reminds me of a saying that--and I want to paraphrase 
here. I am not a Washington historian, but George Washington 
once said, and I paraphrase, always maintain a strong 
production agriculture in this Nation and beware of entangling 
foreign trade agreements.
    Actually, we have done pretty well on that--don't you 
think, Dr. Knipling, on maintaining a strong production 
agriculture? We may not have done quite so well on the 
entangling foreign trade agreements, but it is the nature of 
our world today that it is a smaller world with more open 
borders.
    I want you to know that I have visited every ARS station in 
Florida. I made a commitment to one of your employees, Dr. 
Knipling, your director down in Florida a couple of years ago 
to do that and I have completed that. And quite impressed with 
their work.
    What I am concerned about, though, is--and this question 
has been touched on earlier. I strongly believe that the only 
way that we can stay ahead of this curve and maintain our 
strong production agriculture industry is through research and 
development. Research is an important component of that. And I 
am somewhat concerned now, as I have been in previous 
administrations, that there is a reduction of commitment. There 
is not the commitment to research and development that we have 
had in the past. And I think that is becoming more and more 
important as we open our borders and expand our trade 
agreements and competition becomes greater and greater. Because 
in many cases, the people that we are doing trade business 
with, all they have is agricultural products generated with 
cheap labor.
    And my question is, is there anybody in this 
administration, or do you all ever have any conversations about 
the importance of a strong production agricultural industry in 
this Nation, and the fact that, the main thing, that you have 
to stay ahead of the curve on the research side? Very simple 
question.

                            LEVERAGING FUNDS

    Dr. Jen. Sir, that is something I try to say every day 
within the department as well as elsewhere in the Federal 
level. And I think other Federal agencies sometimes sympathize 
with us in it, and sometimes realize that we have limited 
funding resources. So we try to leverage our limited resources 
to a fairly great extent.
    I gave an example about NASA a while ago. I would like to 
give you another example, if I could, about how we are trying 
to leverage our limited funding. Genomic sequencing, as you 
know, is a very big thing, but we don't have a lot of flexible 
funding to do large-scale sequencing. So we team up with NIH. 
They have a human genomics center, which has an abundance of 
resources. We talked to them about the possibility of 
sequencing honeybees. I am sure you understand the point of 
honeybee to agriculture, sir. At first we were talking 
somewhere between $7 million to $10 million to complete the 
sequencing of honey bees. And I just said, we will pay half, 
can you pay the other half? So NIH said, sorry, we really don't 
have that kind of funding. It happens that, however, in their 
prioritizing they looked at the evolution chart. The honeybee 
is on the evolution chart as a unique species. So eventually 
NIH agreed to pay 90 percent of it, and we paid 10 percent. The 
sequencing of the honeybee is going to be done within a month 
or so. I think within the next few years, with that new 
knowledge that we have with the honeybee, we will be able to 
solve a lot of problems that we have with honeybees.
    So that is one example where we are trying to use creative 
means to leverage on funding. I think it also makes good 
friends in the other Federal agencies who understand and are 
sympathetic to us for our research. And they do realize that 
such research is important to them as well.
    Mr. Boyd. That is good information for us to have, and I am 
glad to know that you are trying to leverage what limited 
resources we have.
    Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I just want to say that 
this is one member who--you know, many of the facilities that 
we have, ARS facilities, are World War II vintage or older. I 
mean, I visited some that I would not want to work in. I don't 
know what it is going to take. Maybe it is time that we 
considered a reorganization in terms of mergers of some of our 
facilities. I don't know what the answer is, but count this one 
member of the committee who firmly believes that we have got to 
continue to stay ahead of the curve on the research side. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bonilla. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I am at this time going 
to ask my vice chairman, Mr. Latham, to take the chair and ask 
a couple of remaining questions he has.
    Dr. Jen, just for your information, I do not anticipate 
that we will be here beyond maybe another 10 or 15 minutes. Mr. 
Hinchey and Mr. Farr both have very brief follow-up questions, 
and then I believe we will be wrapped up.
    So with that, I will ask Mr. Latham to take the chair and 
proceed with his questions.
    Thank you, Dr. Jen, and thank you all for being here.
    Dr. Jen. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Bonilla. We want to remind all staff that is present of 
members who did not make it today to please pick up the budget 
bag that was left here by the good folks that are testifying 
today. It has a lot of neat stuff in it.
    Mr. Latham. Okay, now we can have fun. [Laughter.]
    He heard that. 'Bye, Henry.
    I want to associate myself with what Mr. Boyd said, and I 
think Mr. Nethercutt is saying the same thing, too, that the 
future of agriculture lies in research, in basic research. 
Whether you talk about plant, animal disease, renewable 
energies, pharmaceuticals from plants, our future in 
agriculture is going to come from what you folks do. And that 
is a heck of a responsibility.
    I personally would like to research enhancement similar to 
that at NIH maybe over the next 5 years. I would like to see 
some type of an effort in that same regard as far as 
agricultural research that would put that type of emphasis on 
it, because it does have a tremendous impact, not just 
economically for farmers, but for food safety and our own 
security here. I don't know if you want to comment on that or 
what you see as far as potential, but we have to find a way to 
dramatically increase the funding, I think.
    And you are going to say no, you don't want it, right?
    Dr. Jen. Mr. Chairman, any way you want to give me money.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. I go back to my Ames facility, which is 
World War II vintage type facilities, that are not as 
functional, as they are in the security issues that we are 
dealing with today.
    One thing that I think in the 2003 bill that was just 
passed, there is a national research initiative on genetically 
modified agricultural grants, including studying the risks and 
benefits to humans with the new technology that is coming 
forward. Can you tell me where that research is going and what 
do you expect to find out?

                      GENOMICS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

    Dr. Jen. Well, I think risk assessment is badly needed 
research because there is a perception with the consumers that 
GMO products are not good, when there is not a single study 
that showed they harm humans at all. So I think studying risk 
assessment in genomics research is badly needed. And with the 
increase of NRI funding we are doing a number of things. For 
example, I think Deputy Under Secretary Brown is going to head 
a group doing risk assessment of food safety research. ARS is 
actually talking with Chinese scientists about doing, this kind 
of risk assessment with international cooperation. We not only 
need to convince the developing world that we are guarding 
against risk associated with GMOs, we need to get the other 
people on board to buy our product.
    So these projects are being initiated.
    Mr. Latham. A major new initiative that we are getting a 
lot of emphasis on in Iowa, is biologics and pharmaceuticals in 
plants. I don't want to see the same thing happen with that 
work that has happened with GMOs. As a farmer myself, like Mr. 
Boyd, I sat through scores if not hundreds of meetings talking 
about genetically modified and what the future was going to be. 
Not one conversation ever talked about the consumer out there. 
It was all about production and benefits, all that. I don't 
want to see this get away from us and not be responsive to the 
consumer on this stuff.
    Dr. Jen. Could I ask, Dr. Susan Offutt, to, discuss a 
project related to that in the budget?
    Mr. Latham. Yes, please.
    Dr. Offutt. Yes. The question concerns how consumers react 
to information when they meet a new product. And the research 
that we have done so far tells us, particularly in the case of 
biotechnology products, that scientific credibility is really 
important in determining not only whether they will buy, but 
how much they are willing to pay.
    So building on that foundation, the 2004 budget proposes to 
look more closely at, for example, genetically modified wheat 
to understand and anticipate what consumer reaction will be. As 
you suggest, we introduce products to the marketplace but, lo 
and behold, we find out people don't want them.
    So the question is, can we anticipate their reaction and 
then create ways to deliver information that enables them to 
make up their minds in an objective manner.
    Dr. Jen. It is in the 2004 budget request, sir.
    Mr. Latham. Wonderful. Okay. Mr. Hinchey.

                              FOOD SAFETY

    Mr. Hinchey. Dr. Jen, I want to stay on the issue of 
research, too, and focus maybe a little bit more narrowly this 
time on the issue of food safety.
    The entire budget for food safety research at ARS was $93 
million in 2002, and that included research on every aspect of 
food, all across the board. And it appears that ARS's share of 
the Federal research dollars last year was only 2 percent. 
Defense had 49 percent, HHS 23 percent, on down the list. This 
seems very low to me, given the problems that farmers face all 
across the board--food safety, nutrition, invasive pests, every 
thing that we have been talking about in these hearings over 
the last several weeks.
    Would you comment on that?
    Dr. Jen. Yes. First of all, I think through the generosity 
of this committee, food safety research in USDA has really 
increased quite dramatically in the last four or five years. 
This includes food safety grants that CSREES administers, which 
is approximately, 40 to 50 million a year?
    Dr. Hefferan. About $44.5 million, all told.
    Dr. Jen. And I am going to give this away, if it is okay. 
TheERS is actually going to unveil next month a food-borne 
illness cost calculator.
    Mr. Hinchey. Say that again?
    Dr. Jen. Food-borne illness cost calculator. I would like 
Dr. Offutt to tell you more about it.
    Dr. Offutt. In making decisions about what food safety 
priorities are and where to direct the research dollars, what 
problems are most pressing, cost-benefit analysis is often 
used. The question is, how much are we losing in terms of 
people's illness, their inability to go to work, the medical 
costs attributable each year to illness doe to different 
pathogens? But if you look across the Federal Government, 
people make different assumptions about how this cost should be 
calculated. Those numbers are quite sensitive to assumptions 
about, for example, the value of human life, wages, and the 
like. There is no one right way to do it, but how it comes out 
really matters.
    So what we have developed is an online interactive way for 
people to put in their own assumptions about the losses to food 
safety, to come up with estimates of impact. We think this will 
go a long way, number one, to smooth some of the discussion 
that occurs among agencies if there is a disagreement about 
what the most virulent or most costly pathogen is, as well as 
for people in the public to understand how the costs of food-
borne illness actually affect their own lives and those in 
their businesses.
    Dr. Jen. The reason I wanted her to tell you about this is 
that I think we are really trying to implement a more 
integrated approach to the research problem, not only looking 
for scientific laboratory results, but also economic results 
and the risk factors and various different things added 
together. We feel that will help us determine the priority of 
the research that needs to be done to address this and report 
to you and be most effective in utilizing the taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Hinchey. Maybe if you could, give us a cross-section, a 
cross-cut of all the food safety research that you are doing--
where you are doing it, how much you are spending in those 
particular areas--so we would have a clearer idea exactly where 
these resources are going.
    Dr. Jen. Steve, do we have those? I believe food safety is 
one of the cross-cuts, right?
    Mr. Dewhurst. We do a cross-cut that we would be glad to 
provide to the committee.
    Dr. Jen. That would be for more than just my agencies.
    Mr. Dewhurst. We do a department-wide cross-cut on food 
safety which we are glad to make available to the committee. It 
may not go quite to the level of detail that Congressman is 
asking, but we can supplement that information with the detail 
that he wants.
    Mr. Hinchey. Great. If we have any additional questions, 
then we can just pose them to you. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S)] NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
        I know that there was some clinical research on E. coli and 
Listeria in the budget of 2002. But if I am not mistaken, you 
are not asking for any additional funds for research on the 
issue of meat and poultry or other contamination in the budget 
request this year. Is that correct?
    Dr. Jen. Is that correct?
    Dr. Knipling. That is correct. There is no new request, but 
we do have a very large base program collectively among the 
agencies. I would say it approaches about $150 million. For 
Listeria alone we have in ARS about a $12 million program, 
including those increases in 2002, and actually just a few 
weeks ago for 2003 there were some additional monies provided 
as well.
    Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. 
Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Latham. Thank you. Mr. Farr.
    Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             METHYL BROMIDE

    I am very interested in the methyl bromide issue. As you 
know, we have signed protocols on the elimination of methyl 
bromide. We have not found an acceptable alternative yet, yet 
we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for it. 
Last year I mentioned that there might be some evidence that 
methyl bromide is not, if used properly, is not the ozone-
depleting originally thought. The idea was that if you could, 
in injection in soils, if you used the best technologies you 
could eliminate the escape into the atmosphere and therefore it 
would not be a depleter. We have already sort of accepted that 
in the methyl bromide chamber treatment, that it does not get 
into the atmosphere, therefore it is not a depleter.
    I just wondered what is being done to address that issue. 
It was raised last year. And sort of the follow-on to that is 
are you using any of your--can USDA provide any direct support 
for the commodity boards or the universities who might have 
this kind of research? And if so, is there any effort to 
revisit this issue? I mean, I think if it is an ozone-depleter, 
we cannot do anything about it--obviously, there is no worth to 
doing it. But if we have learned from technology that if we 
apply it correctly, we don't have that problem, then we ought 
not to then be held down on eliminating it when we have an 
ability to control it.
    Dr. Jen. Could I ask two of my managers to answer your 
question? I think as far as the grant goes, we do have grants 
in methyl bromide. Right?
    Dr. Hefferan. Yes, we have a methyl bromide transition 
program, which is primarily university-based, and they 
arelooking at a number of alternatives. Basically they found there is 
not a silver bullet. It does not address the issue that you have.
    Mr. Farr. No, it does not address that issue I asked. It is 
not looking for--I know you are doing the alternatives, but the 
question is can you support commodity boards or universities 
who might have the research showing that it is not--if you use 
it properly, it is not a depleter?
    Dr. Hefferan. We do support university work that constantly 
looks at the real consequences.
    Mr. Farr. So you can support those kinds of studies?
    Dr. Hefferan. That can be supported both through the 
formula programs and other competitive programs.
    Mr. Farr. Okay. Then how about what is the agency doing 
about looking into whether it is in fact a depleter or not?
    Dr. Jen. Right. Ed?
    Dr. Knipling. ARS is not addressing this issue directly. 
There have been in the past year or so a number of technical 
symposia and meetings within the scientist community on this 
subject. However, we in USDA don't have the means to challenge 
whether or not methyl bromide is an ozone depleter. As you 
alluded to earlier, we are doing some research on the recapture 
of methyl bromide, particularly from the post-harvest commodity 
treatment in chambers.
    Mr. Farr. But don't you think that is sort of the debate 
that we ought to engage in? If indeed we have technology that 
allows us best management practices that does not allow it to 
be a depleter, then why would we go back and revisit the issue?
    Dr. Knipling. Well, yes, in that sense. In fact, that sort 
of data and technology was used to help develop the policies 
that methyl bromide can in fact be used and exempted from the 
regulations for quarantine purposes. In terms of the 
atmospheric physics and chemistry of ozone depletion, we just 
don't have a voice in that particular issue.
    I would like to go on quickly to just point out that one 
very important activity that is taking place right now--as 
related to a provision in the Montreal Protocol--is an 
allowance to have so-called critical use exemptions. In these 
cases the ban on methyl bromide use in the year 2005 would be 
suspended or exempted for those commodities where available 
alternative technologies can be shown not to be technically or 
economically feasible. Scientific staff of several of the 
agencies here at the table working with EPA in the last few 
months and with the commodity organizations have just submitted 
a package of behalf of the U.S. to propose critical use 
exemptions for a number of commodities.
    Mr. Farr. Is there a copy of that list?
    Dr. Knipling. Yes. It will be reviewed by an international 
panel. And there are some 16 California commodities that are 
proposed for such critical use exemptions.
    Mr. Farr. Do you know if nurseries are on that list?
    Dr. Knipling. I suspect they are. I don't know that for 
sure. Certainly strawberries is at the top of the list, but 
there are a number of categories of commodities. I would expect 
the nursery crops to be on that list, yes. I will double-check.
    Mr. Farr. Thank you.
    Mr. Latham. Okay, thank you, Mr. Farr. Mr. Boyd. Do you 
have any further questions?
    Mr. Farr. I will put them in the record.
    Mr. Latham. Okay. I would hope we could finish up because 
we have a series of votes. Thank you. Mr. Boyd.
    Mr. Boyd. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on the line of 
questioning I started a while ago.

                        USDA RESEARCH FACILITIES

    Is it time, Secretary Jen, for us to take a serious look at 
realignment of our ARS facilities across the Nation? It seems 
to me that many people believe we built them based on who 
happened to chair a certain committee or so on. And I must 
admit that I had the same feeling as I drove through Florida 
and visited all seven stations. Is it time for us to take a 
look at that? You know, we had to change the law to do that for 
the military.
    Dr. Jen. I think, Congressman, the last such review was 
done in 1999. There were ARS facilities that were recommended 
for consolidation or closure, but none of the recommendations 
has been implemented. I think we are actually doing a research 
facility study of the whole USDA, not only just ARS, but also 
FSIS, you know, forestry research and all those, to see whether 
or not we are able to consolidate some or better utilize them. 
We thought it would probably be more appropriate for us to do 
it department-wide.
    Mr. Boyd. The study in 1999, was that an in-house study?
    Dr. Jen. It was mandated by the Congress. The members of 
the study committee were outside USDA.
    Mr. Boyd. But it was the 1999?
    Dr. Jen. Right. And we will be happy to provide you with a 
copy.
    Mr. Boyd. Was any action taken on that, or what is the----
    Dr. Jen. Ed can answer that.

                     STRATEGIC PLANNING TASK FORCE

    Dr. Knipling. That study was requested in the 1996 Farm 
Bill and the Department did appoint an external task force to 
study that issue. The written report was issued in 1999. That 
report has been used on several occasions since that time to 
help us in our strategic planning for new facilities, and in 
fact for the fiscal year 2003 budget that was proposed to this 
committee a year ago, it did recommend some facility 
consolidations and closures in accordance with the 
recommendations of that report.
    Mr. Boyd. Dr. Jen, let me ask you very specifically, sir, 
do you think it is time that we revisit that report and 
consider enacting, implementing some of the suggestions, 
recommendations of that report?
    Dr. Jen. I really don't know how to answer that question.
    Mr. Boyd. Dr. Brown, welcome to the committee, sir. Would 
you take a shot at answering the question?
    Dr. Brown. As far as the necessity of doing a new report, 
it has been completed now for a few years. Much of what was 
recommended is still valid. So I think we probably don't need a 
whole new report right now. We will continue to use that report 
as we recommend consolidations and closures and so on.
    Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I just want 
the committee to know I think this issue is so seriousin terms 
of how effective we are in ARS, that it is maybe something that we 
should revisit, have discussions with authorizers, whatever we need to 
do. But my sense is that, and from having talked to other folks from 
around the country and visiting my stations, that probably we can be 
more effective. We are doing a lot of great work. I am just not sure we 
are doing it as efficiently as we could be.
    [The information provided was deemed too lengthy for 
printing and is retained in committee files.]
    Mr. Latham. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much on 
the panel for your responses today. There will be questions 
from members for the record. If you could respond as quickly as 
possible, that would be helpful. And again, we thank you for 
your testimony.
    The committee will be adjourned until 9:30 a.m. on 
Wednesday, March 19, for the World Development Department.
    We are adjourned.

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    

                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                   RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS

                                                                   Page
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)..............................    12
Biographical Sketches:
    Dr. Rodney J. Brown, Deputy Under Secretary, REE.............    71
    Dr. Joseph J. Jen, Under Secretary, REE......................    70
Biosecurity......................................................     5
Collaboration.................................................... 5, 89
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
  (CSREES).......................................................    14
Cyber-Security...................................................    88
Economic Research Service (ERS)..................................    15
Food Safety......................................................    94
Genomics.......................................................4, 9, 93
Homeland Security................................................    83
Introduction of Witnesses........................................     3
Leveraging Funds.................................................    91
Methyl Bromide...................................................    99
National Agricultural Library....................................    13
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)..................    15
National Animal Disease Center...................................    86
National Research Initiative (NRI)...............................     9
Office of the Under Secretary Budget Request.....................    76
Organic Food Research............................................    90
Production Agriculture Research..................................    90
Research:
    Dissemination and Use of Results.............................    84
    Funding......................................................    87
    Facilities...................................................   101
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers......................    76
Statement of Dr. Joseph J. Jen, Under Secretary, REE.............     7
Strategic Planning Task Force....................................   101

                     AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Aflatoxin Research...............................................   172
Africanized Bees.................................................   223
Agriculture in the Classroom.....................................   416
Aircraft.........................................................   269
Ames, Iowa.......................................................   393
Animal Health Research...........................................   199
Aquaculture Research.............................................   176
ARS Budget Request...............................................   116
ARS Profile......................................................   348
Asian Long Horned Beetle.........................................   219
Avian Influenza..................................................   204
Backlog Facility Replacement.....................................   272
Biodegradable Plastic............................................   184
Biofuels.........................................................   428
Biography of Dr. Edward B. Knipling, ARS Administrator...........    72
Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation...............   186
Biotech and Food Aid.............................................   415
Bioterrorism.....................................................   375
Building and Facilities..........................................   347
Canola Research..................................................   283
Centers of Excellence............................................   158
Citrus Canker....................................................   207
Citrus Root Weevil...............................................   205
Citrus Tristeza Virus............................................   206
Construction.....................................................   426
Cooperative Agreements...........................................   152
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements..................   164
Customers/Clients/Stakeholders...................................   284
Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests...............................   372
Ergot Disease....................................................   221
Explanatory Notes................................................   455
Facilities Requirements..........................................   270
Farm Program Payments............................................   414
Fiscal Year 2003 Highlights......................................   345
Food Safety Research...........................................155, 441
Fruit and Nut Research...........................................   187
Funding for 1890 Colleges and Universities.......................   430
Fungal Phytase...................................................   222
Genetically Modified Foods, Consumer Understanding and Acceptance   432
Germplasm--Plant and Animal......................................   209
Global Change....................................................   218
Grain Sorghum....................................................   391
Grape Research:
    Phylloxera...................................................   211
    Virology.....................................................   212
Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket...................................   212
Greenhouse Industry..............................................   436
Guayule..........................................................   222
Hog Cholera and Foot and Mouth Disease...........................   182
Honey Bee........................................................   226
Hops Research....................................................   223
Human Nutrition...........................................157, 216, 283
Integrated Pest Management.......................................   214
International Research and Extension Activities..................   437
Jointed Goat Grass Control Research..............................   227
Kenaf............................................................   227
Lapsed Salaries..................................................   155
Late Blight Potato Research......................................   250
Locoweed Research................................................   228
Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture................................   229
Lyme Disease Research............................................   230
Management Costs.................................................   103
Methyl Bromide Research..........................................   231
Narcotics Control Research.......................................   233
National Agricultural Library:
    Changes and Usage............................................   278
    Object Class Table...........................................   275
    Repair and Maintenance.......................................   283
National Arboretum...............................................   234
New Crops........................................................   234
New Research Facilities..........................................   267
Nutrition Surveys................................................   434
Obesity, ERS Research............................................   444
On-Farm Food Safety..............................................   443
Patents..........................................................   165
Peanut Research..................................................   237
Peas, Lentils, and Legumes.......................................   240
Pecan Research...................................................   242
Pfiesteria Research..............................................   216
Phytoestrogen Research...........................................   245
Pierce's Disease.................................................   208
Plant Gene Expression Center.....................................   246
Plum Island, New York............................................   392
Potato Research..................................................   248
Repair and Maintenance...........................................   275
Research Projects in the Budget Presentation.....................   388
Soil and Water Research..........................................   250
Soybean-Based Ink................................................   256
Soybean Genomics.................................................   417
Soybean Research.................................................   251
Staffing of Research Facilities..................................   263
Statement of Dr. Edward B. Knipling, ARS Administrator...........    17
Sweet Potato Whitefly............................................   257
Swine Research...................................................   158
Tabular Budget Displays..........................................   340
Tropical/Subtropical Research....................................   260
Urban Pest Control Research......................................   261
Utilization Centers..............................................   262
Weslaco, Texas...................................................   272
Wheat Disease....................................................   262
Women in Agriculture.............................................   440
1890 and 1994 Institutions.......................................   431

      COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE

1890 Facilities Program..........................................  1073
1890 Institutions and Tuskegee University........................   893
4-H Enrollment...................................................  1070
Advanced Genetic Technologies, KY................................   543
Advanced Spatial Technologies, MS................................   544
Audits...........................................................   533
Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants, IA...............................   923
Ag in the Classroom..............................................   986
Agrability.......................................................  1066
Agricultural and Entrepreneurship Education, WI..................   985
Agricultural Development in the American Pacific.................   925
Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops, HI.............   545
Agricultural Diversity/Red River, MN and ND......................   547
Agricultural Waste Utilization, WV...............................   926
Agriculture Science, OH..........................................   549
Agriculture Telecommunications, NY...............................   988
Agriculture Water Policy, GA.....................................   928
Agriculture Water Usage, GA......................................   550
Agroecology, MD..................................................   551
Air Quality, TX..................................................   552
Alabama Beef Connection, AL......................................   990
Alliance for Food Protection, NE and GA..........................   553
Alternative Crops, ND............................................   555
Alternative Nutrient Management, VT..............................   556
Alternative Salmon Products, AK..................................   557
Alternative Uses for Tobacco, MD.................................   558
Animal Disease Research, WY......................................   560
Animal Genome Mapping............................................   539
Animal Health and Disease Research...............................   896
Animal Science Food Safety Consortium............................   561
Animal Waste Management, OK......................................   929
Apple Fire Blight, MI and NY.....................................   562
Aquaculture Centers..............................................   899
Aquaculture Product and Market Development, WV...................   573
Aquaculture Research:
    Arkansas.....................................................   564
    Idaho and Washington.........................................   565
    Louisiana....................................................   567
    Mississippi..................................................   568
    North Carolina...............................................   570
    Ohio.........................................................   931
    Pennsylvania.................................................   932
    Virginia.....................................................   571
Armillaria Root Rot, MI..........................................   574
Asparagus Technology and Production, WA..........................   576
Babcock Institute for International Dairy Res. and Dev., WI......   577
Beef Producers Improvement, AR...................................   991
Beef Technology Transfer, MO.....................................   579
Berry Research, AK...............................................   580
Biography of Dr. Colien Hefferan, CSREES Administrator...........    73
Biomass-Based Energy Research, OK and MS.........................   582
Biotechnology Research, MS.......................................   933
Biotechnology Research, NC.......................................   583
Biotechnology Risk Assessment....................................   536
Biotechnology Test Production, IA................................   584
Blocking Anhydrous Methamphetamine Production, IA................   585
Botanical Garden Initiative, IL..................................   994
Botanical Research, UT...........................................   935
Bovine Tuberculosis, MI..........................................   586
Brucellosis Vaccine, MT..........................................   588
Buildings and Facilities.........................................  1050
Canola...........................................................   902
Capacity Building Grants Program...............................894, 918
Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, IA.................   936
Center for Food Industry Excellence, TX..........................   937
Center for Food Quality, UT......................................   589
Center for Innovative Food Technology, OH........................   938
Center for North American Studies, TX............................   940
Center for Rural Studies, VT.....................................   590
Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, MD...................................   592
Childhood Obesity and Nutrition, VT..............................   593
Citrus Canker, FL................................................   594
Citrus Tristeza..................................................   595
Climate Forecasting, FL..........................................   942
Competitiveness of Agricultural Products, WA.....................   597
Competitive Grants...............................................   892
Conservation Technology Transfer, WI.............................   995
Computational Agriculture, NY....................................   599
Cool Season Legume Research......................................   600
Cotton Fiber Quality, GA.........................................   602
Cotton Research, TX..............................................   943
Cranberry and Blueberry, MA......................................   603
Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding, NJ.....................   604
Critical Agricultural Materials..................................   898
Crop Diversification, ND and MO..................................   605
Crop Integration and Production, SD..............................   606
Crop Pathogens, NC...............................................   608
Curriculum Development/Mississippi Valley State University.......   944
Dairy and Meat Goat Research, TX.................................   609
Dairy Education, IA..............................................   996
Dairy Farm Profitability, PA.....................................   610
Dairy Industry Revitalization, WI................................   999
Data Information System (REEIS)...............................947, 1065
Delta Rural Revitalization, MS...................................   611
Designing Food for Health, TX....................................   613
Diabetes Detection and Prevention, WA and HI.....................  1000
Diaprepes/Rootweevil, FL.........................................   615
Dietary Intervention, OH.........................................   616
Drought Mitigation, NE...........................................   618
E-Commerce, MS...................................................  1005
Efficient Irrigation, NM and TX...............................619, 1006
Electronic Grants Administration System..........................   951
Entrepreneurial Alternatives, PA.................................  1008
Environmental Biotechnology, RI..................................   621
Environmental Research, NY.......................................   622
Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer, NY............................   624
Environmentally Safe Products, VT................................   627
Exotic Pest Diseases, CA.........................................   629
Expanded Food & Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)..............  1068
Expanded Wheat Pasture, OR.......................................   630
Expert IPM Decision Support System...............................   631
Explanatory Notes................................................  1091
Extension Activities.............................................  1066
Extension Indian Reservation Program.............................  1064
Extension Specialist, MS.........................................  1008
Family Farm Beef Industry Network, OH............................  1010
Farm Injuries and Illnesses, NC..................................   634
Federal Administration:
    Classification by Objects....................................   920
    Peer Panels..................................................   922
    Table........................................................  1043
Feed Barley for Rangeland Cattle, MT.............................   635
Feed Efficiency, WV..............................................   952
Feed Efficiency in Cattle, FL....................................   636
Feedstock Conversion, SD.........................................   637
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Request..................................   528
Fish and Shellfish Technologies, VA..............................   638
Floriculture, HI.................................................   640
Food and Agricultural Policy Institute, IA and MO................   641
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database--FARAD....................  1011
Food Chain Economic Analysis, IA.................................   643
Food Irradiation, IA.............................................   644
Food Marketing Policy Center, CT.................................   646
Food Preparation and Marketing, AK...............................  1012
Food Processing Center, NE.......................................   648
Food Product Development, AK.....................................  1013
Food Quality, AK.................................................   650
Food Safety, Alabama.............................................   651
Food Safety, Oklahoma............................................   652
Food Safety, Texas...............................................   654
Food Safety Research Consortium, NY..............................   655
Food Safety Risk Assessment, ND..................................   656
Food Security, WA................................................   657
Food Systems Research Group, WI..................................   659
Forages for Advanced Livestock Production, KY....................   661
Forestry Research, AR............................................   662
Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, AZ and MO...................   953
Future Foods, IL.................................................   665
Generic Commodity Promotions, Research, and Evaluation, NY.......   666
Genomics, MS.....................................................   668
Geographic Information System....................................   955
Germplasm Development in Forage Grasses, OH......................   958
Global Change/Ultraviolet Radiation..............................   670
Grain Sorghum, KS................................................   673
Grapefruit Juice/Drug Interaction, FL............................   674
Grass Seed Cropping Systems/Sustainable Agric., ID, OR, WA.......   675
Greenhouse Nurseries, OH.........................................   677
Hatch Act........................................................   523
Health Education Leadership, KY..................................  1015
Hesperaloe.......................................................   903
Higher Education Programs.....................................918, 1071
High Value Horticultural Crops, VA...............................   960
Hispanic Education Partnerships Grants Program...................   917
Hispanic Leadership in Agriculture, TX...........................   678
Hoop Barnes, IA..................................................   679
Human Nutrition..................................................  1090
    Iowa.........................................................   681
    Louisiana....................................................   683
    New York.....................................................   685
Hydroponic Tomato Production, OH.................................   687
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.....................   688
Improved Dairy Management Practices, PA..........................   690
Improved Early Detection of Crop Disease, NC.....................   692
Improved Fruit Practices, MI.....................................   694
Income Enhancement Demonstration, OH.............................  1016
Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural Commodities, ID............   696
Indirect Costs...................................................  1088
Infectious Disease Research, CO..................................   698
Information Technology...........................................  1088
Information Technology, GA.......................................   961
Integrated Activities/Homeland Security..........................  1085
Institute for Biobased Products and Food Science, MT.............   699
Institute for Food Science and Engineering, AR...................   701
Integrated Pest Management/Biological Control....................   703
Integrated Production Systems, OK................................   705
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Activities.........  1062
Intelligent Quality Sensor for Food Safety, ND...................   706
International Arid Lands Consortium..............................   708
International Programs:
    AID-PASA.....................................................  1072
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium....................................   710
Iowa Vitality Center.............................................  1018
IR-4 Minor Crop Management.......................................   713
IR-4 Program and Pesticide Clearance.............................   539
Jointed Goatgrass................................................   716
Livestock and Dairy Policy, NY and TX............................   718
Livestock Genome Sequencing, IL..................................   720
Livestock Marketing Information Center...........................   962
Lowbush Blueberry Research, ME...................................   722
Mandatory Programs:
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.......1084, 1090
    The Fund for Rural America...................................  1084
Maple Research, VT...............................................   723
Mariculture, NC..................................................   963
McIntire-Stennis Forestry Grants.................................   525
Meadowfoam, OR...................................................   725
Michigan Biotechnology Consortium................................   726
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, NE.................   728
Midwest Agricultural Products, IA................................   730
Midwest Poultry Consortium, IA...................................   732
Milk Safety, PA..................................................   734
Minor Use Animal Drugs.........................................540, 735
Molluscan Shellfish, OR..........................................   739
Montana Sheep Institute..........................................   740
Multi-commodity Research, OR.....................................  741a
Multi-cropping Strategies for Aquaculture, HI....................   744
National Alternative Fuels Laboratory, ND........................   965
National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, NY...........   745
National Biological Impact Assessment Program, VA................   742
National Education Center for Agricultural Safety, IA............  1019
National Research Initiatives....................................  1054
Native American Institutions Endowment Fund......................   913
Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, NM......................   749
Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative, NV............................   751
New Crop Opportunities, AK.......................................   752
New Crop Opportunities, KY.......................................   754
Nonfood Agricultural Products, NE................................   756
Nursery, Greenhouse, and Turf Specialities, AL...................   758
Nursery Production, RI...........................................  1021
Oil Resources from Desert Plants, NM.............................   759
Olive Fly, CA....................................................   761
Organic Cropping, WA.............................................   762
Organic Waste Utilities, NM......................................   763
Oyster Post-Harvest Treatment, FL................................   765
Ozone Air Quality, CA............................................   766
Pasteurization of Shell Eggs, MI.................................   967
Pasture and Forage Research, UT..................................   768
Peach Tree Short Life, SC........................................   769
Perennial Wheat, WA..............................................   771
Pest Control Alternatives, SC....................................   772
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.....................919, 1066, 1072
Pest Management Alternatives.....................................   774
Phytophthora Root Rot, NM........................................   776
Phytoremediation Plant Research, OH..............................   968
Pierce's Disease, CA.............................................   777
Pilot Technology Projects, OK and MS.............................  1022
Pilot Technology Project, WI.....................................  1024
Plant Biotechnology, IA..........................................   779
Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene Cataloging, NM.......   780
Plant Genome Mapping.............................................   537
PM-10 Study, CA and WA...........................................   969
Potato Pest Management, WI.......................................  1026
Potato Research..................................................   782
Precision Agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research and Extension 
  Center, AL.....................................................   972
Preharvest Food Safety, KS.......................................   785
Preservation and Processing Research, OK.........................   787
Produce Pricing, AZ..............................................   973
Protein Utilization, IA..........................................   789
Rangeland Ecosystems, NM.........................................   791
Range Policy Development, NM.....................................  1028
Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project.............................   792
Regionalized Implications of Farm Programs, TX and MO............   794
Resilient Communities, NY........................................  1029
Rice Agronomy, MO................................................   796
Ruminant Nutrition Consortium....................................   797
Rural Development, AK............................................  1030
Rural Development, ND............................................  1032
Rural Development Centers.....................................903, 1069
Rural Development Centers, LA and ND.............................   798
Rural Economic Development Through Tourism, NM...................  1033
Rural Obesity, NY................................................   800
Rural Policies Institute, MO, NE, IA.............................   801
Rural Systems, MS................................................   974
Rural Technologies, WI and HI....................................  1034
Russian Wheat Aphid, CO..........................................   803
Salmon Quality Standards, AK.....................................   975
Satsuma Orange Production, AL....................................   805
Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing, AK................   806
Seafood and Aquaculture Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing, MS   808
Seafood Safety, MA...............................................   810
Seed Research, AK................................................   812
Shrimp Aquaculture...............................................   977
Small Business Innovation Research Program.......................   913
Small Fruit Research, OR, WA, ID.................................   813
Soil and Environmental Quality, DE...............................   814
Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources......   816
Soybean Cyst Nematode, MO........................................   817
Soybean Research, IL.............................................   819
Special and Federal Administration Grants........................  1084
Special Research Grants Table....................................   879
Statement of Dr. Colien Hefferan, CSREES Administrator...........    27
STEEP Water Quality in Pacific Northwest.........................   821
Sudden Oak Death, CA.............................................   824
Sustainable Agriculture:
    California...................................................   825
    Michigan.....................................................   827
    Nebraska.....................................................   830
    Ohio.........................................................   979
    Pennsylvania.................................................   829
    SARE Program..............................................904, 1067
Sustainable Beef Supply, MT......................................   832
Sustainable Engineered Materials/Renewable Resources, VA.........   833
Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat, MT................   835
Swine and Other Animal Waste Management, NC......................   837
Synthetic Gene Technology, OH....................................   839
Technological Development of Renewable Resources, MO.............   840
Tick Borne Disease Prevention, RI................................   842
Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management, LA..................   843
Tri-State Joint Peanut Research, AL..............................   844
Tropical Aquaculture, FL.........................................   845
Tropical and Subtropical Research................................   847
Uniform Farm Management Program, MN..............................   850
Urban Horticulture, WI...........................................  1037
Urban Market Development, NY.....................................  1038
Urban Silviculture, NY...........................................   980
Value-Added Product Development from Agric. Resources, MT........   851
Value-Added Products, IL.........................................   853
Viticulture Consortium, NY and CA................................   855
Youth-At-Risk Program............................................  1067
Water Conservation, KS...........................................   856
Water Pollutants, WV.............................................   981
Water Quality, ND................................................   982
Water Treatment, RI..............................................   858
Water Use Efficiency and Water Quality Enhancements, GA..........   859
Weed Control, ND.................................................   861
West Nile Virus, IL..............................................   863
Wetland Plants, LA...............................................   864
Wetland Plants, WV...............................................   984
Wheat Genetics, KS...............................................   866
Wheat Sawfly Research, MT........................................   868
Wood Biomass, NY.................................................  1039
Wood Utilization Research........................................   870
Wood Research, TX, MT, WY........................................   873

                       ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)................1317-1318
Biographical Sketch:
    Dr. Susan E. Offutt, ERS Administrator.......................    74
Breastfeeding Education..........................................  1315
Budget Request...................................................  1302
Budget and Staff Years.......................................1303, 1314
Buy-Out Authority................................................  1304
Changes in Services..............................................  1304
Child Nutrition, WIC, and Food Stamp Studies..................1305-1312
Collaboration with Foreign Institutions..........................  1313
Data Purchases...................................................  1302
Early Out Authority..............................................  1304
Explanatory Notes.............................................1339-1368
Extramural Research..............................................  1312
Farm Operator Household Income................................1299-1301
Farm Program Payments............................................  1239
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program................1239-1299
Food and Nutrition Studies.......................................  1312
Genomics Initiative..........................................1318, 1335
Global Climate Change............................................  1303
Invasive Species.................................................  1316
Livestock Price Reporting........................................  1314
Non-farm Earnings and Jobs.......................................  1302
Obesity..........................................................  1336
Security Analysis System.........................................  1315
Statement of Dr. Susan E. Offutt, ERS Administrator..............    36
Studies and Evaluations.......................................1320-1334

?

                NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Adverse Effect Wage Rate.........................................  1473
Agricultural Esti1469-1470, 1474, 1479, 1490-1493, 1499-1505, 1507-1508
Agricultural Resources Management Survey...........1466-1467, 1470-1471
Appropriation Language.......................................1475, 1485
Available Funds and Staff-Years..................................  1481
Average Grade and Salary.........................................  1483
Biographical Sketch:
    R. Ronald Bosecker...........................................    75
Budget Request...................................................  1381
Census of Agriculture............1369, 1468, 1480, 1495-1496, 1505-1507
Commodity Data................................................1468-1469
Computer Security Architecture...................................  1472
Congressional District Publications...........................1392-1464
Cooperative Agreements........................................1374-1380
Cooperative Research.............................................  1373
e-Government...........................................1467, 1471, 1494
Enumerators (NASDA)..............................................  1370
Explanatory Notes.............................................1478-1508
Geographical Breakdown of Obligations and Staff-Years............  1497
Hog Survey.......................................................  1392
Information Technology Savings...................................  1495
International Technical Assistance............................1369-1370
Justification of Increases and Decreases......................1490-1496
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act................................  1445
Locality Based County Estimates..................................  1493
Migrant Workers..................................................  1383
Milk Production...............................................1383-1384
Number of Farms, Land in Farms................................1382-1383
Object Class Schedule............................................  1483
Ongoing Services..............................................1371-1373
Passenger Motor Vehicles.........................................  1484
Pay Costs.....................................................1494-1496
Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff-Year Summary..............  1482
Pesticide Data Collection........................................  1391
Pesticide Use Statistics......................................1465-1466
Project Statement.......................................1477, 1487-1489
Purpose Statement.............................................1479-1480
Reimbursements:
    AID Reimbursement.........................................1391-1392
    Available Funds & Staff Years................................  1481
    ERS Reimbursement............................................  1391
    List of Reimbursable Surveys Done.........................1380-1381
Reports On-Line...............................................1385-1386
Special Surveys.........................................1387-1390, 1553
State Office Funding..........................................1370-1371
Status of Program.............................................1498-1508
Summary of Increases and Decreases...........................1476, 1486
Witness Statement by Administrator............................... 59-69
