[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW AGRICULTURE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-20
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-216 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Dakota Minority Member
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM COSTA, California STEVE KING, Iowa
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado JERRY MORAN, Kansas
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
Nona Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 10
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement.......................................... 3
Kagen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress From Wisconsin,
prepared statement............................................. 13
Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement.......................................... 5
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 7
Prepared statement.......................................... 8
Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 12
Witnesses
Buchanan, Dr. Gale, Under Secretary for Research, Education and
Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C..... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Danforth, M.D., William H., Chancellor Emeritus, Washington
University; Chairman, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center;
Chairman, Coalition of Plant and Life Sciences, St. Louis, MO.. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Submitted report............................................. 44
McPheron, Dr. Bruce A., Associate Dean for Research and Director,
Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA; on behalf of National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges...... 110
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Norton, Dr. George W., Professor of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, VA........................................... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Bouton, Ph.D., Joseph H., Senior Vice President and Director,
Forage Improvement Division, The Samuel Roberts Noble
Foundation, Inc.; Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia,
Athens, Ardmore, OK............................................ 130
Prepared statement........................................... 132
Submitted Material
Amasino, Dr. Rick, Professor, University of Wisconsin; President,
American Society of Plant Biologists, Madison, WI.............. 149
Atkinson, Ph.D., Stephanie, President, American Society for
Nutrition...................................................... 168
National Corn Growers Association, Washington, D.C............... 165
Report of the Farm Foundation, Oak Brook, IL..................... 161
Thaemert, John, President, National Association of Wheat Growers;
on behalf of National Wheat Improvement Committee.............. 155
Weber, M.P.H., R.N., Jennifer A., American Dietetic Association,
Washington, D.C................................................ 159
HEARING TO REVIEW AGRICULTURE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim Holden
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Herseth Sandlin,
Cuellar, Costa, Ellsworth, Space, Walz, Scott, Salazar,
Gillibrand, Kagen, Peterson (ex officio), Lucas, Fortenberry,
Schmidt, Moran, and Bonner.
Staff present: Nona Darrell, Craig Jagger, Tyler Jameson,
Rob Larew, Merrick Munday, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, Anne
Simmons, Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, John Goldberg, Josh
Maxwell, and Pete Thomson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research to review
agricultural research programs will come to order. Good
morning, everyone. I would like to welcome all of you to
today's hearing and I hope it will provide a useful review of
agricultural research programs.
The farm bill hearings we held across the country last year
showcased the importance of an increasing demand for
agricultural research. Specialty crop growers called for
additional and enhanced research programs to maximize their
production and efficiency. Other farmers wanted more funding
for research on conservation practices. Even more producers
asked us for increased research and development on renewable
energy. Clearly the fundamental need for research spans across
several different commodities and various agricultural sectors.
Currently several agencies within USDA, state partners and
private organizations conduct the bulk of agricultural
research. Recently revised calculations on the rate of return
on Federal investment in agricultural research is estimated to
be 6.8 percent per year. So these programs are not only in high
demand with users, but they are fiscally responsible as well.
Agricultural research, education, and extension programs
are also essential elements in increasing agriculture
productivity so that farmers can continue to provide American's
with a safe and reliable supply of food, fiber and fuel they
have come to expect. Advances in agricultural science are
important to increasing farm profitability, continuing
agricultural viability, competing in the international
marketplace, improving nutrition and protecting the
environment. As we write this new farm bill, we must ensure
that the integrity of these programs remains intact and the
organizations involved can continue their successful work.
In these times of budgetary constraints, the proposals to
consolidate or rearrange programs within USDA may be very
helpful in enhancing cooperation and streamlining research to
save the taxpayers' dollars. But we must be cautious in these
changes and ensure that the quality and function of the
programs are not compromised in that process. We must be
innovative in meeting all of the different research needs and
adapting to the increasing demand for newer areas addressing
topics like organic farming and global climate change. Research
is an important investment in our future.
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' suggestions on how
we can best support the agricultural research community and
continue to support the scientists doing this important work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member, my good
friend, Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma, for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. As I understand it, this hearing is the
last one our Subcommittee will hold before we begin marking up
the various titles of the farm bill. This should not be taken
as any type of a message about where research fits into this
Committee's priority list. In fact, I think I can safely say
that among the various issues we deal with, research seems to
be at or near the top of every list of priorities.
Agricultural research has played a critical role in the
increase in agricultural productivity since the mission was
first established in 1862. Advances in the basic and applied
agricultural sciences are considered fundamental to increases
in farm sector profitability, to competitiveness in the
international agricultural trade, and to improvements in human
nutrition and food-related health.
According to a recent CRS report, as the Chairman just
noted, the rate of return on Federal investment in agricultural
research is estimated to be 6.8 percent a year. While most of
what we do here tends to focus on the big picture, it seems
that every organization who expresses an interest in research
tends to focus on their own interests. Even the research
community itself has tended to do this. Debate over research
has always been about how much money is needed for their
project or program, not always about the mechanism of delivery
or the structure of how we establish priorities. This
Committee, however, does not allocate money for discretionary
programs. That is the job of the appropriators. Our job is to
design the best policy to ensure that funds made available for
research are used in the most efficient manner.
I am pleased to see that we have several proposals from the
research community on what they would like included in the
research title of the farm bill. These are some of the most
aggressive and forward-thinking policy initiatives I have seen
regarding agricultural research. I am very interested in
today's hearing discussions about the pros and cons of each of
the proposals that have been submitted. However, we must
remember that farmers and ranchers across America are the main
audience for the majority of agricultural research. If we
decide to proceed with any type of reorganization, then we must
ensure that our farmers and ranchers continue to benefit from
what is being done in agricultural research.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Well, I thank the Ranking Member and the
chair will recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr.
Peterson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman and I want to thank him
for his leadership, and the Ranking Member, on this issue and
others that they have been working so diligently on, and thank
you for calling this hearing.
It is not often in this business that people from all
different sectors of agriculture ask us for the same thing, but
as we heard from producers over and over again in the hearings
around the country, a solid commitment to research is essential
to their economic future. Research needed to increase
competitiveness, enhance environmental stewardship and improve
human health while sustaining the high quality of our food
supply. As we begin to write the next farm bill, the most
important thing to keep in mind is coordination. And with the
budgetary restraints that we are currently facing, I am not
interested in funding multiple projects with the same purpose.
We need to ensure that our system fosters coordination and that
everyone in the research community is working together to
accomplish their goals and sharing the tools and the
information that is needed to produce the best results.
One of the topics that we heard most about is renewable
energy. Research is already an essential part of the growing
market for agriculturally-based fuels and I would like to find
new ways to produce crops that yield more biofuels per acre and
fund research that will take us to the next level of efficiency
for biofuel production. We need research to help us expand
production on herd feedstocks to ensure that the supply of corn
meets the needs of all agricultural interests, and we need to
continue to improve the methods for converting switchgrass and
biomass, such as wood chips, switchgrass, warm season grasses
in my part of the world, into cellulosic ethanol.
I look forward to hearing today from the witnesses on how
our research programs can continue to find new and improved
ways to provide America with a safe and abundant supply of
food, fiber and energy. And I thank the witnesses for being
with us today.
[The prepared statement of Messrs. Peterson, Goodlatte,
Walz, and Kagen follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Well, I thank the Chairman. We would like to
welcome our first panelist to the table today, Dr. Gale
Buchanan, the Under Secretary for Research, Education and
Economics for the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr.
Buchanan, welcome and you may proceed when you wish.
STATEMENT OF DR. GALE BUCHANAN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH,
EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Buchanan. Thank you very much, Chairman Holden, Ranking
Member Lucas, and other distinguished Members of the Committee.
It is really a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to
be here this morning to discuss the Department of Agriculture's
Research, Education and Economics Program that is provided for
in Title VII of the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill proposals.
In my 40 plus years in agriculture research and
administration, I have never seen such exciting times
associated with such great opportunities in agriculture. We are
experiencing a new paradigm in agriculture, one that we haven't
seen before in our history. American agriculture is rapidly
moving from a mission of producing food, feed and fiber to
food, feed, fiber and fuel for energy for this Nation. To meet
this challenge and exceedingly high expectations are parallel
needs for research, education, and extension that are the
responsibility of the research, education and economics mission
area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Science has served as a vitally important foundation for
our Nation's agricultural system, where there has been
excellent success in the four agencies that I have
responsibility for. We must continually improve on this strong
foundation to maintain our global leadership in agriculture for
the future. This is imperative if this Nation's agricultural
system is to continue to be a world leader and respond
effectively to the ever-evolving changes in consumer demands,
increasing pest threats, changing world markets, and droughts
and other natural factors. We must seize the opportunity to
provide science-based solutions to these challenges.
The Administration's Title VII of the 2007 Farm Bill
proposal focuses on several targeted high-priority national
needs. It also provides for an organizational structure to
better position our programs to meet the needs of U.S.
agriculture in the future. My written testimony describes all
of the Administration's research title proposals. I will focus
my oral remarks on reorganization, bioenergy and specialty
crops.
The organizational structure of our programs has served us
well in the past. However, we have a responsibility to strive
continuously to improve their efficiency and effectiveness,
therefore we must make some changes to ensure our success in
the future. We started this process of developing a new
structure by first establishing the goals we wish to
accomplish. We then did an assessment of our current
organization, followed by developing principles to guide us in
the development of a new organizational structure. The final
step was to identify the desired outcomes of such a
reorganization.
Looking to the future, the Administration proposes to
create the Research, Education, and Extension Service through
the merger of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural
Research Service and the Department's Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service. The new agency
would be under the leadership of a chief scientist who would
have overall responsibility for both intramural and extramural
research and related programs. All current formula funding
authorities, including those for Hatch, Smith-Lever, McIntire-
Stennis, 1890, 1994, Hispanic Serving Institutions, would be
retained in their present form.
Probably the greatest advantage of a merger of ARS and
CSREES would be in having a single national program staff
rather than two distinct, separate staffs as we have now for
each agency. A single national program staff would greatly
facilitate coordination and planning as well as enhanced
stakeholder interaction with the Department. Combining the two
national program staffs would also yield an enhanced degree of
critical mass required to support program planning. A single
national program staff would provide for better coordination
and prioritization of research and linkage with extension and
educational programs in agriculture. We are also proposing a
name change for the mission area, from Research, Education and
Economics to Office of Science. Such a name change better
describes the foundation of our mission area.
I would also like to touch on two major research
initiatives included in the Administration's farm bill
proposal, agricultural bioenergy and bio-products, and
specialty crops. First, there is $50 million in annual
mandatory spending proposed for the creation of the
Agricultural Bioenergy and Bio-Based Products Research
Initiative. This would enhance the production and conversion of
biomass to renewable fuels and bio-products. This new
initiative would focus research and development efforts on two
objectives. The first is to improve biomass production and
sustainability, and second, improving biomass conversion in
biorefineries to products that would be useful in various
energy needs for agriculture and society. Since the sun is our
most reliable source of energy and agriculture's business is
converting the sun's energy into things useful to man, it is
quite clear to me that agriculture will and must play a vital
role in our Nation achieving a greater degree of energy
security.
The Administration is also recommending the establishment
of a Specialty Crops Research Initiative supported by $100
million in annual mandatory funding. During the farm bill
listening sessions, we repeatedly heard the call for an
increased investment in research for specialty crops. Specialty
crops represent a substantial and ever-increasing part of the
total crop portfolio and play a critical role in providing a
balanced, nutritional diet for all Americans. Some of the
specific areas and issues to be addressed in this initiative
would include genetics, genomics, breeding new cultivars and
varieties, food safety and quality, production efficiency and
mechanization, and the list goes on.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee regarding the USDA's farm bill proposals to
strengthen our Nation's agricultural research, extension and
education programs. I look forward to hearing your comments and
responding to your questions as we discuss policy that will
enhance American agriculture for the future. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Buchanan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Dr. Buchanan, and thank you
for your testimony and thank you for talking about your
proposals for the farm bill on research reorganization. As you
well know, the land-grant institutions also have proposed a
reorganization of agricultural research and we are going to
address and have some type of reorganization as we begin our
process in writing the farm bill. But often, reorganization
comes with unintended consequences, what safeguards would you
recommend that we put in place so we avoid duplicate research
and redundant research but at the same time, we make sure that
we are doing all the research necessary, as you have mentioned,
with specialty crops and energy feedstocks for the future? Is
there anything specific we have to be careful that we don't end
up with any unintended consequences?
Dr. Buchanan. That is certainly a good question and
obviously, having been in agriculture research and
administration for over 40 years, this is an issue that
concerns me, because the last thing I would like to see happen
is changes that I propose not working in the end. So we are
trying to exercise as much care as possible in ensuring that
what we propose really will work, and we are trying to do that
by including as many of our personnel in the agencies as
possible. In fact, we have had a number of meetings with
personnel, both in ARS as well as the universities. I have
spoken to deans and I have spoken to directors. So we are
trying to get a broad base of input to ensure that we don't
have any unintended consequences. The proposals we have on the
table will ensure that that doesn't happen, because you are
absolutely right, we want to make sure that the changes we make
are not just changes just for the sake of making changes. We
want to make sure that the changes we make really accomplish
the goals we set out with.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Doctor, and we look forward
to working with you as we move towards marking up on this
Subcommittee. During our energy financing hearing, Under
Secretary Dorr mentioned the Executive Council on Energy. Do
you participate in that Council?
Dr. Buchanan. The Energy Council in the Department?
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir, I do. In fact, we are now in the
process of restructuring our whole energy program in the
Department. In the mission area, in order to try to better
understand what we are doing in energy, when I first became
Under Secretary this past May a year ago, I set out to try to
better understand what we were doing in bioenergy and bio-
products in the Department, not only in ARS but also supported
by CSREES and the universities. And so we put together what we
call the ABBREE Council, the Agricultural Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Research, Education, and Extension within the
mission area. We have entered into a cooperative agreement with
an individual with whom we are working in partnership to
provide REE leadership for this effort. Together we are working
very hard to get a handle on what we are doing because, as one
of the Members said earlier, it is important that we not leave
any areas out, but it is just as important not to duplicate
efforts. In order to do that, we are trying to better
understand what we are doing now so we can plan for the most
important need in our research agenda.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor. The chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman. And I would be remiss if I
didn't note that this is a very special day for me. Thirteen
years ago, I was elected in a special election to join this
body and for almost half of that time, you and I have sat next
to each other in this Subcommittee, which I appreciate, Mr.
Chairman.
Dr. Buchanan, tell me, why did you not include the Economic
Research Service and the National Ag Statistics Service in your
reorganization plan?
Dr. Buchanan. Before we really put our ideas together in
the early stages of the farm bill development, we considered a
lot of options. The Economic Research Service is a Federal
statistical agency. They certainly have a research mission, but
they also have a lot of other missions as well. Also, we
considered the possibility of splitting that agency up into two
or three different parts and portioning out different areas
within the Department. But the more we thought about it the
more we realized that it probably could work most effectively
by being a separate, stand-alone agency as it is now. And so
for that reason, we really didn't think that it would be
appropriate to include it. Now, the research part of ERS would
work very nicely, but the other parts of the agency's
responsibility really are not research. They are more
analytical and more supportive of other parts of the
Department. So we just felt like it would be best not to
include them. NASS, of course, has a quite different mission
than research and education, so we felt it best to leave it as
a separate agency.
Mr. Lucas. And I guess I would be remiss if I didn't ask
the same question about the Forest Service research, too, just
for----
Dr. Buchanan. Well, that is a little bit different
question, in that forest research is part of another Under
Secretary's mission area. It receives funding from a different
appropriation subcommittee in Congress. It looks like it would
be a little bit more difficult to embrace that. Now, we do have
some forest research embedded in the CSREES program through the
McIntire-Stennis authorization, but it just didn't look like
these other two agencies would fit as well as ARS and CSREES,
because these two agencies have very similar missions in terms
of research.
Mr. Lucas. If your proposal is adopted, Doctor, how many
dollars are we talking about? What kind of budget resources are
allocated to those two entities and ultimately, if the proposal
is adopted, how big would the budget be for the final entity?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, first, we don't anticipate major
funding needs to make this happen, because the primary people
who would be affected are those here in Washington, the
national program staff. There would be some relocations within
our organization. But as far as major costs associated, we
don't anticipate any major costs associated with the
reorganization, because we don't plan to make any changes
within the ARS areas. Certainly all of the eight areas in ARS
would remain intact. We just don't anticipate any major costs
associated, other than very minor costs.
Mr. Lucas. So along those lines, while we are talking about
that kind of thing, you mentioned for a moment--good electronic
equipment, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, trying to get my attention,
I thought there for a moment. Talk to me for a moment about the
role of what I would describe as the legacy personnel at those
two agencies in a new agency. We have in this Committee, over
the course of the last 13 years, gone through lots of
reorganization efforts and rearrangements and realignments and
it produces some challenges for the good folks who work at the
Department when you do that kind of thing. I am sure you have
given thought to that, how this would impact people who have
worked a career or most of a career in the present structure.
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir, and let me finish answering a
previous question.
Mr. Lucas. Of course.
Dr. Buchanan. The combined agencies would end up being
REES, the Research, Education, and Extension Service. The
combined agency would have approximately $2 billion of support
for research and education programs, and we are not proposing
changing the balance of intramural versus extramural. That is a
very important point that a lot of our internal people have
asked. Are we going to move more funding into ARS and less into
CSREES? The plan is not to make any change in the balance
between those two. Your next question, Congressman----
Mr. Lucas. And the reason I asked that is that there has
been a tendency sometimes in reorganizations, that the bulk of
the reorganization happens out in the field where things are
happening and it doesn't always seem like there is a lot of
reorganization among the various staff components here at the
headquarters.
Dr. Buchanan. You really asked a question I am delighted to
respond to.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
Dr. Buchanan. We don't propose to change anything out in
the field. I can't imagine any scientist or staff member out in
the countryside having any affect whatsoever, other than we
will do better planning in Washington. The combining or merging
of the two national program staffs will involve trying to
create a more effective organization here in Washington to
support all of those people out in the countryside that are
doing research and education programs. So I think this is just
the opposite of affecting the people in the field and not
affecting people in town. I am looking at trying to make things
in Washington certainly more efficient in terms of how we do
business here in town.
The executive group is also looking at this other question
you raised. We have had several meetings with various personnel
in our organization. One of the first things I did after the
farm bill information was released was have a conference call
with all ARS employees around the country. We invited every
employee to participate in the conference call, if you can
believe that. And anyway, we had a number of questions that
came up and I invited everybody to write and send me their
ideas and suggestions. The most common question that came up
was how do we protect the brand name of ARS? It is an important
brand name, as you have already alluded to. I don't know
exactly how we are going to address that issue, but it is one
thing I have given the executive group that is planning the
implementation to try to come up with. How do we protect the
brand name of ARS, because that is important.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My time has expired. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Ranking Member and
recognizes the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Buchanan, this
Agricultural Bioenergy and Bio-Based Research Initiative, why
are you asking for mandatory money, just so you have a
certainty of it? Is that what the reason is?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, this was a decision to ensure that we
have resources that would be in support of what we consider one
of the most----
Mr. Peterson. Can you assure us that the appropriators are
not going to use the chimps on us, because when we have done
mandatory spending before, they have just eliminated it and
spent the money some other place. We are trying to get this
resolved in the budget situation, but I am not sure if that is
going to happen, and we don't have money to be putting out
there in the mandatory baseline if the appropriators are going
to take it away. So have you thought about that at all?
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir, we have and obviously, we are
hopeful and encouraged because this is such an important
national priority. We are encouraged that this will be new
money to help us to enhance the programs we already have, so
this is clearly one of the issues that I think is important.
Mr. Peterson. Well, if it is that big of a priority, they
may fund it anyway over there, but we can have that other
discussion. I guess the other thing is I read over what you
said here in your testimony; it is somewhat general. One of the
things; I have been all over the country; everybody in the
country wants to be the renewable energy research center. They
all have got big plans and there are people out there that I
have run into that are researching the same thing but have
never talked to each other. Have you got this fleshed out in
terms of how this $50 million would be spent? How far are you
into the weeds in terms of actually knowing how you are going
to spend that?
Dr. Buchanan. As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, one of
the things that I realized when I first came into the position
of Under Secretary was that the whole area of bioenergy was one
of the really critical areas we were facing. I started looking
around to see what we were doing. I was having great difficulty
in finding out what we are doing, not only in-house in ARS, but
also in all of the universities, because you are absolutely
right, many universities have various types of energy programs.
So that is why we have a cooperative agreement with a person to
work with us in this area and together gain a better
understanding of what we are doing now. That is what we are in
the process of doing. In fact, we are planning a workshop that
will bring together a number of university scientists from
around the country, and our own organization. In September, we
will have a conference to outline where we are. That will be
the first step in identifying where we need to go next. And
while I have heard some say that there are too many other
universities getting into the act, I take just the opposite
approach. I would like to see every university getting involved
in energy, because I see this as truly one of the major grand
challenges of our society of the future, achieving energy
security.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, we don't disagree on that. So you are
telling me that you are not going to really know until
September?
Dr. Buchanan. Sorry?
Mr. Peterson. You are not going to really know until
September how you are going to go ahead with this?
Dr. Buchanan. We are still working on that and I don't want
to count my chickens until the eggs hatch, but we certainly are
working on that and we will have a good idea by the time the
new fiscal year rolls around.
Mr. Peterson. Well, I would just say to you that we are
going to start marking up the week after next and we are
probably not going to expect you to be able to give us details.
I will tell you something; we are not going to be putting
mandatory money in unless we understand how it is going to be
spent. We are going to have to move up that timeframe if we are
going to do this and we will have some more discussions.
Dr. Buchanan. I could certainly be ready. Whenever you ask
me to, we will be ready, sir.
Mr. Peterson. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the Chairman and recognizes
Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up
on Chairman Peterson's comments. We met recently with Secretary
Dorr and the Under Secretary of the Department of Energy,
asking for a matrix that gets to that very point. Who is doing
what and where in regards to alternative energy programs? And I
expected the answer to be, ``We will get that to you shortly.''
But apparently this is so complicated and so many agencies and
entities are involved, both through the university system as
well as in our own direct Federal programs, that it is
complicated. Mr. Costa and I wrote a letter recently, which
Chairman Holden endorsed, asking for that shortly, so that may
be a part the answer to our need here. But I appreciate you
appearing today and the question I have is related to this
point. There are three emerging trends in agriculture that are
going to shape the future of farm policy for years to come. You
clearly pointed out it is ag-based energy production, but also
agricultural entrepreneurship and a new vision for conservation
and good land stewardship. In your proposal, can you point
specifically how those outcomes will be achieved by this
potential merger of the two organizations? And then I have a
follow-up question for you.
Dr. Buchanan. Clearly the merger would provide for the
consolidation of the national program staffs of the two
agencies. The real advantage there is it would provide the
basis for a better coordination and planning effort by having a
single program staff that is aware of what we are doing
internally in our intramural research effort at ARS, as well as
what is going on and supported by CSREES through the
universities. We have some hundred Agriculture Research Service
(ARS) laboratories around the country. There are also some
hundred universities of various types around the country. So we
have a tremendously large number of institutions engaged in
various aspects of research. Trying to find out what each
person at each institution is doing is a real challenge and
that is one of the things that a national program staff would
have the ability to get a better understanding of. They would
know what each institution is doing or what each side of the
house is doing. Right now we have two stovepipes. We have the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
and the universities and we have the Agricultural Research
Service. So what we are looking at is trying to have a single
group that is looking at all of our programs. That gets back to
what was mentioned a moment ago about coordination and this
would assist in helping that effort.
Mr. Fortenberry. Is there a way to envision merging the
program staffs without merging the two agencies?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, that is obviously something that we
could give thought to. There would be some advantage of merging
the agencies that I think would be helpful, but you know, we
will do whatever we have to do.
Mr. Fortenberry. Sure. Well, again, I urge you to think
about, as we are considering reorganization or restructuring,
obviously, we keep an eye on the objectives and that is
efficiency, saving money, avoiding duplication. But the bigger
objective is to really help promote emerging trends that are
extraordinarily beneficial for America's energy policy, for
American farmers, and that is ag-based energy production.
Second, again, the emerging trends toward agricultural
entrepreneurship, rethinking traditional commodities production
and more specialty types of production that can enhance farm
income and deliver local foods locally. And third is
conservation practices that would be consistent with good land
stewardship. If we keep an eye on those goals as we think about
reorganization, I think we can do something very strong and
positive for the future of farm policy. Thank you for your
appearance, sir.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott. Maybe turn your mike on.
Mr. Scott.--sort of the landscape and then put a few
suggestions and get your reactions to it. One of my greatest
concerns has been and will continue to be the lack of equity
and funding between 1862 land-grant institutions and the 1890
land-grant institutions. These schools continue to be
overshadowed by their larger brethren, in terms of funding,
while, quite frankly, many of these schools have done more with
less since their funding in the late 19th Century. Indeed, the
bias against these schools, whether intentional or not, is even
more apparent in the witness list for this hearing. There is
not one 1890 land-grant school represented here today, and many
of these schools serve the African-American underrepresented
population.
In addition to major improvements of facilities and
equipment, the 1890s need a substantial influx of funding to
broaden their research and teaching capabilities. This can best
be achieved through expansion of the 1890's Capacity Building
Program, such as a GAO study noted in 2003. Research in this
program focuses on biotechnology, nutrition, aquaculture, and
plant and animal science, included in teaching projects or
agribusiness management, marketing, regulatory science. Since
the Capacity Building Program began in Fiscal Year 1990,
funding has remained far below the authorized level, thereby
dramatically limiting the number of research and teaching
grants that could otherwise have been awarded.
And I just have a few suggestions that I would like to make
to improve this situation and get your response to: (1) raise
the minimum authorization level of Evans-Allen, for 1890s
research, from 25 percent of the funds to 30 percent of the
funds appropriated in the Hatch Act; (2) raise the minimum
authorization levels of the 1890 extension from 15 percent to
20 percent of funds appropriated under the Smith-Lever Act; and
(3) extend the authorization of the 1890 facilities capacity
building through 2012, change the authorization language in the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act to include 1890s as
eligible institutions to receive the funding. And finally,
change the authorization language in the Animal Health Research
and Disease Program to specify that funds are to be awarded to
state agriculture experiment institutions and 1890
institutions.
So Dr. Buchanan, what I am asking is, what is the USDA
doing now to rectify this situation with the 1890 institutions,
and can you please comment on the proposals that I have
recommended?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, first let me say I am very familiar
with the 1890 institutions having served in 1862 universities
in two different states where we had 1890 institutions, and I
am aware of some of the exciting and excellent research and the
programs that we have at 1890s. We do have programs in CSREES
that are directly in support of the 1890 institutions, the
capacity building programs, and I can't recall the others, but
we certainly have programs that are in direct support of the
1890 institutions. I would say that many of the funding
opportunities that are provided through CSREES are open and are
available, not only to 1862s, but to 1890s as well as other
institutions, and so the 1890s participate in those programs as
well. So we do have a range of opportunities for 1890
institutions to participate in our research and education
programs through the Department.
Mr. Scott. You do agree and recognize the inequity in the
situation, do you now?
Dr. Buchanan. There is wide variation in funding among all
institutions.
Mr. Scott. But I need you to say yes or no, because if you
don't yourself recognize that there is an unequal funding with
these land-grant 1890s, predominantly African-American
colleges, as opposed to the others, then we have a discussion
here in vain.
Dr. Buchanan. Well, Congressman, I would say that, while
there is still some difference between funding, the gap is
closing in that 1890s support has increased at a faster pace
than has 1862s. So I think the outlook is positive and I just
think that the other funding mechanisms, including the
Competitive Grant Program through the NRI and others, provide
options for 1890s just as much as it does 1862s.
Mr. Scott. So am I to understand that you do agree, then,
that there is a problem of unequal funding?
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir, there is unequal funding among all
institutions.
Mr. Scott. No, no, no.
Dr. Buchanan. In fact, the Hatch formula provides quite a
range of different funding for different institutions.
Mr. Scott. We have a problem with these African-American
1890-predominant land-grant schools not receiving their fair
share, correct?
Dr. Buchanan. You are probably correct, sir.
Mr. Scott. Okay, thank you, sir.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Schmidt. Okay, the gentlewoman
passes. And Mr. Moran? The chair recognizes Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. I don't have any questions. Thank you.
The Chairman. Okay, the gentleman passes. The chair would
now recognize Mr. Kagen, sticking to time of arrival.
Mr. Kagen. It looks like I am moving up in the world. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your testimony.
Gale, thank you for your testimony and your service to the
country. It is a complicated job that you have. I am a small
businessman and I manage 14 employees and you have got a few
more underlings, so congratulations on your hard work. I was
looking at your suggestions about putting $50 million into the
bioenergy and bio-based ag products. I wonder if there was a
typo because you put $100 million into specialty crops. Is
there a typo there? Did you favor specialty crops more so than
the bioenergy?
Dr. Buchanan. I wouldn't say that, sir. In fact, I would
say that these are two among my highest priorities. Not only
that, the NAREEE board, which is the advisory board to the
Secretary and I on this area of research, have identified both
of these as very high priorities. When the Secretary had the
hearings around the country prior to the development of the
farm bill initiatives, one of the issues that came up
repeatedly was the importance of energy security, as well as
the importance of the specialty crops. So I think both of these
are important. One thing that I would say that might clarify
this a little bit is that bioenergy is a very specific area.
Specialty crops includes many, many, many different crops, as
you can imagine. And so the commitment to the specialty crops
is already pretty substantial in the Department, but this would
be a real boost and a real shot in the arm to enhance support
in this area. So there is a little bit of a different way of
looking at those two areas: one is very specific and one is
much broader.
Mr. Kagen. Do you know of any farms that now produce more
energy than they consume?
Dr. Buchanan. Would you say that again?
Mr. Kagen. Do you know of any farms that are independent,
off the grid, that they produce more energy than they consume,
that they are donating back energy?
Dr. Buchanan. Personally, I don't know of any but I do know
that if you go back 100 years, every farm in America was energy
independent because they raised the corn and fodder to feed the
mules and horses. They used wind to pump water and they used
wood to dry and warm by. This lets me get back to amplify a
point I made earlier. While we don't have specific research
projects identified we would do, if we get this funding in the
proposed farm bill, we certainly have identified the general
areas that we have already identified and we are fleshing that
out. But clearly, we looked at enhancing biomass production,
not only how to produce biomass sustainably, but how to
accumulate it and process it and get it ready so you can use it
in a bioenergy system. Also, we are looking at the best ways to
convert biomass, whether it is hydrolysis or whether it is
enzymatic or whatever. So there are a whole range of issues
there that we are looking at, but this is a real challenge.
Mr. Kagen. It is a challenge and I love research. I had a
research laboratory for 25 years. But one of the things about
research is you have to come up with results and that is how we
are going to measure your success, is the results. That is why
I wanted to know how many farms are now off the grid and are
energy independent, much like they used to be. And I would like
to ask you this question. Would you join with me in working
with two of my farms in northeast Wisconsin and help them get
energy independent and off the grid? Would you be willing to
work with me on that?
Dr. Buchanan. Certainly.
Mr. Kagen. Take a large farm, a milk herd of 2,000, a small
family farm of 120 and help them to become totally energy
independent?
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you.
Dr. Buchanan. Obviously that would be a challenge.
Mr. Kagen. It would be a challenge well worth winning and I
look forward to those results, because that is how we measure
things in Wisconsin. Thank you.
Dr. Buchanan. We think agriculture not only has a challenge
in producing energy, but how do we become energy independent on
the farm? You really touched a very sensitive nerve with me.
Mr. Kagen. Well, that is my goal, because when I traveled
around northeast Wisconsin, the 8th District that I represent,
there were only two things on their mind: their high energy
costs and their healthcare costs. So if I can help eliminate
their energy costs, I can help them become more profitable and
at the same time I am working to knock down their healthcare
costs. But thank you again, and I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Dr. Buchanan, for your testimony today. I do have a
question in response to Chairman Peterson's question earlier,
with regard to the requested amounts for bioenergy. You said
that the agency had contracted with a person to get a handle on
where we are now and that there was going to be a September
conference to outline where we are where we should go. Who is
that your office has contracted with?
Dr. Buchanan. This is an internal review that we would be
inviting various directors of laboratories and scientists
involved in our bioenergy effort and they would be helping us
identify their specific research effort. We have identified the
general principles that we want to address, as I mentioned
earlier.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Dr. Buchanan, if I might? I am sorry
to interrupt, but who is it? You said you had contracted with a
person. Do you mean you contracted----
Dr. Buchanan. A person named Dr. Jim Fischer.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And he is outside the agency?
Dr. Buchanan. Yes, he is outside the agency.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And so can you tell me a little bit
about him and then also answer the question of the $50 million
that you are requesting? Would you then use some of that money
to then set up a national program staff within the agency? You
are not going to use that money to contract out to someone to
coordinate this information?
Dr. Buchanan. No, no, we would simply use the existing
authorities that we have to conduct the research internally. We
are talking about funding research both in ARS, in Agricultural
Research Service, in the universities, through the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The
person that I have employed to help me is on a cooperative
agreement. I employed him because of his broad knowledge. He is
a former employee of ARS, a former employee of Clemson
University in South Carolina and also is a former employee of
DOE. He is a very knowledgeable person who has expertise far
beyond what I have. So that is why we are working with Dr.
Fischer through a cooperative agreement. But no, the research
would be managed in-house. This is what we are talking about.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. No, I anticipated that the research
would always be done in-house, but in terms of the ongoing
coordination efforts of understanding what is happening out
within the universities the intramural, the extramural
activities, what is going on with the research so that we
aren't looking at duplication? Do you anticipate that after
September, after this individual has done the initial stages of
identifying what is out there and bringing it together, going
forward, that you would have a dedicated staff within your
office that would do ongoing information gathering and
analysis; sharing that information within the office itself
rather than on an ongoing contractual basis with someone
outside of the office.
Dr. Buchanan. Well, I made the point earlier that we have
put together the ABBREE Council within the mission area, which
has representatives from ARS, CSREES, NASS and ERS. They
provide kind of a coordinating group within the mission area
and Dr. Fisher simply provides more help to the ABBREE Council
in the coordination effort within the mission area, so we are
getting a handle on what we are doing. One of the most
important steps in the research process is identifying what
needs to be addressed and this is exactly what we are doing. We
are identifying what needs to be addressed and the only way you
can do that is to systematically assess what you are currently
doing.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that and I appreciate the
efforts that you have undertaken. I would just perhaps share my
preference that the ongoing efforts to gather that information
would be done within the office rather than continuing on a
contractual basis. I am just stating that. I understand what
you are doing now to add to those efforts, but any kind of
reorganization that takes place to have a dedicated staff to
keep a handle, then, to add on to this set of information that
you are gathering. One other quick question: What are your
thoughts as this Office of Science and the reorganization that
is being proposed and the responsibilities of the Research,
Education, and Economics agency is now becoming an Office of
Science. We have done a very good job over the years, through
the extension service, sharing research and education with
those who are actively farming, and different techniques and
different areas of research that have helped productivity
growth. What are your thoughts on how your mission might
currently address, or could in the future, the issue of
entrepreneurs in rural America and technology transfer. I know
that is an area that many leaders in the land-grant university
system have focused on as they have pursued research, so that
it is shared information and knowledge and facilitating
efforts, not only to our farmers and ranchers, but also to our
rural entrepreneurs.
Dr. Buchanan. I am not sure I got the question. Would you
give me a capsule of your question again?
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Do you currently, or do you see in the
future, a rule for your office in assisting the efforts of
rural entrepreneurs through technology transfer of the research
conducted through Federal grants at land-grant universities?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, clearly the Cooperative Extension
Service has a very vital role to play in that process and under
the reorganization, I think we will have an even better linkage
between the total research capacity in USDA than we have now.
At the present time, extension is part of Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service. We have a lot of ad
hoc coordination, but the reorganization will institutionalize
this process, so I think we will have an even better
opportunity for information transfer from the total research
system in USDA after the reorganization.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you and thank you for allowing
me to go over time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Doctor, for appearing today. I appreciate your testimony very
much. I am looking at your recommendations of how to reorganize
and the funding mechanisms and the President has proposed $50
million for the bioenergy and bio-based products research. Do
you think that amount is going to be sufficient for the level
of research that is really going to be required to have the
President's 2020 Initiative achieved?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, first, I should point out that the
total farm bill has a number of other areas that provide
funding. In fact, there is a total of $1.6 billion in the total
farm bill package for bioenergy and bio-products. The part that
is in the Title VII, which is in the research title, is $50
million and this certainly would provide a real boost, a real
shot in the arm, if you will, for support of research and
education programs in the agencies that I have responsibility
for. So we are very pleased at that figure and that would
certainly be a great boost to our effort.
Mrs. Gillibrand. And what is going to be the focus of your
research, figuring out how to use biofuels cost efficiently or
figuring out which materials make the best biofuels? Are you
looking at waste products that are on farms, like cow manure?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, obviously one of the real opportunities
for agriculture is, as I pointed earlier, the sun is our only
real ultimate source of energy. Capturing the sun's energy can
be done by a couple of ways, such as photovoltaic cells, but
the most important and efficient way of capturing the sun's
energy is through green plant photosynthesis. Green plant
photosynthesis is the heart of agriculture, so agriculture, as
I mentioned earlier, is going to be at the heart of addressing
the energy picture. So clearly the first challenge we have is
what are the best energy crops that we can grow? And of course
that takes many, many different approaches, for example, using
not only what we have now, but also through screening our
germplasm banks. We have 470,000 assession of plants in our
germ banks around the country. Many of those have not been
screened for energy properties. They have been collected and
primarily screened for food and fiber properties. But we need
to be looking at all of these assessions for their energy
properties. We have been selecting plants for 7,000 years,
since we stopped being hunters and gatherers. We really need to
be looking at how we can breed and select plants, not only on
the basis of food or fiber, but also on the basis of energy.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Right. And I have read for cellulosic
ethanol, some of the best plants we have discovered are
switchgrasses and perhaps woody biomass that is not used in
papermaking process and other things like that. In terms of the
timeframe for this I have a concern because I have a lot of
dairy farms in my district, and right now the cost of grain has
doubled because of the corn prices being used for ethanol. So
my concern is how long will this take and will you be able to
begin to facilitate the transfer away from corn-based ethanol
towards perhaps cellulosic-based ethanol that has a greater
energy return rate? And I think the difference is it is 2 to 1
for corn and maybe 10 to 1 for these other types of crops.
Dr. Buchanan. Well, first, I will give you a researcher's
perspective. I can't tell you when because if I could tell you
when, then it wouldn't be research. So the one thing I can say
is the more research we do, the harder we work, the quicker we
will achieve what we want to achieve. I would also say that
this is clearly an issue that has come up. We are very much
aware of the problem with the other uses, because we not only
have a responsibility for energy, I made the comment earlier
about, we now have the responsibility for food, feed, fiber and
fuel, but just because we have a need for a fuel does not
negate the need for food, feed and fiber.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Yes.
Dr. Buchanan. And I heard a speech at the American Chemical
Society meeting a few weeks ago, talking about there not being
as much competition between food versus fuel as there is
between feed versus fuel.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Right.
Dr. Buchanan. And that is a very important point. In fact,
we are working and we had a group of our staff working to try
to understand what we are doing in research to address this
issue. It has taken several different approaches. For example,
how do we make ethanol out of corn and ensure that the
resulting DDGS meet the expectations for good quality animal
feed? And of course, someone pointed out that we are looking at
trying to find an efficient means of converting cellulosic
material into ethanol. So we are looking at other ways. What
are the other crops that we can grow that will replace feed?
For example, in poultry we can use grain millets, which have
equal capacity for satisfying poultry needs. So we are looking
at a lot of different approaches. This is not a simple issue
and I think that anyone that can predict when we are going to
achieve this, I would like to meet them, because there is a lot
of research that has to be done. We have a lot of effort ahead
of us in order to achieve this goal. This is why I refer to
this whole business as one of the grand challenges of this
century.
Mrs. Gillibrand. That is why I started my question with, is
$50 million enough?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, it is certainly a major start and I am
delighted to support this and this will get us going down the
road, so I hope that we are successful in getting the funding.
Mrs. Gillibrand. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
appreciate us continuing to follow through on this hearing. I
have a couple different questions and part of it is a follow-
through of our continuing theme that has been going with my
colleagues and that is trying to get a handle on this research
that is being done, as both of my last two colleagues
indicated. We are not trying to give you a difficult time, Mr.
Secretary, but the fact of the matter is that research has been
going on for some time and we know that the reason that we are
asking about what the Department has done to develop criteria
is that they have allowed these research grants to be issued,
and because we don't want to waste the taxpayers' dollars. We
want to put the research, frankly, into where there already is
a great degree of work and research that already has been done,
so that we bring added-value and also have timelines in terms
of, to use and agricultural term, where the lowest hanging
fruit is in terms of asserting agriculture's role, we think a
role that will grow in reducing our dependency on foreign
sources of energy. To that extent, have you and the Department
of Energy better coordinated your biofuels research effort
through this bioresearch development initiative, and do you
participate on that advisory council initiative?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, in the past, I have not been a member
of the joint council, but plans are to include me as a member
of that council. But clearly one of the Under Secretaries in
the Department is a co-chair of that council, which provides
coordination with DOE, and obviously there is plenty of work
for everybody to do and we are committed to doing that.
Mr. Costa. Well, it is not the work, it is the
collaboration so that we are not reinventing the wheel, so to
speak, and that we are not duplicating efforts is the concern I
think most of the Committee Members here have, and I share
those concerns. We understand that this effort in terms of the
joint awards to fund biomass research and development projects.
Does this group, in your knowledge, have an oversight capacity?
Do you monitor the way the funding is being distributed from
your respective agencies under the grant awards, like the
CSREES, to make sure that we aren't, as I said, duplicating
efforts?
Dr. Buchanan. Well, certainly the agencies and CSREES, and
the grant process through the NRI, has oversight in terms of
ensuring that we don't fund the same projects in two different
states by two different investigators. The national program
staffs have opportunity for knowing what is going on, so we
have a way of ensuring that we don't reinvent the wheel. But I
would submit, too, and I have been in research all of my life,
that the allegation that we duplicate a lot of work is not--it
just doesn't happen too much. A lot of times we do similar
research, but often times it is needed to ensure that we answer
the right questions and it is location specific. So this is not
a major concern of mine, duplicating or reinventing the wheel.
Mr. Costa. As laypeople, some of us have an understanding
that peer research involves validation that involves a lot of
that kind of work, but it is my fear, and hopefully it is
baseless, but I don't think so. We understand that we have some
tremendous universities throughout this country that are doing
great research, but we also know that some universities by
nature, because of funding challenges, are very adept at
chasing those research dollars. I don't think it is the
universities' responsibility to police themselves. Some of them
do collaborative efforts that I am aware of, but I think we
need to, if you are issuing the grants, the Department of
Energy is issuing the grants, there needs to be a high level of
collaboration to ensure that in fact we are getting the best
bang for our dollar.
Dr. Buchanan. Well, one of the things that we are doing is
we have a joint effort between CSREES and DOE, in which we have
jointly funded research efforts, and this is another way of
ensuring that we don't fund the same project, by having joint
efforts between DOE and CSREES and the Department. I understand
what you are saying, Congressman, and clearly, we have too many
things to do to not use our money as wisely as we can. That is
obviously one of the real important parts of the proposed
reorganization, is to have a single national program staff that
has purview and is aware of what we are doing both
intramurally, as well as extramurally. So that is another way
of trying to address exactly what you are saying.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much. I have exceeded my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this effort.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman and also,
thanks, Dr. Buchanan, for your testimony and for your Q&A
session that we had here today. And there is a series of votes
going on now, and Dr. Buchanan, it seems like there are no
other questions for you at this time, so we thank you again and
dismiss you from appearing before the Subcommittee.
Dr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
opportunity and we stand ready to provide any information, and
if you should have questions about our plans for use of the
dollars in specialty crops and energy, we would be pleased to
provide any information you ask for.
The Chairman. Well, we appreciate that, Doctor, and as the
Chairman of the full Committee indicated, this Subcommittee
intends to begin marking up on May 22, so we will be in touch
and we will say to Panel II, that it will be about probably a
half hour until we return from the series of votes, so we will
back as soon as we can. Thank you.
Dr. Buchanan. Thank you very much.
[Recess]
The Chairman. The Committee will come back to order and Mr.
Lucas and I would like to apologize to our witnesses, but we
talked about unintended consequences with the last panel and we
just ran into one. So we would just like to welcome our second
panel, Dr. William Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus of Washington
University, Chairman of the Coalition of Plant and Life
Sciences, and Chairman of the Donald Danforth Plant Science
Center, St. Louis, Missouri; Dr. Bruce McPheron, Associate Dean
for Research and Director of Pennsylvania Agricultural
Experiment Station, Penn State University, on behalf of the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges, from University Park, Pennsylvania; Dr. George W.
Norton, Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, from Virginia Tech in
Blacksburg, Virginia. And Dr. Norton, Mr. Lucas and I would
like to express our deepest sympathy for the tragic events that
happened at Virginia Tech. And finally, Dr. Joe Bouton, Senior
Vice President and Director of Forage Improvement Division, The
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, and Professor Emeritus,
University of Georgia, Ardmore, Oklahoma. Dr. Danforth, you may
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DANFORTH, M.D., CHANCELLOR EMERITUS,
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY; CHAIRMAN, DONALD DANFORTH PLANT SCIENCE
CENTER; CHAIRMAN,
COALITION OF PLANT AND LIFE SCIENCES, ST. LOUIS, MO
Dr. Danforth. Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Lucas and
Members, I thank you for this opportunity. I have been involved
with biomedical research for over 50 years and plant science
for a dozen. Thanks to leaders in Congress, I chaired a task
force to evaluate the establishment of one or more national
institutes for agricultural science. I ask that this report be
included in today's record and I have a brought a copy of it.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The report entitled, National Institute for Food and
Agriculture--A Proposal; dated July 2004; a report of the Research,
Education and Economics Task Force of the United States Department of
Agriculture; follows Dr. Holden's prepared statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Institute for Food and Agriculture Act
introduced last Wednesday by Chairman Peterson and Members of
the Committee, including Representatives Graves, Marshall and
Boustany, embodied our recommendations. In March, Chairman
Harkin, Senator Bond and others introduced the same Act in the
Senate. I would like to just summarize a couple of our
conclusions and recommendations.
First, innovations from research have been and are today
essential to agriculture. They have given us food and fiber
that are plentiful, cheap, safe and contributed to foreign
sales. Innovation must continue, for we face serious challenges
that have been mentioned and outlined today, including
international competition for farm products, the need for
bioenergy, growing water shortages, human nutrition, food
safety and so on.
Second conclusion, that many of the next generations of
breakthrough innovations will come from fundamental research,
that is research that develops a better understanding of how
animals and plants grow, develop, use nutrients, protect
themselves from drought and diseases and so on. Fortunately, we
have new and powerful tools, such as cell and molecular
biology, genetics, proteomics and so on, that would be useful
to agriculture as they have been to understanding human
cancers.
Two key recommendations are not new: Scientific panels have
advocated them for over 30 years. First, decision making about
fundamental research must lean more heavily on scientific
judgments. Intelligent laypeople, even people as intelligent as
Members of Congress, can't judge the technical quality of
modern research. The National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation have shown the way to partner
scientific and political decision making. They invite
researchers to submit competitive--I underlined that--
competitive proposals to meet national priorities. Grants are
awarded to the best proposals as evaluated by a combination of
scientific merit judged by scientists, and national need as
judged by Congress and stakeholders. The Act includes
recommendations for face-to-face meetings between stakeholders
and scientists.
Second, funding has lagged for years and must be increased.
The NIH spends about $15 on research for every dollar spent by
the USDA; about $150 in competitive peer review grants for
every dollar so awarded by the USDA. The national priorities,
it seems to me, are out of balance.
A few more points. Our proposals are narrow and focused.
They don't touch existing research authorities. We recommend
new money to begin to reverse the chronic underfunding of
competitive agricultural research and also so as not to compete
with the ongoing, well-done, badly needed national needs of the
other USDA research programs. We recommend mandatory funding
because of the failures of past reports and because we believe
that a new way of doing things will need protection for a
number a years. We believe such innovation will pay off. There
has been, in preparation, a study by the Economic Research
Service of the USDA that does suggest that perhaps agricultural
research payoff is greater than was mentioned earlier and I
think it is worth pressing for those results and seeing what
comes of them. The challenges are very pressing today. We
shouldn't delay them. We need to keep up our competitive edge
and meet the challenges.
So Mr. Chairman, I recommend the adoption of the National
Institute for Food and Agriculture Act and the research title
of the 2007 Farm Bill. The legislation has the support of key
agricultural groups, including the American Soybean
Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National
Farmers Union, the National Turkey Federation, the National
Corn Growers Association, and the National Chicken Council. I
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Danforth follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Danforth. The chair was
negligent and Dr. Danforth, you were right on target. If you
can keep your remarks to 5 minutes and submit your entire
testimony for the record. We would like keep things moving
along. There is another hearing that is behind us in this room.
So Dr. McPheron?
STATEMENT OF DR. BRUCE A. McPHERON, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH
AND DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
Dr. McPheron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to discuss the land-grant system's CREATE-21 proposal. I am
told that you, Ranking Member Lucas and your staff have been
thoroughly briefed, so I will summarize the proposal and refer
you to our written statement and legislative language for
additional detail.
As you know, CREATE-21 has two fundamental purposes. It
will bring together in a single organization the research
agency's programs, personnel and facilities spread across USDA,
and more tightly integrate this intramural research capacity
with the extramural research, teaching and extension capacity
within land-grant universities and related institutions. It
will also double USDA funding authorizations for food,
agricultural and natural resources, teaching, research and
extension programs, to address the dozens of critical and
urgent national problems that will remain unsolved unless USDA
science program levels are substantially and immediately
increased.
With respect to funding, we propose to dedicate 70 cents of
each new dollar for competitively awarded grants, with the
remaining 30 cents used to stabilize the capacity programs that
support the basic USDA and land-grant infrastructure. In
addition, we have specific provisions to address the tremendous
unmet capacity and competitive program needs at America's
historically black land-grant universities, tribal colleges and
other minority-serving institutions.
The land-grant community has coalesced behind CREATE-21
because we believe that neither the status quo nor halfway
measures are acceptable. To illustrate why a comprehensive
approach dealing with both organizational and funding issues is
absolutely necessary, let me present an example of an urgent
national problem that would be better addressed under CREATE-
21. The example I have chosen relates to the sudden and
wholesale disappearance of honeybee colonies and these are the
essential facts. Beginning in late 2006, beekeepers reported
sudden catastrophic losses of honeybee colonies on a scale that
they had not previously experienced. The problem is widespread
and unexplained. Honeybees are incredibly important,
pollinating some $15 billion worth of fruit, vegetables and
forage crops each year. There are a variety of potential
explanations for the problem, including mites, pathogens such
as viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoans, pesticides, colony
transportation issues, imported bees and royal jelly. It is
likely that a combination of these elements will be implicated.
Penn State and other land-grant universities have been
collaborating with Federal and state agencies to investigate
the problem and develop responses.
So what does this problem have to do with CREATE-21? Well,
let me make five quick points. First, it underscores the vital
link between research and extension. This problem was first
reported by a beekeeper, one of our stakeholders, through the
cooperative extension system at Penn State, and the close link
between our extension and research programs permitted us to
immediately design research experiments and get into the field.
Second, it points out the enduring value of capacity
funding. Hatch and Smith-Lever funds provide Penn State and
other land-grant universities with support for the world-class
laboratories, scientists and staff necessary to attack urgent
national problems.
Third, it demonstrates the significance of a national
network of state agricultural experiment stations and
cooperative extension units. While Penn State is at the
forefront of this effort, we are collaborating with land-grants
in dozens of states, from North Carolina to Washington.
Fourth, it illustrates the need for greater integration
among USDA agencies and the Department's external partners.
Both ARS and CSREES have national program leaders in this area
and both agencies are sponsoring the search. While there is ad
hoc coordination, there is no clear and simple integration as
would be the case under CREATE-21.
Fifth and finally, it shows the importance of fundamental
research. Recently the honeybee genome was sequenced and as a
result, researchers are able to narrow the focus of their
current investigations and should be able to produce results
more rapidly.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a good example of what we
are promoting under CREATE-21 and what we hope will emerge from
this Subcommittee: enhanced capacity funding, increased funding
for fundamental research, and greater integration among USDA
agencies and better coordination with the Department's external
partners.
In conclusion, let me offer an analogy for your
consideration. The current USDA science apparatus is like an
old pickup with 300,000 miles that served its owner extremely
well over the years. A prudent farmer wouldn't simply put on a
new pair of tires. He would give it a thorough tune-up, too. So
Mr. Chairman, we stand ready to help you with both the tune-up
and the new tires. Thank you for the opportunity to present our
views and I stand ready for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McPheron follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Dr. McPheron. And as I
mentioned to the previous panel, we are going to be marking up
in 2 weeks and we are certainly going to need your help. Dr.
Norton?
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. NORTON, PROFESSOR OF
AGRICULTURAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS, COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA
Dr. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here today representing my own views as a specialist in
agricultural research evaluation, but also representing the
views of Dr. Sharron Quisenberry, Dean of the College of
Agriculture Life Sciences at Virginia Tech, and also Dr. Elsa
Murano, Dean of the College of Agriculture Life Sciences at
Texas A&M University and Director of the Texas Agriculture
Experiment Station.
Our joint Federal-state partnership in agricultural
research has helped to make U.S. agriculture among the most
productive in the world. Unfortunately, agricultural
productivity has slowed since about 1990. This slowdown is due
in part to a slowdown in funding in agricultural research that
began about 1980. At the same time, the need for environmental,
nutrition and health, bio-based energy, rural development and
other issues have grown. Numerous studies have documented
extraordinarily high rates of return to public investments in
agricultural research, so it is imperative that we adequately
support this research and manage it efficiently. Proposals have
been presented that would restructure how public agricultural-
related research is conducted and supported and my remarks are
going to address both organizational and funding issues.
The core research capacity of USDA is essential for
maintaining long-term research on national issues, while
research at state agricultural experiment stations ensures
responsiveness to local as well as regional and national needs.
Federal support for state agricultural experiment stations
leverages significant state and private resources. It
encourages individual states to address multi-state needs by
partially compensating them for benefits of their research that
spill over to other states. The recent CREATE-21 proposal calls
for formation of a set of six national institutes for
agriculture, run by a director who reports to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
The Administration proposes a somewhat simpler plan,
merging, as you know, ARS with CSREES without ERS and the
Forest Service. However, they would keep the new unit under the
purview of the Under Secretary of Research, Education and
Economics within USDA. It is our view that moving agencies
around in a major way to form new ones is seldom an efficient
way to solve a problem. The inefficiencies created in the
transition can well out weigh the eventual benefits. The
current system is relatively responsive to local stakeholders,
flexible to address emerging problems that has generated high
returns. A more consolidated top-down system runs the risk of
losing stakeholder support at the local level for perhaps a
marginal gain. We just don't quite see the benefits to farmers,
ranchers and other stakeholders.
Second, an Under Secretary might be better able to stand
than a director to stand toe to toe with other sub-cabinet
members of USDA to advocate for his or her unit.
Third, CREATE-21 calls for merger of intramural and
extramural funding into one budgetary line. While the
Administration proposes merging CSREES and ARS, it would keep
the intramural versus extramural funding roughly in balance, as
we heard this morning from Dr. Buchanan. We feel this balance
is essential to the complimentary roles that are played by ARS
and state agricultural experiment stations.
Let me turn to funding. CREATE-21 calls for doubling of
expenditures on agricultural and related research. This goal,
while it may be difficult to achieve, there is little question
that lack of research funds in recent years has hurt
productivity in agriculture. This has hindered our ability to
achieve our other goals. Improving productivity is essential
for trade, it is essential as our need for agriculture to
supply fuel expands, and specialty crops assume increased
importance.
The need is great, but making a case for ag research
requires expressions of need by local and regional, in addition
to national, constituencies. Reorganization will not buy much
if local interests groups have little voice in establishing
priorities. Because crops, livestock and forests are sensitive
to geoclimatic and economic conditions, many important
agricultural and natural resource problems are local or
regional. In recent years, competitively funded programs have
grown at the expense of core capacity programs. An appropriate
balance in the growth of both types of funding is needed.
Formula funds facilitate long-term, high-payoff research, they
support salaries of scientists, fund research infrastructure to
help state agricultural experiment stations respond quickly to
crises such as the recent soybean rust problem that we had a
couple of years ago, and they leverage state funds. They
minimize transaction costs of scientists so they spend more
time on their research and less on writing grant proposals for
shorter-term projects.
Competitive grants are excellent for funding cutting-edge
science needed to solve national problems, for which research
can be done of shorter duration. They are less well suited for
funding long-term research capacity, as required to meet local
and regional in addition to national needs; also for responding
to immediate crises. When these needs are neglected, support
from broad-based constituencies tends to erode. We caution
against drastic reorganization of agriculture and related
research in USDA and call for an appropriate balance in formula
and competitive funds. Programs currently in place to assure
accountability and flexibility to changing stakeholder needs
should be enhanced. Our public agricultural research system is
effectively responding to the scientific revolution that is
underway in biological sciences, but it is underfunded given
the high rates of return that we see for agriculture research;
and the need for a broad agenda. The basic problem is funding.
It is not really the organization of USDA, but it is basically
a funding problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Norton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Norton. Dr. Bouton?
STATEMENT OF JOESEPH H. BOUTON, Ph.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR, FORAGE IMPROVEMENT
DIVISION, THE SAMUEL ROBERTS NOBLE FOUNDATION, INC.; PROFESSOR
EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS, ARDMORE, OK
Dr. Bouton. Thank you, Chairman Holden, Congressman Lucas
and Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify.
USDA research efforts and strategies are important to the
future of domestic agriculture, the prosperity of rural
America, and potentially the energy security of this Nation.
As a brief background, the Noble Foundation, founded in
1945, is a private, nonprofit institute located in rural
Oklahoma. The Noble Foundation has more than 320 employees from
27 countries, more than 80 with Ph.D.s. In addition to a state-
of-the-art research campus, we own and manage more than 15,000
acres for research and demonstration purposes. Our operations
extend from the laboratory to the field and our research
outcomes have international applications. Our scientists use
molecular biology, genetics and genomics to explore basic plant
mechanisms. Using both modern plant breeding and genetic
technologies, we move discoveries into crops, primarily forage
and pasture crops, like clovers, alfalfa and grasses.
Finally, our agricultural specialists work on both our
farms and farms of more than 1,400 producers within a 100 mile
radius of Noble to help them achieve their operational goals.
These services are offered at no cost and are estimated to
contribute $15 million annually to the program participants'
bottom line. We regularly participate in public stakeholder
discussions to set USDA research priorities, serve on review
teams to assess their national programs, compete for USDA
grants and collaborate with USDA-ARS scientists, for example,
the talented scientists at the U.S. Dairy and Forage Research
Center in Madison, Wisconsin.
We have considered the USDA's proposed Agricultural
Bioenergy and Bio-Based Products Research Initiative with much
interest: $500 million over 10 years, targeting renewable fuels
and bio-based products. The stated objectives of this
initiative are to improve biomass production and sustainability
and improve biorefinery conversion techniques. These two
objectives historically have received millions of dollars from
the Federal Government. Due to these investments, private
entities are now entering these spaces. For example, due to our
forage grass research, the Noble Foundation has taken a
leadership position in the improvement of switchgrass as a
dedicated energy crop. Our program leverages plant varieties
developed in the 1990s during my tenure at the University of
Georgia, for the DOE's Herbaceous Bioenergy Feedstock Program.
To move our research into the marketplace, we have entered
a long-term collaboration with Ceres, Inc. of Thousand Oaks,
California. Through this collaboration, we are creating new,
more productive switchgrass varieties through breeding and
hybrid techniques. Switchgrass is in its infancy as a
production crop. We are confident that, with modern breeding
tools, significant improvements can be attained in a relatively
short period of time, much shorter than the 70 years it took
for corn to reach its current production levels. We have moved
our first-generation switchgrass varieties into broad
geographic evaluations across the U.S. This year we will have
more than 25 evaluation sites assessing variety performance.
Through these trials, we have seen on average a 20 percent
increase in tonnage of the new varieties over current
commercial switchgrass varieties. Ceres, further, is increasing
seed of these new varieties, with the intent of a 2009
commercial release.
Importantly, Noble's serious collaboration goes much
further than simply creating improved switchgrass varieties. We
are developing a handbook to assist producers in establishing
and sustaining cultivated switchgrass. In the near future,
domestic agriculture will see the emergence of switchgrass
farmers. Unlike farmers in traditional crops, they will not
have the benefit of generational knowledge passed from their
fathers, grandfathers or farming leaders in their communities.
There is no production scale acreage of switchgrass in the
United States. Educational resources will be important for
these true pioneers. We are also establishing the economics of
the dedicated energy crops. Little is known about this topic
for these crops on a commercial scale. An understanding of the
actual cost is necessary to allow producers to evaluate market
alternatives.
As the Subcommittee writes the 2007 Farm Bill, it is
important to remember that the private sector now possesses an
ability to grow and manage--to begin growing and managing
bioenergy crops and conversion technologies--and as such is
well beyond basic science for the advancement of these fields.
Consequently, there are other areas that could benefit from
focused research: Biomass handling, harvest, storage and
transport is one of them; grower management plans for various
geographies; long-term understanding of soil nutrition to
support high-yielding perennial bioenergy crops; carbon and
nutrient sequestration; integration of the dedicated energy
crops into existing farming and agricultural operations.
In conclusion, the Noble Foundation welcomes the
opportunity to be a resource for this Subcommittee. Thank you
for considering these issues and thank you for the invitation
to discuss these matters. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bouton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Bouton. And Dr. Bouton, I
think I will start with you. You mentioned that you believe the
cellulosic ethanol market could be viable in 2009?
Dr. Bouton. No, sir.
The Chairman. Much less than the 7 years for corn ethanol?
Dr. Bouton. No, sir. The industry itself will take some
time. When I was talking 2009, with the newer switchgrass
varieties with higher yield will be available by 2009.
The Chairman. 2009.
Dr. Bouton. Yes.
The Chairman. We will ask you and then maybe other members
of the panel: When do you believe the earliest could be
conceived that we would have a viable cellulosic ethanol market
in the U.S.? The plants will be up and running and it will be a
true alternative using renewable feedstocks.
Dr. Bouton. Well, we are starting to see some of the first
plants that have cellulosic ethanol production capability
starting to go in, and I think the DOE just put out five plants
or funding for five plants. We are also hearing from private
companies like Abengoa and Iogen, that they will have plants on
board fairly soon, but they will be in pilot and demonstration
scales in the early days.
The Chairman. Well, again, when do you--and other members
of the panel, please feel free to jump in here--when do we
think it is realistic that we are going to have a serious
effort and a serious production; that we are going to be able
to make some giant steps forward here to get the plants up and
running and be able to get the product to market and really
have alternative uses? Dr. McPheron, we asked that when I was
at Penn State as well. We talked.
Dr. McPheron. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did talk about that a
little bit up there and I am afraid that my answer is the same
as we hear from the Noble Foundation. We see these plants
coming on as pilot-scale demonstration sorts of production and
there is a very compelling question about when they are going
to be actually a competitive source of alternative fuels.
The Chairman. Dr. McPheron, just following up, you
mentioned capacity funding; could you elaborate a little bit on
that. What exactly were you talking about with capacity
funding?
Dr. McPheron. Yes, sir, I am happy to do that. Within the
CREATE-21 proposal, we are looking at funding from multiple
streams. The capacity funding we are referring to would be
funding sources that currently exist, like the Hatch funding,
Smith-Lever, Evans-Allen, McIntire-Stennis, programs that we
have heard mentioned earlier this morning by Dr. Buchanan. We
feel that it is a compelling and necessary part of looking to
the future to maintain that underlying capacity that supports
our personnel and our facilities. There are similar sorts of
funding levels or funding programs that support ARS, ERS and
the USDA Forest Service Research and Development that are
covered in our proposals. So when we refer to that capacity, we
are committed to preserving that level of capacity which gives
us the solid base of people and facilities from which to
respond to emerging problems and needs.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Danforth, you mentioned
competitiveness at USDA. I assume you believe that it should be
more competitive in nature. Is there anything that this
Subcommittee could do, anything specific to try to have more
competitiveness with the USDA's efforts?
Dr. Danforth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we did lay out in our
proposal a plan for establishing the National Institute for
Food and Agriculture, which would be devoted only to
competitive grants. It has been very hard for the USDA to mount
a very large competitive grant program, for some of the reasons
I think that Chairman Peterson mentioned earlier today, that
appropriation subcommittees have not been as sympathetic to
bringing more scientific decision making into the process. If
you are going to have competitive grants, you have to put out
RFPs and then you have to have them, the scientists from any
walk of life, apply to help deal with that particular problem,
and then you have to judge the best science that is coming
forward. And we recommend that there be panels of scientists
who judge the science, recommend and give it grades for the
quality of the science, and then a second review that reviews
not just the quality of the science but also the importance of
the science to meeting national needs. I think it would require
that sort of setup within the USDA to do that sort of thing.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can't help but
think about Chairman Peterson's observations and yours and of
course, the great challenge as authorizers we always face is
being caught in a squeeze between the appropriators and the
United States Senate, since we are the rational part of the
equation, but that is a personal observation.
Dr. Bouton, it seemed to me in your testimony that you were
suggesting, perhaps, that Federal funding for bioenergy should
be focused on infrastructure improvement, grower education, and
other areas that some might define as unrelated to basic
research. You further seem to be suggesting that this area
could be handled most efficiently by the private sector. Could
you expand on that or did I understand you correctly? Provide
us with some insights.
Dr. Bouton. Well, for us, I think we feel that this
industry, even though you are looking at it as national, it is
going to be local in scope. And so for us there at the Noble
Foundation and our 100 mile radius there that we really can
see, these are questions that are coming from our producers
already, and it becomes a chicken and egg argument. You know,
will the plant be there first or will the feedstock be there
first? So we have a lot of farmers who are willing to step up
to the plate now and say, ``Okay, we will demonstrate these
plants, even though they might only be pilot or demonstration
scale, that we can grow a thousand acres of switchgrass each
and maybe have several thousand acres there. So when they want
to kick off, and then the thing will grow from there.'' So we
see that there is already a need to look at things scale-up;
going from just small acreages to large acreages, just so they
could prove that they can have the feedstock available if a
plant wants to come in there; and they are willing to take the
risk if they can integrate it, too, into their normal livestock
operations. So it becomes kind of the ability to do that too.
It would be very helpful.
Mr. Lucas. Do you have any comments on the proposals that
you have been listening to today and the general sense of ag
research? Any insights from your years of experience?
Dr. Bouton. As far as the merger, we really don't have a
position on that. We just know we have worked a lot with ARS
over the years and some of their--even their biofuels program
in the northern plains, there in Lincoln, Nebraska--has been
very, oriented toward that and very good, so we are using a lot
of their information to bring it down to the southern plains
and look at it there. So I do agree that we are not concerned
as much as we are very attentive to what the USDA-ARS is going
to do.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Norton, in my, now, 13 years in this body,
we have gone through lots of reorganization efforts and lots of
reallocation and refocus and there is always unforeseen
consequences there. Could you offer an opinion or two? We have
heard about the potential benefits of reorganization. Could you
expand for a little bit on what the potential risk could be,
too?
Dr. Norton. Well, I think the greatest risk----
Mr. Lucas. If you see any risks.
Dr. Norton. I do see risks. I think the greatest risk is
loss of support from local constituencies, because it is not
united, reorganization is not united to funding and in the long
run you have so many of the needs in agriculture that are
regional-based and are locally-based. I have a concern that you
are going to have a council of 12 advisors--if we go with say,
the CREATE-21 proposal and they will take into account national
priorities. But I am very concerned about whether we maintain
the local support. That is one thing.
There are always inefficiencies that crop up when you
reorganize, because there are also some reasons for why it is
organized the way it is, and I see new inefficiencies that can
creep in as you put up all the additional resources into
competitive funds--what happens is you end up with another
level of bureaucracy and time lag for projects which generally
turn out to be a maximum of 3 years. The scientists are then
writing proposals continually, spending less time on research,
and that is a loss in the system that is sometimes hard to
measure, but it reduces the efficiency of the system. And I
mentioned that rust example, because I think back to that case
a couple years ago. When that came out. The system was able to
respond very quickly, because you had ARS immediately being
able to use its core capacity to get together with the states
and put together a task force that still operates and is very
effective and I worry about a competitive grant. If you tried
to do that through a competitive grant, what would have
happened?
Mr. Lucas. And if the Chairman will indulge me with another
minute or so? To Dr. Danforth and Dr. McPheron, what are the
risks of the status quo if we don't?
Dr. McPheron. Congressman, our feeling with generating
CREATE-21 and putting it before you is that we have the
opportunity to basically build on something that started 150
years ago. This is the final farm bill before the
sesquicentennial anniversary of the land-grant system. In 1862,
Congress made a visionary decision to move forward and what we
have now is the opportunity to really embrace change and
position ourselves for the next 150 years, with respect to all
of the challenges in food, fiber, feed and fuel, as we heard
earlier this morning.
What we propose in CREATE-21 is not to strip out that local
responsiveness, but rather to concomitantly grow the capacity
needs that keep us strong and flexible, and also the
fundamental and integrated applied research competitive
programs that are proposed by Dr. Danforth's group. So in a way
we, in CREATE-21, have embraced both the strong points of the
Danforth proposal and also the merits of having better
coordination at the leadership level within the USDA research
enterprise.
Dr. Danforth. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. To
solve some of these problems that we have been talking about
today, one cannot overestimate the difficulty in doing so.
There are some very tough problems that are going to require
very good science addressed to them. Now, none of these
problems will be solved without first having the basic
knowledge, the basic scientific knowledge that underlies what
you want to do. Second, having the ability to transfer that
knowledge; to use it; to educate farmers and others about the
use of the technology; to fit it in with entrepreneurial
activity, and to fit it in with the old economic system of the
United States and our foreign competition. We do not have the
fundamental science yet, to address these problems optimally.
You are always adding scientific knowledge and building on
that and it is that fundamental science that especially needs
scientific input and judgment in what you fund and how you do
it. And that is what we tried to recommend, to get that
fundamental knowledge for the long-term problems that we are
addressing. I suspect that Congress and the American people are
going to be addressing these problems, not just for the next
decade, but for the next 50 years. These are very long-term
problems we are addressing and we need to do it in the best way
to do the fundamental science that is going to underlie the
long-term developments in the U.S.
The Chairman. Mr. Lucas and I would like to thank the panel
for your testimony today. As I mentioned to Dr. Buchanan, we
will begin marking up, in this Subcommittee, May 22nd or 23rd
and I just want to assure you that your oral statements and
written testimony will be given full consideration as we try to
move forward with this farm bill.
So with that, under the rules of the Committee, the record
of today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
witnesses to any question posed by a Member of the panel. This
hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy,
and Research is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]