    [Senate Hearing 115-172]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-172

                             AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:
                              PERSPECTIVES ON PAST
                              AND FUTURE SUCCESSES
                             FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
                            NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 15, 2017

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    28-501 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-

    mail,
    gpo@custhelp.com.

               COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

                         PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman

    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
    CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                 James A. Glueck, Jr., Majority Staff Director

                        Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk

                   Joseph A. Shultz, Minority Staff Director

                   Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing(s):

    Agricultural Research: Perspectives on Past and Future Successes
      for the 2018 Farm Bill.........................................     1

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, June 15, 2017
                        STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

    Roberts, Hon. Pat, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas,
      Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry....     1
    Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan...     3

                                    Panel I

    Bartuska, Ann, Ph.D., Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Research,
      Education & Economics, United States Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, DC.................................................     5
    Ramaswamy, Sonny, Ph.D., Director, National Institute of Food and
      Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, DC.................................................     7
    Jacobs-Young, Chavonda, Ph.D., Administrator, Agricultural
      Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture,
      Washington, DC.................................................     8
    Rockey, Sally, Ph.D., Executive Director, Foundation for Food and
      Agriculture Research, Washington, DC...........................    10

                                    Panel II

    Floros, John, Ph.D., Dean and Director, College of Agriculture
      and K-State Research and Extension, Kansas State University,
      Manhattan, KS..................................................    33
    McMurray, Gary, Division Chief, Food Processing Technology
      Division, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA.........    35
    Hartman, Kerry, Ph.D., Academic Dean and Sciences Chair,
      Environmental Sciences, Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College, New
      Town, ND.......................................................    36
    Wellman, Steve, Farmer, Wellman Farms Inc., Syracuse, NE.........    38

                                 ----------

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:
        Cochran, Hon. Thad...........................................    48
        Bartuska, Ann................................................    49
        Floros, John.................................................    61
        Hartman, Kerry...............................................    68
        Jacobs-Young, Chavonda.......................................    75
        McMurray, Gary...............................................    81
        Ramaswamy, Sonny.............................................    84
        Rockey, Sally................................................    94
        Wellman, Steve...............................................   105
    Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
    Stabenow, Hon. Debbie:
        Center of Innovative and Sustainable Small Farms, Ranches and
          Forest Lands (CISFRL), prepared statement..................   110
    Rockey, Sally:
        Addendum to Prepared Statement...............................   118
    Question(s) and Answer(s):
    Bartuska, Ann:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   120
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   129
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   155
    Floros, John:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   159
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   162
    Hartman, Kerry:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   164
        Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........   165
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   167
    Jacobs-Young, Chavonda:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   168
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   169
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   183
        Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........   184
    McMurray, Gary:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   186
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   189
    Ramaswamy, Sonny:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   192
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   193
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   203
        Written response to questions from Hon. Amy Klobuchar........   206
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   208
    Rockey, Sally:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Pat Roberts..........   211
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   215
        Written response to questions from Hon. Kirsten Gillibrand...   217
    Wellman, Steve:
        Written response to questions from Hon. Debbie Stabenow......   220
        Written response to questions from Hon. Sherrod Brown........   222

                             AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:
                              PERSPECTIVES ON PAST
                              AND FUTURE SUCCESSES
                             FOR THE 2018 FARM BILL

                            Thursday, June 15, 2017

                                  United States Senate,
             Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in
    room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts,
    Chairman of the committee, presiding.
        Present or submitting a statement: Senators Roberts,
    Boozman, Hoeven, Ernst, Grassley, Thune, Daines, Perdue,
    Stabenow, Brown, Klobuchar, Bennet, Gillibrand, Donnelly,
    Casey, and Van Hollen.

     STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
      KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
                                FORESTRY

        Chairman Roberts. Good morning. I call this meeting of the
    Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to
    order.
        Someone once said, ``Today American agriculture is in the
    grip of a technological revolution, as vast and as rapid as any
    in history. It is a revolution which has made the American
    farmer the most efficient in history. It has made his
    productivity the marvel and envy of every nation. Experts from
    all over the world come to see our farms, study our techniques,
    and learn our methods, and the farm technology we have
    developed here in the United States holds out hope to the
    world, for the first time, that no man, woman, or child on
    Earth needs to go hungry again.''
        These words are as accurate today as they were in the past,
    when said by then President John F. Kennedy.
        My colleagues, and those in the audience, times are pretty
    tough right now in farm country, and research is indeed the
    backbone that drives agriculture change, efficiencies, and
    productivity, and the U.S. must continue leading the charge to
    feed a growing population of an estimated 9.7 billion in the
    next several decades.
        Discretionary spending on the research, education, and
    economics mission area at the Department has remained fairly
    flat for the past six years, and yet budgets are getting even
    tighter here in Washington. However, we must continue to focus
    on agriculture research, and in February of this year we kicked
    off the farm bill process by holding a field hearing in
    Manhattan, Kansas, at Kansas State University, and 600 were in
    attendance.
        At that hearing, we heard from a variety of agriculture
    stakeholders, 21, about what they want to see in the next farm
    bill reauthorization, but that day just did not include the
    hearing. My day started at the Kansas Wheat Innovation Center,
    where I toured the research labs and a greenhouse, and spoke
    with some of the center scientists, and observed cutting-edge
    research that will help keep our wheat growers as the most
    efficient and productive in the world. The Kansas Wheat
    Innovation Center is just one example of why the United States
    produces the safest, most affordable and abundant food and
    fiber supply in the world.
        In 2012, we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the United
    States Department of Agriculture. That same year, we celebrated
    the 150th anniversary of the Morrill Act, which established the
    land-grant college system. I might add that Kansas State
    University was the first land-grant institution created under
    that act. I well know----
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Roberts. --the history with regards to Michigan
    State, and I will yield.
        Senator Stabenow. Official.
        Chairman Roberts. --the first official. I think you had a
    building and somebody just said that was official, and that we
    had the first land grant. Anyway, let us let that go.
        Because of the early investment U.S. leaders made in
    agriculture research and extension efforts, our producers are
    better equipped to manage through drought, disease, floods,
    fires, and a great deal more that Mother Nature throws at them.
    Today there are additional challenges. Farmers are combating
    new pests and diseases and unpredictable weather patterns.
    Livestock producers rely on best management practices supported
    by accurate data and data to continually improve their
    production efficiencies. At the same time, scientists must work
    to ensure consumers have accurate science-based information
    regarding the nutritional benefits in foods that consumers are
    demanding.
        My colleagues, we have our work really cut out for us with
    this farm bill reauthorization. We need to find ways to do more
    with less, to reduce burdens of overregulation, ask tough
    questions as we re-examine programs to determine their
    effectiveness, and if they are serving their intended purpose.
    Strong public-private partnerships have been the cornerstone of
    U.S. agriculture research.
        Senator Stabenow and I were the original cosponsors of the
    bill that became the foundation for food and agriculture
    research in the 2000 Farm Bill. The foundation represents an
    opportunity to partner with the private sector and generate new
    funding streams in the light of budgetary constraints. In order
    to carry out bold and innovative agriculture research, this
    innovation should build upon and complement existing research
    at the Department of Agriculture.
        I look forward to hearing more this morning about how the
    foundation has used the seed funding Congress provided to
    leverage additional resources that produces results. I also
    look forward to hearing from leaders at the Department, our
    universities, and producers about research priorities for the
    next farm bill.
        So today's hearing is an opportunity to take stock in where
    we have come from and discuss where we are going in agriculture
    research. Through the leadership of the Department of
    Agriculture and setting priorities, the federal funding at our
    universities, and the investment of the public sector, I am
    optimistic about our future and overcoming the challenges that
    lie ahead.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank them
    for coming and participating. I know you all have valuable
    time.
        With that I am very pleased to recognize Senator Stabenow
    for any remarks she might want to make.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF MICHIGAN

        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I first want to express what all of us are feeling about the
    shooting yesterday and Representative Steve Scalise, the staff,
    the Capitol Police, and that we all are saddened and horrified
    by what happened.
        I particularly want to lift up, though, a young man from
    Michigan, Matt Mika, who is very close to our staff. His mom
    and dad have flown in from Michigan and are now at the
    hospital. He has had one surgery, has to have another, and he
    is really in very serious condition, so we lift him up. He
    worked for two members of our congressional delegation in the
    House and is now with Tyson Foods, but we consider him part of
    the extended agriculture family and ask for specific prayers
    for Matt as he is going through tough times as well.
        I also want to thank our expert witnesses for being here
    today to discuss the importance of agricultural research,
    education, and extension. I have always said that we do not
    have an economy unless somebody makes something and somebody
    grows something, and that is exactly what agriculture research
    helps us do. Research initiatives included in the 2014 Farm
    Bill provide the tools and the science that sustain Michigan
    agriculture, and all of agriculture.
        I do want to indicate Michigan agriculture is our state's
    second-largest industry, supporting one out of four jobs. In
    fact every $1 invested in agricultural research creates more
    than $20 in return to the U.S. economy, which is a great
    investment. Michigan is home to the country's pioneer land-
    grant, my alma mater, Michigan State University. We will
    probably have to claim joint ownership at some point, depending
    on the timing here.
        The innovative work happening every day at land-grant
    universities, like Michigan State and Kansas State and other
    agricultural research institutions protects and improves our
    food system. Land-grant universities are unique in that they
    implement their research findings in communities through
    extension work. When I was getting my graduate degree I
    appreciated being a part of extension and seeing it close up.
        The Morrill Act of 1862 created the land-grant university
    system with the mission to serve rural communities. Since that
    time, the United States has led the world in agricultural
    research. However, over the last decade we have seen China,
    India and Brazil significantly increase their investment in
    agricultural research. China now has a 2-to-1 advantage over
    the U.S. in critical public investments to address emerging
    pests, disease, and extreme weather in the agriculture sector.
    If we allow our country to slip behind in agricultural
    research, our farmers could lose their global competitiveness.
        Now, more than ever, it is critical to invest in public
    research and support our world-class agricultural research
    institutions that make our farms more productive and
    sustainable. From innovative robotic technology to precision
    agriculture, our scientists are pushing the bounds of what is
    possible to create new opportunities.
        In Michigan, we are famous for our wide variety of
    specialty crops, from our cherry trees and apple orchards to
    our hops yards and wineries, but many of those crops would not
    be thriving if it were not for targeted investments like the
    farm bill Specialty Crop Research Initiative. For example,
    Michigan has been the number one domestic producer of
    blueberries over the last 70 years, contributing more than $118
    million to Michigan's annual economy.
        While it might be easy to find these nutritious berries in
    your grocery store--and they are really good--their widespread
    popularity is thanks, in part, to agricultural research. Crops
    like blueberries have depended on innovative research to meet
    the changing needs of consumers and growers alike. Michigan
    State has developed some of the most widely planted varieties,
    with traits that work best for commercial production.
        But it is not just specialty crops that have benefitted. We
    are also growing jobs through research that strengthens the
    emerging bio-based economy. The 2014 Farm Bill supports the
    farms that produce our energy crops and provides innovative
    technologies for renewable energy projects across the country.
    Research breakthroughs have made it possible for bio-based
    products to enter the market, which contributes $393 billion to
    the U.S. economy and supports 4.2 million jobs, plus.
        There are many other ways, Mr. Chairman, I see that my time
    is running out. I am going to place some other comments as to
    other examples in the record. But let me just say, every day
    our farmers face new and emerging challenges posed by disease
    and invasive pests as well. In Michigan, invasive species are
    destroying our cherry harvests, and in Florida citrus greening
    is devastating orange groves. In Kansas, stripe rust has struck
    wheat farmers.
        Our agricultural researchers are stepping up to the plate,
    over and over again, to address these challenges. That is why,
    in the last farm bill, Chairman Roberts and I worked together
    to create the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research. I
    am thrilled to see some representatives from the foundation
    here today to update us. We owe so many of our accomplishments
    in agriculture to the scientists who conduct groundbreaking
    research. Every day they pave the way forward for farmers and
    food businesses.
        So I am very pleased that you are all here today. I also
    want to indicate that we are, unfortunately, having national
    debates over scientific facts, and I am not afraid to say that
    I believe in science. I know that in this Committee, when we
    are talking about research, we are talking about science.
    Science-based agricultural research is good for our farmers,
    good for our consumers, good for our economy, and I look
    forward, in the next farm bill, to strengthening our efforts,
    working together, based on our past bipartisan victories.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member.
    My colleagues, as you all know, we have three votes at 11:00.
    We are going to rotate back and forth during those votes to
    keep the hearing going. I only mention this to inform our
    panelists that we will keep going. If you can keep within the
    five-minute allotment that we have given you, despite the fact
    that both myself and the Ranking Member went over about 45
    seconds, that would be fine.
        I would say that, like King Tut, we are pressed for time,
    but that is a horrible pun that I will not bring up. Please, no
    groaning.
        [Laughter.]
        Welcome to our first panel of witnesses before the
    Committee this morning. Dr. Ann Bartuska serves as the Acting
    Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
    within the Department of Agriculture. Prior to her work at the
    Department she served in a variety of roles at the Forest
    Service, including the Deputy Chief of Research and Development
    from 2004 to 2010. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony.
        Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy has served as the Director of the
    National Institute of Food and Agriculture since May of 2012.
    He has also held a number of leadership positions at
    universities across the country, including Kansas State
    University, where he was a distinguished professor and head of
    the Entomology Department. Welcome, sir, and thank you for
    participating.
        Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-Young has served as Administrator of
    the Agricultural Research Service, the Department of
    Agriculture's chief science in-house research agency, since
    February of 2014. Previously she worked in a variety of
    leadership roles at the Department, at the Agriculture Research
    Service, the Office of Chief Scientist, and the National
    Institute of Food and Agriculture. Welcome, and thank you for
    today's joining--to joining today's panel.
        Dr. Sally Rockey serves as the first Executive Director for
    the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. Prior to this
    role, she led the Competitive Grants Program at the Cooperative
    State Research Education and Extension Service, what is now
    known as NIFA. Dr. Rockey also served as the Deputy Director
    for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health.
    Welcome, Dr. Rockey, and I look forward to your testimony.
        We will begin now with Dr. Ann Bartuska. Doctor?

         STATEMENT OF ANN BARTUSKA, PH.D., ACTING DEPUTY UNDER
     SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS, UNITED STATES
               DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Bartuska. Chairman Roberts, Ranking Member Stabenow,
    and distinguished members of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition,
    and Forestry Committee, I am very pleased to be able to be here
    with you to provide an overview of the activities of the
    research branch of USDA, and particularly research education
    and economics, my mission area.
        But before I begin my statement I would like to offer my
    sympathy from the entire USDA family to the victims of
    yesterday's shooting and share your thoughts, Senator Stabenow.
        I am, as introduced, Dr. Ann Bartuska, Acting Under
    Secretary and Acting Chief Scientist of the USDA. I, however,
    was serving as Deputy Under Secretary since 2010, and have
    really been privileged to be part of the REE mission area. REE
    has four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service, the
    Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics
    Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
    Two of the administrators are here today, as have already been
    introduced, Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy, the Director of NIFA, and Dr.
    Chavonda Jacobs-Young, who is the Administrator of Agricultural
    Research Service.
        The United States and the world are facing critical
    problems and opportunities. Global population is expected to
    reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, almost two and a half billion
    more people than today. At the same time, we are struggling
    with extreme weather events and conditions that really impact
    so many agricultural production systems. Investments in
    research are a critical factor in meeting these and other
    challenges and opportunities, and it is the REE mission area
    agencies that support the critical research and analyses that
    our country needs to ensure farm profitability and strengthen
    our communities, improve nutrition and food safety for lifelong
    health, and safeguard sustainable use of natural resources,
    including an abundant and safe water supply.
        REE's work in food and agricultural sciences is based on
    the premise that the Federal Government has a role in advancing
    scientific knowledge to promote our nation's social and
    economic well-being. REE does this by investing in areas in
    which for-profit industry does not invest, such as basic
    research. It also collaborates with public sector academic and
    the private sector to amplify research outcomes.
        We know that the return on investment in agricultural
    research is $20 for every dollar spent. An under-investment or
    absence of investments in food and agricultural sciences
    diminishes the needed foundational knowledge base that fuels
    innovation--many of the things that Senator Stabenow mentioned
    in terms of precision agriculture and advances in technology
    are part of that innovation--and impacts our nation's global
    preeminence and economic wellbeing. It is with these goals in
    mind that the REE mission area agencies establish their
    priorities and conduct their work.
        Expected gains in agricultural yield and production are
    unlikely to sustainably provide food, fiber, and fuel to meet
    the needs of 2050, without additional resources for research.
    As it has been pointed out, the U.S. is losing its global
    scientific dominance and research leadership to emerging
    countries in addressing agricultural productivity and
    profitability challenges. China has surpassed the U.S. and it
    continues to increase its investment in agricultural research.
        Mr. Chairman, despite significant efforts by recent farm
    bill and annual spending bills to enhance agricultural science
    in the United States, we are at a crossroads. Although REE has
    made significant strides in our physical infrastructure, our
    human infrastructure, and big science capabilities, we are
    falling further and further behind. There is much to be
    accomplished. Our storied legacy of discovery, innovation, and
    international leadership in agricultural research, education,
    and economics is in jeopardy by insufficient investments in
    both money and in minds.
        This is a challenge that we must all rise to meet and REE
    looks forward to rising to that challenge.
        Thank you for giving me some time today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bartuska can be found on
    page 49 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you so much for your testimony and
    for keeping within the time limit.
        Next we have Dr. Ramaswamy.

        STATEMENT OF SONNY RAMASWAMY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
    INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
                      AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Ramaswamy. Good morning, Chairman Roberts, and Ranking
    Member Stabenow, and Committee members. Thank you so much for
    having us here this morning for me to share with you a little
    bit of information about the National Institute of Food and
    Agriculture, and we have submitted the written testimony that
    has got a lot more detail in it as well.
        We have, in America, our food systems, collectively,
    according to the Economic Research Service, is pretty close to
    a trillion-dollar enterprise, and it supports 21 million jobs.
    The role of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is
    to provide the research and extension underpinnings, and the
    educational underpinnings, of that enterprise itself.
        I would like to say that what NIFA supports, across
    America, the science that we support is inspired by the end
    users, and once the work is done it is translated into
    innovations and solutions and delivered to the end users, and
    it transforms people's lives.
        I want to share with you two examples of that.
        The first example is Dr. Barbara Valent from Kansas State
    University, last year went to Kentucky, and discovered wheat
    blast disease on spring wheat seedlings. This is a particularly
    vexing disease that can potentially destroy almost 100 percent
    of the wheat, and the work that she did with funding from NIFA
    and her colleagues at University of Kentucky and the
    Agricultural Research Service has resulted in our ability to
    very rapidly determine what species of wheat blast we have, so
    that we can deploy the appropriate approaches to deal with it.
        A second example, from Michigan, is the work that is done
    by our extension colleagues there at Michigan State University,
    and just yesterday we heard that the Attorney General of
    Michigan has filed charges against people involved in the Flint
    water situation--lead in the water situation. Our extension
    colleagues at Michigan State University were on the ground as
    soon as they discovered lead in the water, and started
    deploying information to those folks out there, and providing--
    in addition to providing just water, bottled water, they also
    provided information on improving the nutrition of the children
    so that if you can improve the nutrition of those children they
    will not have to suffer the long-term effects of lead itself.
        So those are a couple of examples of the transformative
    work that NIFA supports. Our mission is to catalyze
    transformative research, education, and extension to solve
    societal challenges, and at the end of the day, the support
    that we provide is really about our producers, our farmers and
    livestock producers in America. We want to make sure that they
    are able to remain profitable. That, at the end of the day, as
    you said, Mr. Chairman, farm incomes are depressed, have been
    depressed here in the last few years now, and we have got to do
    everything we can to give them a leg up.
        So our budget is about $1.5 billion. It is split up into
    two big buckets. One supports the experiment stations extension
    and education, and the other funding is provided for
    competitive grants. These funds, as you noted, and Senator
    Stabenow noted, provides tremendous return to our nation, 20-
    to-1 return on the investments that we make.
        Unfortunately, however, we are falling further and further
    behind, as has been noted by you and my colleague here, Dr.
    Bartuska, as well. We are falling further and further behind,
    so we have got to do everything we can to ensure that this
    innovation engine that we have got is going to be supported and
    protected.
        We undertake stakeholder conversations throughout the year,
    and currently we are undertaking conversations about protecting
    the biosecurity for our food systems, about nutrition
    education, about youth education and 4-H, and about our 1994
    tribal-serving institutions as well, and we hope to
    aspirationally incorporate those, as we go forward, to work
    with you and your colleagues in the farm bill itself, as we go
    forward as well.
        With that, I want to go ahead and thank you very much for
    giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts with you about
    the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Thank you
    again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ramaswamy can be found on
    page 84 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Doctor, thank you very much for your very
    fine extemporaneous report, and we appreciate your observing
    the time limit.
        Dr. Jacobs-Young.

       STATEMENT OF CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, PH.D, ADMINISTRATOR,
      AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
                      AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Good morning, Chairman Roberts and
    Ranking Member Stabenow and the distinguished members of the
    Committee.
        My USDA colleagues and I represent the agencies that
    exemplify the mandate expressed in President Abraham Lincoln's
    1862 executive order establishing the Department of
    Agriculture, which the Department was charged with conducting
    practical and scientific experiments to improve the quality and
    security of agriculture in the United States.
        As U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief scientific in-
    house research agency, ARS has about 1,900 scientists at 90
    laboratories located throughout the United States, that carry
    out the mission and constitute an important component of USDA's
    science enterprise. We have world-class research laboratories
    from Maine to Hawaii, and we maintain research facilities in
    France, China, Argentina, and Australia, that serve as bases
    for our insect, pest, and biocontrol collection efforts.
        ARS has internationally recognized scientists working on
    every issue affecting American agriculture today, be it disease
    and insect pest, water use, soil erosion, drought, improving
    production yields, food safety, or crop and animal management
    strategies. Key to our success has been our strong partnerships
    and our collaborations. We work closely with our land-grant
    university partners, scientists from other federal agencies,
    international organizations, and many industry scientists and
    producers.
        ARS scientists have played an important role in providing
    the objective science that action and regulatory agencies
    depend on as they set their policies. ARS's institutional
    capacity, our wide-ranging expertise, and our geographic reach
    allows us to conduct coordinated and integrated research,
    targeting national and regional agricultural priorities of
    importance to our many stakeholders.
        Since its inception, USDA has recognized the importance of
    having both intramural and extramural scientific research. The
    strength of having an intramural agency provides ARS and the
    USDA, and the United States, with unique capabilities, and we
    have huge responsibilities. We are responsible for conducting
    that research that is inherently governmental--public service,
    public good research.
        We support the action of regulatory agencies within USDA
    and across the Federal Government with sound scientific data.
    We maintain essential germplasm collections. In fact, we have
    the largest germplasm collection in the world. We conduct long-
    term nutritional studies and maintain very, very important
    databases. We operate long-term experimental watershed
    facilities. We respond to emergencies and national disasters.
    We engage in long-term research to meet national goals.
        This infrastructure expertise and nationwide network of
    partnerships is needed to respond quickly to national
    agricultural emergencies, for example, the H1N1 swine flu
    virus, the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or soybean rust,
    and to prepare for those emerging diseases such as Ug99, stem
    rust disease of wheat, or foot-and-mouth disease of cattle that
    are not yet here in this country, but we will be prepared.
        So how does all of this benefit America? Over the years,
    our public investment and the cooperation in agricultural
    research among the private sectors, universities, and
    government has given Americans the safest, most nutritious, and
    most abundant--and might I say most affordable--food supply
    anywhere.
        So agriculture has formed the foundation of our nation, the
    national economy, for the past 200-plus years, and our
    agricultural research has been the key to that success. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs-Young can be found on
    page 75 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for a very strong
    statement.
        Dr. Rockey.

         STATEMENT OF SALLY ROCKEY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
     FOUNDATION FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Rockey. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stabenow, and
    members of the Committee, I am Sally Rockey and I am the
    Executive Director of the Foundation for Food and Agricultural
    Research, known as FFAR. I am honored to have the opportunity
    to testify before you as Congress considers its priorities in
    the next farm bill.
        As you know, FFAR is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit
    organization, established with bipartisan support in the 2014
    Farm Bill to serve as a new and unique model in our nation's
    mission to be the global leader in food and agricultural
    sciences. We fund innovative science that is solving real-world
    problems, by filling research gaps and accelerating science
    through partnerships. An essential part of this model is our
    ability to leverage private sector funds to deliver huge value
    for the American taxpayer. The U.S. government's $200 million
    investment in FFAR eventually returns more than $400 million in
    valuable science.
        FFAR unites researchers with funding partners like venture
    capitalists, industry, philanthropies, and expands the funding
    pool for agricultural science by coalescing groups together
    around common priorities. The foundation is also nimble and
    efficient, with the ability to award grants very quickly, and
    in some cases as little as in one week.
        Building a foundation from scratch was really no small
    task, but since I came on board in late 2015, FFAR has hired
    talented staff and developed reliable systems to protect the
    taxpayers' investment. Our esteemed board of directors has
    grown, and we have established advisory councils to guide us in
    our research.
        To date, FFAR has delivered $32.4 million and 22 grants
    with more than 41 funding partners. By the end of the year, we
    will have obligated about half of our $200 million in public
    funding, leveraging, as I said before, another $100 million in
    additional funds.
        Our first major research project was funded with the Samuel
    Roberts Noble Foundation. It was to increase the use of cover
    crops and create new cover crop resources, with the goal of
    significantly improving soil health, one of the most valuable
    resources for our farmers.
        We recently awarded our first Rapid Outcomes from
    Agricultural Research, or as we call it, ROAR, grant, in
    partnership with the Cherry Marketing Institute and Michigan
    State University, to combat an invasive pest that will benefit
    the fruit industry in eight states. This program demonstrates
    our ability to accept applications as critical issues arise,
    and to fund them very quickly.
        FFAR also is positioned to fund science that adapts to
    industry needs. For example--and you may have just read about
    the story this morning in The Washington Post--FFAR just
    announced a $2 million effort to address the emerging issue in
    cage-free egg production, to improve the health and
    productivity of cage-free hens.
        This week, we awarded a very innovative grant to the
    University of Illinois who is bringing together the latest in
    plant simulation models to predict how plants respond to their
    environment, which can vastly accelerate the pace and the
    development of new crops with beneficial traits.
        More robust funding and research will allow the United
    States to maintain its science prominence, and will give our
    producers the opportunity to apply cutting-edge research
    results and technologies to their operations. However, as was
    already stated, Federal funding for agricultural research has
    been relatively stagnant over the last decade. FFAR offers an
    opportunity to not only increase the overall funding pool but
    increase it for cutting-edge science.
        Not only does science drive our economy but it is also
    progressing at, really, what is a breath-taking pace. We are
    becoming a pivotal player at FFAR in seizing emerging
    scientific opportunities in the food and agricultural research
    community, and we know our model will serve us well in driving
    innovation in the future.
        One innovative process that FFAR is exploring now is
    photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is what makes a plant a plant,
    and it allows it to acquire energy from the sun. By increasing
    photosynthetic capacity, we can dramatically increase crop
    yields.
        We are grateful for the opportunity to continue to work
    with Congress to ensure FFAR is reauthorized and fully funded
    in the next farm bill, consistent with the bipartisan legacy,
    as an institution contributing to the long-term competitiveness
    of our nation's food and agriculture sector.
        To the members of this Committee who were so instrumental
    in establishing FFAR, I thank you on behalf of the entire food
    and agriculture community. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rockey can be found on page
    94 in the appendix.]
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Dr. Rockey.
        Dr. Ramaswamy and Dr. Jacobs-Young, we are in the first
    week of the wheat harvest in Kansas. Not good news. We have
    lost about 40 percent of our crop due to a very late freeze. We
    had that 11-county, 850,000-square-mile prairie fire, a freeze
    before that. I have no idea what we have done to Mother Nature
    but she sure has taken it out on us.
        Your testimony references the work of Dr. Valent at K-
    State, and what she has been doing in coordination with AFRI
    and ARS on wheat blast. You mentioned that in your comments. I
    understand that ARS research has been conducted through the
    wheat strip initiative, the wheat scab initiative, and the
    Insect Biotechnology Products for Pest Control and Emerging
    Needs in Agriculture projects. That is a lot of folks.
        Can you provide an update on these projects? Are there any
    partnership arrangements that are key to this work? How can the
    Department work be improved in these areas? Please, first, Dr.
    Ramaswamy.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts.
    Indeed, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture is
    investing significant resources in helping develop new
    varieties of wheat that can withstand those early freezes, then
    the flooding situation, and then you have got the drying up and
    the drought situation as well. New varieties of wheat that are
    coming along, work being done at Kansas State University, at
    the University of Minnesota, at multiple universities across
    America, are going to have traits, characteristics in them that
    will allow them to withstand not just the biological
    constraints, such as wheat blast and other, insect problems as
    well. In addition, they will be able to withstand the
    environmental conditions, the extreme weather events that you
    referenced as well.
        We are, hoping that these varieties that are going to come
    along here, the investments that we are making now, will result
    in offering our producers better ways of dealing with the
    challenges that they face.
        Chairman Roberts. Dr. Jacobs-Young, any comments?
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. ARS manages the Wheat and Barley
    Scab Initiative, which is a coalition of university, federal,
    and industry partners. I would just like to say that they have
    been working very hard on developing new varieties that
    increase resilience and reduce vulnerability, and because of
    their efforts, over the past 10 years we have been able to
    reduce the amount of mycotoxin in wheat by 32 percent in durum
    wheat. We see some real evidence of the work that they have
    done in the varieties that have been released.
        We have also identified wheat that is resistant to Ug99,
    and while we do not have it here in the United States we have
    developed varieties that are being planted around the world. So
    we will be prepared. We have a diagnostic to determine the
    difference between Ug99 rust and other rust pathogens, and our
    wheat quality laboratories, which you are very familiar with,
    around the country, have been so instrumental to the wheat
    industry.
        So we are working very hard in releasing varieties that
    have increased tolerance or resistance to some of the diseases
    that we are being faced with.
        Chairman Roberts. Dr. Rockey, as one of the original co-
    sponsors of FFAR, and a strong advocate for investment in
    agricultural research, we are certainly hoping for the long-
    term success of the foundation. I appreciate your efforts to
    keep our committee updated as FFAR gets up and running. The
    last bill, as you have indicated, provided $200 million in
    mandatory funds as a seed investment to establish FFAR.
        In a time when there are almost no new programs being
    created, what are your plans to generate new funds and
    demonstrate project outcomes in order to enable FFAR to be a
    sustainable tool to support AG research into the future? I am
    especially interested in long-term investments. I know that you
    have a good record here in the last few months--well, the last
    six months--with short-term projects that are paying off with
    private partnerships. What about long-term?
        Ms. Rockey. Thank you for that question, Chairman. We have
    been working quite a bit on thinking about long-term
    sustainability as an organization. If you think about the model
    that was defined in the original 2014 Farm Bill, that model
    really only works when we have a continued financial investment
    from Congress. Really, the Federal funds are what attract our
    partners, and we are able to leverage them and bring in
    additional funds. So we leverage their funds and they also
    leverage the Federal funds, and that allows us to create this
    unique partnership and bring additional funds to the table for
    agriculture.
        But the reauthorization of FFAR as an organization really
    allows us to solidify as a viable research entity and a viable
    research institution, capable of funding our partners.
        We continue, as you noted, to fund projects. Some of our
    projects are very short-term. For example, in our rapid
    response program, grants are for year-long projects. We are
    able to put money on an issue quickly while the USDA then comes
    back in with some longer-funded projects. However, we also are
    funding some long-term projects. Our grants can range up to
    five years, and will continue to, depending on the type of
    science that comes across our transect. We will fund either
    long or short-term projects, depending on the goals of the
    particular project.
        However, as an organization, we continue to think about how
    to build on these short-term successes and our plans for the
    future. We have built a credible organization. We have
    established our research priorities. We are securing additional
    funds. We have a low operating cost right now, as an
    organization. We have launched a giving program. We are looking
    at ways to generate IP revenue, and we are seeking major gifts.
        So all of this is no small task but we are building on the
    success that we have had of late, for our long-term
    sustainability. We are really establishing our reputation, and
    I think that is a lot of what is going to take us into our
    future.
        But I want to make something very clear to you, that we
    will be a successful organization, and we will fulfill every
    intent that you had in authorizing us in the first place. We
    have demonstrated now that the model really does work, and it
    will, but it will be dependent on our continued support from
    Congress.
        Chairman Roberts. I thank you. Senator Stabenow.
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to each of you, and Dr. Rockey, I was pleased to hear your
    comments, and I appreciate the grant that has been given most
    recently, two weeks ago, to tackle some specialty crop issues.
    I know there was a slow start, but things are moving now and I
    think it is very, very important that we continue to support
    this effort as a long-term effort.
        I did want to just comment, Dr. Jacobs-Young. You were
    talking about the Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. It takes me
    back. I was a new House member in 1997. I authored that
    initiative with a then new Republican colleague, Roy Blunt, and
    we are now both in the Senate. But when my constituents would
    excitedly ask me what was my first bill, and I said ``wheat and
    barley scab,'' it was not really exciting, but I am really
    pleased to know that it is still going on and is actually
    making a difference, so thank you for that.
        I wanted to ask Dr. Bartuska about the whole question on
    scientific integrity. We are here talking about research, how
    important this is. We know, fundamentally, this is so important
    for our farmers and food safety and the food economy. But there
    is a lot of debate right now, and public scrutiny, about
    science, and about facts. Under the last Administration, USDA
    developed its first scientific integrity policy, as well as
    fostered a culture of scientific integrity.
        So I wonder if you could talk a bit about what the USDA has
    done to gain the trust of the public and demonstrate it is
    conducting unbiased scientific research, and how you are
    addressing issues around scientific integrity.
        Ms. Bartuska. Thank you very much for that question. We are
    very proud of our scientific integrity policy, not only that we
    initiated it very early on, among all the science agencies, but
    that we have since improved it and we have gone back out to
    many of the state of the art scientific integrity policies, in
    terms of what kinds of language you should have in a policy.
    What does a platinum version of a scientific integrity policy
    look like? We have refined it. We had a scientific integrity
    officer over the entire department. He, unfortunately, left but
    we were recently approved to hire a new one, even in a hiring
    freeze and at the time of some resource limitations.
        So the commitment USDA is making to a formal scientific
    integrity process is very high. It is investing in our own
    employees by providing training to all of our scientists. But
    we just recently agreed, many of the agencies, to extend that
    training to technicians and to those who use science but who
    are not scientists themselves.
        So again, there is a very strong commitment within USDA. I
    have to say, we were very pleased that the Union of Concerned
    Scientists, who had initially reviewed our first draft
    scientific integrity policy and found it wanting, have since
    reviewed all of the policies and have given us a very positive
    green light on what we have been able to accomplish.
        We believe that we have responded to the community and that
    we now have implemented a policy and an implementation that is
    demonstrating the highest standards of scientific integrity,
    and I think it is through our publications and the peer review
    process that the currency of science is reinforced.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. Dr. Ramaswamy, I
    wanted to ask you a little bit about organic research. All
    parts of agriculture are obviously incredibly important.
    Organic agriculture now counts for over 5 percent of the total
    retail food sales, as you know, making it one of the fastest-
    growing parts of agriculture, and bringing more people into
    focus, in terms of the importance of growing food and the
    agriculture economy.
        We know that the Organic Research and Extension Initiative
    has contributed to that success, and I wonder if you might talk
    about how other research programs at USDA help those organic
    producers address challenges and meet the increasing demands
    for their products.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Thanks very much, Senator Stabenow, for that
    question, and, indeed, to your point, organic agriculture is
    one of the fastest-growing segments of our agricultural
    enterprise in our nation, and it constitutes about $40 billion
    of farm value as we are looking at it, and continues to grow as
    well.
        The Organic Research and Extension Initiative, along with
    the Organic Transitions program are two of the programs
    specifically geared to provide funding for, research and
    extension efforts that support our organic producers. Along
    with that, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and our
    Specialty Crops Research Initiative also encourage applicants
    to submit grant proposals in support of organic efforts as
    well.
        So the sum total of funding that goes to organic type
    enterprises, within the competitive grants arena, is in the
    neighborhood of around about $40 to $50 million a year. Along
    with that, the support that we provide for experiment stations
    and extension, adds an additional $30 to $50 million of
    investments that the land-grant universities are making.
        So those discoveries, that knowledge, is certainly of
    significant use, whether it is pest control, pest management,
    or dealing with the soil health and other issues as well.
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
    holding an excellent hearing. This is a great panel, and
    timely, I think, because of the budget that has been submitted.
    So I really appreciate it.
        Dr. Jacobs-Young, for 110 years the Central Great Plains
    Research Station in Akron, Colorado, has been working with
    local groups like the Colorado Wheat Growers to research crop
    varieties that grow best in local conditions. That is a very
    big challenge, as in my state. They also focus on new
    management techniques to conserve water and soil resources,
    helping the environment and improving the bottom line for farm
    businesses, generation after generation, for more than a
    century.
        Despite this, the President's fiscal year '18 budget
    proposes closing this station and 16 other similar research
    stations across the country. I wonder if you could tell the
    panel a little bit about the role these research field stations
    play and how they work to provide useful information to local
    growers and producers.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you so much for your question,
    Senator.
        As Dr. Bartuska shared, and the Chairman as well, we have a
    huge goal ahead of us, of feeding 9.7 billion people by 2050,
    and ARS is right at the center of helping us achieve that goal.
    We were faced with the task of having to find $161 million in
    reductions for ARS, and through that process----
        Senator Bennet. Who gave you that task?
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. It is a part of our President's budget
    proposal.
        Senator Bennet. Yes.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. --ARS has the reduction of $161 million.
        Senator Bennet. Yes.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. As you can imagine, over the past years,
    because budgets have not grown tremendously, we have done a big
    job of trying to look across our portfolio, using data to
    streamline and consolidate.
        So we are at the point where every decision we make today
    is a tough one. Everything that we give up today, is important,
    but we have to make the decision to make these reductions and
    we used three criteria for how we are doing this.
        The first one, we looked at our employees. ARS is who it is
    because of our people. How do we minimize the impact to our ARS
    scientific workforce? Therefore, we looked at extramural
    funding. The second one is that we looked at those things that
    preserve ARS's infrastructure--our germplasm collections, our
    LTAR network, our critical databases, et cetera, et cetera. So
    we looked at those things and said that we needed to protect
    those because they are uniquely what ARS provides to the
    scientific community.
        The third one was we had to balance the portfolio, and
    using data to determine the capacities of all of our research
    projects in our locations. So when we took a look across the
    portfolio, we looked at those locations and projects that might
    be challenged, from a resource perspective human capital,
    infrastructure, IT, and dollars.
        So we used a data-driven process to look at everything, to
    make those decisions. Unfortunately, Akron is on the list for
    proposed cuts in FY 18.
        Senator Bennet. Well, it is not----
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. I assure you it was a data-driven process
    and it was not an easy one.
        Senator Bennet. Well, it is not. I can tell you that it is
    not going to be acceptable to me, and I don't think to the
    United States Senate, to cut it, because there is no
    replacement for it, and, frankly, I hope I speak for other
    members of the Committee when I say that because of the
    leadership of the Chairman and the Ranking Member in the last
    farm bill, this is the only committee that actually created
    deficit reduction. This committee did. The people that we
    represent in farm country in the United States stepped up to
    the plate, when no other committee in the Congress did that. No
    other committee did that. For them to be presented with a 30
    percent cut to the Department of Agriculture is an insult. It
    is worse than an insult. It is a war on rural America, I think,
    and rural Colorado.
        There is not a replacement for the Akron Research Station.
    There is not anybody else who is going to help our wheat
    farmers do what they need to do, or wheat growers do what they
    need to do, year after year, because of changes in the climate
    and changes in the environment.
        So I can appreciate that you made a ``data-driven''
    decision and I think it is a terrible decision, for the people
    that I represent in my state, and I think, in the context of
    this Committee doing its work in a way that, because of your
    leadership, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Stabenow from Michigan,
    it is entirely unacceptable to me that they are trying--and
    they do not even balance the budget. So they have an unbalanced
    budget that they are trying to balance on the backs of our
    farmers and our ranchers, and it is absolutely unacceptable to
    me, because of the work that we have already done. The
    sacrifices that have already been made in an environment with
    commodity prices where they are, it adds insult to injury and
    it is utterly unacceptable.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Bennet, thank you very much for
    reading the speech that I wrote.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Bennet. I hope I put the emphasis in the right
    places.
        Chairman Roberts. Some of the adjectives were a little out
    of line, but I think we can do that.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you. I am always happy to repeat your
    words.
        Chairman Roberts. The President proposes and we dispose. I
    do not know of any--this is not an admonition I would like to
    expound upon, but the President proposes, we dispose. There has
    been a lot of talk about this budget, more especially in my
    view on crop insurance, AG research, et cetera, et cetera. That
    is not going to happen. It is simply not going to happen. We
    are in dire circumstances, and as you have indicated, we have
    given and given. We have got crop insurance cuts, $6 billion,
    and then seeing what they have done, like Lizzie Borden taking
    an ax and cutting another $6 billion. Then there was another
    three in the omnibus, which we saved.
        We stand ready to do what we have to do and meet our budget
    responsibilities, and I thank you for your comments.
        We have--Senator Donnelly is gone. It will be Senator
    Casey. Thank you.
        Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you and the
    Ranking Member for having this hearing, and what a great panel,
    and I wish we had even more time.
        I wanted to start with Dr. Bartuska with regard to the
    Chesapeake Bay and nutrient management. I will also, in the
    interest of time, to try to get at least to a second major
    question for Dr. Ramaswamy on lead in soil.
        But let me start with the Chesapeake Bay. In Pennsylvania,
    our state is the source of much of both the fresh water for the
    Chesapeake Bay and also much of the nitrogen and phosphorus
    pollution that enters the Chesapeake Bay, so I am particularly
    concerned in nutrient management tools, technologies, and
    practices that can help Pennsylvania's farmers meet Chesapeake
    Bay restoration goals.
        Could you tell us about the work of USDA with regard to
    nutrient management, either on the modeling and forecasting
    side or the actual on-farm nutrient management?
        Ms. Bartuska. I would be happy to. Actually, as a born-and-
    raised Philadelphian, I am well aware of the connection between
    Pennsylvania and the Bay, and actually worked in that area
    about 20-some years ago. I am glad to say we have made
    improvements, partly because we have recognized what can be
    done on farm to reduce runoff. Bringing those practices into
    place through extension has been really important. I have to
    commend our University Park ARS lab, partly, for some of the
    research, as well as our competitive grants program.
        But in particular, connecting our research and science as
    information through extension and Natural Resource Conservation
    Service, Farm Service Agency, so that they know what those
    practices are, to help encourage them to adopt them but also to
    give them the tools they need to be able to do that.
        When it comes to lower down in the watershed we are
    increasingly looking at tools to reduce the impact locally. Can
    we do remediation on site? Can we be doing better modeling--I
    am sorry--monitoring of those sites, including in water
    columns, so you get real-time estimates of what nitro and
    phosphorus loading is happening and can take action?
        You mentioned modeling. That has been one of the areas
    where we, with the university community, have really tried to
    better connect a specific practice with what it does, in terms
    of the nutrient loading, and then address those loadings.
        Then, lastly, I have to acknowledge the Economic Research
    Service that has done quite a bit of work on the economics and
    the decision-making of farmers--why they choose practices, why
    they choose some practices over other practices, and
    identifying how can we provide them the tools to make a better
    decision.
        We really have everything from biogeochemistry and the
    chemistry of the site to the water quality, measuring to the
    monitoring to the modeling, and then the extension piece.
        Senator Casey. How about kind of the appropriations budget
    question, which is, do you have the resources to do what you
    just talked about? Any--do you have a sense of what your
    resources are to carry out that task?
        Ms. Bartuska. I think we are still assessing what the
    specific implications of the '18 President's budget is and what
    projects and what specific activities take place. I do know
    that through NIFA's competitive grants--and Dr. Ramaswamy might
    talk to this--the water challenge area is continuing to focus
    on that.
        We will continue to support the highest priority work and
    nutrient management is part of the portfolio that we believe is
    very important for agricultural producers.
        Senator Casey. Well, I hope if you need more resources,
    obviously, we hope you tell us over time, when you have a sense
    of that.
        Thank you very much, Doctor, for that. You were born in
    Philadelphia, you said?
        Ms. Bartuska. Yes.
        Senator Casey. That is great. Well, we always want you to
    come back.
        Ms. Bartuska. Yes, from East Falls.
        Senator Casey. Oh yeah. Thank you so much.
        I also wanted to raise a question on lead with Dr.
    Ramaswamy. I have heard from constituents across our state,
    obviously in the context of what happened in Flint, Michigan,
    with regard to water, but in our state, a major challenge is
    lead, lead paint in the old homes, and the numbers might be
    even higher there. But also, I just got off the phone this
    morning with a reporter investigating lead in the soil, and I
    know that is not what your testimony was directly about, but
    your testimony indicated that NIFA worked with Michigan State
    Extension and Edible Flint on a program focused on lead in the
    soil if you want to grow--if people want to grow their own
    food.
        Is there anything you can tell us about that initiative, or
    initiatives like it, that would be helpful in the context of
    just folks that might have lead in their soil in their back
    yard and they may not be growing food. But what would you
    recommend and what could you do to help on that?
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Yeah. Indeed, I would like to, Senator
    Casey, speak to the work that is going on in your state, in
    Pennsylvania, and folks at Penn State, as well as the Rodale
    Institute, are--they have received funding from NIFA, both
    competitive funding as well as what we refer to as capacity
    funds for the experiment station and extension.
        Very specifically, to address the question that you asked
    of Dr. Bartuska as well, in regards to the eutrophication of
    the Chesapeake Bay with excess nutrients going through, and
    also tied to soil health itself, very recently, Professor
    Heather Gall received an Agriculture and Food Research
    Initiative funding on that question of developing approaches to
    mitigating the movement of these nutrients that are impacting
    the Chesapeake Bay. Also, Joseph Keller at Penn State is
    looking at improving soil health. By growing certain types of
    crops and trees and things like that, that can--there have been
    some poplar trees that have been developed, varieties that have
    been developed, that can specifically go in and remove lead and
    other heavy metals, like arsenic and things like that, as well.
        We continue to invest resources in soil. If we do not have
    good soil health, as you know, we will not have good crops and
    livestock in our agricultural systems. We are going to be hurt.
        I want to get back to, specifically, after you asked the
    question, do we have enough resources and things like that,
    and, the funding rate within the Agriculture and Food Research
    Initiative today, we do a three-year rolling average over the
    last three years, sits around 13 percent. Over the last three
    years, on average, we have received pretty close to 3,000
    proposals, of which the grants panels, these peer panels that
    we have, have recommended over 1,200 of those to be funded.
    Many outstanding, many in high priority. Unfortunately, we have
    only funding to support just about 480 of those proposals.
        Senator Casey. Out of 1,200.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Yes, sir. So a lot of them----
        Senator Casey. Then we have got to go----
        Mr. Ramaswamy. --are, left on the floor.
        Senator Casey. He is tapping.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Yes, sir.
        Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ramaswamy, in
    your testimony you mentioned how NIFA collaborates with other
    government agencies such as DOD, NIH, NSF, VA, and a host of
    others. Can you discuss, in more detail, how collaboration
    works, and perhaps give us some examples of the work done
    through collaboration?
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Thanks so much for that question. I was
    hoping that one of you was going to ask me that question.
        Indeed, the innovations and collaborations with the
    National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health,
    U.S. Agency for International Development, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, Veterans
    Administration, we have a number of those. I will give you two
    examples in the field of, biophysical sciences, and then I will
    give you an example in regards to the opioid crisis that we
    have got as well.
        So we have got, with NSF and NIH, we partner with them in
    this area. We refer to it as the Ecology and Evolution of
    Infectious Diseases. There are a number of infectious diseases
    that impact animals, plants, honeybees, as well as livestock
    animals and humans. There is a commonality in some of these
    things, and some of them get vectored, carried by insects and
    other, species of arthropods and invertebrates. So trying to
    understand how these diseases, the epidemiology of the ecology
    of it, and things like that, and whether it is foot-and-mouth
    disease or colony collapse disorder in honeybees and others, we
    have collaboratively provided funding and we have this ongoing
    relationship with those agencies now.
        For every dollar NIFA invests, it leverages about $5 to $10
    from those other agencies. We partner, by the way, with the
    British Biotechnology Research and Science Council as well on
    those topics.
        In regards to our relationships with the Veterans
    Administration and the Department of Defense, and Health and
    Human Services, we partner with those agencies and the
    substance abuse and mental health service agency, SAMHSA, and
    deploying funding that they provide to us through interagency
    agreements, that goes through extension to address the opioid
    crisis, for example, amongst our veterans and active duty
    service members' families, children and their families as well.
        Then, as you know, we have got this terrible scourge of the
    opioid crisis across the United States, and those partnerships
    are critically important because the--our extension community
    is in every one of our 3,141 counties, boroughs, and parishes.
    We have got a footprint throughout the nation. That is being
    utilized to deploy information to help those communities.
        A good example of that is in Michigan and Ohio and Indiana,
    amongst the Amish community. Their children are exhibiting
    significant use and abuse of drugs and opioids. Our extension
    folks at Purdue University and Michigan State University and
    Ohio State University are working together to address the
    opioid crisis as well.
        So those are a couple of examples.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. That is excellent.
        Dr. Jacobs-Young, can you describe, in more detail, the
    importance of the ARS extramural research projects? How is ARS
    able to leverage what you learn with the extramural research
    with what you learn at your intramural facilities?
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. So one of the beauties of having an
    intramural agency is that all of our employees are Federal
    employees, outside of just our contractors, our postdocs, and
    others, so the expertise we do not have internal to the agency,
    we are able to use the extramural funding to partner with
    expertise at universities, at corporations. We are able to use
    those extramural funds to sort of bridge the gap between the
    expertise we have inside ARS. Most of those extramural grants
    are with our land-grant partners, and so we leverage those
    resources to get the job done.
        I think it is also important to note that sometimes those
    extramural resources are used as a convening resource, to bring
    together groups of people to work on some high-priority topics.
    That is how we use the extramural funding inside of the agency.
        Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bartuska,
    how will you direct ARS to conduct targeted on-farm data
    collection of antibiotic use?
        Ms. Bartuska. I am sorry, can you repeat that?
        Senator Gillibrand. How will you direct ARS to conduct
    targeted on-farm data collection of antibiotic use?
        Ms. Bartuska. The antimicrobial resistance work that we
    have going on across USDA has become a really high priority,
    and working specifically with ARS and NIFA, we have identified,
    principally through the partnership with HHS, on a portfolio of
    research that needs to be accomplished. The agencies will then
    build that into their programs and priority investments as they
    shape their fiscal year planning. For ARS, in particular,
    something we have worked with them through our priority-setting
    process out of the Under Secretary's office. We use the REE
    action plan, which was driven by the farm bill, to establish a
    set of priorities, and the antimicrobial resistance work is
    built into the overall priorities.
        Senator Gillibrand. Do you feel you need any additional
    authorities to enhance the AMR collection?
        Ms. Bartuska. Actually, I would like to defer that to Dr.
    Jacobs-Young.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you. So ARS partners with the Food
    and Drug Administration where we are a part of NARMS, the
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Program. We are
    their technical arm to do a lot of the on-farm data collection
    and analysis. We have been partnering with them for a number of
    years, and we look forward to continuing that on-farm data
    collection, because it helps us be able to trace where the
    antimicrobial resistance begins, and learn a little bit more
    about management practices.
        We have been partnering with the FDA on that and we have a
    huge portfolio in antimicrobial resistance inside of ARS,
    looking at immune systems between animals, zoonotic diseases,
    looking for alternatives to antibiotics, looking at probiotics,
    for example, for use in chickens, that is in use right now,
    FloraMax, which was developed by ARS. It is currently in use to
    minimize the prevalence of enteric diseases in poultry and are
    actively advancing vaccine development.
        We have been working and we have a lot of great experts
    working on AMR, and I think the agriculture community could
    benefit from a lot of information for decision-making.
        Senator Gillibrand. I agree. I would be grateful if you
    would work with my office on further issues on this.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Would love to do that.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Ramaswamy, did you want to add
    something.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Yes, if I may, Senator Gillibrand. So NIFA's
    portfolio funding in the world of antibiotics and antimicrobial
    resistance over the last few years, particularly in relation to
    this interagency collaborative effort, we are investing--we
    have been investing between $5 and $15 million each year on
    looking at it from the farm to the dinner table, rather than
    just focusing on any one small part of it, looking across the
    food chain, the value chain itself, and the data that are
    coming out now in regards to improved animal husbandry and
    management, how might that help mitigate the amount of
    antibiotics to use, et cetera. These are all, new data that are
    really driving the management of our herds in many, many
    situations, and poultry flocks as well.
        Senator Gillibrand. Well, to the extent you need any
    additional resources or authorities, please let us know,
    because we would like to provide that with you, because I think
    this needs to be a national priority.
        On the question of organics, Dr. Bartuska, how do you
    intend to increase the resources available to organic farmers
    or those that are transitioning, so that we can meet the
    domestic demand without having to rely so heavily on imports?
        Ms. Bartuska. We have noted, through the Census of
    Agriculture, as well as through work done by the Economic
    Research Service, there is increasing demand by those who are
    going into farming, to want to go into organic farming.
    Programs such as the ones at NIFA that Dr. Ramaswamy has
    already mentioned have been made available. We are actively
    promoting these programs through extension to these new farmers
    who want to move into organics.
        Part of it is also creating more tools for them, lot of the
    organic production is in specialty crops, and so growing the
    specialty crop program is another way that we see it as being
    very important for them to do.
        I might defer to both Dr. Ramaswamy and Jacobs-Young to
    talk more about their specific programs, if that would be all
    right.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Yeah, so picking up where Dr. Bartuska left,
    we have the Organic Research and Extension Initiative and the
    Organic Transitions Program funding that is provided, and
    collectively they provide in the neighborhood of around $20-
    plus million. We also have proposals that are submitted to us
    through our other competitive grants as well, so that is one
    part of it.
        Then the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Development
    Initiative, that brings in literally thousands of new aspirants
    wanting to get into the food and agricultural enterprise, there
    is a tie-in that is being provided that allows them to develop
    the knowledge and skills, the marketplace, the credit, the
    capital, et cetera, that is definitely needed in the world of
    organic agriculture.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. We are awaiting
    Senator Daines who would like to ask a question, specifically,
    and I will give him about 30 seconds to show up.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Gillibrand. I have a question for the record, if I
    could ask, Dr. Rockey.
        Chairman Roberts. I would be delighted----
        Senator Gillibrand. Okay.
        Chairman Roberts. --to have you ask a question of Dr.
    Rockey.
        Senator Gillibrand. It is about the pollinator health fund,
    and I know the next panel will talk about pollinators as well,
    but to the extent you could tell us about the fund, some of the
    partner groups, and what research you expect to see supported
    by this initiative, I would be grateful, because, obviously,
    for upstate New York, for the Hudson Valley, our pollinators
    are essential. We grow a lot of fruits and vegetables. So the
    colony collapse disorder has created enormous worry and strain
    amongst our--both beekeeper populations but also our farmers.
        So to the extent you could just do a briefing for us on the
    status, and any authorities, money, research you need added in
    the farm bill. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. Senator Brown.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Brown. I ask consent for another 60 seconds for
    Senator Gillibrand.
        Chairman Roberts. You have already used 30 seconds. Let us
    go.
        [Laughter.]
        [Pause.]
        Chairman Roberts. It is that second page.
        Senator Brown. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I
    was at two other hearings today and I apologize for not being
    right now in the moment.
        Dr. Ramaswamy, thank you for--all of you on the panel,
    thank you for your work. Thanks for walking the Committee
    through the work USDA does on the opioid crisis. In my state,
    more people die from opioid overdose than any state in the
    country. We are not the highest per capita; we are among them.
    But the tragedy particularly hits rural Ohio hard. That is one
    of the reasons that so many of us are alarmed at efforts in
    this body to take away insurance from people getting opioid
    treatment. In my state alone, 200,000 people right now are
    getting opioid treatment, many of them in rural Ohio, getting
    opioid treatment right now, and who are getting the treatment
    because they have insurance through the Affordable Care Act. So
    thank you for running through that.
        I want to talk for a moment about extension agents and how
    extension agents are so many faces in USDA. I think back on
    our--I went to the county extension agent in Richland County,
    Ohio, when my brothers and I were going to plant apple trees on
    our family farm, and I remember that the extension agents said,
    ``Now when you prune these apple trees, prune them until you
    think you have killed them and then prune them a little more.''
    We only followed their advice on about half the trees, because
    we just could not bring ourselves, as novices, to prune them as
    far back as we should, and those ones we pruned as far back as
    the AG extension agents told us were the ones that thrived the
    most. So thank you for the accumulated wisdom of decades of ag
    extension and what you do.
        How do we--700 folks at OSU Extension in Ohio, 700 folks,
    from helping small dairies to improving water quality to help,
    in my case, again, an urban gardener in Cleveland, Ohio, grow
    tomatoes. I did not stay on that family farm. Sorry. I want to
    ask this. How do we continue to empower these individuals to
    continue to address the ever-changing challenges inherent in
    agriculture and to interact with the increasing number of
    constituents who are interested in how their food is grown,
    where it comes from, and, in many cases, even growing it
    themselves? How do we sort of empower ag extension, a group of
    very committed, very talented men and women?
        One more point. John McCracken, in my office, was talking
    about the mission statement and sort of the history of ag
    extension, and it just is--it is so important, and they love
    their jobs so much and what they contribute to our society. Dr.
    Ramaswamy?
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Senator Brown, thanks so much, and I
    appreciate your kind words that you spoke about our extension
    community, and you are absolutely right. Without extension--
    this is a model that the rest of the world wants to emulate--
    our nation--and I truly believe this--would not be globally
    pre-eminent. Our ability to translate knowledge and deliver
    that knowledge in the form of innovations and solutions, the
    hallmark of extension, is truly at the basis of why we have
    such, affordable food that is safe and nutritious, that the
    rest of the world wants to emulate as well.
        We have seen, over the last about 20 years or so, with the
    continuing challenges in America with our budgets, at the state
    level, at the county level, and at the Federal level, our
    extension footprint, across America, on average, in every
    state, has been reduced by 30 percent. We have lost a number of
    those boots on the ground, even in Ohio. What they have done is
    rather than going and having extension agents in every county
    they have now had to reduce that and create what we refer to as
    districts, so that you have agents servicing multiple counties.
    We see this across America, and that is the challenge that we
    have got.
        All of us need to wake up and really be concerned that this
    is going to be, putting us in a significantly challenging
    situation if we are not able to make sure that extension agents
    are not going to be working together.
        So in regards to your question, how do we empower them, we
    continue to work with the land-grant universities and,
    obviously, funding is one part of it but we also host
    stakeholder conversations and make sure that the researchers
    and the extension folks are all working together. But the
    challenges that are being felt--and, earlier I said that what
    NIFA does is inspired by the end users. So the contact with the
    end users is critically important for the work that needs to be
    done.
        Then the work that is undertaken, the research that is
    undertaken, that is translated and delivered by our extension
    folks, transforms people's lives, and that is sort of an
    empowerment that we have had, historically, and we continue to
    do so, despite the fact that we are facing these budget
    challenges and things like that. It really comes from
    partnering with other agencies, partnering with the non-
    governmental sector, the Farm Bureau, the various commodity
    groups and other, and understanding what it is, and being a
    little bit more effective and smart in delivering that
    information, and utilizing technology as well, in, really
    looking at a multi-faceted approach to staying engaged with the
    end users.
        Senator Brown. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I do--could I
    ask Dr. Jacobs-Young a question that she can respond to?
        Chairman Roberts. Very quickly.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you.
        Chairman Roberts. I know we are coming up on vote.
        Senator Brown. Central State University in Wilberforce,
    Ohio, is the newest 1890 land-grant, even though it has been
    around for a while, Dr. Jacobs-Young, as you know. If you would
    just, in writing, respond, because of time, and because Senator
    Klobuchar just arrived, and Senator Daines has questions. Could
    you tell us how ARS works with Central State and other HBCUs to
    increase capacity at the university, at best utilize its
    existing strengths? CSU has already started a STEM summer
    program for middle school students, and if you would give us an
    answer to that in writing--I apologize for doing it that way.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Okay.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Stabenow. Thank you for coming before this committee. I want to
    thank Chairman Roberts for joining me in Montana earlier this
    month. We had a Montana Ag Summit and it was a home run. I tell
    you, the people of Montana were very appreciative of you being
    there, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. My pleasure.
        Senator Daines. Thank you for coming. I have got to tell
    you, just before we get into the questions here, there is a
    picture today, I just got tweeted, that warms my heart. It
    shows a picture of the Governor of Nebraska with a few great
    big boxes. They are air-freighting U.S. beef into Shanghai
    today, and that is really a huge moment. The second-largest
    beef import market in the world, China, and it is open now to
    U.S. beef, and that is a real milestone here for agriculture.
        Chairman Roberts. If the Senator would yield, I would like
    to pay credit to him for going to China, because of his
    background and prior serving in this body, I want to thank you
    for your initiative.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it was a
    great team effort and we are glad to see U.S. beef moving into
    China now.
        One theme that stood out in the summit that the Chairman
    was at in Great Falls, Montana--really, it is in the heart of
    the Golden Triangle, our wheat country in Montana--was the
    importance of ag research in ensuring that producers in Montana
    and the U.S. at large continue to be the most productive and
    most efficient farmers and ranchers in the world.
        Dr. Jacobs-Young, you highlighted, in your testimony, the
    importance of ARS labs throughout the United States, and I
    could not agree more. Montana farmers and ranchers value the
    great work conducted at ARS labs, in Sidney and Miles City,
    Dubois, Idaho, that provide research essential to our Montana
    grain-growers, ranchers, wool-growers, producers across the
    state as well as the nation.
        Could you speak about the range and livestock lab,
    actually, in Miles City, and the Sheep Experiment Station in
    Dubois, Idaho, that we are currently working on?
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. So in Dubois, Idaho, one of the things
    that we are working on there is sheep production, and one of
    the beauties and the unique nature of the Dubois location is
    the opportunity to graze at higher elevations, to be able to
    study the interface between wildlife and domestic animals.
        As you most likely know, for many years we have not been
    able to graze in those higher elevations because of legal
    challenges to the interface, and the possibility of impact on
    grizzly bears and bighorn sheep, and so we have been faced with
    those lawsuits since 2007. We have had some difficulty
    completing our mission at Dubois, Idaho, in terms of the
    grazing patterns we are trying to research.
        In Miles City, Montana, we also look at rangeland
    management of livestock and beef. We have some very important
    work that is being conducted there where the goals of the work
    at both of those locations are critically important, and in
    some cases we have some challenges being able to conduct that
    research.
        Senator Daines. Well, thank you, and while all these
    stations discussed have been targeted by prior administration,
    they provide invaluable research. I have spent time out in
    Miles City, spending time with the researchers. It is
    invaluable research to our farmers and ranchers across a state
    like Montana.
        You know, we are from a pretty arid state.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Right.
        Senator Daines. We do not get a lot of rain, and it is so
    important to understand the grasses and so forth and these
    interfaces you talk about. In fact, the Bighorn Sheep
    Foundation is now--their headquarters is in my hometown of
    Bozeman----
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yeah.
        Senator Daines. --and we are working constructive with the
    wool-growers, our sheep operations, the folks of the Bighorn
    Sheep Foundation, to ensure we can have both, and I think we
    can. We are going to need this research. So we are going to
    continue to work hard to prevent these closures from occurring,
    and keep them moving forward.
        I want to shift gears and talk about our tribes. Montana is
    home to 12 federally recognized Indian tribes, 7 Indian
    reservations, and the state recognizes the Little Shell Tribe.
    Ag play an essential role in Indian country economies. Montana
    also has seven tribal colleges, spread throughout the state, in
    fact, the most of any state in the United States. These
    colleges play a critical role in disseminating research and
    best practices to tribal farms and ranchers.
        Dr. Ramaswamy, how is USDA working with tribes and tribal
    colleges to ensure that tribal producers have access to the
    latest research and are aware of the research-related services
    made available by the USDA?
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Thank you very much, Senator Daines, and,
    indeed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, broadly writ, works
    very closely with our tribal populations and tribal colleges,
    and specifically my agency, NIFA, the National Institute of
    Food and Agriculture works with the 36 institutions we have
    across America and the 7 in your state as well.
        There are a number of projects that we support. We offer
    funding for research, for education, for extension. There is
    also what is referred to as the Federally Recognized Tribal
    Extension Program as well, that partners with our 1862
    institutions to bring knowledge to our tribal populations.
        We provide funding and the good thing is that very recently
    several tribal colleges, they partnered together to work on
    bison, for example--this is part of their heritage--on
    improving the breeds of bison--breeding of bison. That is a
    project that we provided funding through our Agriculture and
    Food Research Initiative. There is another one that is
    developing varieties of relevance to tribal populations that we
    have provided funding to as well.
        So there are a number of projects that we provide funding,
    both through our competitive grants programs as well as through
    the regular capacity funds that we provide.
        Senator Daines. Dr. Ramaswamy, I am out of time now, but
    thank you. You have answered the question well. I am going to
    turn it back to the chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. I am back. I had
    another hearing and good to see all of you. I know many
    questions have been asked but I have not asked them, so here we
    go.
        The research is very important in my state, and even with
    all the advances that you have made, I think you know that it
    has been estimated that we will need to produce more than twice
    as much food as we do today to feed 9 billion people in the
    world. Do you think additional investment will be necessary to
    meet future demands in the ag sector when it comes to research?
        Anyone can take that.
        Ms. Bartuska. Let me go ahead and start and then pass it
    over to the administrators. We definitely have produced, from
    our research, the ability to grow more food on less land, more
    efficiently, and that has continued to be the driver. We see it
    as absolutely critical. This figure of 9.7 people in 2050 is
    just looming in my brain, and every day I think about what we
    have to do to make our investments the most efficient.
        Within our resources available, we are going to continue to
    focus on that, with laser-like attention, and I think this is
    where we need to continue to be innovative.
        One of the things that I mentioned earlier, is that we know
    that if we make these investments in agricultural research the
    benefits are great, and so we need to improve that--continue on
    that track.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
        Ms. Bartuska. But there is not enough land to grow the
    amount of food----
        Senator Klobuchar. Right.
        Ms. Bartuska. --so we have to be creative, and one of the
    areas that is in the area of----
        Senator Klobuchar. I want to ask some specific questions
    now----
        Ms. Bartuska. Okay.
        Senator Klobuchar. --but I appreciate that. One of the
    specific things that affects my state, recent outbreaks of
    avian influenza, the PEDV and other emerging diseases highlight
    the significant threats facing animal agriculture and the need
    for more research in this area, one of the reasons I am so
    concerned about budget cuts proposed by the Administration to
    USDA.
        Dr. Ramaswamy, can you talk about the importance of the
    National Animal Health Lab Network, and are more resources
    necessary for that research.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Senator Klobuchar, thank you so much for
    that question. Absolutely. We have, across America, several
    enterprises that protects the biosecurity for our food
    systems--the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, the
    National Plant Diagnostic Network, and other efforts of that
    sort that protect the biosecurity.
        Unfortunately, when we look at cybersecurity--this has been
    on the news lately here, with the Chinese and the Russians
    hacking us--we are spending about $75 billion to protect our
    cybersecurity. To protect the biosecurity of our food systems
    we are spending a sum total of about $38 million in America. I
    joke, but very seriously, if all of our computers are hacked,
    we can go back to using paper and pencil. If our food systems
    are hacked, we are in serious trouble.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. So the National Health Laboratory Network
    and these other networks we have got are critically important
    for us to ensure that we are meeting the needs of protecting
    the biosecurity, and I agree with you that I dare say we are,
    really, really short in the investments that we are making.
    These networks that were created post 9/11 are falling apart,
    and we have to make sure we protect them.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Jacobs-Young,
    researchers at the U of M in my state are increasingly working
    the area of phenomics, which focuses on measuring the physical
    and biochemical traits of organisms as they change in response
    to environmental influences. Can you talk about the value of
    emerging plant science techniques, like phenomics?
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Absolutely, and back to your original
    question, I think this one is very relevant.
        You know, agriculture is a very high-tech industry. We do
    not just put the seed in the ground and hope something happens.
    We have many, many plant breeders, both on the classical--what
    we call classical breeding side, as well as our advanced
    technology side, and it is important for us to be able to
    generate data that enables us to speed up the process.
        I would like to just share that, Dr. Edward Buckler from
    our Cornell location in ARS, received the first prize for food
    and agriculture from the National Academies of Science, and it
    is through partnership with the Foundation for Food and
    Agriculture Research. He received that prize because his work
    in the genetic evaluation of maize has saved lives. It has
    helped deal with the vitamin A deficiencies around the world
    which result in stunting. But, he is only able to do that
    because we have been generating data for years and years and
    able to turn that data into solutions. That is why genomics and
    phenomics and all the other ``omics'' are extremely important
    to us as we try to innovate in agriculture.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. I appreciate it. On the
    record I will ask a question about research initiatives to
    expand the use of ag commodities in non-food markets, so thank
    you for your work.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of
    our witnesses for being here, and I want to express my very
    strong support for agricultural research. Growing up in western
    North Dakota we grew primarily small grains, and now, thanks to
    the incredible ag research and development that has been done
    we can grow amazing variety of crops, ranging from corn and
    soybeans to all the pulse crops, to oilseed crops, as well as
    all of the small grain crops.
        Diversity in agriculture has truly been a real benefit,
    certainly for farmers, and for our ranchers, but for the
    American people, because we can grow so much more food and
    provide that variety, and, as I say, about agriculture every
    chance I get, our farmers and ranchers provide the highest
    quality, lowest cost food supply in the history of the world,
    and ag research is a really big part of it. It is a big, big
    deal. So we need to support ag research funding in the budget,
    and I chair Ag Appropriations so I have every intention--we
    have every intention of doing that, and I know our Ag Committee
    Chairman and Ranking Member share that sentiment.
        I think, as a matter of fact, he even has some pretty good
    ag research in Kansas, and I know there is some pretty good ag
    research probably in Michigan too.
        Chairman Roberts. You do not want to go there, but go
    ahead.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. There is a little rivalry between North
    Dakota State and K-State.
        My question is, how do we leverage, private and other
    public investment with our ag research funds? So what are--
    because we want to fund ag research but we want to try to
    leverage those funds.
        So from each of you, just talk a little bit how we can do
    more to leverage private, and other public funding, with the
    funds that we provide for ag research.
        Ms. Bartuska. How about if I start and we end with Dr.
    Rockey, who probably has the home run answer.
        Part of it is we really do need to be reaching out to an
    emerging group of private partners, those that we have not
    necessarily worked with in the past, and to really understand
    what their needs are, where they need to be in 5 or 10 years,
    and be able to build that knowledge into our programs. So for
    me it is expanding those partnerships by reaching out to new
    individuals and new organizations.
        Senator Hoeven. Are you actively doing that?
        Ms. Bartuska. Sorry?
        Senator Hoeven. Are you doing that? I mean, how do we do
    that----
        Ms. Bartuska. Well, part of it----
        Senator Hoeven. --in a concerted way.
        Ms. Bartuska. I would say one way we are doing that is the
    composition of our National Advisory Board, the NAREEE board,
    the National Agriculture Research Education Extension Economics
    Advisory Board, who advised us.
        By choosing qualified members and being able to have a
    nomination process to ensure that we have new and diverse
    members applying for that board, and then working with them as
    they are on the board, and then after they leave.
        We are really expanding our connections, so that is one
    example that has been a very productive approach to take. The
    other is just really reaching out to the business community, to
    be able to reach out to those who are in agricultural research,
    those who use the National Ag Statistics data, they are ones
    who are very interested in how can they continue to grow our
    databases to be able to make better assumptions about the crops
    and the commodities they are dealing with.
        So those are two really big areas that are very ripe for
    more partnerships and more outreach.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Senator Hoeven, good to see you again, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Good to see you. Thanks for your good work.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Well, thank you very much. From NIFA's
    perspective, we leverage, for every dollar that NIFA invests
    there is $1.86 that is returned in leverage, and there are
    several tools that you, Congress, has provided us to be able to
    do that, this leverage of the public-private leveraging, non-
    governmental organizations, and others. For example, in the
    last farm bill we have the commodity board provision, which we
    match, dollar for dollar, and commodity boards come to us and
    they say they want us to invest on particular topics, and so
    NIFA co-invests with them. That is one approach that we have
    used.
        A second approach that we have used, again, thanks to what
    Congress did in the previous farm bills, particularly with the
    2008 Farm Bill, which created NIFA, we created what we refer to
    as coordinated agricultural projects. These are the huge grants
    that we have provided. You know, these are like $10, $20, $40
    million grants. One of those grants was given to a consortium
    of institutions that includes a bunch of private sector folks
    as well, led by Washington State University. They had an
    airplane fly out of Seattle-Tacoma airport back in November, on
    November the 14th, with their congressional delegation that
    came to Reagan National, flying on ``woodchips.'' That
    project----
        Senator Hoeven. Flying on what?
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Flying on woodchips. The woodchips were
    converted into----
        Senator Hoeven. You are making that up. I know you are.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Seriously. Get your head wrapped around that
    image, right? That particular project, for a $40 million
    investment, has leveraged almost $200 million of additional
    from the private sector, from the non-governmental sector that
    have come in and invested resources as well. That includes some
    of our Native American tribal populations in the Northwest as
    well.
        So those are a couple of examples, and I am going to pass
    to Dr. Jacobs-Young.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. So just very quickly, I would like to say
    that at ARS, we deliver a lot of products inside of our
    laboratories, and then we work with businesses to get them
    moved out into commercializations, the Apples in the Happy
    Meals at McDonald's, lactose-free milk, instant potatoes, the
    potatoes that are used for Pringles. All those things were
    developed in ARS, but once we discover it and deliver it, we
    work with the private industry to move it out. Sometimes that
    includes exclusive license, if that is necessary, but often it
    is just in the partnerships, and through other mechanisms.
        Ms. Rockey. Senator, as you know, our foundation was
    created with that exactly in mind. For every dollar that we
    spend we leverage another dollar from the private sector. So it
    is really about finding those in the private sector or
    commodity groups or other potential partners who share our
    goals for the research. We often times use our convening power
    to bring those individuals and organizations to the table so we
    can decide collectively which areas of research would be the
    most important to go through, either first or to place our
    funding on.
        So it is important for our relationship and for our
    foundation to work to bring together those private-public
    partnerships.
        Senator Hoeven. You are finding that USDA, ARS, NIFA are
    all very receptive to that, right----
        Ms. Rockey. Oh, absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. --and you are able to work with them and do
    creative things----
        Ms. Rockey. We work very, very----
        Senator Hoeven. --leverage resources.
        Ms. Rockey. We work very, very closely with USDA. They are
    our closest partners. Not only that we complement their work
    but we have, for example, ARS scientists intimately involved in
    many of our projects. We work closely with NIFA through the
    AFRI program to see where our research programs can come in and
    fill gaps or white spaces that the AFRI programs may not be
    covering. We have great relationships with the USDA.
        Senator Hoeven. Good stuff. Thank you all.
        Chairman Roberts. Dr. Ramaswamy, as you know there is a
    facility now being under construction at Kansas State called
    NBAF. It comes as a result of the danger of agro-terrorism.
    Some time back, in a city called Obolensk, which is not too far
    from Moscow, that is one of the secret cities during the time
    that Russia was much more open than it is today, there were
    large amounts of pathogens. I would imagine that it is still
    there. I hope it is still there, but under Mr. Putin it is a
    whole different matter. The intelligence community would let
    you know that it is in the top 10, top 5 things they worry
    about, is an attack on our food supply.
        I would like to visit with you about that, and also anybody
    else that wants to chip in, but we are now in a voting process
    on the first of three votes. Senator Stabenow will return and
    then we will switch back and forth.
        I want to thank all of you for taking time out of your
    valuable schedule to come. Usually when we have a hearing like
    this, I get to come up, shake your hand, thank you, visit with
    you a little bit more, but we have some time constraints. So
    thank you so much, and I would like to welcome our second panel
    of witnesses to come before the Committee.
        Mr. Ramaswamy. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts.
        Ms. Jacobs-Young. Thank you.
        Ms. Rockey. Thank you, sir.
        [Pause.]
        Chairman Roberts. We will proceed with the next panel.
        First I would like to introduce Dr. Floros, Dr. John
    Floros, of Kansas State University. He has been the Dean of the
    College of Agriculture and Director of K-State Research and
    Extension since August of 2012, and under his leadership K-
    State established the Center on Wheat Genomics and successfully
    competed to host four Feed the Future labs on wheat, sorghum,
    and millet, and post-harvest loss reduction and sustainable
    intensification of agriculture. He was recently recognized by
    the Food and Drug Administration for his distinguished service
    to the people of the United States, as a member of the Science
    Board to the FDA. Welcome. I look forward to your testimony.
    Doctor, it is good to see you again.
        Mr. Gary McMurray, Senator Perdue is on his way to
    introduce you, and so we will wait until the distinguished
    Senator arrives.
        Then we have Dr. Kerry Hartman. Doctor, I am going to give
    this a good go. This is a welcome that Senator Heitkamp wanted
    to proceed, and that Senator Stabenow then said she would read,
    and now she has given it to me while she is voting. So stay
    with me here.
        I want to give a warm welcome to Dr. Kerry Hartman,
    Academic Dean and Sciences Chair at Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish--and
    the parens here on how to really do that is to say Nueta
    Hidatsa Sahnish College. I struggled through that. I apologize,
    sir.
        Dr. Hartman has spent the past 25 years conducting
    agriculture research and teaching on the Fort Berthold Indian
    Reservation in North Dakota. His research has focused on land,
    water, the environment, and native plants and wildlife that are
    central to the lives of the Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa
    people.
        I think that I am looking for a second page and obviously
    we do not need that with that introduction.
        Senator Perdue.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is my honor
    this morning--good to see you----
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you.
        Senator Perdue. --it is my honor to introduce Gary McMurray
    this morning, a fellow Georgia Tech guy, and I am pleased to
    introduce him as a graduate. He received his bachelor's and
    master's degree in mechanical engineering from Georgia Tech and
    is now a Principal Research Engineer and Division Chief at the
    Georgia Tech Research Institute's Food Processing Technology
    Division. He has been with the institute for over 25 years. He
    is also the Associate Director for Collaborative Robotics at
    the Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at Georgia
    Tech.
        Being from a non-land-grant college, Mr. McMurray's
    perspective on ag research is especially important to spur
    innovation beyond traditional methods of food production. Mr.
    McMurray's research has focused on the development of robotic
    technologies and solutions for the manufacturing and
    agribusiness communities. His focus on research that brings
    experts from non-agricultural fields together with ag
    scientists is crucial to defining new technologies that can
    benefit farms and ultimately the consumers they feed.
        For the previous four years, Mr. McMurray led a strategic
    initiative on the future of agricultural sensing that involved
    a multidisciplinary team of engineers, computer scientists from
    Georgia Tech, and plant pathologists and agricultural engineers
    from the University of Georgia.
        He is currently leading a National Robotics Initiative
    project in conjunction with partners from the University of
    Georgia, that is funded by the USDA, to develop an automated
    system to identify plants that are potentially suffering from
    soil, nutrient, and water deficiency problems.
        Thank you, Gary, for being here today. We appreciate and
    look forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator Perdue. It is my
    privilege to introduce Mr. Steve Wellman from Syracuse,
    Nebraska, where he and his family grow soybeans, corn, winter
    wheat, and alfalfa, as well as manage a cow-calf herd on their
    fourth-generation family farm. Mr. Wellman has served in a
    variety of capacities through his agriculture career, as
    President of the American Soybean Association, an inaugural
    board member of the Supporters of Agriculture Research, and on
    the USDA/USTR Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for
    Grains, Feeds, Oilseeds, and Planting Seeds.
        We thank you all for coming.
        We will start with Dr. Floros.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN FLOROS, PH.D., DEAN AND DIRECTOR, COLLEGE OF
     AGRICULTURE AND K-STATE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION, KANSAS STATE
                     UNIVERSITY, MANHATTAN, KANSAS

        Mr. Floros. Senator Roberts, thank you, sir, for inviting
    me and good to see you again.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you. EMAW.
        Mr. Floros. There you go.
        Chairman Roberts. That stands for`` Every Man A Wildcat''.
    I want to explain that to the others.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Floros. Sir, I would like to start by apologizing for
    my appearance here. It took me more than 20 hours to fly here
    from Manhattan, and my bag did not make it, so my apologies for
    looking a little----
        Chairman Roberts. I think your attire is splendid, sir.
    Please proceed.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Floros. What I would like to do today is talk a little
    bit about the land-grant system and its importance to our
    research, agriculture research, and then very briefly talk a
    little bit about agricultural and food research and several
    components of its importance, the impact, and the long-lasting
    value of such research, so that you and your Committee can
    actually continue to support the research and our efforts.
        Finally, I want to talk a little bit about infrastructure,
    as well as workforce issues, and I am going to start by briefly
    saying how important the land-grant system has been, over 150
    years now, for this country, and the well-being of the American
    citizens, particularly because we have the teaching, research,
    and extension components as part of that. I would like to
    stress that food security and political security are connected,
    and both of those are directly connected to food and
    agriculture innovation, and it is driven by agriculture and
    food research.
        In terms of ag research, what I would like to point out is
    that most of the investment that comes through USDA, the land-
    grant system, it is actually matched 1-to-1, in some cases 7 or
    8-to-1, by other investments, from state governments, local
    governments, and other sources as well. So we will appreciate
    continuing that investment because not only it is supplemented
    by other sources but also because its impact has been long-
    lasting.
        You heard earlier from USDA that the return is about 20-to-
    1, and I am sorry that the Chairman is not here, but that
    return in the state of Kansas is actually 33.6-to-1. So the
    return of agricultural research is very, very high, and you
    will be pressed to find anything higher than that. I also would
    like to say that AFRI should be really brought up to its
    appropriations of $700 million, because we have a lot of
    challenges coming up, as you all know.
        One of the points I wanted to stress has to do with food
    science and technology-related research. We put some emphasis
    on agriculture but we are not putting as much emphasis on food
    science and food processing and manufacturing. Food
    manufacturing per se, it is almost 15 percent of American
    manufacturing, and we are not really emphasizing much of that
    in our portfolio of investments. It used to be that half of
    every dollar goes to the farmer from the consumer, but today
    only probably one out of seven dollars goes to the farmer from
    the consumer. The rest, $6, are actually added value, and that
    is what we need to capture. We have divested from this area,
    and as a result, I think the American manufacturing segment of
    food and agriculture has suffered, and innovation is now coming
    from elsewhere in the world because of that.
        I also would like to say a few words about international
    research in food and agriculture. USAID invests a lot of money
    in that. We do a lot of work in that. Much of what we do
    benefits other countries out there in the world, but most of
    the information we generate comes back to the U.S., to help our
    own farmers, our own ranchers, our own industry, to improve and
    get better.
        A couple of things about infrastructure. There was a study
    that has been done very recently. Throughout the country, food
    and agricultural research infrastructure is suffering from
    really negligence in terms of our buildings and their
    maintenance. There was a study that shows that about $8.4
    billion are needed to just bring the infrastructure to today.
    Just at K-State alone, we just did a study and it shows $550
    million worth of needs right now to our own infrastructure.
        Finally, I want to put a couple of comments about capacity
    funding and you all know what that is, and USDA talked a little
    bit about that. Just in the last 50 or so years, the
    improvement of the U.S. agriculture has been about 2.5 times,
    when you look at productivity, compared to where we were 50
    years ago. Capacity funding had a lot to do with that.
    Everybody talks about the green revolution. We are going to
    have to actually have a second green revolution if we are to
    meet the needs of a growing world. It is not just the growth in
    population. It is also the growth in middle class. It is the
    diversity of the population. The food system, the global food
    system, needs to respond to all of those, and for that I think
    we need to continue to invest in capacity funding as well as
    NIFA and AFRI.
        The final point I wanted to make is training the next
    generation, and it is critical that we find ways to train more
    people in agriculture and in food. A USDA study shows that we
    only provide maybe a little more than half of the workforce
    that we need today, and we will need more tomorrow.
        So with that, I have overstated my time. I would like to
    assure the Committee that every dollar we invest in food and
    agricultural research, it will be worthwhile spent and we will
    see very long-term return and huge impact because of that.
        Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Floros can be found on page
    61 in the appendix.]
        Senator Stabenow. [Presiding.] Thank you, Dr. Floros, and
    let me just indicate that we are in the midst of three votes
    and Chairman Roberts and I are playing tag-team back and forth,
    and we apologize that members are being pulled in a number of
    directions.
        Dr. Floros, I want to just underscore what you said about
    food manufacturing, as a state that does a lot of food
    manufacturing, how important that is.
        Mr. McMurray.

      STATEMENT OF GARY MCMURRAY, DIVISION CHIEF, FOOD PROCESSING
    TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, GEORGIA TECH RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ATLANTA,
                                GEORGIA

        Mr. McMurray. Thank you very much, Chairman Roberts,
    Ranking Committee Member Stabenow, and other Committee members.
    It is really an honor to be here today and to represent Georgia
    Tech, which is a non-land-grant institution, and the work that
    we are doing in agriculture. I, myself, am honored to lead a
    team of 28 research faculty members, 14 academic faculty
    members, and over 40 students, working in the area of
    agribusiness and food manufacturing. So we have over 45 years'
    experience working in this through a state-funded program
    called the Agricultural Technology Research Program. So we have
    a lot of experience in this area, working in sensors, robotics,
    and sustainability.
        Georgia Tech is one of the leading engineering schools
    within the nation. It has outstanding reputation from NSF,
    DARPA, DoD, and Department of Energy. One of the things we are
    trying to do is leverage that expertise, which is funded from
    other government agencies, bring that to the world of
    agriculture.
        But one of the things which is very critical to us is that
    we are very much involved in the multidisciplinary approach.
    All of our projects have partners--at University of Georgia,
    University of Florida, and other land-grant institutes--because
    we really recognize the synergy that comes about when you bring
    the engineers together with the scientists. They really come up
    with groundbreaking and new ideas, and this is something that
    we really want to see continue.
        I would like to talk about several projects that we are
    focused on. We are mainly focused on yield improvements,
    because that is a critical issue to feeding the global
    population. We have two projects right now we are focused on:
    presymptomatic disease detection and field scouting for abiotic
    stress. These issues are very important for a number of
    different reasons. Currently we still lose over 12 percent of
    our crops to disease and approximately 16 percent of our crops
    to pests. So addressing these issues will go a long way to
    addressing some of the issues, which are of major concern.
        We do this through a couple of different areas. We focus on
    novel sensors as well as robotic systems. In the novel sensors,
    we have been working on a micro gas chromatograph, which takes
    a traditional gas chromatograph, which works in a laboratory
    environment, we have reduced it down to something the size of a
    9-volt battery size, which can now be field deployed and can
    actually, in real time, take air samples and process that.
        Why is that important? Because plants emit volatile organic
    compounds, and those compounds will give you tremendous insight
    into the health of the plant. Not only can we recognize stress
    in plants but can actually target and actually identify
    specific pathogens and diseases that are attacking the plants.
    That is very important.
        We are also looking at root sensors to be able to actually
    look at the root mass, and this has tremendous value in
    agriculture. This, actually, this type of multidisciplinary
    work is something that we feel would really be better served
    through the creation of something we call ARPA AG. These types
    of programs have been very successful in a number of government
    agencies, and it is the opportunity to do high-risk, high-
    reward, but really bring the scientists and the engineers
    together to work on critical issues in agriculture.
        So, in conclusion, the land-grant institutes are very
    interested in working in agriculture, because it is a major
    problem that we face in the world. We think that we can bring
    expertise, from NSF, DoD, and other agencies, to bear on this
    problem in a very unique way, and this is something that we at
    Georgia Tech are very excited about and really look forward to
    contributing as the process goes.
        So I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here,
    and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray can be found on
    page 81 in the appendix.]
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. Dr. Hartman,
    welcome.

     STATEMENT OF KERRY HARTMAN, PH.D., ACADEMIC DEAN AND SCIENCES
     CHAIR, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, NUETA HIDATSA SAHNISH COLLEGE,
                         NEW TOWN, NORTH DAKOTA

        Mr. Hartman. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Stabenow,
    and I wish Chairman Roberts was here. I would like EMAW to him
    also. My daughter graduated from our college and is now
    attending vet school at Kansas State.
        On behalf of the nation's 34 tribal college land-grant
    institutions known as the 1994s, thank you very much for this
    opportunity to talk about our place-based research. Indian
    country includes some of the most isolated and economically
    challenged regions in the United States, but our lands are rich
    in natural resources and our people are among the most
    resilient in the world. Within this context, tribal colleges
    are working to strengthen our tribal community economies, to
    revitalize our cultures and languages, and to protect, restore,
    and sustainably use our lands, waters, and traditional foods.
        Since 2001, my undergraduate students and I have been
    conducting culturally and economically relevant research under
    the USDA/TCU programs. The goal of my current NIFA research
    project, conducted with tribal game and fish biologists and
    South Dakota State University, Mr. Thune, Senator Thune, is to
    figure out how to develop and maintain an environment that will
    support the native pollinators of Amelanchier cultivars, or
    juneberries, as well as other native fruits. Juneberries are an
    ancient plant. There are high levels of protein, calcium,
    antioxidants, sustained generations of native people throughout
    the northern plains and woodlands, until native pollinators and
    juneberry stands fell victim to Western expansion.
        Ranking Member Stabenow, a juneberry is very, very, very
    similar to a blueberry. If they were sitting here together, you
    cannot tell them apart. Down the road I hope to do research on
    the genetics. I do not know whether it was convergent evolution
    or divergent evolution or just the luck of the draw, but these
    two berries are very, very similar.
        Back to my written statement now.
        If we can restore the juneberry native habit we can
    sustainably cultivate crops for local use and small farm
    commercial production, helping to grow our reservation's
    economy and improve the health standards of our people.
        We are also helping to restore the identity and cultural
    pride of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara people. This project
    would not happen without USDA support for our specialty crop
    research. The need for research into emerging technologies for
    small farmers, invasive species management, sustainable growth,
    and security, is essential in Indian country, as the juneberry
    research attests to.
        As you work to reauthorize the farm bill, I have three
    quick recommendations. We need to acknowledge the value of
    undergraduate place-based research and education. The Farm
    Bill's research provisions should specifically acknowledge that
    diversity matters. Students and faculty at 1994s and the
    minorities and the small institutions can enhance the call to
    competency and research capacity of the next generation of
    agricultural scientists and practitioners. This is extremely
    important in expanding our U.S. workforce as well as the global
    economy.
        Second would be to resist efforts to consolidate Federal
    STEM research programs. We will lose research opportunities
    under the President's budget proposal to consolidate Federal
    STEM programs. History demonstrates it is small and poor
    institutions, like all of the 1994s, cannot compete against
    Research I and the large land-grant institutions.
        Thirdly, to establish McIntire Stennis eligibility for the
    1994s. This is a matter of equity. In 2008, the McIntire
    Stennis Act was amended to include tribal lands and a formula
    for state forestry programs but tribal land-grant institutions
    were excluded. Please amend the McIntire Stennis formula to
    include 1994s with the forestry programs.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the modest Federal
    investment in the 1994 institutions has already paid great
    interest in terms of increased employment, access to higher
    education, and research opportunities and economic development.
    Continuation and growth in this investment makes sound moral
    and fiscal sense.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hartman can be found on page
    68 in the appendix.]
        Senator Stabenow. Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr.
    Wellman, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF STEVE WELLMAN, FARMER, WELLMAN FARMS, SYRACUSE,
                                NEBRASKA

        Mr. Wellman. Yeah. Thank you, Ranking Member Stabenow, and
    also I appreciate the invitation from Chairman Roberts and you
    and the rest of the Committee to appear here today, to really
    discuss the science and innovation which is the very essence of
    farming. My perspective is, as a third-generation farmer,
    farming the same fields that my father and grandfather did,
    plus a few more.
        We need three things to get American agriculture growing:
    sun, rain, and research. There is not much I can do about the
    first two, but when it comes to research, I can lend my name,
    my time, and my voice, to policymakers, encouraging you to
    renew American leadership in agricultural science.
        Sufficient Federal investment and wise policies are
    essential if the United States is to continue to be a global
    leader in agriculture. As SoAR founder, Bill Danforth, has
    remarked, ``Food is too important to the human race to be a
    research afterthought. It needs to be a high priority for the
    nation's entire scientific community,'' and I would add, for
    the entire nation.
        Traditionally, we have thought of agriculture science in
    terms of improving yields, preventing soil erosion, and
    adapting crops to a variety of growing conditions. Today,
    agriculture stands to realize significant gains through
    interdisciplinary research across numerous scientific fields,
    including data science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and
    genomics. To capitalize on these relatively modern fields of
    science we need to ensure we have a modern Federal research
    enterprise, and that is why I am urging you to give the entire
    USDA research, education, and economics mission area your full
    attention.
        Public agriculture research spending peaked in 1994, and
    has since declined 20 percent. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized
    AFRI at $700 million annually, yet funding has reached only the
    halfway point of that level. As a percentage of total Federal
    research investment, USDA has fallen to less than 3 percent of
    the annual Federal investment. Put another way, research
    funding for other Federal agencies is nearly $60 billion.
    Research funding at the USDA research mission area tops out at
    just over $2 billion, an amount that has remained virtually
    unchanged for decades.
        On our non-irrigated farm, conservation of natural
    resources is a constant focus. Farming practices such as
    contour terraces, no till, drought and insect-tolerant seeds
    and cover crops are all implemented. Field scripts prescribing
    varieties to plant managing nutrients to maximize yield while
    controlling inputs, are also used. Thanks to modern science,
    these are all effective and productive practices. Will they be
    in the future, and will new research demonstrate ways to
    improve?
        What we do today is based on years of research and
    learning. Where will the knowledge to improve U.S. production
    practices come from in the future without public research
    leading the way?
        American agriculture is a marvel of the world but that does
    not mean the world is standing by. As you mentioned earlier,
    China has increased their investment at a double-digit pace and
    are actually outspending the United States on ag R&D at this
    point. Funding rates in the European Union has increased and
    their grant proposals are nearly a 40 percent success rate. In
    the U.S., AFRI grant applications are between 10 and 15
    percent, and only around 25 percent of the projects they rate
    highly receive support.
        For fiscal year 2015, the most recent research AFRI
    analysis shows a total of 2,694 competitive grant applications,
    requesting just under $1.8 billion. They were received and
    reviewed through the competitive peer review process. An
    additional 884 proposal were recommended for funding by review
    panels and could have been supported provided an additional
    $690 million was available for the program. A modernized
    system, supported with additional investment, is the plea I
    make to you today.
        In closing, I leave you with a question. How certain are we
    that we can provide food security for 10 billion people by the
    middle of the century? The U.S. has been the world leader in
    agricultural production and innovation for decades. This is a
    role the U.S. needs to retain. I believe it will not happen
    without a strong commitment to public research, from Congress
    and our Administration.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wellman can be found on page
    105 in the appendix.]
        Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much to each of you,
    and I could not agree more, Mr. Wellman, about the importance
    of agricultural research and what this means to the future of
    the country, and to farmers, and to all of us.
        Mr. Hartman--Dr. Hartman, I wanted to ask you first if you
    might just expand a bit on the important benefits of
    partnerships with the tribal communities and other land-grant
    universities and so on. I know we, in Michigan, have some
    terrific examples of that with Michigan State University and
    our tribal colleges. But these have been very important
    partnership and I wondered if you might expand a bit on that.
        Mr. Hartman. Thank you for that question very much. They
    enable us--partnerships with other land-grant institutions
    under the NIFA 1994 program, partnerships are required with
    land-grant institutions and state institutions or agricultural
    research stations. These partnerships assist us in carrying out
    the grant's primary emphasis, which is on training students in
    sciences.
        Through the collaborations and cooperative projects, I
    personally have grown significantly in my education philosophy,
    research capabilities, professional contacts, and, most
    importantly, in terms of educational research. Scientists,
    researchers, professors, career professionals from multiple
    institutions are now readily available to me. I have contacts
    at NDSU. I graduated. My PhD was from South Dakota State
    University. I have done my pollinator research and most of my
    cultivator research was with South Dakota State and North
    Dakota State.
        Our initial--well, I think one of the first NIFA land-grant
    collaborative was a huge one, with Iowa State. There was four--
    forgive me--I think they are the 1864s, the original land-
    grants, the ones that were started under the Morrill Act. There
    was four Morrill Act and four tribal colleges--North Dakota,
    South Dakota, Nebraska Community College, and Sinte Gleska.
    That grant was a huge grant and we still have connections. I
    was able to achieve my PhD through a collaboration of that
    grant. We did lots of partnerships. We like to say that we help
    educate the 1884s also, to extend their understanding of the
    tribal communities, and to bring their scientific expertise out
    to our communities, and to take some of our students over
    there.
        As I mentioned, here is--the Chairman is back. As I
    mentioned, my daughter graduated from our tribal college and
    she is now attending veterinary college at Kansas State
    University. EMAW there, sir. We have lots of students that have
    transferred to the institutions after these collaborations were
    begun.
        So I hope I addressed your question. They offer us research
    capabilities and scientific--laboratories that we, of course,
    are not capable of maintaining, and research expertise, also,
    from their professors. We like to say we offer them a very
    different ecosystem also. For instance, North Dakota State is
    in the Red River Valley, and we are on high, arid, western
    North Dakota, so we have very, very different ecosystem climate
    characteristics, et cetera.
        Chairman Roberts. [Presiding.] I apologize to this panel.
    You are caught in those merry-go-round moments that we have on
    occasion, where we have had three votes, and the distinguished
    Ranking Member was helpful to--she is voting. I just voted. We
    have another vote, so time is of the essence, and I apologize
    because we have, or I have quite a few questions for you, as
    would every member of this Committee.
        Dr. Floros, you mentioned that the price and availability
    of food directly impacts the political stability of our
    country. But we are currently experiencing low commodity
    prices. Food insecurity around the world certainly remains of
    serious concern, especially South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia,
    Northern Nigeria. How can we better leverage USDA domestic and
    international research efforts to help support the goal of
    producing enough food supply for the incredible 10 billion
    people that we may experience in the next several decades?
        Mr. Floros. Chairman, thank you. That is a great question.
    Not necessarily an easy answer, but definitely we need to
    invest more in looking at the system that helps our farmers and
    our ranchers plan better, and plan ahead, versus from year to
    year.
        There is no question that what happens in one part of the
    country affects what happens all around the world, but our
    system is not quite designed to figure that out ahead of time.
    So I think we need to be able to project forward a little
    better than we are today.
        The other thing that I think we need to work on is
    developing a system that is much more robust, in terms of the
    varieties that we use, in terms of the genetics we use for
    animal production, in terms of how much we lose from the farm
    to the table, to reduce food waste. All of that will impact not
    only prices but also the availability of food and the final
    prices of the food around the world.
        Today, in this country, we have the least expensive food
    supply in our history, and in the world, for that matter. That
    is a result of investing heavily in food and agricultural
    research, and I think if we continue to do that, it will help
    both our farmers and our ranchers in the long term, as well as
    our citizens.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you. Mr. McMurray, as the
    representative of the non-land-grant institution on our witness
    panel, you bring a unique perspective. Your testimony mentioned
    that overhead issues matching requirements from the USDA may
    present engineering universities like Georgia Tech from
    participating in agriculture research. Do not let Sonny Perdue
    know that.
        In spite of the tough budgetary environments that many
    states are facing, are non-land-grant institutions or other
    significant food and agricultural programs still able to find a
    way to effectively leverage resources to match Federal grant
    dollars and do more with less? If you can, please explain how
    the overhead issue is negatively impacting the ability of
    Georgia Tech to utilize the USDA grant programs.
        Mr. McMurray. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. It is
    an excellent question, and I think it is one that is complex in
    some sense. We do see engineering as a critical component to
    agriculture, and we do want to play a role in this area. But
    when it comes to things with cost-matching and overhead rates,
    it becomes very difficult for us. My organization, at GTRI, we
    do not receive discretionary funding from the state, that we
    could use as leverage for cost-sharing or the cost match.
        So it becomes a serious impediment for many of the non-
    land-grant institutes to participate in programs from USDA. I
    think that is unfortunate because I think there is much to be
    offered from these institutions. Many of these institutions
    have played major roles in some of the innovations in many of
    the industries throughout the United States, and they want to
    contribute in ag, but so far these issues have limited their
    ability to participate.
        Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that. Mr. Wellman, you
    mentioned research advances including drought-tolerant plant
    varieties and plant input management to help you reduce costs
    and maximize yields. Research on conservation practices like
    contour terraces, no-till farming, cover crops have some
    support but they have yet to be broadly adopted.
        Beyond seed technology and precise fertilizer application,
    what research opportunities in agriculture would most directly
    impact our producers on the ground?
        Mr. Wellman. Chairman Roberts, I just want to say to you
    thank you for the invitation to appear here today. To your
    question, agriculture is so diverse across the United States,
    and there really is a variety of needs for, depending upon what
    area the farmer is and the crops they want to produce, or that
    are needed to be produced.
        Maybe that is the question, the overarching question. Are
    we producing the right products? Are we producing the products
    that the world will need in the future, that was mentioned
    earlier, looking ahead as to what is needed. How do we
    transition? If that is the case, if there are other products
    that maybe are more nutritional in a smaller quantity, how do
    we transition from where we are now to something like that in
    the future?
        What we have recognized, up to this point, is from the
    technology side of it, with the biotechnology and then also the
    equipment that we use today, and the advancements that we have
    seen there. It is just amazing the progress that we have made,
    and the ability to produce more with less labor, which is
    another--I think, a future problem for us, as we move forward,
    is where is the labor force going to come from?
        The long-term aspect, the long-term view of where research
    money needs to be spent to really get a response that is
    beneficial to the farmer, the person that is going to use it
    and be implementing this research, and then, in turn,
    beneficial to the consumer.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, sir. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses. Dr. Hartman, it is great to have you here,
    representing Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College in New Town, North
    Dakota, and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
        NIFA administers four programs for 1994 institutions, an ag
    equity program, a research program. The 1994 institutions often
    serve as the primary institutions of scientific inquiry,
    knowledge, and learning for tribal communities. The two other
    programs that I should mention, the competitive extension
    program and also research programs. So four different programs.
        In your testimony, you state all of these grant programs
    are critically important, to your college and the other 1994
    institutions. I guess my question would be, can you tell us a
    little bit more about the impacts that these programs and
    funding have on students, the colleges, and the communities?
        Mr. Hartman. Good to see you, Senator. I do not need this
    but I will use it anyway. Thank you for the question, sir.
        I will have to qualify my answer just a little bit. I am
    primarily involved with the research grants, the Tribal College
    Research Grants Programs, and I can talk about them for hours.
    I will address the extension. We are the extension agent on the
    reservation. So the previous panel was addressing the
    importance of extension, and at our land-grant institution, and
    many of the tribal colleges, we have an agriculture department,
    and our ag department administers the extension and the equity,
    and the one other grant, cooperative or collaborative. I do not
    remember what the other grant is, sir. My knowledge of them is
    somewhat limited.
        I know extension, we do a lot of activity with the Boys and
    Girls Clubs. We do Young Farmers program. We have--previously
    we had emphasis on young farmers, where we introduced everybody
    from grades--I think it was 4 through 6, up through 12. They
    were eligible for sheep and hogs program that we ran. We have a
    gardening program that we run, between those. Of course we do
    education. We have our small farmers and ranchers program that
    provides workshops and trainings.
        We work close--I should not say ``we''--they work closely
    with the tribe in administering some of the tribal activities
    and assisting with the bison project. Again, the tribal
    gardening and reinforcing the gardening, the elders' foods
    program. Just to briefly address those that I am least familiar
    with.
        The Tribal College Research Grants, we have been doing
    those since 2002, and we basically have three, I guess, three
    chair legs that we like to stress in our research. The first
    one, of course, is the educational component of implementing
    research in our undergraduate experience. We have a bachelor's
    degree in environmental science and our students plan--they
    choose, they plan, with my help and from the 1860s also, of
    course, we have a design component where we design our research
    projects. We conduct our own research. We have done everything
    from aquaculture, invasive species. We did a research project
    on leafy spurge, when leafy spurge was such a major issue out
    in western North Dakota. My juneberry research has been focused
    on small fruits and small crops. We have got the best cultivars
    we are trying to select out.
        But all throughout that we try to implement the concept of
    doing quality scientific research to our students, and
    validating the results, and repetition trials, et cetera.
        We also like to strengthen and reinforce the culture. Of
    course, the tribal culture is important, and that is one of the
    missions of all tribal colleges is to help perpetuate the
    cultures. Juneberries, for instance, they were harvested for
    centuries, and we have got elders in telling stories. We talk
    about the traditional use of the juneberry. Our nutritional
    research was conducted with South Dakota State University. So
    our students learned how to do nutritional analysis, in our lab
    and in the lab at South Dakota State, and, of course, we stress
    that with community members, in collaboration back with our
    extension people, of the results. Juneberries are extremely
    nutritious in antioxidants.
        Right now we--my current research is involving pollinators,
    and that would be native pollinators, primarily, and we are
    trying to understand the interactions with the environment, of
    course, and with the berries, and maximizing the pollinator
    habitat, and maximizing the pollinator food plots. That will
    hopefully improve not only the juneberry quality and quantity
    but also the plums and the chokecherries and the buffaloberries
    and the crabapples that are all there.
        But throughout all the processes, we like to stress
    introducing research to our undergraduates, as well as
    reinforcing the culture and the educational opportunities.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, again, I want to thank you for your
    outstanding work there for many years, in making a real
    difference, and then, I had asked the earlier panel, but
    anything we can do to help leverage funding from other sources
    to join with the NIFA money that you receive, we want to try
    and help do that.
        Mr. Hartman. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thanks for being here today,
    too, to all the witnesses.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Roberts. Thank you, Senator. Dr. Floros, you
    mentioned that for every $7 spent on food, about $1 goes to the
    primary agricultural production, with the remaining $6 spent on
    handling, processing, packaging, transportation, and
    distribution. Then, in the meantime, it is estimated that we
    waste 30 to 40 percent of the food produced in the United
    States.
        My question is, which research authorities might be most
    useful in considering efforts to reduce waste along the entire
    food supply chain, and subsequently, help cut costs related to
    food production?
        Mr. Floros. Senator, thank you for the question. The answer
    is not easy and it is not simple. I think there are a lot of
    things we need to do. We need to start by some of the comments
    that were heard earlier. We need to probably redesign our food
    system so that we are actually producing what it is that we
    need to produce, rather than producing what we are producing
    and push it down the chain.
        I think we need to really understand better what are the
    needs of the consumer, what are the global needs of the food
    system, so that we can come back and really redesign the whole
    thing. If we did that, I think prices will be a lot better off
    for our farmers and our ranchers.
        A quick example about sorghum, which is so important in
    Kansas. If we were to figure out ways to create products that
    consumers want, that are sorghum-based, I think we will be
    doing a big favor to our farmers back home. Similar things we
    can do across the board, throughout the food system.
        The other part that has to do with waste is how do we
    really take the raw material, how we handle the raw material,
    how it gets to the consumer, because in this country, most of
    that loss happens at the very end of that chain. It happens at
    restaurants. It happens at grocery stores. It happens at
    consumers' houses. A lot of it has to do with how we label the
    food. A lot of it has to do with policies that we have in
    place. But it also has to do with the technology and the
    science we have behind that very complex system, which we have
    not really paid much attention to in recent decades.
        So I would say that there are a lot of things that we need
    to do to reduce waste in this country, and to really stabilize
    the system, make it more robust, so that the producer wins, the
    manufacturer wins, the citizen, the consumer wins, as well.
        To look at a little broader aspects, however, most of the
    loss that happens worldwide, it actually happens between the
    farm and the plate, not at the very end, like it happens in
    this country and in developed countries. So the developing
    world still needs help with really figuring out how to protect
    the food supply very early on in that chain.
        If we did that, I think we will also gain because of that,
    we being the American farmer and the American consumer as well,
    because it is a global system.
        There are also other things that I believe will contribute
    to the complexity of the system, and that has to do with
    diseases for plants, diseases for animals, and the safety and
    security of our food supply globally, that if we were to really
    do a better job of designing the system, we will actually do a
    better job of having a safer, more secure food supply overall.
        Chairman Roberts. I appreciate that very much. I am
    reminded of the--one of the first calls I got from the
    Secretary, Secretary Perdue, was to be with him at Leesburg. We
    were trying to get at the problem of wasting one-third of the
    food that is served in our school lunch program, and the angst
    that we have on the regulatory side with school nutritionists.
    The decision was made by the Secretary to issue proclamations.
    Quite frankly, I did not know that he could do it to that
    extent, but I am happy to learn that. I have a whole list of
    proclamations that I wish he would issue.
        But there were three, and it was to provide one percent
    milk to mix with chocolate and/or strawberry so the kids would
    actually drink it, or would want to drink it, and then there
    was the whole grains issue, and then there was the salt issue.
    I just talked to a nutritionist, I think it was yesterday. I
    asked her, ``Did this make a difference?'' She said, ``Oh, yes,
    especially keeping that salt situation right where it is.''
        So there are things that you can try to mandate, from the
    United States Government, that simply do not work given the
    circumstances, and still have something that is certainly
    nutritious.
        I have been advised that the third vote just started, and
    so, let us see if I can get to the conclusion here.
        I am sorry for the disruption we have had, and virtually
    every member of this Committee has been running back and forth
    between their other committee assignments and voting.
        So this will conclude our hearing today. As we heard during
    this Committee's recent hearing addressing the state of the
    agriculture economy there are macroeconomic forces that have
    created these current difficult times for American farmers and
    ranchers. Research is an integral tool that can help combat
    these larger trends. Research that results in better
    efficiencies and productivity becomes a significant risk
    management tool against weather, pests, and disease.
        Thank you to each of our witnesses on both panels for
    taking the time to share your view on agricultural research.
    The testimonies provided today are valuable for the Committee
    to hear first-hand and also be on the record. For those in the
    audience who want to provide additional thoughts on the farm
    bill, we have set up an e-mail address on the Senate Ag
    Committee's website, to collect your input. Please go to
    ag.senate.gov and click on the farm bill Hearing box on the
    left-hand side of the screen. That link will be open for five
    business days following today's hearing.
        To my fellow members, I would ask any additional questions
    you may have for the record be submitted to the Committee Clerk
    five business days from today, or by 5:00 p.m. next Thursday,
    June 22nd.
        With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 JUNE 15, 2017

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 JUNE 15, 2017

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                                 JUNE 15, 2017

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]