Segment 3 Of 4 Previous Hearing Segment(2) Next Hearing Segment(4)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION PROGRAMS
WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource
Conservation, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Larry Combest (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Barrett, Smith of Michigan, Everett, Lucas, Lewis, Chambliss, Emerson, Moran, Schaffer, Jenkins, Cooksey, Smith of Oregon [ex officio], Dooley, Brown, Stabenow, Peterson, Clayton, Minge, Pomeroy, Holden, Baldacci, and Goode.
Staff present: Paul Unger, majority staff director; Pete Thompson, John Goldberg, Russell Laird, Mike Neruda, Callista Bisek, assistant clerk; and Curt Mann.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY COMBEST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. COMBEST. Good morning and welcome to everyone here.
I would like to thank our witnesses for the time and effort that they have taken to share their views with us on this important subject.
Today is the third in a series of four hearings we have planned by this subcommittee to review agricultural research, education, and Extension programs. We plan to conduct our hearings by discussing specific proposals for your authorization legislation at our final hearing next week.
Today we will have an in-depth discussion of agricultural education and Extension programs. We have a full list of witnesses, and a lot of very interesting individuals to hear from.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I particularly look forward to hearing from two young individuals who are currently serving in FFA and 4–H. Many of the skills we use everyday in Congress, such as parliamentary debate and public speaking, I first learned through FFA and 4–H. My first political offices I held were in FFA as district officer, and later as area president, which is similar to my congressional district today.
I could probably reminisce about those experiences all day, and I am sure that Mr. Dooley and others could as well.
Today we will hear about a couple of interesting cooperative projects to increase agricultural literacy. I could not agree more about the vital need for this most basic education of all Americans worldwide.
For those of us involved in agriculture, it is becoming all too apparent that too many people have forgotten how and why they enjoy the comfortable standard of living that they do, and take for granted that food is always at the grocery store, and clothes are always in the store.
We will continue our discussion by examining our Cooperative Extension Service. I would like to continue focusing on the theme of doing all we can to leverage public and private resources.
I am proud that the Extension Service in my home town of Lubbock, TX, uses an excellent example of this public-private partnership in their Agripartners Program. This program has received awards and recognition for outstanding contributions and performance in industry, agency, and association partnership efforts.
This project involves the contributions and cooperation of many local regional entities, ranging from the producer associations, such as Plains Cotton Growers, Texas Grains Sorghum Producers, Texas Corn Producers Association, and others, and the local seed companies and pesticide companies.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I am convinced that this type of cooperative effort is essential to remain successful as we move forward during an era of shrinking Government resources.
Again, I appreciate very much the time and effort that you have taken to appear before this subcommittee. I look forward to your testimony and your discussion, and I would recognize Mr. Dooley for any comments that he might make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief.
I think that your opening statement was excellent, and I concur with all your statements in it.
I would also like to welcome some of the representatives from both the FFA Program and the 4–H Program. I, like yourself, was a real beneficiary of my involvement in that both my brother and I served as State presidents of the FFA, and my brother actually went on to become a national vice president, and so the program certainly served us well.
But I look forward to the testimony. We have a lengthy panel, so that will bring my comments to a close.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you Mr. Dooley.
I recognize Mr. Everett for any comments he might wish to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY EVERETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I appreciate you and the ranking member calling this meeting. I want to associate myself with your remarks.
I was a 4–H'er, and as a matter of fact, hogs were my project, and it was a great experience for me.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I would like to welcome our panel, especially Mr. Charlie Jones. Charlie is vice president of the national FFA organization and just happens to be from Billingsly, AL. The State capital of Alabama is Montgomery, and Montgomery is a suburb of Billingsly, 50 miles away.
As a national FFA Officer, Charlie represents almost a half million students preparing for careers in the agricultural industry. As everyone in this room knows, it is imperative that young men and women like Charlie stay involved in agriculture, especially in this day and time. I appreciate him taking time to share his views with us, and I have read his testimony.
I apologize for the fact, as I have told the chairman, that I have another committee meeting going on right now, and I will have to excuse myself.
Welcome, Charlie, and welcome the rest of the panel.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you Mr. Everett.
Mr. Brown, do you have any opening comments?
Mr. BROWN. I hate to pass up a good opportunity, but I really do not have.
Mr. COMBEST. We will reserve that opportunity for you in the future, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Barrett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to make a comment.
I welcome the panel and look forward to the discussion that will be forthcoming.
Coming from Nebraska, I understand and recognize the tremendous benefits that have been provided to rural America by our Land Grant institutions and the tradition that we have with the Cooperative Extension Service. I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you have made this a priority of Extension and research even though there are a lot of areas in this country that are not necessarily rural.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We ought not to listen to some of the nay-sayers out there that say that there is not a place for these types of programs, because there certainly is. I am a strong supporter of the programs that are involved with agricultural Extension and education, and I strongly believe that there is a vital role for these programs in the 21st century.
So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you Mr. Barrett. If there are any additional statements of Members, they may be included at this time.
The prepared statements of Chairman Smith and Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Chenoweth, and Mr. Pickering follow:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. COMBEST I would like to introduce our first witness list who are at the table, and thank you very much.
Mr. Charlie Jones is the vice president of the national FFA organization. Mr. Jones is accompanied by Dr. Larry Case, national advisor of the national FFA.
Ms. Kelly Raths, former State officer and current Citizen Washington Focus Program assistant of the National 4–H Program, and she is accompanied by Dr. Myron Johnsrud. Dr. Myron Johnsrud is director of extension and outreach, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
Mr. Christopher Williams is chairperson, FLP Executive Board, Project Food, Land and People.
Ms. Linda Reinhardt is chair of the American Farm Bureau Women's Committee.
Dr. Shelby Price is superintendent, Jackson Education Service District.
And Dr. Bob Robinson is the Administrator, Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We welcome all of you today. We have a fairly lengthy witness list today, and I am sure members will have questions, and if it is all possible, we have your all of your copies of your statements. I was looking through those earlier. Some were quite lengthy, and that is fine. We want all the information we can.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In the public testimony portion, if at all possible, if you would try to hold that within 5 minutes. The light in front of you will show green until the red comes on which will be 5 minutes later, and we don't strictly adhere to that, but if at all possible it helps us in moving along.
And at this time, I would recognize the gentleman in the blue and gold jacket, Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE JONES, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION
Mr. JONES. Thank you Chairman Combest and distinguished subcommittee members.
I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak here today.
Right now in the United States, there are over 21 million people involved with the agricultural industry, which is 18.5 percent of our labor force. The question that I raise to myself and to other people is: How are we going to prepare educated, motivated young people to meet those needs of that changing industry in the next century?
In the next 4 years, the need for those employees and those people involved with agriculture will reach record numbers in this country, and we at the national FFA organization are involved with developing a comprehensive agricultural education delivery system.
We have nearly half a million members in 7,500 local chapter in local communities. Our national FFA membership has been rising for the last couple years. Our organization is divided into thirds where a third of our membership is in rural farm, a third in rural nonfarm, and a third in urban areas. Three of our largest chapters are in downtown Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City.
So agriculture is changing with the changing world market.
I have had the opportunity for over 9 years now to be involved with agricultural education in the national FFA organization, and I can tell you from personal experience that the national FFA organization has taken a shy kid from rural Alabama and turned him into a leader that is going to meet the needs of this changing industry in this country.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Agricultural education has given me the direction for career success and personal growth in my life. It has provided me the opportunity to continue my education where I am currently a junior at Auburn University majoring in agricultural economics.
Agricultural education gave me the opportunity to see that agriculture is not only just production, but it also involves many facets including science, technology, and business.
My future career plans are to go on into agricultural law, to offer discount law services to farmers for their needs.
Over the past 8 months, I have had the opportunity to serve as a national FFA officer. I have looked at the list of Representatives on this panel, and I have looked at the States, and I have had the opportunity to be in every one of your States this year and speak to young people from your State and see what agriculture education and FFA has done for them.
I had the opportunity about 2 weeks ago to speak to the 1942 class reunion from Billingsly High School, the class my grandfather graduated from, and had the opportunity to sit down and talk with those individuals and hear some of the stories that they told. And to hear them talk, you would think that our country is going nowhere.
But I can honestly tell you from a year of being out in the trenches, a year of fighting the good fight for agricultural education, that for every negative story you see in the newspaper, for every negative story you see on television, I can show you 1,000 positive stories of young people involved with agricultural education and the national FFA organization making a difference in their local communities, and that is where change in this country starts, is at the local community level. Those people are out there making a difference.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen an initiative called School to Work. School to Work is a really dynamic program that gives young people the opportunity to take what they learn in the classroom and apply it to real life.
In the national FFA organization in agricultural education, we have been doing this exact same thing for over 70 years now. It is a system that is divided into three components, and those three components are: the classroom, our supervised agriculture experiences, and the FFA.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Within the classroom, we are given information by master teachers, teachers that come out and instruct us on the things in agriculture that we need to be informed on. They give us those opportunities that are out there in agriculture.
Through our SAEs, or supervised agriculture experiences, we take that information, that knowledge that they have given us, and we go out and actually apply it to the work force, and through FFA we are given the opportunity for leadership development and personal growth.
FFA makes a difference in over half a million members every year and provides this country with agricultural leaders for the future.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to have this opportunity to speak about something that is so near and dear to my heart.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you Mr. Jones, and thank you for your enthusiasm and optimism.
Dr. Case, did you have any comments that you wished to make?
Mr. CASE. No, I think you have heard from the one that you wanted to hear from.
I would commend a subcommittee for taking on a real challenge in this world of providing research and education programs for increasing food and fiber production, production processing and distribution to the world population that is going to exceed over 8.5 billion people. That is a challenge, and I think school-based agriculture education is contributing to a positive force in meeting that challenge.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you.
Ms. Raths, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KELLY RATHS, CITIZEN WASHINGTON FOCUS PROGRAM ASSISTANT, NATIONAL 4–H PROGRAM
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Ms. RATHS. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman and fellow committee members.
I am Kelly Raths, the tenured member of 4–H from Montana. I will be presenting to you today a summary of my complete testimony submitted for the record.
It is an awesome responsibility to be the spokesperson for the 50 million people who have benefitted over 4–H's 80 year history, as well as the 5.4 million youth who are involved in 4–H today.
Even before the passage of the Smith-Lever Act in 1940, 4–H existed as Tomato and Corn Clubs of the Farm and Home Demonstration Program. 4–H has been a continuous and integral part of the Cooperative Extension System ever since, operating under the Smith-Lever formula.
In the early 1900's, 4–H'ers were country kids, then the most deprived part of society. However, in the 1970's, Congress directed 4–H to reach out to meet the needs of urban kids as well, and 4–H has done so.
Today, 47 percent of 4–H's members live in rural areas, while 53 percent live in bigger towns, suburbs, and inner cities. So, once again, 4–H is meeting the needs of this part of society that needs it most.
Interestingly, the most popular 4–H project areas continue to relate to agriculture and home economics topics. Thus, 4–H is teaching city kids that there is a back door to the grocery store.
Four-H has always been a great deal more than just agricultural education, and the 4–H pledge that I have recited so many times makes this evident. ''I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, and my health to better living.''
On the whole, the racial and ethnic balance of the 4–H program is very close to that of the U.S. population.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Now, all of this is true, but we would not have 5.4 million youth voluntarily involved in 4–H if it was not fun. For me and millions of others, 4–H has redefined what fun is. I learned that it does not have to involve spending money, high tech. equipment, or challenging parental limits or the law.
Four-H comes in two forms: the aching of my laughing stomach, and the warmth of my heart after doing something that made me feel good, that benefitted not only myself, but those around me.
Now, every person is blessed with unique skills and interests, and 4–H helps youth explore these. Like going to a candy store and the reaction is the same. Young people can experiment in highly diverse areas of programming.
About 55 percent of the subject choices 4–Her's make come from biological sciences, 8 percent from the physical sciences, 23 percent from social sciences, and 14 percent from the arts and humanities.
No matter what a 4–H'er chooses to learn, they are building the assets that will yield a lifetime of rewards. While I thought I was only learning how to suture a cow, I gained invaluable experience communicating with my judges, thinking critically, managing time, and creatively thinking of ways to display what I had learned without using live specimens.
I noticed at the time, but very evident now, I also gained the assets of relating, caring, giving, marketable skills, character, and skills that help me make healthy lifestyle choices.
Four-H is the ideal example of public partnership at the Federal, State, county, and community levels. About 29 percent of Cooperative Extension funding comes from the USDA, with the balance coming from States and communities. On average, 20 percent of the total public funding for Cooperative Extension is used in the 4–H Youth Development Program.
The total Federal, State and local Government contribution to the 4–H Program comes to about $280 million annually. The national 4–H Council and similar State foundations bring in roughly $100 million.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We are thankful for the monetary support we receive, but 4–H is mostly a volunteer program. By far the largest contribution to the 4–H partnership is the volunteer leadership of 450,000 adult volunteers, and 125,000 teen volunteers.
So who are these selfless volunteers? Many volunteers are parents of members or former members. They stay involved in 4–H not only to wash watch the awesome molding of children, but because 4–H builds the family.
My parents were able through 4–H to pass down to me their heritage, values, and skills, as well as take on a few skills they never knew they had.
Four-H'ers benefit not only from their parents and other volunteers, but from the research based 4–H Programs from the Land Grant universities and the USDA. All 4–H'ers, myself included, rely heavily upon the assistance of some 4,000 Extension agents.
Today, in addition to traditional 4–H clubs, 4–H is playing an important role in school reinvention and reform. Last year, almost 3 million youth participated in 4–H School Enrichment Programs.
I would like to conclude by telling you briefly about an exciting new 4–H Youth Voices in Action Campaign which began last fall with the National Ad Council and the national 4–H Council, Extension's private sector partner, also the Land Grant universities and counties.
This program will recruit young people to do community service. As kids see the 1–800 numbers on the advertisements, they call in and are connected with a 4–H youth from their community. This youth then connects them with the various community service opportunities.
4–H is very important to me, and I am very proud to be a beneficiary, but I would like you to please remember that I am not alone or unique in the gifts I have gained through 4–H.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In closing, one of my greatest 4–H experiences was being 1 of 10 people selected to represent agriculture in a Montana press conference with President Clinton. After introducing myself as a 4–H member, President Clinton said, ''If all the youth of the United States were members of 4–H, we'd have about half the problems we do today. I firmly believe that,'' he said.
Well, I do too. I firmly believe that, and with myself, others like me, and even you, we can insure and see to it that 4–H touches as many youth as positively as it as it has me.
And with that, I am open to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Raths appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Ms. Raths.
I agree with the President. I think it would be much less than half the problems, and I will say to all those 4–H'ers that you are representing here today that they have had a very adequate and effective spokesperson.
Doctor, would you care to make any comments?
Mr. JOHNSRUD. No, thank you.
I just want to say thanks to the committee for selecting some emerging leaders to testify at this hearing. I think it is very appropriate.
Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. I think we very well could see them sitting around this committee space at some point in the future. I hope they're not from Texas. [Laughter.]
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Williams, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, CHAIRPERSON, FLP EXECUTIVE BOARD, PROJECT FOOD, LAND & PEOPLE
Mr. WILLIAMS. Chairman Combest, members of the committee, it is a pleasure for me to represent Project Food, Land & People here this morning and bring you up to date on the brief history of our project.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I think we are kind of the new kid on the block when I look down this table this morning. I am particularly honored to be represented with these nationally recognized education programs.
We have worked very closely with the Agriculture in the Classroom program, and several of our steering committee members are either active at State or the national level with the Agriculture in the Classroom program.
We also have a Memorandum of Understanding with the FFA, and a former State director is on our steering committee. So we see the need for that close working relationship with these other organizations.
We began in 1988 in Colorado where a group came together representing agriculture, education, the environment, and natural resources; recognized that a basic concern that agriculture is affected by, and has direct impacts on, water quality and quantity, energy use, ecosystem protection, and human population.
We agreed that many of our pressing environmental problems and most promising solutions are linked to our methods of producing food and processing fiber. It is apparent, therefore, that one of our greatest challenges we face is to continue to meet the agricultural needs of people around the world in an environmentally sustainable manner.
As the challenge of finding sustainable approaches to agriculture looms, each new generation seems less aware of what is involved in meeting these challenges. In the latter part of the 20th century, as the world has become more urbanized, the majority of the citizens are alarmingly ignorant about the sources of their most basic food and clothing.
People raised in urban centers and suburbia have little direct contact with agriculture land and ways of life, and thus, know very little about where their food and fiber comes from and how it is produced, nor do they have an adequate understanding of environmental issues related to food and fiber production.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
To make informed decisions as consumers and participants, young people in the United States and other nations need to know more about the interrelations between agricultural production and the issues of population, soil and water resources, energy and habitat preservation. These broad critical issues are rarely adequately addressed in traditional school curriculum, nor is there really any significant or unified movement in mainstream education to promote agricultural literacy from the pre-kindergarten through the 12th grade levels.
In 1988, we adopted a vision that said, ''A future in which all people recognized the interdependence of agriculture, the environment and human needs, and work cooperatively to promote informed consumer choices and sustainable agricultural practices,'' a vision that all those at this table, I believe, share.
To accomplish this, we adopted a mission to provide educational resources and promote approaches to learning which help educators and students in grades pre-k through 12 to better understand the interrelationships among agriculture, environment, and people of the world.
I do not believe it was a coincidence that our meeting came about at the same time as the National Research Council's Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary Schools' report, ''Understanding Agriculture, New Directions for Education,'' was released in June of 1988. They stated that agriculture is too important a topic to be taught only to the relatively small percentage of students considering careers in agriculture and pursuing vocational agricultural studies.
They recommended that beginning in kindergarten and continuing through 12th grade, all students should receive some systematic instruction about agriculture, and we have accepted that challenge.
We began by conceptional framework, expanding that into a document that contains 54 lesson plans that is currently field tested in California, Connecticut, and Ohio. This fall, we hope to take the information we got from that, revise this material, and begin releasing that to educators at all of these grade levels through workshops in the various States.
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Recognizing that we cannot conduct that as a national steering committee, we hope to form partnerships or affiliations in every State so that agriculturalists, conservationists, and educators in those States will come together to do the workshops and provide local materials at the same time they are doing the workshop.
To date, we have invested almost a million dollars in this project, and in my report there is a breakdown of the categories of giving and the percentage that has been invested in this to this time.
We hope that in the spring, in January, we will begin the process of releasing this. We have had 42 States involved in developing this, teachers and resource people in those States involved, and we look forward to successfully completing this in the fall and releasing it to the school systems to be integrated into their regular curriculum.
Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you Mr. Williams.
Ms. Reinhardt.
STATEMENT OF LINDA REINHARDT, CHAIR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU WOMEN'S COMMITTEE
Ms. REINHARDT. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
My name is Linda Reinhardt, and I come from the State of Kansas, the southeast part of Kansas, and I am pleased to see Representative Moran here from my home State.
I feel very comfortable sitting with this group this morning because as an FFA mom, I have practiced the opening and closing ceremonies many times, and as a 4–H'er and a 4–H mother and grandmother, I felt like I should stand and say the 4–H pledge with you this morning.
I do serve as chair of the American Farm Bureau Federation's Women's Committee, and I served on the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors. I am here today to speak on behalf of a very tremendously successful educational program which is called Agriculture in the Classroom.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Agriculture in the Classroom is a systematic program of instruction. The goal of the program is to teach children about the importance of production agriculture. It is important that these children know where their food comes from, where the clothes come from that they wear on their back, and what it takes to make this finished product.
This program reaches children from kindergarten through the 12th grade.
Now, Agriculture in the Classroom began in 1981 from an idea discussed at a conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and as chair of the Kansas Farm Bureau Women's Committee at that time, I well remember meeting with farm organizations and educators talking about how we could develop an Agriculture in the Classroom Program.
As America became more urbanized and the number of producing farmers and ranchers continued to shrink, and I believe that you spoke of this, Mr. Chairman, this morning, it soon became apparent that there was an entire generation of children out there who had little idea of where their food and fiber was produced.
Agriculture was and is a vital part of our existence; yet increasingly little was being learned about it. Agriculture in the Classroom was developed to fill this critical educational void.
Now, Agriculture in the Classroom is not a federally operated program. The program was designed to be run by individual States for incorporation into their own school curriculum.
The USDA's role is one of a clearinghouse for information and ideas developed by the States for their programs and also to provide resources and other materials to assist the States in developing accurate and complete curricula.
As I leave Washington, DC., today, I am headed to New Hampshire to attend the national Agriculture in the Classroom Conference, where educators and volunteers are gathering to share ideas to strengthen this program.
Kansas thinks enough of it's national Agriculture in the Classroom Conference that this year, we have sent an outstanding teacher that has been selected from the State to attend this conference.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
While Agriculture in the Classroom has enjoyed the support of organizations like Farm Bureau, it has retained its own autonomy and identity, which I think is a very important point.
We consider it, as I say, very important that public education materials not be tied to any private trade organization or interest group, and we have strived over the years to maintain our support for the program, yet make sure that this program retains it's independence. This factor has contributed substantially to the success of the program over the years.
Agriculture in the Classroom is in all 50 States, plus Puerto Rico. Teachers who have used the program have been very enthusiastic about this. We have had excellent feedback on the continued need for the program in our schools.
The program is not limited just to textbooks. Many districts have come up with very innovative ideas to provide hands-on learning for the urban students, such as the State of Colorado. They have children that go out to the farms and ranches and work.
The overwhelming success of Agriculture in the Classroom has cost the American taxpayer very little. The USDA part of the program has operated on a limited budget of $200,000 per year. This amount is almost insignificant when compared to operating budgets of educational programs of other agencies.
USDA coordination and technical assistance is a vital part of the program. Moreover, Agriculture in the Classroom has never been authorized by Congress. Instead, it has to rely on a discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture for its funding and vital presence with the USDA.
And I suppose the most important thing that I want to say today is this status has cast a cloud of uncertainty over the continued existence of the program because there is no guarantee that the program will be continued within the department from one year to the next.
We ask you to insure the continued support of USDA as an important resource and clearinghouse component of the program. In order to maintain it's level of success and insure the continuity of the program, we request:
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
(1) Agriculture in the Classroom be authorized by Congress in the same form and structure as it has operated since it's inception; and
(2) Agriculture in the Classroom be funded at a sufficient level to maintain its high program standards, and commensurate with its high level of success within our schools.
I thank you for allowing me to be here today, and speak to you about this very educational program, and certainly I would welcome any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Reinhardt appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Ms. Reinhardt.
The Chair will recognize our colleague from Oregon, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, for an introduction.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the chair very much, and thank you for holding these hearings. I am impressed by the number of people who are interested in agricultural education, and it is a fair question, I think.
Where does the initiative come from? Does it come from the Federal Government, or does it come from the grassroots? And to discuss that with you for a moment, it is my privilege to introduce Dr. Shelby Price, who is from the State of Oregon. He is the County Superintendent, still serving.
You know, county superintendents have a life of about the average of a machine gunner in the Second World War, but Dr. Price has survived because of his intelligence and his ability, and we are delighted to have him here. He is going to talk to you about a program that he suggested to me almost a year ago that I think has tremendous merit. It might come from the other side of the situation, from the grassroots side, but I think it has great merit, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that you allowed him to testify.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Thank you so much.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Price.
STATEMENT OF SHELBY PRICE, SUPERINTENDENT, JACKSON EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT
Mr. PRICE. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Smith, it is a pleasure to say good morning to an Oregonian today. I might say to you and to the committee I like it here. It is the first time I remember as Superintendent of Schools sitting in a large table and I only sit among friends. [Laughter.]
Mr. PRICE. Thank you for the fine testimony of the young man from Alabama, the young lady representing 4–H. I have very little to say after following these people.
As Superintendent of Schools, dealing with watching agriculture teachers, the agriculture teachers, and I have been in the business 40 years, and agriculture teachers have always demonstrated incredible ability to teach, to relate to kids, relate to families, relate to schools, relate to other teachers, and they have always been an impression.
I have tried to figure this out for about 15 or 20 years, and what makes the difference and what makes them so good, I think it has to do with relating with kids in the classroom with their academic sense. It has to do with the activities and it has of getting to know the kids as members of their own families, and that makes a difference in the whole process of teaching and learning.
In today's world, we are talking about very few kids who are following their grandmas and grandpas around the farms learning about the family farm. They figure the milk comes out of the large container down at the Safeway store, and thus, we became considered with literacy in agriculture, and what we are doing is proposing that schools have a particular emphasis of agriculture education at grade 6 or grade 7.
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We have been working on it. When I work on curriculum in this sense, we go out to the Extension Service, the Experiment Station, and we bring in all of the agriculture teachers, and we sit down with some 6 grade teachers, and we develop some plans.
So far we have not found any one of particular interest of the principals and the sixth grade teachers, and I guess to serve as Superintendent of Schools in an area of about 11,000 square miles, 51,000 kids, and 110 separate buildings, and the interest in agriculture literacy as we are proposing it is enormous.
We propose to be infusing agriculture for a 6 to 9 week session in grades 6 or 7, depending upon the school district's structural organization, to talk about agriculture in math, science, social science, and the agriculture content goes beautifully with State and national subject matter standards for education improvement or for reform, for career awareness. We have heard the table about, you know, nearly one worker in five is agriculture employed whether they know it or not.
It has to do with school to work, with exploration of jobs, and we are proposing that the agriculture teachers have a different role than they have had before, and they become mentors for the teachers of the grade 6 or grade 7, and the agriculture teachers I have talked to are enthusiastic about it, and their principals are enthusiastic to have them do it, for them to be the professional development leaders of these teachers, to provide them with contemporary data to put into the curriculum.
We are also talking about this curriculum being distance learning, technology driven, and not to be a paper curriculum.
We have a television station in our district that covers this region that we have. More and more things are happening at the encouragement of the Federal Government with technology, and I am saying let us put together a curriculum like this and use the technology and not go back to a paper curriculum.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We think that the existing educational system is economical and efficient, and it is ideally suited to take a look at the social and the economic and the political issues of agriculture in our society and to use that as an understanding point for teaching of other things.
This curriculum is not very brilliant. I think it is just plain common sense. Teachers are going to request to use it. We do not impose that on any school district or would not impose it on any teacher, but it is going to be so good, and it is going to use technology, that they are going to want to use it.
The curriculum itself is going to be dealing with political awareness, the social issues having to do with immigrant labor, Federal inspections, endangered species, public lands, water issues, food safety.
I happened to notice in the Washington Post newspaper yesterday there were two articles talking about importing of berries and the importing of vegetables from countries where we recommend our citizens when traveling there do not drink the water, and then we wonder why we may have a problem when we receive their products.
We also had an interesting article in yesterday's paper about farmer's markets in Washington, DC., and how popular they are and how good they are for the farmer, how good they are for the people to shake hands with the people that grow the food they are going to take home and eat that evening.
What we are talking about in the schools and changing curriculum would not be involved in environmental issues. There is no sense having a battleground for that.
Schools under this notion are not going to be asked to add teachers, no adding of classes, no new equipment. We will simply use what it is we have and have a slight redirection of some things. We want to rethink, restructure, apply technology, and implement it with the agriculture teachers being the professional development specialists to make it happen.
Already we have a considerable investment from Oregon, from Texas dealing with this concept and the agriculture teachers are working with us and working with sixth grade teachers to make some things happen.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So they strongly support the idea, and it is going to be discussed at the FFA convention in Kansas City this fall.
With that, I am very please and very proud to be working with these people to do something new and different, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to come and say good morning to you and to share some basic thoughts about this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Price appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much, Dr. Price.
Dr. Robinson
STATEMENT OF BOB ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am certainly pleased and honored to be here today among both the current and future leaders of this country.
It is, indeed, gratifying to be the Administrator of the agency in USDA that is the Federal partner with State and local government for the delivery of 4–H programs, and the representation today has been outstanding.
We also partner and collaborate with the FFA programs. So we are pleased to do that.
It is also quite an honor, and I am very proud to report, that I, too, have been a member of both 4–H and FFA and served as the State president of the North Carolina Association of FFA at one time.
Having said that and feeling that I am in good company, I am left with the remark that Mr. Price made before you turned to me, Mr. Chairman, and that is perhaps there is little left to say, but as a representative of USDA I could at least take the opportunity to underscore some of the points that have been made by my colleagues at the table.
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In my testimony before this group several weeks ago, I focused on one of the principles that USDA is using to look at reauthorization of title 8 of the farm bill. Today perhaps I could turn to two additional points.
The first is the goal of the Department of Agriculture and the Research, Education, and Economics Agencies to invest in creating and strengthening the research and educational capacity essential to meeting national goals for food and agricultural systems, and to produce students such as those you see here today.
Second, the programs of the REE mission area are dedicated to maintaining world leadership and excellence in agricultural science and education.
American agriculture is being challenged as never before to develop new technologies and use them, to expand industrial uses of agricultural materials, and to operate in a way that is both internationally competitive and environmentally sensitive.
At the same time, the quality of life in the United States is being challenged by threats to health, economic well-being and family stability. Our success, Mr. Chairman, in maintaining world leadership in agriculture and in providing our population with the best possible quality of life depends on a critical mass of highly trained and creative scientists and professionals dedicated to solving current and future problems.
USDA's higher education programs are an investment in maintaining world leadership and in that excellence. While the States are primarily responsible for educating young people, USDA works closely in cooperation with higher education institutions to identify critical and emerging issues and to establish national priorities to promote public and private partnership ventures for promoting excellence in education.
We accomplish this through the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, which gives broad latitude to develop these programs. When that act was passed, it was recognized that we had declining enrollments; we had a maturing faculty with a shortage of new professors coming in; and we had a need to increase significantly the science base in our Land Grant colleges and universities.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In 1977, the student population in almost every college lacked diversity. Although women were starting to enroll in greater numbers, the agricultural disciplines were failing to attract a proportionate share of the most talented students.
Because of outstanding flexibility in that Act, through the focus on programs and policies, we have been able to address many of these issues. We still have a shortage of students at the Ph.D. level, but we no longer face shortages of undergraduates, and our undergraduates have very successful placement rates.
We have strong programs, and we are effectively training the next generation of faculty and scientists.
A Washington Post article this past weekend pointed out the adaptability of the Land Grant university system and other colleges of agriculture to be able to adapt to changing conditions. The article pointed out that the system has adjusted, enrollment is increasing, the science is improving, and the frontiers are being pushed.
We are pleased that the programs administered by the Department of Agriculture contribute to that. We have programs that deal with helping institutions improve their capacity. The national Needs Graduate Fellowship Program is targeted to recruit and train pre-doctoral students. We have a Higher Education Challenge Grants Program and an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Program.
We also have a Multi-Cultural Scholars Program to increase the diversity in our Land Grant universities and other partnerships, and an endowment fund and Education Equity Grants Program for 1994 Land Grant institutions.
The most recent program is the Hispanic Serving Institutions Educational Grants Program, which was begun in 1997 and was authorized by the Fair Act of 1996. We have operated very close with HACU, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, to design that program to achieve the maximum benefit, to improve the capacity of those colleges and universities.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, we also work closely with the programs that have been discussed in AgrAbility and with programs in Agriculture in the Classroom as a facilitator of that program with States. We are very proud to be a part of this educational system. We feel that it has done a great deal, and we feel that the continuing involvement of the Federal partner can continue to make improvements as we partner with State and local governments to improve education throughout our system for the benefit of the future.
I look forward to questions, Mr. Chairman, and to following this session to talking about Extension in your next panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Dr. Robinson.
Mr. Chairman, did you have questions of the panel?
The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much and the patience of the committee.
Dr. Price, I am intrigued with the idea that a program presented to this body does not cost any money, does not cost any more teachers, and merely realigns curriculum. That is intriguing. That has not happened here in quite some time. Thank you.
But I am intrigued, as well, with how you expect this to work throughout the country, recognizing that curriculum is directed by local communities and the selection for what is taught in the sixth and seventh grade is done by local education interested people.
How do you expect this program of yours to expand across the country?
Mr. PRICE. Well, we have got a good partner with those folks in Texas. They are good thinkers.
Mr. SMITH OF OREGON. Questionable, but—— [Laughter.]
Mr. PRICE. And so we are dealing with that, and we are thinking about it. You know, as they are dealing with sixth grade teachers and we are, too, we are not finding anybody that is opposed to this idea, but what has to be done is to take the curriculum, to get it really squared away, and to put it to technology so that kids in Kentucky would be talking with kids in Texas, and their instructors are using technology.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We are talking about things the Federal Government has already put as a high priority to do some reform in education, to do some new and different things. It is easy to do new things that cost a lot more money. I think what we are doing about the cost, it is going to cost some money to do this, but it will not cost anything for the schools to deliver it.
Once we get the curriculum put into a technology, we are absolutely convinced that there are enough professional people in the business and outside of the business who will be developing this curriculum that companies will be wanting to put it together so that there would be a payback for any cost of curriculum development that there will be.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I assume, Dr. Price that the direction that you are taking here is you assume, as I do, that everybody in this room understands where food comes from, but the problem is, and we face it every day here with representing various commodities in America, that people from the city do not understand where food comes from.
So if we can direct educational processes to sixth and seventh grade, there will be a lot more appreciation of where food comes from and, therefore, much more appreciation of agriculture. I assume that is your direction.
Mr. PRICE. Well, I guess part of it, too, is the human nature. If you figure a way to provide something to anyone that requires less work or redirected work rather than more work, there is going to be interest in it, and if we develop this material good enough, of high enough quality, with the enthusiasm of our agriculture teachers, I think that we are going to be able to provide a tremendous amount of material in a new way, an exciting way for teachers, well as kids and their parents, that they are going to be clamoring for this material, but as we have looked at it, that is how it looks to us.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dooley.
Mr. DOOLEY. I just have one really brief question, and it would go to Mr. Jones.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
You said that the FFA program has seen a growth in membership over the past 2 years. What would you attribute that to?
Mr. JONES. I would attribute that to the development of new programs. We spoke about agriculture education teachers. The move into the urban areas has been a major area of growth for our organization, moving into those areas and showing those people that not only is it just production agriculture, but there are so many other facets of agricultural education, as well, and I would attribute that to being the biggest area of growth in the last couple of years, is those urban programs that we have developed all across this country.
Mr. DOOLEY. So, in essence, you would attribute the growth then to the ability of your organization to make itself more relevant to an urban population?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, to meet the needs of a changing world and a changing industry, we have had that visioning, and we have had that vision to see those things through and to meet those needs of that changing industry.
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.
Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Dooley.
Dr. Price mentioned the national FFA Convention, and Mr. Jones had mentioned in his comments about how agriculture is changing, and you have not had to be around agriculture for long to recognize the changes that are occurring in it, but it reminds me of a story when I first came to Congress in the mid-eighties I was asked to address the State Presidents Association that happened to be in town, and I noticed a lot of women in the group. That was a substantial change from when I was in FFA when there were no women at all. I would say it is a very good change, as well.
But I was telling them one of the highlights of my life that had been when I was a freshman in high school nearly 40 years ago I went to the national FFA Convention in Kansas City, and we boarded a train in Amarillo, TX, at 7 at night and arrived at Kansas City the next morning about 8, and it was a long night sitting up on the train.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
A few years later when I was Area President of FFA, I received what is known down there as the Santa Fe Award, and that included a trip on the train, except in this trip I had a berth on the train, and I told that and no one made any obvious recognition, and I said, ''Do any of you know what a berth on the train is?''
And they did not, and of course, that obviously took a great deal away from the story. [Laughter.]
Mr. COMBEST. I had to explain to them that they knew what a birth was, but not on a train, and none of them rode trains. They all flew, and I had to explain to them, of course, that I had a sleeper car, and I still do not know that it made a great deal of impact, but it made a great deal of impact on me back in the late fifties and early sixties.
You come from a variety of backgrounds and I will say a variety of generations here in the hearing panel today, and yet there is obviously a common thread that binds you all here, and I am extremely pleased to hear the efforts of coordination among various groups and interests, all trying to reach the same goal, and yet I detect, and I feel that there is a lack of coordination in some people's minds.
And my question to you, each of you, if you could all make a brief comment is: what things can be done better to pull together coordination between various interests with the same goal that is not being done today? And what suggestions would you have of how that might be achieved?
We will start with you, Mr. Jones, and go down the table.
Mr. JONES. I think activities such as this, an opportunity to get together, an opportunity to come together in one place and talk about these issues and come to an understanding how each of the organizations view certain things so that we could come to a common purpose, a common goal.
Ms. RATHS. Playing off of a lot of similar communication and things like that, I feel that there is a lot of connection. As she said, she is a 4–H mom and an FFA mom, and there is a lot of connection in our goals and purposes, but communicating that, I guess, is what we need to do more of, and so in summary of that, just recognizing like opportunities like this and being able to get out into our local communities and identifying who in our communities is working on the similar aspects that we are.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So personally, within our problems, is how it would best be achieved through my point of view.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was at the Agriculture in the Classroom National Conference the last 2 days, and on Tuesday we actually had a meeting where representatives from FFA, 4–H, Agriculture in the Classroom, Foodland and People, and the Farm Foundation, and the Agriculture Council of America came together and were talking about this very issue, and one of our goals is to produce a brochure summarizing the different programs that each of us has so that we can see how they network together, how they come together, and are not duplicatory.
Second, we are proposing to hold a summit. That summit would be the program people, as well as the industry people, because we feel that industry is a primary financier of this type of thing, and we would like to bring them all together and begin sharing and having a planned program with some goal setting so that we come out of that summit with some common objectives and some direction and begin prioritizing our investment.
Ms. REINHARDT. Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Agriculture in the Classroom Program is really doing quite a good job of this. I happen to have with me an Agriculture in the Classroom note, a little newsletter that goes out to the States, and it lists the contacts throughout the States, and as I go through this list of contacts, I see that it is not any certain organization or any certain group. It may be the State Board of Agriculture; it may be universities; it may be organizations, such as Farm Bureau.
So I really feel that we are doing quite a good job coordinating this within our States, and certainly that is the reason we need Agriculture in the Classroom in the USDA, to help us coordinate, to be there to give us leadership, to be there to be the clearinghouse.
So as I say, I feel like a pretty good job is being done with the Agriculture in the Classroom program.
Mr. PRICE. I would like to turn the question to the local level because that is where I can make something happen and will. As we get into this, we are going to have a meeting with every single curriculum director of the school districts in our region and, at the same time, with our agriculture teacher leadership, with the superintendents. We are going to sit down with them, the principals, the curriculum directors who are all coordinating and working together.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to add to what my colleagues have already mentioned, the bottom line is communication, communication, communication, and I once again applaud you for having this kind of panel before this committee to look at the different aspects of education.
Our agency is working to bring together the complementary aspects and the partnership between youth programs, 4–H and FFA.
Additionally, we continue to work, and as pointed out by Ms. Reinhardt, in a coordination role that will allow us to bring different parts of the system together perhaps in better coordination to achieve the education goals.
Mr. JONES. Thank you all.
Mr. Williams, I think the committee would be very happy as you begin through the summit work-up, a pamphlet or work up information, anything of that that you would feel comfortable sharing with the committee, I think we would be very pleased to have.
And as was indicated, all of your statements will be made a part of the record in full, and if there are other documents or bits of information you would wish to share with us, we would be very happy to receive those, as well.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me just recount an anecdote from my early days on this committee when I was not sure what agricultural education was and I wanted to do a little experiment. The Department of Agriculture was offering packets of free seeds for Congressmen to distribute at that time. So I sent out a notice offering to provide free seeds to anyone who would like to start a garden, and the free seeds included directions as to how to start a garden, and we assumed that young people would take an interest in it.
I did not realize how big an interest until I started counting the returns. I ended up sending out about 15,000 packets of free seeds to students, to schools, and to other people in my district, and 25 years later I am still getting people who come to me and thank me for those free seeds or maybe their kids thank me for those free seeds that we sent out that helped them get started in gardening.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
It is still something that attracts an awful lot of interest, and it is very educational for children particularly to get involved in it.
I want to just ask one question of Dr. Price. You know, we are operating under new rules in the Congress this year which require witnesses to provide information as to whether you are receiving any Federal grants or contracts, and you had an extensive list of Federal funds that you receive in your system, Dr. Price.
Does this requirement, in your opinion, provide useful information to the committee or is it an exercise in additionally burdening witnesses with the requirements to provide non-essential information? Was this a burden to you, Dr. Price, and do you think that the knowledge that you received funding in your particular school district is relevant to your testimony?
Mr. PRICE. Particular funding?
Mr. BROWN. Of course, I assume that you always grant the Congress great wisdom in making requirements of this sort. I am asking you to probe into how great that wisdom was.
Mr. PRICE. I must say to you in all honesty it was not a great burden to me. I did it with a phone call yesterday to the business manager. So it could have been a burden to him. [Laughter.]
I do not mind answering the question. If we receive money, I will be accountable for it, and so we did that. I do not think that it had a single bit of bearing or that those kinds of funds have any bearing at all on our topic today.
Mr. BROWN. Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I have no further questions.
Mr. COMBEST. I will be sure to bring the gentleman from California some of my home grown tomatoes. I picked my first two yesterday.
Mr. Barrett.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just an observation, I guess, initially about the testimony from the two 4–H representatives. I thought it was outstanding.
We are telling little stories, I guess, to kick things off. I recall the first time I had an opportunity to visit with a 4–H group here in Washington, as we all do. In fact, I think some of us are meeting with some of your people yet this afternoon, but standing out on the East Plaza and looking up the Senate steps at that sea of blue jackets and those shining faces and those bright eyes was an experience that I will not soon forget.
I think probably that it would be safe to say that we could recognize 4–H'ers on Capitol Hill even without the blue jackets by two things: the way you dress and your deportment, the way you act, and I congratulate you for both and for the testimony this morning. I thought it was exceptional.
Dr. Price, you zeroed in on sixth and seventh grades. Any particular reason? Why not fourth and fifth? Why not eleventh and twelfth?
Mr. PRICE. As we took the idea and sat down with the agriculture folks and we sat down with the groups of teachers, that was just the common attitude of the educators that we talked to in our area, and as we talked to in Texas, that it made sense to go for.
Mr. BARRETT. The consensus of the educators. Fair enough.
Ms. Reinhardt, you talked about the fact that your Agriculture in the Classroom has been so successful, and yet you are operating on a limited budget of I think you said $200,000 in your testimony, and I am assuming from the testimony that this is not specifically authorized or appropriated. You are really operating at the pleasure of the Secretary of Agriculture. Is that fair?
Ms. REINHARDT. That is correct. We are, and that $200,000 is a very limited budget, but the reason we are successful, I believe, is because we have an army of volunteers out there in our States who are willing to give their service and their time for this very important program.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So this $200,000 I am sure goes for like this Agriculture in the Classroom notes, a newspaper that goes out, the conference that is being held now in New Hampshire, and for resources.
So I think that we are doing a tremendous job for no more money than has been put into the project. But certainly the uncertainty of the program I think is the problem more than anything else, is we just want to know from year to year that it is going to be there and would like to have it be authorized by Congress.
What would happen if we had a Secretary of Agriculture—I do not think that would ever happen—that was not in support of the Agriculture in the Classroom program? It would probably go out the window. So, certainly, we would like to see it be authorized by Congress.
Mr. BARRETT. I do not think there is any question about the fact that you are not doing a good job. Perhaps the obvious question then to Dr. Robinson is under whose authority? How is this done? How does it continue to be done? Should some changes be made?
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Barrett, the program, as Ms. Reinhardt points out, is not in the authorization language. It is in the report language in the Appropriations Act.
Mr. BARRETT. I see.
Mr. ROBINSON. It is under Federal Administration which is a category in one of our line items in the CSREES Extension Activities account that contains a number of different activities.
The program that Ms. Reinhardt spoke of is something that is a tremendous leveraging program for a small amount of money and providing coordination and resources with States and with local school districts.
Additionally, it provides an education source for students that they otherwise would not be able to obtain. As a result of that, the department has recently decided to institutionalize that program within our structure, and the Secretary has transferred that program to my agency, and we are currently recruiting for a permanent national program leader to serve as director of that program.
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. BARRETT. Is it fair to assume, then, that Mr. Williams' program and Ms. Reinhardt's program are handled essentially that same way in terms of the dollars by the Secretary?
Mr. ROBINSON. The program that Ms. Reinhardt spoke of is a program for which funds are specifically appropriated and the other program is not.
Mr. BARRETT. OK. Thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you.
I guess all of us have relations of 4–H'ers, and so I do not have a story, but I, too, am a mother of four 4–H'ers who are all adults.
I am impressed with the 4–H program and have always been, so it I am not a new convert. But I do have concerns about 4–H programs and a little bit about the FFA program, not because it is not ideal. It is because I do not know the value of it. It is not penetrating, in my judgment, in my district as effectively as I think it could be.
And I guess I would just want you to think about how these marvelous missions and objectives that you have talked about and written about, how do we penetrate them?
I want to tell you I know 4–H, and I was honored to be the 4–H representative in Congress, served in the 4–H Foundation, worked with it.
Of course, I am a strong supporter of 4–H, and because I am, I am aware of the difference between the potential and the reality. And I just wanted to know, both from the FFA—for instance, I will give you an example.
You said there is an increase, and it is an increase because the marketing has moved more urban. I have no objection to that. I am appreciative of that. But I also know there is less of a recruitment in many of our rural counties. I do not know if it is because young people are shying away from that which they come from. I do not know that.
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In 4–H where we would send, say, 100 kids to camp or we would have regular programs after school 3 times a week, we are sending 10 kids, 15 kids to camp and having only 2 programs the whole week. I have seen this, so I have started documenting this.
So I am wanting to know your experience with success. How can you help me to know what we can make happen in our room?
And, second, in terms of your program, Dr. Price, I am really impressed with that. I want to tell you I want to talk to you later about that. I will have someone call you and try to model a program after that.
And I do know about your Agriculture in the Classroom, because Farm Bureau and I worked together on that. I know the young man who heads it up in North Carolina. So I have been engaged in this in a very personal way. It is not just coming here.
I am struck by what is ideal and the potential, with a sense of anxiousness how I make that the reality for so many young people in our community, and how youth development can be a deterrent for behavior that is not productive.
You know, I am losing those kids in the summer. I am losing those involvement of parents.
I see you talking about the volunteer. Help me understand what I can tell my young people in my communities. I have 28 counties. Now all of them are not that dismal, I can assure you, but I can tell you I have seen them at their peak.
My brother-in-law was director of the Extension Programs. He is right now a retired person, doing a curriculum just as Dr. Jackson is doing. Rather than agriculture, he is taking agriculture and science, making science teach kids science and math. He got a curriculum to develop that. He got a foundation to do it.
But help me understand how we can really revitalize this at the local level.
Ms. RATHS. I think you touched on it. There is no question that when 4–H gets into somebody's family, gets that youth no matter what their range of involvement is, the skills that they acquire are awesome, and I am sure as you have witnessed.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
But 4–H, as I mentioned in my testimony, we are so reliant upon volunteers and parental involvement, and that is one thing that not only, like in just general trends of loss of that involvement in public schools and things like that, but the 4–H program needs those volunteers, that strong volunteer base.
And 4–H is working right now on a lot of how to educate those volunteers and to get those volunteers involved and there is a lot of material available.
And so to have a strong 4–H program, we are relying upon volunteers, and I would encourage you maybe to research into some of that. There is one that I can think of off the top of my head that is the taxi program. How to recruit your volunteers, because when you get your volunteers, then that is the sole basis for changing and molding those youth because it is such a powerful program, but we need the volunteers.
And so maybe looking into some of those things that we have really worked hard to research on, how to keep and maintain volunteers in communities.
Mr. JONES. Yes ma'am. I had the opportunity this year to spend the week at Watt Lake, NC, there at the FFA camp. I have been to FFA camp at Southern Michigan, training State officers in Maine, all over this great country and in Nebraska with those young people there.
And I can tell you that the one thing that I have seen is that we have to equip our agriculture education teachers, our State officers, our individuals who are in charge of those programs with the necessary tools that they need.
That means that we have to give them support in whatever they do so that they can go out and they can motivate those young people to do those type of things. Because if they can motivate them so that they know, and that they can see through the programs that the FFA and 4–H both offer that we provide those opportunities for that entrepreneurship, that time for the diversity if agriscience in those rural areas.
Coming from a rural area myself, I know when I first started off in agriculture education, it was basically a shop class. But by the time I finished, my teacher had been motivated by people to change the way he taught, and so he went into the agriscience, he went into the biotechnology, he went into the career choices, and those things motivated me, and it also motivated over half my high school to join agriculture education and FFA, and that is the thing that we have to do.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We have to make sure that we, as individuals and as leaders of our States and as our local communities, go out and give that motivation to those people so that they can go and do their jobs to the best of their ability.
And what they do with that is they go out and they motivate those young people. We provide those leaders and those examples, because that is where people are going to get involved. That is where those seventh, eighth, and ninth graders are going to get involved with these programs, is when the twelfth graders and when those eleventh graders are motivated, when they are dedicated, when they have had that proper instruction.
Then they come back and motivate those young people to join and get involved and reach that career success with both of these two programs with 4–H and FFA.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Several of the questions I was interested in have been asked by other members of the committee. I am curious to know if there is any evidence that there is a greater level of knowledge of agriculture, how food is put on the table, in rural communities versus urban areas, and if the programs that you all have talked about, particularly Agriculture in the Classroom, are being utilized in a broad way across country, urban, rural, communities and States that we do not traditionally or historically think of as agriculturally oriented.
Are we getting agriculture education at least to the places that I, in a stereotypical way, would think it ought to be going, or is that stereotype wrong, and it is us folks from rural America who need to know about agriculture?
Ms. REINHARDT. May I answer that?
Absolutely, we are getting Agriculture in the Classroom to the cities, the downtown New York and the Washington, DC., and I am sure at this conference that we will be going back to, and I will be going, we are going to see educators there from those areas.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So we definitely are reaching both the rural and the urban, and I think that the point that you are talking about about the rural kids is interesting because we just assume that everyone who lives in a rural area knows about agriculture, and we have found out that that is not true because, for instance, I really don't know much about raising rice or cotton, coming from southeast Kansas.
And so we need to have a broad base education from State to State, but the question of reaching the kids in the city, yes, we are doing that.
Mr. MORAN. Good. I appreciate knowing that.
Is there any objective way to test the success, the level of knowledge increasing in this country on agricultural issues?
Do we have any concrete evidence that Agriculture in the Classroom is working?
Ms. REINHARDT. You know, I do not know for sure and probably Dr. Robinson can answer that better than I can if there has been any surveys and so forth done.
But from the comments of teachers, yes, definitely these kids are learning, but what is interesting, Representative Moran, is the teachers are learning as well.
And I just got back from the State of Tennessee, and I believe they have just completed 12 different summer courses for teachers, and I know in Kansas we do 4 different summer courses for teachers. And so we are teaching the teachers as well as the youth, and the teachers are saying it is working.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Linda.
Mr. Jones, you described the growth in FFA. Where is that growth occurring? What kind of communities or high schools do you see FFA increasing?
Mr. JONES. FFA has been increasing at all levels. I know from the time I started in FFA, we had about 30 members, and by the time I graduated we had 130 members out of 260 high school students.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The growth into the urban areas where we have seen large growth into areas such as Philadelphia. The Indianapolis Star Academy is another; the Chicago Agriculture Science, those type of areas.
Moving into those suburban areas, too, where you are not basically considering a large city or even a rural area. It is some of the bedroom communities I guess you could say such as my town is that those kids see agriculture, but they still just do not know exactly what it is about, what agriculture and all the facets are.
We have had the opportunity to reach a lot of those young people. I was one of those young people that lived in an area like that. I knew about agriculture, but I didn't know a lot, and FFA gave me that opportunity.
I think that that is where we are seeing our growth becoming, is those people who are seeing the value and seeing the career opportunities in agriculture.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate this panel being here, and particularly Ms. Reinhardt, who I know personally. She and her husband have been great leaders in our State in agricultural issues and agricultural education in particular.
Thank you, Linda.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Goode.
Mr. GOODE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Really I do not have a question, but I would want to commend the FFA, 4–H, and Agriculture in the Classroom. You have a big presence in Virginia's Fifth District. That is southside Virginia. I think nearly every high school has an FFA Chapter, and 4–H is throughout the school systems, and the Farm Bureau in that area works with Agriculture in the Classroom.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I would encourage you to continue familiarizing those in urban areas with agriculture. I think the future of agriculture is going to depend on our urban communities understanding the farm, especially the family farm, and I commend you for that. Keep doing it.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Goode.
Mr. Chambliss.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have got a two part question, first part to Ms. Raths and Mr. Jones, and the second part to our professional educators.
I am a little bit concerned about a trend that I have seen and I think all of us in this room have seen over the last number of years in agriculture, and that is the failure to attract folks back to the farm. And I know there a lot of different causes of it.
My son-in-law is a farmer, and Joe is very lucky to be able to live his American dream by being able to come back and work on a profitable farming operation with his dad. And I am afraid we are just not seeing as much of that now as what we need to see.
And I am curious, Mr. Jones and Ms. Raths, about the attitude maybe that you see among your friends and your colleagues in 4–H and FFA about, one, their desire to return to the farm and, second, the opportunity to be able to do so.
And to the educators, I am very pleased to see that we have got these kind of programs going where we educate folks about agriculture and what is going on in the agriculture community and what it takes to produce food to put on the table. But are we also doing some educating of folks about the opportunities in agriculture? Is that a part of these education programs, and are we reaching folks? Do you see any success in those areas about reaching folks to encourage them to come back to the farm?
Ms. RATHS. Addressing the wonderful question, one thing that 4–H does is we have a unique and wonderful tie to the Land Grant universities and the USDA, and that provides us, through our Extension Agents, we have a continual connection with the new research in agricultural areas.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And so through 4–H, 4–H'ers are getting direct contact with that new research and the new agriculture, like where they can go, new availabilities in agriculture, pest management research, you know, part of the natural sciences and things like that.
So 4–H has that continual tie to maintaining the youth and keeping them up to date with what is new in agriculture.
I know from my personal experience, I grew up in kind of an agriculture background, and I have a lot of friends, family who would love nothing more than to go back to the agriculture heritage that they came from, as well as myself.
And one thing that may be a challenge to you is some of the difficulties that they face doing that. One of them is the inheritance tax, the difficulty that we have acquiring the land after our parents pass away; also, the economic stature of just being able to make it in an agriculture program because of the increase in large corporation agriculture businesses and things like that.
So a lot of it has to do with economic standpoints and things like that that we are having a hard time because you cannot go to college to become a rancher or farmer. Once you lose that, it tragically is kind of gone.
So I have people that I know that personally that would love nothing more than to return to that because of economic situations, that is a difficulty.
But 4–H works very hard to keep our members up to date on all the new opportunities in research in agriculture.
Mr. JONES. I know last summer I got the opportunity to take a group of students down to Georgia to the Sunbelt Agriculture Expo—I know you would understand it, Mr. Chairman—and to see the look on their face in that area of production—that show is totally based around production—and to bring those kids back and for them to have that motivation there, and when they got back we really introduced them to one of our FFA programs, the entrepreneurship program. It is in production and in placement.
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And what that does, it gives them the opportunity while they are still in high school to develop a system that they can already have a business started by the time they get out of high school. It may be a production business. It may be something that they are in placement within.
I have a friend that in high school who got involved with entrepreneurship in production and started his own nursery/landscape business, and by the time he graduated high school, he had the ability to attend college at night and run that business during the day.
I have other friends who started their livestock programs in high school through the Agriculture Entrepreneurship Program. They have seen these entrepreneurship opportunities that we have given them, that they have had to develop while they were still in high school, and these people are excited about going back to the family farm. They are excited about going back to production agriculture.
That is something that this year I have had the opportunity to really push around this Nation, is the fact that we can talk about agriscience and we can talk about agriculture business, but without production agriculture none of the rest of them exist, and that is something I really had the opportunity this year to really have an impact on.
Yes, the family farm is there. It is there for you to go back to. It is there for you to start on your own. If you want to be that entrepreneur to go out and start a new business, going back to production is something I have tried my best to get across, and I have seen a lot of people who are excited and enthusiastic about going back into production and becoming the producers that we will have for the next generation.
Ms. REINHARDT. If I might comment, I think Agriculture in the Classroom with just in awareness to these boys and girls in the classroom of knowing where their food and their fiber comes from might stem a start. Ah-ha, there may be a job available for me in that field.
We also have available to the States to use different computer programs. There is one that I am familiar with that is called careers, and it talks about the different careers in agriculture.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And certainly, I am pleased to hear the two speakers ahead of me talk about the estate tax. We in Farm Bureau are calling it ''Kill the Death Tax,'' and certainly that is a concern to us because if we are particularly talking about production agriculture, we do have to have a Kill the Death Tax, so to speak.
But, yes, we are doing things in careers, but your point is well taken, and I believe that this is something that we can work on a little more as we move forward with the Ag, in the Classroom Program.
Thank you for that suggestion.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think in the last 100 or so years with 95 to 97 percent of the people living on farms to 2 or 3 percent today is pretty good trend. I think we are preparing our kids to export them, so to speak.
It is difficult in farm community. I hear people say, ''You can go back to the farm one of two ways. You inherit it or you marry it,'' and that is the only way that you go back. However, the career exploration, talking about kids doing other kinds of things in the agriculture world, becomes the next best thing because as they said before about one-fifth, one job in five is agriculture related, whether it is teaching or banking or transportation or economists or brokers or researchers. There are jobs that are agriculture jobs, but they are not necessarily on the farm or on the John Deere.
Mr. ROBINSON. Perhaps, Mr. Chambliss, I could add only a couple of points because I think most of them have been made by my colleagues.
One way to look at opportunities within agriculture is the broader opportunities, not just production agriculture. The front end cost has already been explained by my colleagues in going back into agriculture. Yet when you look at the enrollment increases that are occurring in colleges of agriculture around the country, they are coming also from nontraditional backgrounds.
Many of these young people have no farm background at all, but they are interested in things such as the interface between agricultural production and the environment. They are interested in the science that underlies agriculture. They are interested in the food science issues, the food safety issues, the nutritional issues, all of which comprise what my colleagues here have mentioned as part of the broader set of employment and career opportunities for agriculture.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. WILLIAMS. In our program, we began by writing a conceptual framework that has seven major objectives, and that is contained on page 4, the seven major objectives, of my testimony, and that kind of highlights the key areas that we think.
I am also very involved in the Agriculture in the Classroom Program in Arizona. We do a teacher workshop in which we visit everything from all kinds of producers, five different kinds of producers, as well as industry, FFA programs, so that the teachers, primarily fourth, fifth, sixth grade are exposed to these different opportunities, and through that see all the different careers that are available, and then they integrate that into the things that they are teaching, similar to what Dr. Price is talking about doing there in Oregon.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much.
I just cannot say enough about the 4–H Program, the FFA Program, Agriculture in the Classroom Program, and all the people that are here today really doing the Lord's work, and I really want to say thank you because it has been one of the most exciting parts of being on this committee, is to be with those different programs in my State in Maine.
The district that I represent is the most rural east of the Mississippi. So I really appreciate what you are doing, and I believe, as Representative Clayton and others have spoken, that we know what it does and we want to get it out there more, I guess, would be where I would be coming from.
And I was reading your testimony, Kelly, and at the end of it you talked in your meeting with President Clinton and how he said that if there were all the young people involved in the 4–H program, we would have half the problems with our young people.
And I think that when we watch juvenile crime and violence and drug use and smoking and drinking and all of that, and we recognize that it is declining with adults, but it is increasing with juveniles, we need to not reinvent the wheel, but to look around and see those things that are already successful, and it is almost like I think it is a real opportunity for agriculture to come to the national front in a national summit with youth and young people to say, ''Look. It is working. These are programs that are working, that are successful. Do not reinvent the wheel. Do not create a new Federal program or new mandates and guidelines and everything else, but work with what is successful.''
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And I think it is a real opportunity, you know, for you all to take the initiative with the auspices of the chairman and the members of the committee to forge into the national debate on prevention programs. And I really believe very, very strongly that this is the one aspect of agriculture that we need to nurture and give more resources to, knowing that money is not all of it, and I appreciate Agriculture in the Classroom.
But I think for years we have just sort of sat back and not really been as aggressive, and I really think we need to be because I think more and more the things that I learn about what the department is doing and farmers are doing is something that there should be more of those kinds of values throughout our community.
So my encouragement, Mr. Chairman, is to have agriculture and these young people and the people working in the department in this particular area to force themselves on the Justice Department in the national debate on these programs and say, ''Do not reinvent the wheel, but take these programs that are working.''
And I know that the 4–H program works because it lets young people do what they want to do, and it works around what their interests are, and I talk to so many young people that nobody listens to them, nobody pays attention to them so they get into trouble, and they are just hanging around with their friends, and they do not have the opportunity for these kinds of things.
And I talk to young people and ask them why do they get involved in 4–H. You know, what drew them? Well, a brother, a family member, a friend, you know, or a family. It is developing you know sort of like, you know, we have got to break out and get out and outreach.
And that is why I was so impressed that your opportunity to diversify from urban and rural in the membership in the 4–H program, and that you have actually taken that challenge and expanded the membership in that area, and we are talking in our committee about trying to reach some of those who are not familiar with agriculture, and you folks are the people who are going to make those connections for us and going to build those bridges for us into the urban areas, into the nonagricultural areas, and I think it is through this.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So, you know, I am a big supporter of 4–H and these programs of FFA, and I go anywhere in my district to speak with young people and to be with young people because I think that that is sort of something that our community, States, and country have been lacking, and that has been the glue that has held us together.
So my encouragement would be for you to get involved, and I will do and our office will do as much as we can to get the administration's attention, to force ourselves on them, and agree with President Clinton that if everybody was involved in the 4–H Program, that we would have half as many problems as we have.
But, Mr. Chairman, I just feel very strongly about that, and I think that agriculture can be part of the solution to a national problem with teens and young people, and we ought to present it in that fashion, and I think it would be beneficial to everybody.
Thank you very much.
If you would like to comment, you are more than welcome if you have got your own ideas about this, especially from our friends from FFA and 4–H.
Mr. JOHNSRUD. Mr. Chairman, could I comment a moment on that?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir, certainly.
Mr. JOHNSRUD. A real life experience I think that will illustrate your point, and the committee, I think, should be sensitive it could happen in rural or urban America. It doesn't make any difference, but I was visiting with a young fellow in a HUD site one day that was in a 4–H program, an after-school program, and I said, ''Why are you in this program?''
He said, ''Because I'm learning a lot.'' This is about a 12-year old kid or 11. He said, ''I don't want to be like my brother.'' He said, ''You're going to see him come out of one of those houses about 4 o'clock. He's going on the street to sell drugs. I don't want to ever do that. This program is going to keep me from falling into that problem.''
That is an 11- or 12-year old kid in California that saw that value. That is pretty powerful stuff, and that is not an isolated case.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, my vocational agriculture teacher years ago said, and I overheard this, if you want to keep at that time a young man from going wrong, is that you give that young man something to think about other than nothing or getting into trouble.
Agricultural education programs in the schools across this country provide that opportunity for meaningful learning through application in a business or in an entrepreneurial enterprise.
What you say is absolutely on target, and I have made a note to take you up on that offer about going to the Justice Department for the purpose of preventing what we are experiencing in terms of trouble with youth in the future. So you are right on target with what we think is going on in our program.
Mr. BALDACCI. Just to followup, we put together a commission in Maine. I had appointed the U.S. Attorney and the State's Attorney General, along with a whole host of people to review the issues, and it all came right back to where we were going off track and where the young people's problems were.
So I feel very strongly about it, and I know that the young people may have a perception about 4–H that it is agriculture, but one thing my friends in 4–H say is that they are more than just agriculture, and I think that whatever it is that gets an interest in the young people to participate is what we ought to be working on.
Yes, sir.
Mr. JONES. One of the things especially in FFA that we have that I have seen that gets people interested in agriculture, and I think it is the thing that returned my life back around towards agriculture as I reached an area where I was having to make a career choice between criminal law or agricultural law; what changed my life back around was the fact that when I went to national convention again for the third year.
And if any of you want the opportunity to re-believe in agriculture and re-believe in the youth of this country, I have got about 42,000 of my closest friends coming to Kansas City in November, and we invite you to show up and be there with them and see that sea of blue jackets walking around Kansas City, around Municipal Auditorium.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
But through the convention, we give those young people the opportunity to not only experience all the facets of agriculture, all the different corporations, all the different businesses and industry that are involved with agriculture, have the opportunity to develop leadership, the opportunity to meet new people from around the country and see that, yes, there is a future in agriculture, and there are others out there like me who are involved, as well.
So if you do have the opportunity, I encourage you to come out to Kansas City in November and join us in our national convention.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you.
I am sorry.
Ms. RATHS. Oh, I am sorry. Just a real quick comment that what you said was just wonderful, and from personal experience, everything you said just really touches home, but if you ever have any doubt, or like Mr. Johnson, if you ever have any doubt in the youth or anything like that, from personal experience through 4–H, to look into a child's eyes when they can choose whatever they want to do, because every person, every one of us is blessed with amazing and unique gifts, but we are not always given the opportunity to identify those or pursue those, and that is what 4–H does. That is what FFA does, and to watch them light up and be so passionate about life and what they are learning is very, very awesome, and I just really appreciate your comments.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. JENKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry I missed part of the testimony. I had to be at another meeting, but I do thank all of you for the fine job that you have done.
This may have been mentioned, but I did not hear it. There is one thing that concerns me, and I am familiar. I have been a 4–H'er, belonged to the Farm Bureau. I make memorial gifts to Agriculture in the Classroom, and I think that is a good way to finance it.
But despite the efforts that you are all making, and they are great efforts, I am concerned that as you are in the classroom and in the schools and as you teach about agriculture, that somewhere in another part of the school that there are efforts that are directly contrary to the efforts that you are making. There are efforts that conflict with the objectives of production agriculture.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Now, I am going to be supporting you as a freshman here. I hope to come back to this Congress, and I am going to be supporting all of your efforts in every way that I can, but I am hoping that you will let this committee know not only what you are doing, but let us know those efforts that are in conflict because I think there are some real conflicts out there that need to be addressed.
I think when we talk about the good work that you are doing, we need to talk about the other work that is being done and how we can mesh these two together so that they do not conflict and so that they help everybody to reach their goal, and if any of you have any thoughts along those lines today, I would be glad to hear them.
Ms. REINHARDT. You mentioned the Farm Bureau organization, and certainly we are very aware of that, and I know that I have worked directly with all the States, but also very closely with the State of Kansas, and we have monitored textbooks to see what is in textbooks, and we have now had our district women chairmen go out and see who is on the school boards and make the school boards aware of some of this information that is not liken to our philosophy and to production agriculture.
As an organization I am speaking from now. We are doing what we can and are very aware of this problem.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, thanks.
Well, as an old 4–H'er and FFA star farmer, and as a farmer depending on the Extension Service for a lot of information, I guess one of my concerns is as actual farmers' children become a very small minority in the population of those no win FFA or 4–H or even with the Extension programs as we expand into cities and nutrition, I am somewhat concerned about not having the kind of emphasis on production agriculture that we once had, and I do not want to detract from the importance of the expansion of these programs into urban areas, but I would observe that no longer do we have programs on the flock of sheep, but maybe on how to show one sheep.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We tend to expand into urban areas and nonproduction agricultural areas simply because the population of that 1 percent in farming now is so small, and so I am just a little concerned that we are not giving the kind of information that encourages even those few kids that are on the farm, going into 4–H and FFA and Extension, and even Farm Bureau to some extent as Farm Bureau expands its insurance program for a larger share of its membership.
I would like your comments on the danger of de-emphasizing production agriculture as we concentrate on the large majority of the population in the different units you represent.
Does anybody have a comment?
Ms. REINHARDT. First of all, we want to remember that Farm Bureau is an organization for farmers and ranchers and just not the insurance company.
But as we look at——
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Also, I am a former State Director of Farm Bureau.
Ms. REINHARDT. OK, fine, fine. Just wanted to clear that up, you understand.
As we look at the problem that you are saying, I believe that we probably are getting some information out there about what farming is all about.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Oh, no, that is not my question. What farming is all about is what we need to aggressive pursue as we expand the information base to get more people at least familiar with what production agriculture is.
My concern is in FFA and 4–H, doing the kind of things for expanding your herd, how to crop that 3 to 400 acres. Are we de-emphasizing some of that education and training as somewhat of a sacrifice as we pursue the goals for the larger majority?
Ms. REINHARDT. So, in other words, you are saying that what maybe the majority of the people are seeing is that prize steer being showed at the American Royal or at the fair rather than what is happening right there on the farm?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Maybe how do you manage that herd instead of the individual. I mean, it is probably not as evidence in Farm Bureau as it might be in FFA and 4–H.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Ms. REINHARDT. That is true.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And with the Extension Service.
Ms. REINHARDT. And certainly the young people at the end of the table can answer that best.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. What are your thoughts, Mr. Jones?
Mr. CASE. My thought on that in terms of high school agricultural education is that certainly we have to diversify the curriculum in order to take care of a broad base of interest, as well as attracting those people, but certainly I do not believe that we have left out production agriculture.
Production agriculture is key to or the basis for all the rest of it, and in terms of herd management versus an individual steer and that type of thing, I think that our semester class breakdown, I believe that the instruction is there. I would stand corrected on a study, but certainly it is not the predominant——
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, I do not care about it being the predominant. I know it cannot be the predominant anymore. I am just concerned that we are sacrificing some of the training from how you run a farm versus how you show your project.
Mr. CASE. There is some moving toward how to run a business rather than how to run a farm. I will grant you that. However, I do believe that there is a sufficient amount of production agriculture still in the curriculum if that is your question.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Good.
Ms. RATHS. In 4–H, we do not deny that we are an agriculture based program. That is what we came from, and that is our roots, and as we move, it is not our goal to move and diversify into the urban areas, but it has been there is a call for it, and so naturally we have taken up that.
But even though our program has moved into urban areas, our basis of education and projects, 55 percent of those remain with the biological sciences, and so we stay with such things as in an urban area teaching people how to garden, you know, the production of what you can do, and so we very much stay close to that agriculture base as much as we can, and it continues to be our most popular projects and what we pursue the most in 4–H.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. JONES. If you look at the FFA Program, if you look at our awards, our proficiencies, our placement areas, over three-fourths of all those categories are involved directly with production agriculture. So, yes, we are moving into these fascinating, new areas, but we have not forgotten where we came from, and over three-fourths of everything we do is still directed towards that production and how do we enhance what we have in our supervised agricultural experience programs.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Schaffer.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Price, I was reading your testimony about food and fiber curriculum, and I just had a couple of questions.
On the curriculum itself, it is targeted for sixth and seventh grade students. I wanted to just get your rationale for that age group. Why that age group and just the applicability to other age levels?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it was, as pointed out, the consensus of the educators involved in the discussions over the last year.
Two, I think there is an emphasis of encouragement from the vocational agriculture teachers at that grade level. We also have a beautiful ground of recruiting.
So that, along with the grade level, probably just before too many hormones are grown and at a time when kids are eager to learn, and sixth and seventh graders really are, we think there is a lot that can be conveyed to youngsters about the world of agriculture.
Mr. SCHAFFER. How much coordination do you envision or could you just comment on the topic of coordination between Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, and so on, with respect to agriculture education, and in your project here in particular?
Mr. PRICE. Well, I suspect there is very little coordination at the Federal level between the Department of Agriculture and Department of Education, but that is probably all right.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I think we have got to take a project that we believe in and are working on and have it become a grassroots approach of desire, wanting the materials, and encouraging and everything else is going to follow.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Could you comment on the state of teachers' colleges throughout the country, again, from your perspective or anybody else here, as well?
It seems to me that the strength of curriculum, whether it is agriculture or economics, math, or whatever the case is, has an awful lot to do with the training teachers receive in various State teachers' colleges. The criticisms of those institutions over the last few years has been pretty significant in just preparing teachers to do an adequate job of conveying curriculum effectively to their students.
With respect to the subject matter of agricultural education, could you comment on or give us your assessment?
Ms. REINHARDT. Well, agricultural education, frankly, occurs pretty well in a very few institutions that provide the training for agriculture teachers. It is very, very well done, and that is where it ends.
In our State, in the State of Oregon, we have need for many more agriculture teachers each year than we have availability. So we are down visiting our friends in California and encouraging those people to move north. We need them up there.
We have perhaps need for 50 agriculture teachers a year in our own Oregon State University, which produces about 14. So we are recruiting agriculture teachers, and we have found some particular places that do a great job, and they are tremendous people to bring into our school systems.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Any others have comments on that topic?
Mr. CASE. A couple of things. First of all, on the comment about the coordination of agricultural education between USDA and the Department of Education, I am with the Department of Education, and I work routinely with Bob Robinson's shop, the 4–H leadership, and the higher education folks on several initiatives that we have in common.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In addition, I work and partner with the National Council for Agricultural Education and National Vocational Agriculture Teachers Association, who also work with USDA.
So there is a considerable amount of coordination and communication going on with these programs.
My perception of teacher preparation is that the agriculture teaching profession certainly needs more teachers across the country, and we are pursuing efforts to try to recruit young people into the agricultural teaching field because he is right. There is a shortage of agriculture teachers across the country.
I do not have any basis to give judgment though on teacher colleges, as to how much agriculture they teach. My guess is very little, but that is a guess.
Mr. SCHAFFER. My time is almost up here, but Mr. Jenkins mentioned the conflict that occurs in some subject matter in schools and the conflict that presents to agriculture curriculum.
Let me take it a step further. I think he is talking about or, well, I would be talking about some of the environmentalist curriculum, and so on, which really runs contrary to agricultural values. People in agriculture are the real conservationists, the real environmentalists, and the kinds of things that are helpful in promoting those industries often throw an awful lot of water on the efforts of environmental zealots that make their way into classrooms.
Particularly, Dr. Price, how much of that conflict do you see and could you comment on that?
Mr. PRICE. I would like to see schools stay in the business of education, not into taking political issues. I think it is important to be aware of political issues, but to be into the environmental issues in public schools, you know, it is a pretty quick death, a pretty quick death for teachers, superintendents, school board members.
I come from Oregon where we had the great spotted owl appear. I have spent most of my life in the woods and do not think I have ever seen one, but I guess there is a bunch of them out there. [Laugher.]
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. SCHAFFER. You have got to look at the K-Mart signs. That is where they hang out.
Mr. PRICE. It has created some major kinds of problems, and if you want to talk about Western water issues and land use and using grazing land, you can get political real quick, and pretty soon the schools are condemned for getting into political issues.
So one of the things I have said in my testimony today is we have no intention of getting into the environmental issues. We do have an issue of pointing out what political issues are at this level and throughout the high school, but not to teach to one side or the other.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you.
I would like to once again thank our panel for appearing.
Just a couple of personal notes. Dr. Price, you mentioned in your written testimony Guy Finstead, who is from Texas, and vocational agriculture teachers. He was an agriculture teacher in my congressional district when I was Area One president.
And I would say, Ms. Reinhardt, I used to cut wheat every summer in Kansas on wheat harvest. I am very familiar with Kansas, and if you are truly interested in learning about and interested in learning about cotton, I will tell you more than you ever want to know. [Laughter.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you all very much for appearing here today.
Our next panel is Dr. Robinson, who will remain at the table; Dr. Charles Crabb, director, University of California, division of agriculture and natural resources; Dr. William Lambert, assistant dean for extension, University of Georgia, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; Mr. Mike Ellis, vice president, Kentucky Small Grain Growers; Mr. Jon Stauffer, representing the AgrAbility Program of the National Easter Seal Society, and he will be accompanied by Randall Rutta, who is vice president, government relations, National Easter Seal Society.
Dr. Robinson, we will begin with you at your pleasure.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
STATEMENT OF BOB ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be on this panel to speak with you today about USDA's Extension Programs. I remind you, if I may, once again of the principles that we spoke of, and they are contained in my written testimony, and rather than go over them, I will only refer to a couple more as I move into the Extension Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The goal of the Department of Agriculture and the Research, Education, and Economics agencies, is to continue to invest in creating and strengthening the research and education capacity essential to meeting national goals for the food and agricultural system.
Second, the programs of the mission area are dedicated to maintaining world leadership and excellence in agricultural science and education.
As you are well aware, in 1994, as part of a reorganization of USDA, Congress merged the former Extension Service and the former Cooperative State Research Service into one agency, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which I am the Administrator of, quite a mouthful in terms of either acronym or name.
The mission of CSREES is to achieve significant and equitable improvements in domestic and global economic, environmental, and social conditions by advancing creative and integrated research, education, and Extension programs in food, agricultural, and related sciences, and in partnership with both the public and private sectors.
That partnership is very broad. It includes the Cooperative Extension Services and 103 land grant institutions. It includes 3,150 county and administrative units throughout the country. It includes 59 State and territorial agricultural experiment stations, seventeen 1890 land grant institutions, including Tuskegee University, 63 colleges of forestry, 27 colleges of veterinary medicine, 42 schools of home economics, and more recently, 29 Native American institutions which now have land grant status.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In creating CSREES, Congress intended that the agency create stronger linkages between research and education. Examples, I think, are important in that area.
The first example of Extension programs and research programs that are beginning to integrate in terms of problem solving is in the integrated pest management area.
Achieving Federal goals requires cooperation with the university system. Let me give you a few examples. The IPM research and education conducted at Texas A&M has saved the economy $1.5 billion and reduced the use of pesticides and insecticides by 17.3 million pounds.
Similar programs are conducted in many States, including Missouri, Louisiana, and many other States. These are programs where research and education are integrated in order to solve the problems confronting people who have interest both in production agriculture and in the environment.
The President's Food Safety Initiative, which is part of the administration's fiscal year 1998 budget request includes $9.1 million for USDA, $4 million of which is for CSREES research and Extension. This is one of the most recent examples of how to integrate research and Extension objectives.
Consumers demand and should be assured of a safe food supply. Both research and Extension have the potential to help reduce or eliminate food-borne risks.
The Midwest Water Quality Initiative, also called MSEA, or the Management System Evaluation Area project, is supported as well by integrated research and Extension programs in water quality. In Iowa, for example, producers have developed greater understanding of practices to improve efficient nitrogen use to reduce surface runoff; to better use buffer and filter strips; and to efficiently manage application of herbicides in order to reduce their presence in the environment.
Extension's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program very effectively teaches nutrition to low income audiences in all 50 States. Nationwide evaluations of the program report that 85 percent of the program participants improved management skills, such as planning meals or comparing prices; 91 percent reported improvements in nutrition practices.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Funding for the Extension programs are authorized under the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as amended in 1977 and 1994. The Cooperative Extension System is funded jointly by Federal, State, and local Governments, with the majority of the funds, over 70 percent, provided by non-Federal partners.
Extension based programs are provided with Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c) funds which are distributed to States under statutorily defined formulas. The programs funded through these base funds comprise the core mission of CSREES and the Cooperative Extension System.
The current base programs are agriculture, natural resources and the environment, nutrition, diet and health, community resources and economic development, 4–H and youth development, which you heard in the previous panel, family development, and resource management.
Many national initiatives are funded both through the base program funds and through special funds appropriated under Smith-Lever 3(d). These programs currently are in areas of children, youth, and families at risk, managing change in agriculture, food safety and quality, communities in economic transition, water quality, and sustainable agriculture.
Extension is known, Mr. Chairman, as an agent of change and, in fact, has an ability to design, develop and deliver educational programs that meet the unique needs of people as they adjust to change. It is important to point out Extension's ability to leverage through these programs change for the benefit of producers and consumers. These programs are dependent on active partnerships between the program personnel and stakeholders, and is accomplished through sound strategic planning.
The Cooperative Extension System is also an efficient technology transfer agent, transferring technology to the production sector and to other users of programs in order to meet a changing environment.
The Extension System also enters into a number of partnerships. These partnerships help leverage the funds appropriated to USDA in order to address problems identified at State and local levels, and we are working with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Agricultural Research Service, EPA, and others to explore and strengthen linkages.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We are working with the Departments of Housing and Urban Development; Health and Human Services; and Education to cooperate to provide economic opportunities and support services to public housing and other residents. HUD and HHS are making $2.5 million available in grant funds to support competitive grant programs under the Community Partnership for Resident Uplift and Economic Development.
All of these partnerships result in leveraging funds appropriated through the Department of Agriculture to help people address change.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this important hearing, and allowing us the opportunity to speak about the Extension programs. I plan to present a comprehensive overview of the administration's position on reauthorization of the research, education, and Extension title at the hearing next week, and I will certainly be able and willing to discuss these programs and answer questions that you may have.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Dooley, would you like to welcome our next panelist?
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It does give me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Dr. Charles Crabb, who is a constituent and also plays an instrumental role in coordinating the efforts of the University of California for the south central region of the Central Valley, CA, which includes, I think, probably the first, second, and third leading counties of the Nation in terms of agriculture productivity, and probably almost has a cumulative agriculture production base of probably approaching almost $10 billion, and so he brings a great deal of practical expertise to some of the issues we are dealing with.
So thank you for joining us.
Mr. CRABB. Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Dr. Crabb.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES CRABB, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. CRABB. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
I am Dr. Charles Crabb. I am the director of the University of California's Agriculture and Natural Resource Programs in what we call the south central region of the State. That includes 12 counties. Within those 12 counties are 6 of the 10 leading agriculture counties in the Nation.
Since 1914, the University of California Cooperative Extension has been engaged in taking the university to the people of California. The roots of some of the State's most notable commodities, such as citrus, nuts, grapes, and vegetables, took firm hold during the second decade of this century when the University of California Cooperative Extension advisors brought the latest discoveries to the rural majority of California's population.
Today, with a total budget of more than $64 million, 61 percent of that State funded, 19 percent Federal funded, and 20 percent of the funding coming from local Government and the private sector, U.C. Cooperative Extension operates in an environment vastly different from those pioneering farm advisors of 1914.
Agriculture, however, is still the State's leading economic generator. The farm gate production for California totals $22 billion.
Each of the residents of the State of California benefit each day directly and indirectly from the impacts of the University of California Extension Program.
Limited resources and growing demand presents challenges that are met, in part, through expanding partnerships with the private sector. To give you some examples of those partnerships, let me start with an activity that was carried out by the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine.
There is a location in Tulare County where they conduct field research. Working with the California Milk Advisory Board, Pharmacia-Upjohn, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, they were able to develop a vaccine against a deadly E. COLI—mastitis—that infects dairy cows.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
A close link between research and Extension accelerated the adoption of the new vaccine within the dairy industry, and it has been estimated that the impact of that vaccine has saved the California dairy industry as much as $11 million annually, and the United States dairy industry over $50 million annually, and it helps insure a constant supply of low cost, safe milk products for consumers.
Another example of the value of public-private partnership is illustrated with the research and Extension advancements being made possible by the development of the state-of-the-art fruit handling facility at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center in Tulare County.
A modern fruit handling facility was developed with funding from the California citrus industry. Research by both campus based faculty and county based advisors contributes to the success of that partnership.
As a third example, at another field research facility a number of years ago, ARS, the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA, determined it was not possible to keep the Shafter Cotton Research Center open. Today the Shafter Research and Extension Center is operated by the University of California and funded by the cotton industry.
The partnership with the private sector allow the university to focus on funding the human resources necessary to conduct the applied research at the center, and it fostered a restored participation at the center by ARS.
Representatives from the cotton industry worked very closely with the University of California to help insure the highest priority research is being carried out at that Research and Extension center.
To meet the growing challenges, we have also embarked in a fairly comprehensive planning process. Two months ago the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources released a summary of their strategic plan entitled ''The Challenge of Change,'' and I have included this for the record.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
It recognizes that the resources are scarce, and the achievement of our goals require us to do more with limited resources available to us, to set priorities, and to consult regularly with our stakeholders. In developing the strategic plan, we have considered interrelated trends which have profound implications on the division's scientists and educational expertise.
The development of a strategic plan to respond to the challenges requires input from hundreds of scientists, educators and stakeholders over a period of several years. The resulting ''Challenge of Change'' plan includes both program priorities and organizational management strategies.
A decision was made within the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources to involve a broad range of stakeholders to review our strategic planning efforts. We think it is important, and it is a goal, that we insure that our sense of the future is reasonable and that our priorities align well with the needs of those who will feel the impact of our programs.
Reauthorization of title 8 of the farm bill presents those of us involved in agriculture education, research, and extension an opportunity to improve a system that over the years has proven the ability to adapt and succeed.
New problems will continue to emerge. Protection of soil, water, air, and other natural resources will continue to be more challenging as growing populations push the urban and suburban boundaries onto our farmland.
With move away from Federal crop support programs, economic risks associated with agricultural production will increase. We believe increased knowledge is one way to mitigate those economic risks and to help insure reasonably constant, low cost supply of domestically produced food.
Continued public support of the continuum between agriculture education, research, and extension programs will be critical to providing the increased research based knowledge necessary to sustain the substantial economic contribution agriculture makes to California and other States.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thanks again for the opportunity to appear before you today and talk about the important issues related to Cooperative Extension. I will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crabb appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much, Dr. Crabb.
Mr. Chambliss, would you like to welcome our next panelist?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, sir, I sure would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
And it is a real opportunity, a real pleasure for me to introduce a good friend to this committee, Dr. Bill Lambert, who is the assistant to the dean of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia.
Dr. Lambert has been a good friend of mine for many years. He was the Extension entomologist at the Experiment Station in Tifton for, about 20 years or so, and I had an opportunity to work with him on a number of individual cases.
Mr. Chairman, you will be interested to know that one of the most, if not the most, successful programs that we have had for our cotton farmers has been the Boll Weevil Eradication Program, and this gentleman, Bill Lambert, was very much an advocate of that program early on. He was responsible for its implementation and just did a super job with it, and I have heard untold numbers of my farmers tell me that Bill Lambert does a better job of bringing the laboratory to the field of anybody they know of.
And it is a real pleasure for me to have a good friend, Dr. Bill Lambert from the University of Georgia, here today.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Chambliss.
Dr. Lambert.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. LAMBERT, ASSISTANT DEAN FOR EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. LAMBERT. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate those comments. I am flattered.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to be before you this morning to talk about agriculture in Georgia. Georgia's agriculture is very diverse, much like my colleague here in California.
When you think of Georgia's agriculture, you think of peanuts and you think of Georgia peaches, but it is a lot more than that. We are the leading producer of pecans. We plant the second largest acreage of cotton in the United States. Depending on the year, we are either third or fourth in vegetable production, which includes as many as 30 to 35 different types of vegetables in the State.
Livestock and poultry actually generate more income for the State than our crops do, and forestry is certainly a very important part of our economy.
I would like to make several points with you today, and I am sure that you agree that cooperation between individuals, groups, organizations is critical to having successful programs, and I would like to convey to you that Extension programs are doing just that.
It is important that we have a continuing research and Extension effort that can deal with opportunities as they arise and problems as they develop. This requires that people be in place, trained in the techniques required in develop and communicate new information with the credibility that only time confers.
The Experiment Stations and the Extension Systems have provided this continuity and stability. I would like to share with you today just two examples of Extension programs in Georgia that exemplify this technology transfer function, and one of them Congressman Chambliss has already mentioned, but the first I would like to talk to you about is water quality because that is an issue that concerns all citizens of Georgia and, of course, the Nation.
The upper Floridan aquifer is a primary source of drinking water and industrial process water in southeast Georgia, near the Georgia coast. It is also the primary source of water for agricultural irrigation. Recently concerns over salt water intrusion have prompted restrictions on the agricultural use of this groundwater.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Georgia's Environmental Protection Division held public hearings to determine the impact of these restrictive actions. Extension had the responsibility of educating the agricultural community about these hearings and their potential impact on agriculture.
As a result of this effort, the agricultural interests pointed out the lack of data on water use to support the restrictions. Farmers told of the lack of alternative water sources for irrigation, but most importantly, they pointed out that there was a considerable distance from agricultural use from salt water as compared to the large municipal users and the paper mills immediately on the coast.
Extension later organized a strategy meeting to coordinate all interests affected by the water use issues: commodity groups, agribusiness, Government and farmers. As a result, a group called Water Stewards was formed to serve as a clearinghouse for information on water stewardship for Georgia's agricultural community.
This group has met with EPD and successfully negotiated a more reasonable course of action. Each affected county will develop a comprehensive water use strategy, and this is with Extension's help, and institute a water use educational program.
Research and Extension scientists will cooperate with water stewards and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor agricultural water use to develop a realistic database on which informed decisions can be based.
Finally, let me tell you about a program that has had a major impact that Congressman Chambliss has just mentioned to you, the Boll Weevil Eradication Program.
The boll weevil has been a major limiting factor in cotton production in many parts of the United States. It has been particularly serious in the State of Georgia. Since it has few, if any, natural enemies, the boll weevil required repeated insecticide applications. These were costly and disrupted natural enemies of other pests.
There is always the concern that agricultural chemicals pose a threat to the environment and man. Georgia cotton growers had to use over 10 sprays each season to protect their crop from insect pests, and this was at a cost of about $100 per acre.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
In the early 1990's, the University of Georgia's Extension Service, working with the Georgia Cotton Commission, Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgia Department of Agriculture, National Cotton Council, and the USDA, and others, began planning for an eradication program in Georgia.
Cotton producers had to be convinced that the eradication of the boll weevil was possible, and at the expected cost of $105 per acre to the grower, it was a sound investment.
During the active phase of the eradication program in the late 1980s, several major problems threatened to kill the program, including serious secondary insect pest outbreaks and cost overruns, but perseverance by the program supporters and trust by farmers allowed the program to continue.
By 1990, most of Georgia was weevil free, and the benefits of the eradication program became apparent. Insecticide use declined steadily each year after the eradication program as producers learned better ways to manage other pests. Soon fewer than three sprays were needed to product a cotton crop.
The cost to the cotton producers was reduced significantly and the yields increased. More farmers turned to cotton, and acreage increased from less than 200,000 acres in the early 1980's to 1.5 million by 1995. It is estimated that the savings in insecticides alone account for $100 million annually in our State.
The eradication of the boll weevil could not have been done without several key factors. First is the cooperation of organizations that I mentioned earlier. All of these groups share different interests. But they were united in their commitment to get rid of the boll weevil.
Second, Extension's long-term service to agriculture and the trust in this organization's commitment to farmers brought credibility to the eradication program from the beginning. When additional money was needed to meet unexpected expenses, Extension was able to convince producers of the wisdom of increasing expenses' assessments and to continue the program.
Research and Extension scientists also were asked to deal with severe outbreaks of secondary pests that were encountered in the program.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Finally, ongoing programs in research and Extension were able to provide farmers with technology that enabled them to realize maximum benefits from elimination of the boll weevil.
The Boll Weevil Eradication Program's success story is a good example of the wisdom of having a continuing effort in place that can deal with new opportunities and problems as they arise.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for allowing me to bring these examples of success from Extension programs to you this morning.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Dr. Lambert.
Mr. Lewis, would you like to welcome our next panelist?
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce and welcome Mike Ellis. Mike is a farmer from Shelby County, KY. He, along with his brothers, farm 4,100 acres.
Mike is someone that knows the true benefits of modern technology, precision agriculture, research and dissemination of that research. It is a great asset to his farm, and it is something that I know he supports and looks forward to entering the 21st century with the type of farming techniques that are going to make farmers profitable.
And it is good to have you today, Mike.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Ellis.
STATEMENT OF MIKE ELLIS, VICE PRESIDENT, KENTUCKY SMALL GRAIN GROWERS
Mr. ELLIS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congressman Lewis, for your support of agriculture and particularly from the State of Kentucky, with Congressman Baesler from Kentucky also. We are fortunate to have such willing people to see after a stronger U.S. agriculture here in the country.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I might clear up one thing for the record. I moved on from vice president of the Kentucky Small Grain Growers to president and now moved on to Promotion Board, where we are charged with the responsibility of billing out the check-off monies for the State of Kentucky from producers across the State for research and betterment of small grain growers in the State of Kentucky.
I would like to share more from my personal experiences, recognizing that many of the members of the Small Grain Growers in the State of Kentucky have farming operations similar to and problems similar to what we experience on our farm.
I have been farming for on the order of 28 years now in Shelby County. Initially we started by soliciting the help of the University of Kentucky Farm Analysis Program, and they helped to pattern our farming operation and management techniques.
I farm with two brothers, Bob and Jim. Bob oversees the dairy, 200-cow milking herd, and market or sell a little over 3 million pounds of milk per year, and then Jim's responsibilities are the hog operation, where he markets over 3,400 head market hogs a year.
All three of us have a B.S. in agriculture from the University of Kentucky. Jim also has a Master's from Ohio State.
I guess basically I cannot say enough for the effect of research and Extension in our operation. We have from day one sought their help. We have used their advice. We have sought their research. I was a part of a club in Shelby County, a grain club. By the way, I kind of went past the fact that I have the oversight on the farm of the grain production and the record keeping, but as a part of a grain club in Shelby County, we annually go to the university and sit down around the table with the researchers and talk about their research, what they are finding, and we interact with them every year. That is a valuable part of our winter schedule.
The Extension program has really been the major part of our success in the farming operation. We have, for an example, in the Farm Analysis Program realized early on that no tillage had a real place in the farm, not only from a conservation standpoint, but also from economics. From less trips over the field, less fuel consumption, less labor requirements enabled us to farm the acreage that we inherited in the family. My dad and uncle started in the 1920's farming and passed that farm on to us, and so we had a wonderful opportunity, a lot of resources, but how do we maximize the returns on those farms and be good stewards of that farmland at the same time?
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And so we were introduced through the Farm Analysis Program and the Extension Program, which sponsored Harry Young and no tillage in the western part of the State in the 1960's, and so we picked that up, and we used that.
We no till many of our acres today, and we keep the pesticides in place using that.
We have adopted the Ohio State's Sow Productivity Program through my brother going to Dr. Dennis Liptrap at the University of Kentucky and saying, ''There must be a better way for me to keep and select my breeding stock to keep in the herd,'' and so Dr. Liptrap was looking for somebody that would participate with him, and on the mainframe at the university he put the data in and started us out there.
Then that has developed our herd. We have now got that program on our own computer. We developed it on our own computer. We then have now gotten a commercial firm that supplies software that we are participating in the true Ohio State Sow Productivity Program, and we get a lot of service from them. So we are hiring more services that way.
Now, the Farm Analysis Program is also an interstate thing because they use the Illinois program as a basis for their program.
I could just go on and on about the benefits that we have received from the Extension Service and from the research that they do, but I want to get to the heart of my testimony here before you, and that is the concept that if we do not fund precision agriculture to the greatest extent that you all can here in the Congress, then I figure that we are going to cut off the Land Grant colleges from mainstream agriculture.
That is the direction that agriculture is going. We are going to affect all of the other issues that have been brought up here—pesticide use, keeping it in place, wise use of inputs, IPM Program, which we participated in and has had a big effect.
We are going to have better controls over all of those things. There is a fellow I visited from Hebrew University last week here on our farm from Jerusalem, Israel, and he could not get over the possibilities looking at one of the yield maps from one of our fields of what he could have his students do, the theses that they could write, just the breadth of what he saw in that data and the ability to affect change and a better agriculture.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We are going to see the ability to keep the pesticides in place we can program in the wintertime. As this evolves, we will program in the wintertime where the herbicides go and where they do not go. We can program on a card or we will be able to.
See, it is all evolving. The knowledge is there. It just has not been fully developed yet, but they are applying already fertilizers by using a PC card, and you program where to put that and what rate to put that, and if a custom fellow pulls in on your farm, a dealership, and tries to put fertilizer on your neighbor's field, it will not put it on because it is not in the right location.
So it gives me the ability as a farm manager to extend my skills by programming into that, my management abilities to farm more acres, to have control over the pesticides, have control over varieties, where they are grown. There are just all kinds of benefits that are going to grow out of this program.
And not to have Extension involved in this research that has been to a large extent developed from the farmer level, from the industry, but we need unbiased research being done and methods to apply. We need crop models to know where to reduce nitrogen levels. We are already reducing nitrogen levels and putting them on at the right time. Now we can take it a step further and only put on that which a crop model says is necessary for production.
So I would just like to urge you here today not to separate the Extension Service and to fund as fully as you possibly can precision agriculture in this new adventure or this new society or this new agricultural environment we are in. We are in the information area, or the information and technology area of agriculture as opposed to the nitrogen era where we are going to see major changes brought to agriculture from this application of technology.
So I thank you for your patience and appreciate your invitation for me to come and share my testimony.
Thank you.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Stauffer, Mr. Barrett mentioned that you were from Nebraska. He had another hearing that was going on in another committee. He was hoping to be back. Seeing that he did not make it, maybe he will before we have completed this, but he wanted to welcome you here, as well.
We appreciate your coming.
STATEMENT OF JON STAUFFER, AGRABILITY PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL EASTER SEAL SOCIETY
Mr. STAUFFER. Well, good morning. My name is Jon Stauffer. I own a farm near Melford, NE. I have been farming for 29 years. We run a farrow-to-finish hog operation which markets about 1,700 head of market hogs per year.
Also, we have 800 acres of cropland, and that is corn and soybeans.
I also have a disability. I have received services from the Nebraska AgrAbility Project and now volunteer as a member of the project's Peer Network.
I am accompanied by Randall Rutta of the National Easter Seal Society.
I was born with a rare bone disease that caused my bones to grow too quickly. From childhood to adulthood, I had over 20 surgeries, and due to this disease, I have lost two fingers on my right hand. I have had several bones in my neck fused and have had some hip problems.
About 9 years ago I experienced a stroke which paralyzed my left side, and I learned to walk again, but still I cannot use my left arm and hand.
When I was released from the rehabilitation hospital following my stroke, I had to think about how my life might change. I saw myself as a farmer and wanted to stay in farming. Farming was my way of life. It was not just a way of making a living.
My farm has been in the family for 100 years, and I certainly wanted to preserve it for my sons. At that time there was no AgrAbility Project in Nebraska. So I called the State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency for help, and a counselor came out to my farms to look at ways to accommodate my disability.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
They provided power steering for a small tractor and secured a speaker phone and other household items to make my life easier, but vocational rehabilitation staff were really clueless about my farm equipment and how to modify it.
It is this kind of a gap, in fact, that triggered the creation of AgrAbility 6 years ago. Farmers with disabilities like myself are falling through the cracks. An estimated 500,000 farmers and ranchers with disabilities were struggling in isolation using homemade, often unsafe modifications to stay in business.
With AgrAbility came practical assistance from people who really understand farming and disability. They recommended making changes to my pneumatic feed system that enabled me to shift feed from one bin to the other without having to climb a ladder.
They looked at the amount of walking that I was doing in my irrigated fields, which are hard to navigate since they are often muddy. They recommended an all terrain vehicle, which is called the Mule, which has 4-wheel drive and safely gets me all over the farm.
AgrAbility staff coordinated the purchase of a feed system, adaptations and a vehicle. The State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency paid for part of the cost to keep me working, and I paid the balance.
AgrAbility is effective because it is a partnership between a State Cooperative Extension Service and one or more nonprofit disability organizations. Currently 19 States are served by AgrAbility Projects, and Extension Service, Easter Seal Society, and Assistive Technology Project, and the Department of Health.
AgrAbility combines the agricultural know-how of the Extension system and the disability expertise of Easter Seals and others to help farmers with disabilities and their families overcome barriers to farming.
AgrAbility mobilizes public and private resources to help farm and ranch families stay in agriculture production or related work.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
AgrAbility promotes self-help by providing disabled farmers with information and ideas that are tailored to their unique farm operation and abilities.
Farmers are smart and independent. With a little guidance, they will do what needs to be done to stay farming. AgrAbility helps provide information and linkages that enable neighbors to help neighbors.
Immediately after my stroke, my neighbors planted my fields using a tractor and a disk loaned by the local implement dealership. Another neighbor, who is a crop duster, sprayed for corn borer at no cost to me.
AgrAbility allows neighbors to go one step further, providing blueprints so they can pitch in and help build a ramp for someone using a wheelchair or by working with local machine dealers to order and install hand controls and lifts for tractors or combines.
Federal investment in AgrAbility acts as seed money to encourage private sector support for disabled farmers and ranchers. Grants and donations of equipment, materials, and labor and recruitment of volunteers magnifies the impact of this program.
For example, the Kraft Dairy Foundation has contributed $82,000 over 5 years to help disabled dairy farmers served by the Wisconsin AgrAbility Project. In Ohio, Sears and HQ Home Improvement donated materials for building ramps for AgrAbility clients. In Iowa, ADM donated video equipment to enable staff to carry out remote evaluations. The Dole Foundation funded a mobile unit for making modifications on the farm, and the Kellogg Foundation provided funds to promote the prevention of secondary injuries to farmers.
Farmer organizations and commodity groups are active supporters of AgrAbility. In Michigan, the Farm Bureau employees contributed funds to AgrAbility through the United Way to buy and modify equipment. Illinois' Rotary and Elks members and the Wisconsin Cheesemen donated funds and referred farmers to the program.
Every AgrAbility project coordinates a peer network that involves farmers with disabilities as volunteers. As peer advisors, my friend Bruce Meyer of Ruskin, NE, who is here today, he and I travel across the State to meet farmers to discuss their disabilities, share ideas for ways that they might modify their operations, and offer support to them and their families. Expense that we incur as a result of these activities we pay out of our pockets.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
AgrAbility directly helps farmers, ranchers, and—excuse me. You can see it is pretty close to my heart.
Mr. COMBEST. That is fine, Mr. Stauffer. Just take your time.
Mr. STAUFFER. AgrAbility directly helps farmers and ranchers and farm workers with disabilities to succeed in agriculture. No other Federal program provides this specific service.
Please insure that the AgrAbility Program is continued. AgrAbility is a helping hand, not a handout. Tens of thousands of agriculture producers across America could use a hand. Your support is critical.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stauffer appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much, Mr. Stauffer.
Mr. Rutta, did you have a statement that you wanted to make?
Mr. RUTTA. I have no statement. I am just here to accompany Mr. Stauffer, other than to thank the committee and thank the Extension Service for being such good and interested partners in reaching out to farmers with disabilities across the country.
This program, which in terms of State funding involves about $85,000 of Federal funds coming into any given State, really acts as a catalyst. It mobilizes all sorts of private and public resources to come together and help these farm families, and we work with 4–H and FFA and Farm Bureau, and really all of the entrants that have been represented here today to help farmers stay in the business of farming, and it really is a major bang for the Federal buck.
And Easter Seals is really proud to be a partner with USDA and all the others in the agriculture community to help these disabled farmers stay in farming.
So thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much.
As all of you are aware, we continue to have challenges in dealing with Federal budget, which is becoming tighter and tighter, and as we do that, we will continually be faced with a challenge of trying to make certain that the services that are essential through USDA and through research and Extension and education are spent in the proper form and in the proper manner.
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I would like to ask each of you if you would comment on whether or not you feel that we would be able to or should continue the urban Extension activities at the expense of rural and traditional agricultural Extension activities.
Let's start with you, Dr. Robinson.
Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That is a very tough question that you lead with. Perhaps I could respond in two ways.
One, if one looks at the program funds that are going to agriculture and natural resources, that is still the majority of the programming. The States which provide roughly 70 to 73 percent of the total funding for extension have many demands on their program. Many of those are in urban areas, and it is, I think, somewhat important that the Federal partner at least be aware of those.
The States are going to move funds to a number of different programs, depending on what the State issues are. In terms of looking ahead for programming for Agricultural Extension, I think that the leverage that the Federal dollar and the Federal partner gets in partnering with the universities and others that you see represented here has been very significant to promote agriculture in this country.
Mr. CRABB. I think as Dr. Robinson has pointed out, there are a lot of pressing needs in each of the States that represent uniqueness in program delivery in each State.
In California, as Dr. Robinson pointed out, the majority of our funds are still focused on traditional production agriculture areas and dealing with problems that are very closely related to agriculture, whether it is air quality, or topics that are going to be issues that will impact the sustainability of agriculture in California.
What we have done in many cases is, as we look at these other opportunities, for example, work in urban areas and urban garden projects we have tried to think about how to work smarter. We have made, I think, excellent use of volunteer networks so that, in fact, our advisors continue focused on the high order educational activities, and that we develop a cadre of people that work with the University of California to deliver programs to a broader cross-section of the community, thus leveraging even further the investment that is made by the Federal, State, and local Governments, and bringing a lot of quality program effort to people in the urban areas without necessarily focusing a lot of fully funded people in those projects.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Chairman, we have a difficult time denying requests for information or for support in certain program areas, and one of the ways that we are getting into the urban environment now is with the green industry. It is the fastest growing segment of our economy, our agricultural economy, with about $1 billion annually spent on production, maintenance, installation of ornamentals, turf, and that sort of thing in our metropolitan areas.
But the justification, we feel, is that it is a logical extension of what we do in the College of Agriculture, and it is also an industry that has its roots or its base in the rural counties. That is where the production is. It is only the installation and maintenance that is done in the metropolitan areas.
So this is sort of a logical extension of what we do in the College of Agriculture and in Extension.
Mr. ELLIS. I think you have got a difficult situation, and I do not think you can be all things to all people, but, on the other hand, you want to help in any place and anywhere you can and reach more people.
So I guess any comments that I would make would be personal opinions. I know that in our county, that the agricultural base of the farmers provides much in the way of taxes, in property taxes for the county system, and it takes a lot of tax money to develop new development in the cities, and so they are getting already in tax development streets and new infrastructure developed for new development around the cities, and it is a difficult situation for you, I am sure, to be cut back in funding and want to meet all people's expectations and needs.
And so I can feel for your situation, but I have no real solution.
Mr. RUTTA. I would just say for the AgrAbility Program we found Extension to be a very good partner really in all areas, whether it is cities, suburban areas, or moving out into the countryside. The project was created because the infrastructure had so many gaps for disabilities in the more rural areas, in the remote areas, so that that is really where our emphasis has been, and that is where I expect it would continue to be.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Dooley.
Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, I would like to go in a little bit different direction for this hearing, and it really gets to the funding of the Extension Services, and I guess, Dr. Robinson, you have made a fairly general statement that of the Extension activities, about 70 percent is State and local and private, and 30 percent is Federal.
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, Mr. Dooley. Actually it is a little less than 30 percent Federal on the average. It does vary. You just heard the California figure is more like 19 percent, I think.
Mr. DOOLEY. Do you know off the top of your head what would be like a high and low for the continental United States?
Mr. ROBINSON. I do not have that off the top of my head, but I can give you in the 1890 institutions, for example, the Federal funding is primarily the source of funding for Extension activities. In some of the larger universities and the larger States, it is more in the neighborhood of 15, 18, 20 percent.
Mr. DOOLEY. Can the Department provide the committee?
Mr. ROBINSON. Surely.
Mr. DOOLEY. Do you have access to those?
Mr. ROBINSON. We do.
Mr. DOOLEY. I would like a State-by-State breakdown in terms of what is the Federal contribution and the local and State match.
Mr. ROBINSON. I surely do, Mr. Dooley, and had also agreed to visit with you in our last session. I think we are scheduled next Tuesday to talk about some of these issues in fund.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. DOOLEY. Perhaps, Dr. Lambert, in Georgia do you happen to know the figures in terms of what is the Federal versus State and local?
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. LAMBERT. In Extension budget, I believe it is about 18 percent Federal.
Mr. DOOLEY. Eighteen percent Federal, and do you know what percent is State funded and local funded and private funded?
Mr. LAMBERT. A little over 60 percent is State funded. We have county contributions to the overall Extension budget and also gifts and grants.
Mr. DOOLEY. OK.
Mr. LAMBERT. The county contribution is just slightly less than the Federal contribution.
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess, Dr. Robinson, going back to you, you know, when I do a little bit of an analysis of the Smith-Lever Act funding, the No. 1 State is Texas, which you would assume that it would be very high being the No. 2 agricultural State in the Nation in terms of gross receipts. But the second highest is North Carolina, which my figures show that it receives about $18.9 million in Smith-Lever funds. And yet it has an agricultural production of $6.5 billion, and that compares, again, with the State I am most familiar with, my home State, California, which received about $11.4 million, and that, again, is compared to the $18.8 million from North Carolina.
And yet whereas we have $22 billion in agriculture production, North Carolina has 6.5. You know, from just a layman's analysis of this, you know, how does the Department justify this?
Mr. ROBINSON. The Department actually distributes money under the formula base, which is Smith-Lever B and C according to congressionally determined statutory formulas. Those formulas have components that deal with both farm population and rural population.
For example, under Smith-Lever B and C, 20 percent of the formula funds are equally distributed among all the States. Forty percent is based on farm population, and 40 percent is based on rural population.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. Dr. Lambert, I guess maybe I would like to hear your rationale where we have Georgia, which is No. 3 in its ranking in terms of receiving Smith-Lever funds, which as I have, my figure show $16.5 billion, and these are 1996 figures. Yet Georgia's agriculture production, and again, this is 1995–96 figures, I think was $4.6 billion.
You know, how do you convince me that if I am making a Federal investment in order to further agricultural research and the utilization of agriculture research, kind of the goals of our Cooperative Extension Program, where we are investing, you know, $16.4 billion in Georgia which has an agriculture production of 4.6 and, again, in California we are only investing 11.4, yet we have got $22 billion in agriculture production; how do you convince me that this formula is in the best interest of the national objectives in terms of advancing agriculture's interest?
Mr. LAMBERT. Mr. Dooley, Georgia, like California, is a very diverse State. We have a lot of different agricultural enterprises, and we are in sort of a state of transition right now in Georgia, too, where our agriculture is changing almost on an annual basis.
As I indicated in my earlier testimony, we have gone from less than 200,000 acres of cotton in the early 1980's to 1.5 million. So we have to have a large base of expertise in place to try to accommodate these changes and to meet the changing needs that we see in the State.
Another factor that, I guess, complicates the situation for us is that we have 159 counties. So we have to maintain a county office in all oft hose 159 counties. That is the political expedient that we have to deal with on a State basis, and so that is also an expensive proposition to us.
But the figures that you use do not exactly agree with the figures that I had, which was about $10.8 million of Federal funding this past year, but I will not argue those figures with you.
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess, then, just before we leave this, and I will wait for another round 2, I guess from a Federal perspective, if we are making an investment of Federal dollars to advance agricultural research, why should we care that you have 151 counties? You know, shouldn't it be more of a function in terms of, you know, I will make an investment of dollars in order to get the greatest return to the agriculture industry as a whole.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Now, if I have States that have a whole lot of counties out there, which is elevating the overhead, then that investment of Federal dollars I am getting is going to show a lot less return. You know, from a Federal Government perspective, you know, why shouldn't I be asking Georgia basically to be showing a fairly similar rate of return on the investment of Federal dollars that I am asking other States? Why should I be concerned that you have 151 counties? You have got an infrastructure that is out of control.
Mr. LAMBERT. It should not be your concern, but it is our concern. It is something we have to deal with on a daily basis.
As far as the agriculture income, that is increasing in our State, and we have these dynamic situations that we have to deal with, and it requires a higher level of expertise in place to do that.
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chambliss.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think the answer is we need to quit sharing our research information with California, Bill. We need to just keep it in State. They started growing our peaches, our cotton, our pecans out there, and I think that is the answer to it, Cal.
You know, we receive information, I am sure, that is done in North Carolina on tobacco, for example, and I hope we are sharing this information all across the country, and I do not know that there could be any cause for concern about a direct relationship with those monies, but it is a good point.
I want to go back, Dr. Lambert, to something that Mr. Combest was talking about, and that is this rural versus urban situation. I know we have had some concern and some negative reaction about Extension offices located in urban areas, about ASCS offices located in urban areas, and I am sure that every other State has encountered the same problem.
What percentage of our programs, in addition to the two that you particularly talked about, are directly related to production agriculture? And how do these programs benefit the rural community? And, also, what percent of our programs are urban oriented, and what do our production agriculture folks think about our participating in programs that are strictly for urban areas?
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. LAMBERT. Well, that was a long question. Most of the programs in Georgia obviously are oriented towards production agriculture or issues that directly impact production agriculture, as the water issue that I talked about in my testimony in southeast Georgia, because it is an environmental issue. It is a natural resource issue, but it is one that directly impacts agriculture because it is the water source for irrigation in that part of the State.
In the last several years, we have changed administrations in the college, and we have had a dean that is refocusing our efforts on agriculture. So the vast majority of our programs now are directly in line with our college's mission of agriculture and environmental science.
As far as the programs that we continue to do outside of rural areas that I mentioned earlier with the green industry, it is an industry that is spread over the entire State. It benefits rural areas as much as it does the metropolitan areas.
Like Dr. Crabb said in California, Georgia has used that same model as far as delivering horticultural information to consumers in metropolitan areas using volunteers through the Master Gardener Program.
It has been a very efficient use of funds where we supply several hours of intensive training at a high level to volunteers, to Master Gardeners, and they, in turn, agree to return many times more hours to us to answer consumer questions. So it has been an excellent investment in time.
The final part of the question, what do the rural interests think about our involvement in urban areas? In the case of the green industry, obviously they support it because they are producing turf; they are producing ornamentals and containers that are shipped to the metropolitan areas.
The areas that we have been most criticized for are programs that we have been involved in in the social arena, and our college has tried to divorce itself from some of that by moving those programs into the College of Family and Consumer Science, which is outside the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So that programming is where it should be with its research base, and we continue to deliver some of those programs through our Extension offices, but we have limited that amount of program.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you.
I want to get into in the next round a little more detail on what I am about to ask about, particularly with Mr. Ellis because I think he has hit on an issue that is right on target, but, again, Bill, in your testimony you mention that horticulture agents are going to be networked electronically to develop a database across the State.
What kind of information is going to be networked and what is the importance of that type of technology to folks involved in agriculture?
Mr. LAMBERT. Well, the newer means of communicating information electronically make us more efficient. We can expand delivery of information in the metropolitan areas, for example, by creating Web pages that we do not have to have people doing it. So it is a fairly economical way to do it.
Using the volunteers that I mentioned from Master Gardeners we are developing a database that they can use to answer consumer questions, and this can be used anywhere in the State. I mean it is designed to decrease the work load in the urban areas. but it can also be used in any of the rural counties to answer consumer questions.
One of the most exciting things that we are doing right now, we have just received funding through a private foundation to enable us to set up a distance diagnostics network in the State where we are putting new computers, microscopes, and digital cameras in 30 counties strategically located around the State, and these will be places that farmers can bring plant material, insects, whatever, to the county offices, have images taken of them. If the county agent is not familiar with it, they can transmit it back to our laboratories on campus and have some of the scientists there look at it and give immediate responses as far as identifications and control recommendations if that is needed.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
This is the first year of the program. We intend to expand that program. In other years, we are looking at a commitment of about $1.8 million to develop this network, and I think we will see this expand considerably in the future. It is just a better way to do business.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Mr. Ellis, I wonder if you would share with us some of the things that you are doing with the University of Kentucky, Department of Agriculture in precision agriculture research and how it is benefitting you on your farm.
Mr. ELLIS. We got into the precision agriculture with the university as a result of a water quality study that we had participated in for 3 years, and the findings there were that the triazine levels 1 month after application were up near the limit allowable for drinking water.
So through this research, we are learning how to control the triazine levels, and they are doing water movements through the soil and finding out how much triazines are moving through the soils into the groundwater, how much runoff, what the triazine levels are in the water that are going down the streams.
We are set up to take measurements every so often automatically, where they are sampling the water flow coming off of our farms, off of our fields. They are going to be using this technology to control the sprayers as I alluded to earlier, to only put the triazines away from the streams, away from the water inlets into the groundwater.
They are doing population studies where they are varying the population and using the GPS technology (1) to sample the soils, (2) to also then harvest and record the yield on the combines, and so basically using the combine technology or the yield monitoring technology, we are able to turn basically the whole farm into a research station.
We can determine that there are differences in soil types, differences in nitrogen applications, differences in herbicides, differences in varieties, and we do not really fully have the breadth of what all we are going to find using this technology, but it is just really exciting to be involved in that.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Dr. Schearer, who is accompanying me here, is doing much of the research on the farm, and he might want to comment if the committee would allow it.
Mr. COMBEST. We would be happy to have him if he has some comments to make.
If you would, for the record, please give us your name.
Mr. SHEARER. My name is Scott Schearer. I am with the University of Kentucky in the capacity of a researcher in Lexington.
The thing that we have found is that as we move into the area of research in site specific agriculture or precision agriculture, we are needing to move from test plots on university research farms into a whole farm type scenario.
By partnering with people like Mike Ellis, it has done two things as far as our research programs go. It has expanded the opportunities that we have to conduct this research, and more importantly, it has also helped us to focus on what is important in the production scenario with respect to Mike Ellis and his problems.
This relationship has been very beneficial, and it is now beginning to spill over to other farmers within the county that Mike farms in. So we are seeing, I guess, effects that extend well beyond just the partnership that Mike Ellis has with the university at this point in time.
Thank you.
Mr. ELLIS. I would make a couple of other comments of benefits that I am seeing. It is exciting to be in a partnership. The funds that you give to research, there needs to be an accountability. I am sure you are wanting to be good stewards of the money, and in his projects, he has sought my counsel and also that of industry. So it is a joint effort between industry and the university and the farm, and we are working together.
And then like he was alluding to, we are disseminating that information out, but you have three people there that are accountable for the monies that are given to research.
I have a vested interest. I want to see that the research is done in a way that is really going to benefit the farmer, and particularly myself.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The research also is showing that we do not necessarily have to use as much fertilizer as we once thought. If we take more samples, then we find out that the universities are making a blanket recommendation for the whole State of Kentucky. That is bottom ground; that is river bottoms. Kentucky just has quite a bit of difference in typography and soil types. Our farm only has four different soil types. So we are finding that they are recommending 50 percent more than what is really required just to make sure that they cover the variability.
Because we can take one soil test here and another a foot over, and it is almost entirely different, and they want to make sure they have enough to cover it. So the thought is now that if we take more samples, then we are going to have a more accurate reading. Therefore, we can reduce that amount of fertilizer input.
And then with nitrogen application, Dr. Schearer is just starting into that research and using the soil doctor technology, and the thought there is that if we have a crop model, this year we had a lot of rains early. We are already applying our nitrogens late to avoid all of that rainfall which washes all of that nitrogen down the streamlines up and down Louisiana in the gulf, and then we have a dead zone down there that will not grow any fish. We do not want that to be happening on the Ellis farm. We do not want it to go down the Ohio River.
So we are looking at that, and then how do we develop a crop model that only puts on the nitrogen that is really needed for the remainder of the season for that particular variety, and so it is going to open up new avenues there in reduction and more efficient use and keeping us competitive really in the world markets in grain production in this country.
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Thanks.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Stauffer, I had a question. Actually, Mr. Rutta, it might be something on a national level that you would be able to address better, but in terms of the assistance through the AgrAbility Program, have you looked at or what would your thinking be in terms of a national grant program that would affect all disabled Americans so that you looked at it in terms of a broad base and the applicability of what might be benefitted from that rather than more profession-specific?
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Would there be, for example, benefits that the AgrAbility is providing for disabled farmers that also might have application that would affect people in other types of industry that would be able to benefit from the same technology, be it a tractor or whatever the case may be?
Have you looked at that in terms of this being on a national basis rather than more of a profession specific basis?
Mr. RUTTA. We certainly did. In fact, the genesis for this program came from the gap that happened to occur around agriculture because really there is in the Department of Education the Office of Vocation Rehabilitation, and then there are Department of Labor programs that really relate to disability and work and do cover really the broad spectrum of career activities.
Mr. COMBEST. But there was a cap in agriculture?
Mr. RUTTA. But those programs were not getting to the agricultural community, and that is really where this program came about, and the reason being that either the people in those other programs did not have the agricultural expertise or the background or the programs tended to be more city based or based where they are the greatest population, and you know, for those reasons the farmer was losing out.
And so that why we felt this program never needs to be a big program, but it needs to be just big enough to provide a hook to get that Extension expertise connected to the disability community and then out into the rural community.
Mr. COMBEST. Is it, in your opinion, adequate?
Mr. RUTTA. I think the program as it has been authorized and as we would like to see it reauthorized is adequate, but the funding level, of course, has never come up to the authorization level. So we only have 19 States currently being served every year.
It is a competitive grant process. States' Extension Services find a disability partner. They compete for funding, and in any given year about a dozen applications, meaning a dozen States, put in proposals that are not able to be funded because of lack of funds, and those are States like California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, some pretty significant agricultural States.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So we think that the authority that has been put in place and the way the USDA has implemented it is really quite adequate. We just hope we can get these programs in more States.
Mr. COMBEST. Is there a pretty broad network of volunteers that work within this program? I know in specific instances Mr. Stauffer mentioned certainly there were, but as a national program, do you find that there are a lot of volunteers who are willing to give of their time and expertise in helping to see this program move forward?
Mr. RUTTA. I will mention just from my perspective nationally, and then let John talk about his experience in Nebraska, but it really is a program driven by volunteerism.
There are two ingredients. It is volunteerism, and then the key expertise that really relates to that individual, that farmer, his or her disability, and the farm activity that they are attempting to carry out.
So if you can bring the expertise together with the rural community, that volunteerism is there. For Easter Seals, we have got hundreds of thousands of volunteers involved in our organization, and they have really taken an interest to reaching out to people with disabilities in rural areas, and that is one of the reasons why we are involved in this program.
So they get out there, and whether it is, you know, person power and they help modify a farm building or a home so that someone who now, you know, has a spinal cord injury can get into the house more effectively, to people working with bankers so that they understand that how is a disability now going to perhaps change the financial sheets for that farmer, that they may have had a relationship for a long time with; it is all different ways that people come in as volunteers to support farmers and farm families, but they are there, and that is what I think is most impressive about the program.
Mr. STAUFFER. Yes, I would agree. I was thinking that farmers are quite unique that they are so independent, and for myself, I was kind of offended when Voc. Rehab. said, ''Well, we may have to change this or that,'' on my brand new tractor. I did not like that.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
When AgrAbility came, well, Becky, the director, is a farm wife, and she knows what makes a farmer tick, and there is just a world of difference. That is why it is nice to be up here and go and meet with a farmer that you know how he feels. You do not have to tell him. You know, you do not have to have that, ''I know how bad you're hurting,'' and all of that stuff. You know, it is just we are on the same level, and I assume that they are probably just as egotistical as I am.
Mr. COMBEST. I was always wanting my father to make some modifications on the tractor I grew up driving, but he never would get that air conditioned cab until after I left. [Laughter.]
Mr. COMBEST. And I never could figure that out.
Mr. Dooley.
Mr. DOOLEY. I want to revisit this funding issue again. The Smith-Lever funds have been frozen, I guess, since 1962, I guess it was, the base amounts, and Dr. Robinson talked about the allocation, what it was based on then.
I guess the thing that I am interested in and what I find encouraging is both Dr. Crabb and Dr. Lambert, you both in terms of the State of California and the State of Georgia, in terms of the Federal dollars, leveraging State, local and private dollars, that you folks are both really close, around the 19, 20 percent level. I think you both are right there.
Again, from a Federal perspective, from a policy perspective, if we are trying to make sure that we are maximizing the investment of this Federal dollar to leverage the private and the State and local funds, should we not be setting some standards out there on Smith-Lever dollars?
Maybe it is not 20 percent, but maybe it is 25, and I would just be interested in your comments in terms of leveraging the State and private dollars.
Mr. LAMBERT. I think it depends on how you want programs driven. If you want programs driven by what people at the user level think they need, I think you have to be somewhat careful about requiring certain matches or whatever, and keeping in mind, too, that Extension programs are educational programs as opposed to service programs. So I think it is legitimate if you are dealing with a greater number of clientele to have more support in an educational program to reach those additional people.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. Go ahead, Dr. Crabb.
Mr. CRABB. You know, in California we have been spending a lot of time and energy on how to utilize our limited resources and how to leverage those as far as we can, and so the model of looking for partnerships just makes a lot of sense to us.
One of the things that is also real clear is that there is a wide variety of needs out there. I mean, the difference between California agriculture and agriculture in some parts of the country where the major commodities can be counted on one hand reflect some real challenges in terms of establishing Federal policy that does not use too wide of a brush, that allows for the unique nature of the individual States to be recognized.
But, you know, from our perspective, without the partnership we would not be able to maintain what we think is a viable program and what we believe is reasonably responsive to the industry needs, and so, it is just natural for us because it is the way we have been doing business for a while now.
Mr. DOOLEY. Dr. Lambert, could you clarify for me? I did not quite understand. Did you say that you were concerned that we should not have a requirement of a match? Is that what you said?
Mr. LAMBERT. My concern is how you require the match, I guess. If you set certain project objectives, and these are the requirements of Federal funding, if those requirements do not match what is needed in the States, I am not sure that we would necessarily want to follow those guidelines.
In other words, it would be easier to let the program demands come from the States up and give us more latitude as to how we leverage or how we form the partnerships Dr. Crabb talked about.
Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. So how is that inconsistent though? As a policy in terms of the Federal funding, if we say we will provide X dollars of Federal funding to achieve whatever educational needs the State of Georgia desires, but we also expect the State of Georgia and the local and private interests to put up a match that is not inconsistent with what you are saying?
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. LAMBERT. Oh, no, no.
Mr. DOOLEY. Dr. Robinson, you wanted to make a comment.
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. Let me start, if I may, Congressman Dooley, with the match issue because in Smith-Lever it has a dollar-for-dollar match in each State.
Mr. DOOLEY. But you need to clarify that. That is after the 1962 freeze, right?
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, it is dollar-for-dollar match for all the funds appropriated above the 1962 base.
Now, if I might, Congressman, get back to an issue you raised a moment ago because it relates to the question you have posed to me a couple of times and, I think, to these two gentlemen.
The underlying basis for the formula is a distribution based on rural population, farm population, and it is not in the current formula, which does not mean it should not be, related perhaps to the level of production, the dollar value of production of a State. It is a matter of looking at those criteria.
When they were originally set up, they were set up assuming that there should be some distribution of funds that went broadly to rural residents and to farm population generally as opposed just to going to a specific level of production or value of production.
Let me give you an example of that. If I look at the distribution. About 35 percent of the funds go to agriculture competitiveness and profitability, fairly clearly identified. About 11 percent of them roughly go to natural resources and environmental management, and there is always a little crossover between those two areas, just as these gentlemen have been talking through programs, because farmers have a great deal of concern in natural resource areas.
About 10 percent goes to nutrition and diet, and then about 18 percent to 4–H and youth development programs. Now, those programs are in every State, for example, in Georgia and are programs that are part of that ongoing program or California program or any other State, and that is perhaps where the rural population issue comes into play.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
There is about 12 percent that goes to family development and resource management, some of those broader programs we spoke of, and then about 6 percent to community resource and economic development programs.
So it is an attempt, and it is not real specific or real clear-cut because there are a lot of merging of those programs that are delivered ultimately to counties and to people who want them, but it looks at a broad base of the purposes that Extension was originally created to serve.
I think everyone would suggest that there is always a reason to reexamine formulas when they are old and see what they are doing and see what they are contributing to and how they are reaching the national goals and objectives that you identify.
Mr. DOOLEY. What is your definition of the farm population? I mean, we have USDA using figures in terms of definition of a farm that actually includes the 1.8 million. Around 1.5 million have gross farm incomes less than $50,000 a year.
Some of us, you know, would question whether or not that is actually a farm, and so when I hear 40 percent based on farm population, 40 percent based on rural population, what are your definitions?
Mr. ROBINSON. Well, the definition is the one specified, which is the Census definition, and the Census definition is anything over $1,000 in gross receipts.
Again, I did not set them, Congressman. I only administer them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chambliss.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me expand on something Cal is talking about there because I think this is an extremely important issue, and it is a problem that is mutual to you all in the research field, Extension field or wherever, and with us in trying to allocate dollars, and that is how we are going to get the best bang for that limited buck that is coming down the road, and obviously what we need to concern ourselves with is what is the problem that the grower is having that we need to deal with and how do you do that.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
And in answering that, I wonder, too, about this sharing of information across State lines and regional lines and crop lines. With our tomato wilt virus problem we have got now, Bill, if California does not have it, it is coming. If Alabama does not have it, it is coming.
So we need to be sharing information on that, but at the same time, we do not need all 50 States working on one problem. Could you comment on that and tell me what your thoughts are about how we handle that problem long range down the road?
Mr. LAMBERT. Well, in most of our commodities, we have regional groups that meet on a regular basis to discuss problems that each of the States are seeing, and the groups do a pretty good job of coordinating who's going to do different phases of the research, what types of research are needed. Most of the groups have Extension representatives attend to help guide what they are seeing in the field so that the research is going to be targeted. It is something that will be workable, you know, for the growers once the research is done and the technology is developed.
I think at the national commodities meetings these problems they are talking about. So things that actually develop as national problems and ultimately national priorities are looked at on a national basis, and I think the mechanism for coordinating these efforts is in place right now. I think we're doing a pretty good job of it.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Dr. Crabb?
Mr. CRABB. I agree. I think in large part the professionals involved in research and Extension have developed really a well-defined network where they do share information and where they do get together and come up with strategies on how to disperse the responsibility for research and Extension programs.
One of the unique things is that there isn't a State out there that has enough resources that they can go it alone, and so we're always anxious to work with our neighboring States or even across the country on issues that have some common value to multiple States.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
One of the pieces that is really critical though is to remember that the Extension program works well because it localizes the information. You might have a body of research knowledge that tells a grower to do X, Y, or Z. However, when you bring it to that local condition, much like Mr. Ellis has talked about, you need to modify that or adapt it to those local conditions, and that's really the strength of the Extension Program, is the ability to localize the research information to the farm, to the particular area of the State or particular area of the country, depending on the commonality of the issues.
And so having the ability to share ideas, to partition research activities, and then to move that information into the Extension conduit is really powerful, and having the Extension conduit move information back to the research core of the universities so that the right research is being done to solve the next round of issues that are going to be facing those growers.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Ellis?
Mr. ELLIS. As a small grain grower promotion member, we have been faced with the same situation that you are faced with, and we have check-off funds, and what we have done is ask for different States to submit to us what research they are doing, and in some cases we have supported other States doing research.
For example, Virginia has an excellent barley breeding program, and a gentleman there that is very well up on the genetics of barley, and so we have helped fund their project rather than fund in-State projects, but now that does not happen without a concerted effort.
I do not know how the Extension is structured, but without bringing together the different States to identify problems and even possibly have on that panel farmers to tell, ''Here is our main problem and how do we solve that? And who has already an expertise?'' We do not want to have to buy new equipment to do research that already is in place from some other project that has been done.
So that fellow might be maybe somebody in Tennessee or Arkansas, who would be a better position to do that research. So we are kind of faced with the same sorts of things.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chambliss, if I could add just one point to that, it also relates in Extension to what Extension creates in terms of what it calls national initiatives. These involve participation by a number of States, often all States to some degree or another, to insure that there isn't a replication of that information in every location, but that information is shared, and what California may specialize in can be utilized in other places or Georgia and Kentucky and so forth.
It is an effort to really focus on ways to put resources together nationally to address a specific issue. Managing change is an example of trying to leverage resources among States, along with the Federal resources, to begin to look at how to address specific issues of change: risk, risk management, changing markets, changes in Government programs that farmers are facing—an enormous difference in the environment in which farmers are making decisions.
Mr. ELLIS. One other thing that is kind of happening here at the farm level is that we are bypassing a lot of times the County Agent. We are going straight to the specialist that we want to ask like a soil scientist.
The Internet, we are using it more and more on our farm operation. We are using it between the colleges. It is just much more efficient than playing phone tag and having the specialist out in the field when I call him. I leave him a phone message, and then he calls out, and I am out in the field, but with the Internet, I can just type my question in, and I have had farmers coming to me now that we have the Internet and have had for a couple of years now, and I have asked the specialists questions for them and gotten responses and given it to them, and now those neighbors are on the Internet.
But if I want to know a particular thing or a particular research, then I go to that person. The University of Kentucky has put their research on the Internet. I had a farmer friend that wanted to put out a new crop of alfalfa. I just went on the Internet, pulled up the University of Kentucky recommendations for varieties and for the methods of planting and printed that out and gave it to my friend.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So the Internet I can see as a way of disseminating information and getting us in contact with the person that has done that particular research that we have a question of. I have been on the Internet and been into the University of Delaware and back into Purdue and Ohio State just looking up a wheat issue.
So it is just amazing what we can do, the information we can get. The searchability of the Internet just puts us right into the—plugs us into the question that we have.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for a final comment, I said I wanted to get back to something you alluded to earlier, and that is the precision farming because I think you are absolutely right. That is the direction in which agriculture has got to be going, and you have just answered the question that I was going to ask you about how can we expand that.
You know, for us to be able to pull up some question regarding a problem we are having in Georgia, and we know California has been working on this same problem, for that information to be available for our farmers right there is exactly the direction we need to be going.
And you are right. That is the type of Federal funding that we need to provide, funds that we need to be giving money for to be moving in a direction like that, and I think that is great that you folks are getting that advanced already.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Again, we appreciate everyone being here. We would invite you to submit any additional information that you feel would be pertinent to this series of hearings.
And thank you much and have a good rest of the day.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
TESTIMONY DR. WILLIAM R. LAMBERT, ASSISTANT DEAN FOR EXTENSION, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to participate on this panel this morning. I would like to summarize my remarks now, and submit a more complete statement for the record.
I would like to make several points in my statement to you today. I am sure you agree that cooperation between individuals, groups and organizations is critical to the successful completion of projects. And I want to convey to you that Extension programs are doing that.
It also is important that we have a continuing research and education effort that can deal with opportunities as they arise or problems as they develop. This requires that people be in place, trained in the techniques required to develop and communicate new
information, with the credibility that only time confers. The Experiment Station and Extension systems have provided this continuity and stability.
I would like to share with you several Extension programs in Georgia that exemplify the technology transfer function of the Extension Service and how they positively impact our clientele.
Georgia's ''Green Industry''. Georgia is a state in transition, becoming more urban than rural, but still relying on agriculture to lead its economy. In this environment, our College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences is trying to focus on agriculture and the issues associated with the strengths and resources available in our college. The emerging ''Green Industry'' is the fastest growing segment of Georgia's agriculture. Ornamentals and turf account for nearly $1 billion in production, sales, installation and maintenance annually. Georgia's
Green Industry is important across the state with production spread over many rural counties and sales concentrated in the metropolitan areas. To support this industry, our college has ongoing research programs at all of our main campuses and several of our branch experiment stations, as well as Extension teams to deliver new information.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Two new programs show the benefits of partnerships and drawing on existing resources. We are establishing a Center for Urban Agriculture which will be located at our campus at Griffin, 45 minutes from Atlanta, but will draw on people located throughout the
metropolitan Atlanta area. Extension horticulture agents are being networked electronically to develop a database that can be shared across the area. Volunteers trained through the Master Gardener program will man telephone banks to answer consumer's horticultural questions using this database, thus freeing professional time to
deal with commercial interests.
Another use of technology to extend resources is our Distance Diagnostics Project. Timely identification of disease and insect problems is critical to effective treatment and avoiding losses. In order to make more of the resources of the College available to the
people of Georgia, Extension is linking county Extension offices with the diagnostic laboratories on the various campuses. Digital imaging equipment is being placed at strategic locations throughout the state so County Agents can transmit pictures of suspected problems to appropriate labs for immediate diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Images will be cataloged and made available on the Extension Web site to assist clientele with future diagnostic questions. This $1.8 million effort is partially funded by a private foundation, but also draws on existing Extension and
Experiment Station resources.
Forest Insects And Their Damage Photo CDs: Vol. I & II. Forestry is a major industry in our state with forest lands held by large timber companies as well as by smaller, private landowners who are often farmers. The Extension Service is often called on to help with forest management problems particularly in the pest management arena. Extension faculty in entomology and forestry who recognized the need for having specialized information available in county offices developed a photo CD series. Cooperating scientists from Louisiana State University, Virginia Tech, the U.S. Forest Service provided pictures, information and support for the project. The result was a two volume photo CD containing pictures and information on 2,000 forest insect pests. To date, 700 sets have been shipped to users across the Southeast, other U. S. and Canadian locations and some overseas. The project was completed on a budget of
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
$12,000, and the revenue from sales of the CD's is financing the next volume which will be on diseases of trees.
Ground Water Management. Water quality is a major issue to all citizens of Georgia as well as our sister States and the entire Nation. The Upper Floridan Aquifer is the primary source of drinking and industrial process water in southeast Georgia, as well as the primary source for agricultural irrigation. Recently, concerns over salt water intrusion prompted regulatory action that imposed a moratorium on new or expanded agricultural use of ground water in the region. Georgia's Environmental Protection Division (EPD) held public meetings to determine the impact of its actions, and Extension was charged with informing the agricultural community about the hearings and their potential impact. As a result of this effort, the agricultural community pointed to the lack of data on water use to support the moratorium, the lack of alternative water sources for irrigation, and the considerable distance of agricultural use from salt water compared to the large municipal users and paper mills immediately on the coast.
Extension subsequently organized an agricultural water use strategy meeting to coordinate all interests affected by the water use issue in the region. Commodity groups, agribusiness, government and the University participated, and as a result, WaterStewards was formed to serve as a clearinghouse for information on water stewardship for Georgia's agricultural community. This group has met with EPD and successfully negotiated a more reasonable course of action. Each affected county will develop a comprehensive water use strategy assisted by Extension, and will institute a water use educational program. Research and Extension scientists will cooperate with WaterStewards and U. S. Geological Survey to monitor agricultural water use to develop a realistic database on which informed decisions can be based.
Georgia's Boll Weevil Eradication Program. The boll weevil has been a major limiting factor in cotton production in many regions of the U.S., and has been a particularly serious pest in Georgia. Lacking natural enemies, the boll weevil required repeated insecticide applications that were costly, disrupted natural enemies of other pests and posed a threat to the environment and man. Georgia cotton growers used over 10 sprays each season to protect their crop from insect pests at a cost of approximately $100 per acre.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Following a successful trial of eradication technology in Virginia and North Carolina in the late 1970's, Georgia cotton farmers indicated an interest in beginning an eradication program. The University of Georgia's Extension Service working with the Georgia Cotton Commission, Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgia Department of Agriculture, National Cotton Council and USDA began a planning process that included a major educational effort. Cotton producershad to be convinced that eradication of the boll weevil was possible, and that the expected cost of $105 per acre to be paid by the grower was a sound investment. The Southeast was suffering hard economic times from a series of droughts and other factors in the early 1980's, and any additional expenses associated with producing a commodity were looked at closely. But, after a successful educational program lead by Extension, a referendum was approved by producers, and an eradication program was initiated in 1987.
During the active phase of the eradication program, several major problems threatened to kill the program including serious secondary pest outbreaks and cost overruns. But perseverance by the program's supporters and trust by farmers allowed solutions to be found which enabled the program to continue.
By 1990, most of Georgia was weevil-free, and the benefits of eradication became apparent. Insecticide use declined steadily each year after the eradication program as producers learned better ways to manage their remaining pests. By the mid-1990's, fewer than three sprays were needed to produce a cotton crop in Georgia. Cost of cotton production was reduced significantly and yields increased. With this improved opportunity for profitability, more farmers turned to cotton, and acreage increased from less than 200,000 in the early 1980's to 1.5 million acres by 1995. It has been estimated that the savings in insecticide use alone accounts for $100,000,000 annually in Georgia.
The eradication of the boll weevil could not have been done without several key factors. The first is the cooperation of the organizations named earlier. Although the funding sources of these groups is varied, their focus on the betterment of Georgia's agriculture is similar.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Second, Extension's long term service to agriculture and the trust in this agency's commitment to farmers brought credibility to the eradication program initially. Later, when additional money was needed to meet unexpected expenses, Extension was able to convince producers of the wisdom of increasing assessments and continuing the program. Research and Extension scientists also were asked to deal with the severe outbreaks of secondary pests encountered during the eradication program.
Finally, ongoing programs in research and Extension were able to provide farmers with technology that enabled them to realize maximum benefits from elimination of the boll weevil. The concept of integrated pest management had been a major educational thrust of Extension prior to eradication, so the adoption of increased reliance on biological control was a logical consequence of eliminating of a key pest such as the boll weevil. Scouting, the practice of monitoring pest and beneficial insect populations to use insecticide inputs judiciously, was well established with Extension sponsored pest management programs used on 85 percent to 93 percent of Georgia'scotton acreage annually.
The boll weevil eradication program success story is a good exampleof the wisdom of having a continuing effort in place that can deal with new opportunities and problems as they arise.
In closing, let me emphasize again the importance of stable funding for people. Our tenure system essentially requires continuing support for faculty positions, but more importantly, continuity in programs demands that we hire competent scientists and county agents and allow them to function in a stable academic or community environment. The boll weevil program and salt water intrusion issue are good examples of opportunities and crises where Extension was able to play critical roles. The credibility of an unbiased, continuing educational program with ''nothing to gain'' by being involved, allows Extension to bring many players together to address issues.
STATEMENT OF KELLY RATHS
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
I am Kelly Raths, a 10 year 4-H member from Montana. These ten years of tremendous 4-H experiences have given me confidence, self-esteem, and self- motivation. However, I am not unique, but typical of those youth and families for whom 4-H was a central part of life.
It is an awesome responsibility to be a spokesperson for the 50 million people who have benefited from the 4-H program over its 80-year history, and the 5.4 million boys and girls, kindergarten to 12th grade, who are active in 4-H today.
Even before the passage of the Smith-Lever Act in 1914, 4-H existed as the tomato and corn clubs of the farm and home demonstration program. 4-H has been a continuous and integral part of the Cooperative Extension System ever since, operating under Smith-Lever formula funding.
In the early 1900's 4-H'ers were country kids, then the most deprived part of our society. However, in the early 1970's, the Congress directed 4-H to reach out and meet the needs of urban kids as well. 4-H has done so. Today, 47 percent of 4-H'ers live on farms, in open country, or towns of less than 10,000 population. Fifty-three percent live in bigger towns, suburbs, and inner cities. Nearly twice as many 4-H'ers today live in inner cities as the number who live on farms.
So once again, 4-H programs are reaching out to the part of society that needs it most. Interestingly, the most popular 4-H project areas continue to relate to agricultural and home economics topics. Thus, 4-H is teaching city kids that there is a back door to the grocery store!
4-H has always been about a great deal more than just agricultural education. The 4-H pledge I have recited so many times makes that clear:
I pledge my head to clearer thinking,
my heart to greater loyalty,
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
my hands to larger service,
and my health to better living,
for my club, my community, my country and my world.
On the whole, the racial-ethnic balance of the 4-H program is very close to that of the U.S. population. U.S. Census 1990 data show 80 percent of the population is white, while 74 percent of 4-Hers are white. Twelve percent of the population is African-American, as compared to 16 percent of 4-H participants. Less than one percent of the U.S. population is American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, compared to 1.1 percent of 4-H participants. Three percent of the population are Asian or Pacific Islanders, compared to two percent of 4-H participants. And finally, nine percent of the U.S. population are of Hispanic origin, as compared to eight percent of 4-H participants.
The Values and Mission Statement from the current National 4-H Strategic Plan states that 4-H creates supportive environments for culturally diverse youth and adults to reach their fullest potential, and allows individuals to unlock their potential through: active involvement in self-determination of their learning activities; quality hands-on experiences that stimulate skills for
living and lifelong learning; and relationships that empower people to voluntarily help themselves and each other.
All that is true. But we wouldn't have 5.4 million youth involved voluntarily in 4-H if it was not fun! For me and millions of others, 4-H redefined what fun is. I learned that fun doesn't have to involve spending money, high tech equipment or challenging parental limits or the law. Fun came in two forms: the aching of my laughing stomach and the glow of my heart having just done something that made a difference to me and those around me. The best times I ever had in 4-H included working long hours in the 4-H food booth at the fair, cleaning out road ditches, or taking animals to the retirement homes, then listening to the wild childhood recollections of the residents as they held the animals.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Every person is blessed with unique skills and interests and 4-H helps young people to explore these. Like going into a candy shop, and the reaction is the same, youth can experiment in areas of citizenship and civic education; consumer and family sciences; environmental education and natural sciences; healthy lifestyle education; personal development and leadership; plants and animals; and science and technology. About 55 percent of the subject choices 4-H'ers make come from the Biological Sciences; eight percent from the Physical Sciences; 23 percent from the Social Sciences; and 14 percent from the Arts and Humanities.
No matter what 4-H'ers choose to learn, they are building assets that will yield a lifetime of rewards. While I thought I was only learning how to suture a cow, I gained invaluable experience communicating with judges, thinking critically, managing time, and creatively thinking of ways to display what I had learned without using live specimens. Unnoticed at the time, but evident now, I also gained the assets of relating, caring, giving, marketable skills, character, and skills that lead to healthy lifestyle choices.
4-H is the ideal example of public-private partnerships at Federal, State, county and community levels. About 29 percent of Cooperative Extension funding comes from USDA, with the balance coming from States and counties. On average, 20 percent of the total public funding for Cooperative Extension is used in the 4-H youth development program. The total Federal, State and local government contribution to the 4-H program comes to about $280 million annually. Our national private sector partner, the National 4-H Council, and similar State and local 4-H Foundations, bring in roughly $100 million from highly dedicated corporations, foundations and individuals.
We are very thankful for the monetary support that we receive, but 4-H is mostly a volunteer program. By far the largest contribution to the 4-H partnership is the volunteer leadership of 450,000 adult volunteers and 125,000 teen volunteers. The average 4-H volunteer spends about 220 hours a year, drives an average of 400 miles in a personally owned car (more in Montana!), and spends an average of $50 of his or her own money. Using the assigned wage for non- agricultural workers of $12.84 per hour, 4-H volunteers contribute approximately $1.7 billion to the 4-H program each year. That means volunteers contribute cash and in-kind worth $20 for every dollar of Federal appropriations used in 4-H, or $6 for every dollar from Federal, State and county appropriations. It has been estimated that as a national average, it would take eight full-time staff to replace the volunteers supervised by each Extension worker. That would total 32,000 additional paid staff.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
So who are these selfless volunteers? Many 4-H volunteers are parents of members or former members. They stay involved not only to witness the awesome molding of their children, but because it strengthens the family. Through 4-H, my parents were able to pass down their heritage, values, and unique skills, as well as take on a few they never knew they had. I, in return, looked into my mother and father's eyes thinking they were the wisest people I knew; so thankful that they were always available and caring.
4-H'ers benefit not only from the knowledge from their parents and other volunteers, but from the research-based 4-H programs from the land-grant universities and USDA. The close connection to the land-grant universities is a uniqueness and strength of 4-H. All 4-H'ers, myself included, rely heavily upon the assistance of the some 4,000 local Extension Agents who are all university staff, trained in youth development.
Because 4-H is also a grass-roots program of county government and local communities, county 4-H Councils include teenaged 4-H'ers who actively guide local program development. Today, in addition to traditional 4-H Clubs, 4-H is playing an important role in school reinvention and reform. Last year almost 3 million youth participated in 4-H school enrichment programs. Most of these hands-on applied sciences are derived from agricultural science disciplines. Popular examples include chick embryology and Environmental Stewardship. The 4-H experiences help kids understand today's world, our food and fiber supply, and help them grow to appreciate and enjoy science. Increasingly, 4-H participants are taught using the 4-H experiential learning cycle of ''Do, Reflect, and Appl''; something we've known to work for generations.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by telling you briefly about an exciting new ''4-H Youth Voices and Action'' campaign which began last fall with The Ad Council working with National 4-H Council, Extension's private sector partner, our land-grant universities, and counties to recruit youth for community service opportunities. Beginning this fall, the media campaign, 4–H Youth Voices and Action, will involve TV, radio, print, and billboards designed, in part, by 4-H youth. Right now, Rapid Response Teams of 4-H'ers in counties are identifying these service opportunities. As kids see the ads and call the 800 number, 4-H'ers from the caller's community will connect the youth with the various service opportunities identified. 4-H has pledged that this ad campaign will recruit 300,000 new youth volunteers nationwide into service activities.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
4-H is very important to me, and I am very proud to be a beneficiary. It is because of 4-H that I am comfortable speaking before you today. As well, I have a family I am proud of and 4-H has established in me a tradition of involvement that I continue today as a Big Sister for the Big Brother/Big Sister Program, a Resident Assistant at my college, and an active member of my church. But please remember, I am not alone or unique in the gifts I have gained through 4-H.
In closing, one of my greatest 4-H experiences was being one of ten people chosen to represent agriculture in a press conference with President Clinton. After introducing myself as a 4-H member, President Clinton said, ''If all the youth of the United States were in 4-H we'd have half the problems we do today.'' I firmly believe that. I know too, with the dedication of those like me, and even you, we can see to it that 4-H touches as many youth as positively as it has me.
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Linda Reinhardt and I am from Erie, Kansas, in the southwest corner of the State. My husband and I have a small cow/calf operation and raise soybeans and alfalfa. I am Chair of the Farm Bureau Women's Committee and serve on the Board of Directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am here on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation to speak in favor of continued funding for a tremendously successful education program, Agriculture in the Classroom.
Agriculture in the Classroom is a systematic program of instruction. The goal of the program is to teach children about the importance of production agriculture so that they will have an understanding of where the food they buy in the supermarket and the clothes they buy in department stores come from, and what it takes to make the finished product. The program reaches children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade.
Agriculture in the Classroom began in 1981 from an idea discussed at a conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As Chair of the Kansas Farm Bureau Women's Committee at that time, I remember working with other farm organizations and educational leaders in developing the initial Agriculture in the Classroom. As America became more urbanized and the number of producing farmers and ranchers continued to shrink, it soon became apparent that there was an entire generation of children who had little idea of how their food and fiber was produced. Agriculture was and is a vital part of our existence, yet increasingly little was being learned about it. Agriculture in the Classroom was developed to fill this critical educational void, and remains today as the only program teaching this important subject.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Agriculture in the Classroom is not a federally operated program. The program was designed to be run by the individual States for incorporation into their curriculum. USDA's role is to act as a clearinghouse for information and ideas developed by the States for their programs, and also to provide resources and other materials to assist the States in developing accurate and complete curricula. As I leave Washington today, I will join other volunteers and educators at the National Agriculture in the Classroom Conference in New Hampshire to share ideas to strengthen the program.
Agriculture in the Classroom has also benefitted from the support of agricultural organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation. AFBF has been involved as a supporter of and contributor to the program from the beginning. State and county Farm Bureaus have worked closely with State education officials and local school boards to implement Agriculture in the Classroom in their schools.
While Agriculture in the Classroom has enjoyed the support of organizations like the Farm Bureau, it has retained its own autonomy and identity. We consider it very important that public educational materials not be tied to any particular private trade organization or interest group, and we have strived over the years to maintain our support for the program yet make sure that the program retains its independence. This factor has contributed substantially to the success of the program over the years.
And Agriculture in the Classroom has been tremendously successful. It has been adopted at some level in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. Teachers who have used the program have been very enthusiastic in their praise, and have provided excellent feedback on the continued need for the program in our schools. The program is not limited to textbooks. Many districts have come up with innovative ideas to provide ''hands on'' learning for urban school students. In Colorado, for example, urban high school students actually live and work on farms and ranches as part of their education. It is this type of cutting edge educational innovation that has made Agriculture in the Classroom such a valuable educational experience for students and teachers alike.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The overwhelming success of Agriculture in the Classroom, it has cost the American taxpayers very little. The USDA part of the program has operated on a limited budget of about $200,000 per year. This amount is almost insignificant when compared to operating budgets of educational programs of other agencies. USDA coordination and technical assistance is a vital part of the program. We would support an increase in funding for the program if it retains its present structure and focus on teaching about production agriculture.
Moreover, Agriculture in the Classroom has never been authorized by Congress. Instead, it has had to rely on the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture for its funding and vital presence within USDA. This status has cast a cloud of uncertainty over the continued existence of the program, because there is no guarantee that the program will be continued within the Department from one year to the next.
We urge the committee to consider a Congressional authorization for funding the Agriculture in the Classroom program to ensure its continuation as a viable program within the Department of Agriculture. The success of the program speaks for itself. It has demonstrated that it deserves Congressional authorization and a more permanent and certain future within our schools.
Agriculture in the Classroom provides the only chance for many city and suburban students to learn such basic facts as where their food and fiber comes from and how their food and clothing is produced. As our nation becomes increasingly urbanized, the continued existence and funding for Agriculture in the Classroom becomes even more important. The increasingly widespread adoption of Agriculture in the Classroom and the enthusiastic response from teachers and students alike attests to the success of the program.
We ask you to ensure the continued support of USDA as an important resource and clearinghouse component of the program. In order to maintain its level of success and ensure the continuity of the program, we request that:
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
(1) Agriculture in the Classroom be authorized by Congress in the same form and structure as it has operated since its inception.
(2) Agriculture in the Classroom be funded at sufficient levels to maintain its high program standards, and commensurate with its high level of success within our schools.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about this important educational program.
STATEMENT OF SHELBY L. PRICE, SUPERINTENDENT, JACKSON EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT
I appreciate the invitation by Chairman Combest to address the subcommittee this morning. My name is Shelby Price and I am superintendent of Jackson Education Service District in Medford, Oregon. My resume, which includes a description of our regional education service district, is attached to the written document.
AGRICULTURE LITERACY
We are convinced that a need exists to expand the knowledge base about Agriculture Literacy. The food and fiber system in the United States of America delivers over $980 billion to this nation's economy. Nearly 20 percent of the American work force is employed by agriculture.
The industry of agriculture is either ignored or is scrutinized by individuals and the media who most often lack understanding of the comprehensive issues surrounding Agribusiness in this society. Resources must be directed to provide an informed, educated and balanced view about agriculture rather than to be defensive about practices under attack. We believe that our education system is the most economical and efficient way to create an improved climate and understanding about agriculture.
Agribusiness has a long history of being superbly instructed by vocational agriculture teachers in high school courses and F.F.A. programs across this nation. The learners, however, are most often agriculture aware people who encompass a very small percentage of the total student population in our nation's schools. We need to expand the understanding and awareness level by utilizing the system, people and programs already in place.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We propose a Food and Fiber Curriculum oriented to sixth or seventh grade students which can easily be infused to the existing subject matter areas of science, mathematics, and social sciences by the regular classroom teachers. Support and professional development activities for teachers will be available from local high school agriculture-science teachers and agriculture trained elementary teachers. This support system will be available, but the extent of utilization is strictly a local district decision.
The intent of this project is to develop and provide curriculum significantly different from the traditional paper based format. We invision a Food and Fiber Curriculum using teacher, parent and student, user-friendly multimedia kits consisting of: Video Programs,Computer Work on the Internet, CD-ROM, Non-perishable Agriculture Products, Simulation Games, Study Guides, Creative Short-term Research Projects.
Topics for inclusion in the Food and Fiber Curriculum will be:
The Origin of Food, The Sources of Fiber, Environmental Services
Agriculture: Career Opportunities, Economics, Marketing, National & International Trade, Packaging, Processing, Safety and Sanitation, Technology, Transportation
As previously stated, the American economy is heavily dependent on agriculture. Too few people comprehend the impact of this historical industry.
Farming in America is still a family business. As the number of farms decline, so do the number of farmers, however, production per farmer continues to increase.
One American farmer feeds 129 people. Of this number 101 are in this country and 28 over seas. Our best agriculture customers are Japan, Canada, Mexico, Western Europe and Latin America. America produces 16 percent of the world's food on 7 percent of the world's land. When looking at the world, food is most affordable in the United States.
The history of our nation is founded on ''what's'' good for agriculture, is good for America. The industrial revolution appeared and people flocked to cities for new employment opportunities. Henry Ford developed the assembly line and later the term used in Washington was ''what's good for GM, is good for America.'' We think it's time to renew, ''what's good for agriculture, is good for America.''
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Since one American worker in five earns his/her living by agriculture, this proposed curriculum will engage in career awareness and career development. Students will examine existing careers and explore emerging opportunities such as: farmers and farm managers,researchers, food scientists, commodity brokers,economists nutritionists, teachers, bankers, sales, agriculture researchers, product packaging, marketing-domestic and foreign product transportation.
The Agriculture Literacy Project will also address political problems and issues surrounding agriculture. Educators can provide leadership to promote pro-active positions about the value of and need for, solutions to issues in this nation's most basic and essential industry.
Examples:
Immigrant Labor, a prevalent issue with fruit and vegetable production and meat-packing; Swine Megafarms, effluent discharge into lagoons, thus leaking into fresh water supplies; Federal Inspections-Meat Imports and Exports, Australia exporting kangaroo meat to the U.S.A. under the guise of beef, U.S.A. exporting horse meat as beef, The Endangered Species Actthe ramifications of irrigation in the western States
Agricultural Grazing on Public Lands, Food Safety, Mad Cow Disease-British Isles and suggested threat in U.S.A., apples and Alar concernsrestaurant sanitation and food preparation (e.coli bacteria) Water and Vegetation Issues,herbicide and pesticide applications
Public schools are responsible for providing a free comprehensive and appropriate educational program for all of the children of all of the people. To accomplish this, classroom teachers need a realistic teacher-friendly curriculum to be available to sixth and/or seventh grade teachers in Portland, Oregon, Dallas, Texas, San Francisco, California and every other community in the Nation.
Agriculture Literacy will not attempt to promote anything other than an understanding of land and water issues, as they relate to our nation's economy and future. Agriculture Literacy will not ask schools to add more teachers, additional classes or purchase more equipment. This instructional strategy will be designed to use technology as the instructional tool to impact students, parents and teachers.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
We are willing to work with industrial support from agriculture but we are not willing to promote commodities or to engage in environmental arguments. The goal is to feature agriculture and to use it as a teaching tool for understanding.
Program delivery will be augmented by vocational agriculture teachers serving as members and professional development specialists. Multimedia kits will be designed to engage the teacher and parents, as well as students. Video lessons (closed caption consideration), interactive CD-ROM, and computer instruction will replace printed materials of the past. The host/narrator selected for the multimedia presentations will be someone held in high esteem so as to present a positive image and identification.
Satellite-based Distance Learning and Internet availability with support materials, will impact classrooms and provide ongoing dialog between students, teachers and parents regardless of school district and geographic regions. Electronic field trips broadcast by satellite and/or ''Learning Channels'' will broaden the impact of the curriculum content areas throughout the Nation.
The Food and Fiber Curriculum will be congruous with State and national science, mathematics, and social science standards. In addition, particular attention will be devoted to State educational improvement agendas as materials are developed, field tested and refined for general use.
The following topics will require multimedia instructional kits for the Food and Fiber Curriculum:
Where Food Comes From
The Foundations of the Industry: Water, Soil, Sunlight
How Agriculture Goods Are Made Consumer Ready
Where Clothing Comes From
How Agriculture Impacts the Labor Force and Economy
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Agricultural Products That Are Not Eaten or Worn
Renewable Versus Non-Renewable Resources
American Agriculture's Role in World Trade
The Role of Technology/Education in Production
Employment in the Agriculture Industry
The original participating States will be Oregon and Texas, where existing alliances are strong within the vocational agriculture community. Agri-science teachers from Texas and Oregon have met to plan and discuss the concepts of this project. Their meeting sessions were held in Texas in conjunction with the spring meeting of the leadership of the Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas. Executive director, Guy Finstad, was a participant. Both States have made a commitment of time and money to cover planning, substitute teachers, research activities and travel.
Teachers from the pilot States will commit to develop a system, in partnership with the private curriculum firms, to provide inservice training and project development activities to school districts within their relative states. A goal is to develop a system which will serve as a national guideline.
It is our intent to cooperatively develop the first Agriculture Literacy multimedia kit Where Food Comes From and to field test those materials with 300 students in each State. Prior to this, however, we find it necessary to attend to an organizational structure and we propose and recommend the following:
PROJECT BOARD: A six-member group consisting of four vocational agriculture teachers (two from Oregon and two from Texas); an Education Service District superintendent from Oregon, and the executive director of the Agriculture Teachers Association of Texas. Project board members are not eligible for pay from project funds. They are eligible for basic travel expenses for essential meetings of the board.
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The project board will select a project director who will coordinate all phases of this three-year project. The project director will be responsible to the project board and will direct all project goals, objectives and operating procedures.
ADVISORY GROUP: The project director will establish a four/five member Advisory Group composed of representatives from Oregon and Texas: two grade-level appropriate teachers, one elementary school administrator, and one curriculum and instructional specialist from higher education. In addition, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee may appoint one member.
After the students from Oregon and Texas have concluded their studies of Unit 1 via the integrated curriculum, the advisory group will review all lesson plans, materials, and third-party evaluation data. They will advise the project director about next steps at that point. We expect to enter into a revision cycle of multimedia kit Unit #1 based on the professional recommendations of the advisory group.
As soon as possible thereafter, the revised materials will be field tested with an additional 300 students in each of the two pilot States (Oregon and Texas). At the conclusion of this activity, the advisory board will again review data and make recommendations to the project director and, by mail, to the project board.
If there is agreement that the project has developed quality products and processes, we would proceed with first-time use for 300 students in three other States. At the same time, development would begin on mutlimedia kits
Unit #2The Foundations of the Industry: Water, Soil, Sunlight
Unit #3How Agriculture Goods Are Made Consumer Ready
for field testing in pilot States, to be completed by the conclusion of the project, September 30, 2000.
At project conclusion we anticipate that private curriculum development and marketing firms will be ready to assume the role of distributor. Their product sales should include a clause which ensures a payback to the Federal Government. That figure should represent the total cost of the investment and be returned on a percentage basis over a ten-year period of time.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
This proposal to develop Agriculture Literacy and understanding by using our most basic industry as a contemporary teaching tool is not revolutionary or very creative. It is surrounded by simple, common sense.
It does not place new funding requirements on States. It calls for a slight redirection and utilizes existing staff and resources. Vocational agriculture teachers have an outstanding instructional track record. Perhaps this is due, in some degree, to the fact that these educators get to know each student three ways:
in the classroom, through student activities,through involvement with the student's family.
Vocational agriculture teachers will become resources and professional development specialists for the sixth and/or seventh grade teachers in their respective school districts.
This technology based curriculum will not be forced on any district or teacher. It will be a quality, up to date, useful tool, teachers will want to use.
The use of technology based curriculum, to impact students, parents and teachers, follows the educational direction of the Federal Government, States and most local school districts. Education has or is acquiring equipment and access to the wealth of information which is readily available via satellite, CD-ROM, video programs and the Internet. Let's use it creatively.
STATEMENT OF DR. BOB ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am Dr. Bob Robinson, Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). I am pleased to be here today to discuss USDA's education and extension programs.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned in our June 17 hearing that the administration has four principles around which we are currently developing a legislative proposal for consideration by this Subcommittee at the hearing you have scheduled for July 16.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
1. The Department of Agriculture and the Research, Education and Economics (REE) mission areaThe Research, Education, and Economics mission area is comprised of four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service; the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; the Economic Research Service; and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. invest in creating and strengthening the research and educational capacity essential to meeting national goals for the food and agricultural system.
2. The programs of the REE mission area are dedicated to maintaining world leadership and excellence in agricultural science and education.
3. The Federal Government has a distinct role to play in partnership with State and local governments and the private sector.
4. Wise strategy for public investment supports a diversified portfolio of funding sources and mechanisms as well as diverse institutions performing research, education and extension.
Mr. Chairman, in my testimony several weeks ago, I focused on the fourth principle—that a wise strategy for public investment supports a diversified portfolio of funding sources and mechanisms as well as diverse institutions performing research, education and extension. At our hearing today on extension and higher education, I would like to focus on the first and second principles.
First, it is the goal of the Department of Agriculture and the Research, Education and Economics agencies to invest in creating and strengthening the research and educational capacity essential to meeting national goals for the food and agricultural system. Second, the programs of the REE mission area are dedicated to maintaining world leadership and excellence in agricultural science and education. The extension and higher education programs of the USDA are managed within the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
CSREES Higher Education Programs
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, American agriculture is being challenged as never before to develop and use new technologies, to expand industrial uses of agricultural materials, and to operate in a way that is both internationally competitive and environmentally sensitive. At the same time, the quality of life in the United States is being challenged by threats to health, economic well-being, and family stability. Our success in maintaining world leadership in agriculture and in providing our population with the best possible quality of life depends on a critical mass of highly-trained and creative scientists and professionals dedicated to solving current and future problems. USDA's higher education programs are an investment in maintaining world leadership and are designed to strengthen higher education in the food and agricultural sciences. While the States are primarily responsible for educating our young people, USDA works in close cooperation with the higher education system to identify critical emerging issues, to establish national priorities, and to promote public and private partnership ventures for promoting excellence in education. Similarly, our USDA programs are designed to act as a catalyst for State and local initiatives to better educate young people in the food and agricultural sciences.
In 1977, Congress recognized the significance of educating scientists and other leaders for the future and authorized higher education programs at USDA for the first time in Section 1417 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Teaching, and Planning Act of 1977 (NARETPA). The NARETPA designates USDA as the lead Federal agency for higher education in the food and agricultural sciences. Section 1417 enables CSREES to offer a broad portfolio of primarily competitive programs to strengthen higher education.
Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago when this authority was created, America's agricultural colleges and universities faced declining enrollments, employed a maturing faculty with a shortage of new professors coming up the ranks, and had adopted an out-dated curricula that neglected newer fields like agribusiness and biotechnology. In 1977, the student population in agricultural colleges lacked diversity although women were starting to enroll in greater numbers, and the agricultural disciplines were failing to attract their proportionate share of the most talented students because financial incentives were not available as they were in other fields.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Because of the outstanding flexibility and breadth provided by Section 1417 of NARETPA to focus programs and policies on changing priorities, we have been able to address all of these problems and substantially solve some of them. We still have a shortage of students at the Ph.D. level in agricultural fields, but we no longer face shortages of undergraduates, and our undergraduates have a very successful placement rate. We now have strong programs in agribusiness, food sciences, and environmental sciences, and we are effectively training the next generation of faculty. Where we still face challenges is in gaining greater diversity in higher education in the food and agricultural sciences.
USDA's higher education programs include five competitive and two formula grants programs, as well as other important initiatives. They are:
The National Needs Graduate Fellowships Program, begun in 1985, which is targeted specifically to recruit and train predoctoral students in areas where shortages in expertise have been identified. The program is part of a national investment strategy to attract diverse and talented U.S. students to pursue advanced degrees in the food and agricultural sciences. The six targeted national needs areas are: animal biotechnology, plant biotechnology, human nutrition and food sciences, agribusiness marketing or management, water science, and engineering (food, forest, biological, and agricultural).
The Higher Education Challenge Grants Program, begun in 1990, is designed to promote excellence in education by encouraging improvements in curricula; promoting faculty development; expanding student experiential learning opportunities; using new technologies for enhanced instruction delivery systems; providing up-to-date equipment; and strengthening student recruitment and retention.
The 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program, begun in 1990, strives to achieve three major goals: to strengthen linkages among the historically black 1890 institutions and with other colleges and universities, the USDA, and private industry; to advance cultural diversity of the food and agricultural scientific and professional work force by attracting and educating more minority students; and to enhance the quality of teaching and research programs at the 1890's and Tuskegee University.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The Multicultural Scholars Program, begun in 1994, is designed to attract and educate more undergraduate students from traditionally under-represented groups for careers as agriscience and agribusiness professionals by providing scholarships.
The Endowment Fund and the Education Equity Grants Program for 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, (1994 Act) were authorized in 1994 and funding began in 1996. The Endowment Fund currently has a total of $9.2 million. Each year, the interest earned from the principal is distributed by a formula to the 29 Tribal and other colleges defined in the 1994 Act. The Education Equity Grants strengthen instructional programs in food, agriculture, and related areas by improving curricula, student recruitment and retention, faculty preparation, instruction delivery systems, and equipment and instrumentation for teaching.
The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program, begun in 1997, was authorized by Congress in Section 815 of the FAIR Act. It is intended to promote and strengthen the ability of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) to attract outstanding students and produce graduates capable of enhancing the Nation's food and agricultural scientific and professional work force.
CSREES' higher education unit also sponsors a national initiative, which is the online database of the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). FAEIS tracks a broad range of statistics on student enrollment, graduates, faculty, placement of graduates, and employment opportunities. FAEIS will be a significant contributor of data important to accountability of USDA's Higher Education Programs in the context of the new Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS) mandated by Congress in Section 804 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement Act of 1996 (FAIR Act.) The REEIS system is being designed to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to measure the impact and effectiveness of research, extension, and education programs according to priorities, goals, and mandates established by law, such as the Government Performance and Results Act.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
CSREES; Higher Education Programs office just recently started administering the USDA Ag in the Classroom program. The mission of Ag in the Classroom is to help students in grades K–12 become agriculturally literate. The objective of this program is to encourage educators to teach more about our food and fiber system and the critical role of agriculture in our economy and society. This new linkage between our Higher Education Programs and Ag in the Classroom will enhance opportunities for partnership ventures to promote excellence in education.
Youth Programs within Extension. Mr. Chairman, one of CSREES most widely-recognized and respected programs is a significant youth development program, 4–H. More than 5.4 million youth are participating in 4–H programs annually, with a focus on natural and biological sciences literacy, nutrition and health, civic education, youth involvement, community service, workforce preparedness, economics, and entrepreneurial education. We are working with our partners to increase opportunities for high school youth to participate in voluntary leadership roles with younger youth.
Other youth development programs address the risks presented to our Nation's children at an increasingly younger age: crime, drugs, and sexual activity. Since 1991, the Children, Youth and Families At Risk (CYFAR) initiative has worked with communities identified by participating States to focus on school-age child care, science and technology literacy, family resiliency, decisions for health, and collaboration—encouraging interested people and groups at all levels to work together to solve problems. The money provided by the CYFAR program has enabled communities to use many different strategies to support those at risk. Recently, CSREES entered into an interagency agreement with the Department of Army to address the needs of children living in Army installations around the world.
CSREES Extension Programs
In 1994, as part of the reorganization of USDA, Congress merged the former Extension Service and the former Cooperative State Research Service into one agency, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The mission of CSREES is to achieve significant and equitable improvements in domestic and global economic, environmental, and social conditions by advancing creative and integrated research, education, and extension programs in food, agricultural, and related sciences in partnership with both the public and private sectors.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The partnership includes the Cooperative Extension Services (CES) and 103 Land Grant institutions. This partnership links the education and research resources of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the land-grant universities with 3,150 county and administrative units throughout the country. CSREES is a Federal partner in a partnership that also includes the 59 State and Territorial Agricultural Experiment Stations; the 17 1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee University; the 63 Forestry Schools; the 27 Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; 42 Schools of Home Economics; and the 29 Native American Institutions which now have land-grant status. In addition to the land-grant partners, CSREES has partners in virtually all segments of the agricultural community, including private and public colleges and universities; Federal laboratories; private industry; State, county, and local governments and entities; and individuals.
In creating CSREES, Congress intended that CSREES create stronger linkages between research and education. Examples of integrated research and extension programs are water quality, sustainable agriculture, integrated pest management (IPM), and pesticide impact assessment. Achieving our Federal goals requires cooperation with the university system and other partners. In the integrated pest management program, for example, IPM research and education conducted at Texas A&M has saved the economy $1.5 billion per year and reduced the use of pesticides and insecticides by 17.3 million pounds. Adoption of IPM practices in cotton production has cut in half annual insecticide applications in Missouri. Using fewer insecticides, Tennessee cotton growers boosted net profits by an average $19.72 an acre. IPM techniques developed at Louisiana State University allowed cotton growers to cut insecticide applications by 25 percent for a savings of $32 million.
The President's Food Safety Initiative, which is part of the administration's FY98 Budget Request, includes a total of $9.1 million for USDA with $4.0 million in CSREES research and extension. This is our most recent example of an effort to integrate research and extension objectives. Consumers demand and should be assured a safe food supply. Both research and extension have the potential to help reduce or eliminate food-borne risks by: developing methods to minimize risks in animal and plant production practices; identifying and promoting appropriate pre- and post-harvest practices; testing and introducing new methods at meat and poultry plants to reduce the incidence of pathogens under the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; by developing and promoting safe transportation and distribution practices; and, by conducting research on consumer behaviors and what will effectively encourage consumers to adopt safe food handling practices.
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Food safety research is funded under our National Research Initiative and is also a CES National Initiative. In managing these programs, we strive to link the multi-disciplinary research from diverse sectors to solve complex food safety issues to provide the basis for new training programs, which should reduce the incidence of food-borne disease.
The Midwest Water Quality Initiative (also called the Management System Evaluation Area (MSEA) project) is supported by the research and extension water quality programs of CSREES as well as other Federal agencies. The initiative has contributed to many improvements in water quality in major agricultural production areas with producers involved with scientists and extension personnel in designing and field testing alternative farming systems. In Iowa, for example, producers have developed greater understanding of practices to improve efficient nitrogen use; to reduce surface runoff (which in turn reduces the transfer of fertilizer into the water table); to better use buffer and filter strips to improve surface water quality run-off into streams; and to efficiently manage application of herbicides to reduce their presence in the environment and change the pattern of movement in the landscape.
Extension's Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) very effectively teaches nutrition to low-income audiences in all 50 States and territories. Nationwide, evaluations of the program report:
85 percent of program participants said they improved management skills, such as planning meals and comparing prices;
91 percent of participants reported improved nutrition practices such as making healthy food choices and reading nutrition labels; and
66 percent said they improved food safety practices.
The evaluations demonstrate that the EFNEP program is accomplishing its goals that program participants make wiser food choices resulting in more efficient use of household funds and make more nutritious choices resulting in a better balanced diet.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Funding Authorities for Extension Programs
Extension programs are authorized by the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, the National Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended, the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, and companion legislation in each State and territory. The Cooperative Extension System (CES) is funded jointly by Federal, State, territory, and local government funds, with the majority (over 70 percent ) provided by the two nonFederal partners.
Extension base programs are supported by Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) funds, which are distributed to the States based on a statutorily-defined formula. Base funds represent a significant Federal investment in educational and problem-solving capacity of Land-Grant Institutions. Programs funded through base funds comprise the core mission of the CES. They are dynamic, results-oriented educational activities that receive significant resources from the national, State, and local levels. Each base program focuses on a single subject-matter but encompasses multiple disciplines. The current base programs are:
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Management, Nutrition, Diet and Health, Community Resources and Economic Development, 4–H and Youth Development, Family Development and Resource Management, Leadership and Volunteer Development
The national initiatives of the CES are funded both from base programs Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) funds and Smith-Lever 3(d) funds and receive a special emphasis for a limited period of time. As issues develop that warrant national attention, USDA and CES jointly select initiatives relevant to the extension mission. The current national initiatives are: Children, Youth and Families at Risk, Managing Change in Agriculture, Food Safety and Quality, Communities in Economic Transition, Water Quality, Sustainable Agriculture, Decisions for Health
Extension as an Agent of Change. Mr. Chairman, the value-added of the Cooperative Extension System is its ability to design, develop, and deliver educational programs that meet the unique needs of local people as they adjust to change. In every State, the number and type of educational programs are determined largely by land grant university extension faculty working with stakeholders to solve their problems and take advantage of opportunities associated with scientific and technical advances and major changes in the agricultural sector. Extension's ability to leverage change for the benefit of producers and consumers depends on active partnerships and input from stakeholders. We accomplish these goals through strategic planning and development of research and education programs in cooperation with our partners.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
For agriculture to remain a vital part of the Nation's global economy, 21st century producers must have access to the most current technology, skills and knowledge. In the context of the most recent change for American producers—the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm Bill)—we are focusing on improving agricultural productivity, creating new products, protecting animal and plant health. Extension is developing programs to implement the Managing Change in Agriculture initiative in order to:
help farmers better understand and manage risk; encourage diverse crops and diverse approaches to farming; find ways of working land that sustain agriculture and rural communities; help farmers select and manage information effectively; discover and explore potential new markets; and give farmers the tools—new products, new practices, new methods of business organization—to compete successfully in the global marketplace.
To maintain and improve agricultural competitiveness, these programs are designed to help agricultural producers develop and implement business procedures to take advantage of new marketing opportunities and manage increased risks inherent in their changing environment, such as changes in government commodity price support, disaster assistance and crop insurance programs. These programs also recognize the interdependence of all players in a product pipeline—from providers of animal genetics to sellers of consumer-ready beef, pork, poultry and dairy products.
A critical function—and continuing challenge—of the CES is efficient technology transfer. The research and technology base of the Land Grant universities provides the foundation for Extension programs, and that base enables CES to effectively respond to site-specific needs of stakeholders and communities. One of the strengths of CES—its flexibility—has allowed extension to respond to changing needs and demographics, advancing technologies, and changing environments. As a result, CES has increasingly operated as an information broker to disseminate research results to those who need the information to solve practical problems. CES is actively exploring new developments in information technology, such as use of the Internet, to more efficiently disseminate research results to the broadest possible audience.
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
CES also responds to the challenges faced by States in rural and urban communities, such as the recent changes in welfare legislation and the feeding programs. Just last April, CSREES, the Land Grant Universities, and other Federal agencies jointly sponsored a workship to assist in mobilizing the resources of State universities and Land Grant colleges to successfully implement welfare reform legislation and provide people with the skills needed to move from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. The workshop resulted in a plan for coordinated national research and extension outreach education, which would: 1) monitor State and local responses to Federal legislation, focusing on gains and losses resulting from Federal program decentralization and policy deregulation; (2) measure the social and economic implications of welfare reform on children, youths, families, and communities; and (3) enhance the well-being of children, youths, families, and communities. Our programs focus on promoting human health and nutrition, strengthening children, youth, and families, and revitalizing rural American communities.
Other Innovative Partnerships. CSREES also is working to leverage existing Federal programs at USDA and other Federal agencies to provide more and better services for our customers. For example:
(1) We are working with Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and EPA and the private sector to design and conduct a series of workshops in the Fall of 1997 to explore opportunities to strengthen linkages between agricultural productivity and natural resource conservation. We hope to act as a catalyst to spur development of new, broader coalitions which can work together to achieve a competitive and environmentally sustainable agriculture and forestry production system.
(2) CSREES and the National Institute on Standards and Technology (NIST) are developing pilot projects linking CES with university partners to provide technical assistance to rural manufacturers in support of rural development objectives; evaluating organizational approaches to better facilitate university, CES, and manufacturing center collaboration; and exploring development of a memorandum of understanding between NIST and USDA to promote closer cooperation among agencies involved in rural economic development.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
(3) CSREES has under development an interagency agreement with the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education to cooperate to provide economic opportunities and supportive services to public housing and other residents in communities impacted by welfare reform. HUD and HHS each are making $2.5 million available in grant funds to support competitive grant programs—the Community Partnership for Resident Uplift and Economic Development —which will help support economic development, job creation, employment readiness activities and coordinated social services. Through this partnership, State and local Extension Services will provide youth and family extension education in the participating sites.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing. I plan to present a comprehensive overview of the administration's position on reauthorization of the research, education, and extension title at the hearing next week. I would be happy to answer any questions about our programs.
TESTIMONY OF DR. A. CHARLES CRABB, DIRECTOR, SOUTH CENTRAL REGION, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to speak about the important work of Cooperative Extension. I am Dr. Charles Crabb, Director of the University of California's Agriculture and Natural Resources Programs in the South Central Region of the State. This region includes the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolumne. These include six of the ten leading agricultural counties in the United States. I am here today on behalf of the University of California and its Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Division spans the entire State with three colleges of agricultural sciences, a school of veterinary medicine, ten research and extension centers, more than 50 county based Cooperative Extension offices, and a natural reserve system with over 30 sites.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
My testimony today will focus on a few examples of the many partnerships between University of California Cooperative Extension and the private sector. These are critical for sustaining California's broad based and dynamic agriculture economy which generates $22 billion in annual revenue and accounts for nearly one of every 10 jobs in the State. Since this subcommittee is in the midst of mapping out the future of Federal support of Cooperative Extension through the reauthorization of Title VIII of the Farm Act, I will also summarize for you the Division's recently released strategic plan, a framework for making critical decisions on managing our budgets, time, and organizational structure with limited resources.
First of all, however, I would like to draw attention to the rich land-grant tradition of the University of California's Cooperative Extension. Since enactment of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, University of California Cooperative Extension has been engaged in taking the University to the people of California. The early role of the advisor in the University of California Cooperative Extension program involved solving local farm problems through localized applied research and regular demonstrations at farm centers, which were often local school houses, and required traveling long distances down dusty roads for personal visits with farmers and rural communities.
The roots of some of the States most notable commodities such as citrus, nuts, grapes, and vegetables took firm hold during the second decade of this century when University of California Cooperative Extension advisors brought the latest discoveries in pruning techniques, pest management, irrigation and soil management to the rural majority of California's population. The 20th century represents an era of booming growth for California agriculture, and the University of California Cooperative Extension program has been there throughout, helping to set record levels of production in good seasons and stave off disaster during droughts, floods, and insect infestations—and we have had our share of all three.
From the beginning, however, the Cooperative Extension program in California has been about more than just farm production. Early farm advisors were active in campaigns for better roads and rural electrification, established lunch programs in rural schools, helped people improve food handling and safety, gave people a better understanding of nutrition, and set up portable fire fighting units for the public to use to battle range fires during the dry summer months. Those first farm advisors also began youth agricultural clubs as an after school activity, a forerunner of the 4–H clubs that we have now.
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Today, with a total budget of approximately $64 million (61 percent State, 19 percent Federal, and 20 percent local government and private), UC Cooperative Extension operates in an environment vastly different from that of the pioneering farm advisors of 1914 who worked in a State of 2.4 million people with 110,000 farms. Agriculture is still the State's leading economic generator, with farm gate production totaling about $22 billion. However, less than 2 percent of Californians are directly involved in farming today. In fact, more than 90 percent of the States 32 million residents reside in urban areas.
But while times have changed, the expectations of the Cooperative Extension program remain the same-ensuring safe and efficient food production, preserving the natural environment and resources, and contributing to strong homes, families and youth. Each of the residents in the State of California benefits each day both directly and indirectly from the impacts of the University of California Cooperative Extension programs, be it through abundant and safer food supplies, reduced food costs (freeing people to spend money in other segments of the economy), better water quality, increased water quantities, improved air quality or better natural resources management practices. The goals of improving the quality of life for people both on and off the farm in a time of limited resources and growing demand (California's population is projected to double to 63 million by 2040) present challenges that are met in part through expanding partnerships with the private sector.
Examples of Partnerships. The first illustration of an effective partnership with the private sector is the combined effort of the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine, California Milk Advisory Board, Pharmacia-Upjohn, and US Department of Agriculture in the development of a vaccine against the deadly E. coli mastitis. The vaccine was developed, field tested, and made available through commercial channels. The close link between research and extension accelerated the adoption of the new vaccine within the dairy industry. It is estimated that the use of the vaccine saves the California dairy industry as much as $11 million annually, the United States dairy industry over $50 million annually and helps to ensure a constant supply of low cost and safe milk to consumers. It is clear that the partnership with other agencies and the private sector provide significant benefits to the taxpayer.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The value of public/private partnerships is also illustrated by the research and extension advancements made possible by the development of a state-of-the-art post harvest fruit handling facility at the UC Lindcove Research and Extension Center in Tulare County. Lindcove is the premiere citrus research facility in the San Joaquin Valley. A modern fruit handling facility was developed with funding from the California citrus industry. Identification of critical issues by county based Cooperative Extension advisors helps to drive applied research at the facility. Research by both campus-based faculty and county-based advisors contributes to the success of the partnership. Early benefits from this partnership include new fruit handling processes that can be used to allow growers to reduce dependence on field applied insecticides. Consumers benefit from the increased supply of high quality fruit and lower levels of pesticide use.
The third example involves another field research facility. A number of years ago the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the USDA determined that it was not possible to keep its Shafter Cotton Research Station open. Shortly thereafter, representatives of the cotton industry in the southern San Joaquin Valley approached the University of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources with a plan to re-open the station. Today, the Shafter Research and Extension Center is operated by the University of California and funded by the cotton industry. This partnership with the private sector has allowed the University of California to focus on funding the human resources necessary to conduct the applied research at the Center and has fostered restored participation by ARS. Representatives from the cotton industry work closely with the University of California to help ensure the highest priority research is carried out at the Research and Extension Center. The continuum between basic research on campus, applied research at facilities like the Shafter Research and Extension Center and the county based Cooperative Extension programs has been enhanced by the private sector participation in this partnership. This public/private partnership has benefited the public with research results that have reduced industry dependence on pesticides, improved air quality with changes in defoliation practices and increased efficiencies in water used to produce cotton.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The Future: The Challenge of Change. Two months ago, the Division Agriculture and Natural Resources released a strategic plan entitled ''The Challenge of Change.'' I have submitted a copy of this plan for the Committee record. The plan articulates our vision for continued contributions to the State, the Nation and the world, and our expectation of an evolving organization to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It recognizes that resources are scarce, and the achievement of our goals requires us to do more with the limited resources available to us, set priorities, and consult regularly with our stakeholders.
In developing the Strategic Plan, we considered interrelated trends which have profound implications for the Division's scientific and educational expertise. These trends are projected to continue into the next century:
The urbanization of California; Accelerated population growth in the State and the world; Increasing competition for land and other natural resources; Threats to environmental quality and rising public concern about environmental health and food safety; Increasing cultural diversity and the socio-economic stratification of California's population; A global economy, interdependence among agricultural and natural resource systems around the world, and increasing international trade; Continuing advances in information systems and communication technology; Continuing restructuring of local, State, and Federal Government; Changes in governmental regulations and their influence on agricultural production, and on landscape and natural resource management.
The development of a strategic plan to serve as an iterative and on-going guide to respond to these challenges required the input of hundreds of scientists, educators, and stakeholders over a period of two years. The resulting ''Challenge of Change'' plan includes both program priorities and organizational management strategies and incorporates the following themes:
An inclusive, accountable and visible process for resource allocation; A mission-based reward system; Special awards to recognize programmatic and organizational excellence; Updated communication infrastructure; A broadened funding base, enhancing existing resources and including new funding sources; More effective use of volunteer programs;More effective public relations and external communications with stakeholders and decision makers.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The strategies and themes center around a set of generalized priorities for the mid-term future: agricultural productivity, efficiency and sustainability; pest and disease management; integrity and sustainability of biological systems; watershed management; water allocation and management; human resource development; and community development. Putting the strategies into action will involve a number of mechanisms ranging from immediate implementation by administrators to long-term action through task force guidance.
A decision has been made within the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources to involve a broad range of stakeholders in the review of our strategic planning efforts. The goal is to ensure our sense of the future is reasonable and that our priorities align well with the needs of those who will feel the impacts of our programs. Since the release of the ''Challenge of Change'' we have conducted four stakeholder input sessions in different regions of the State. This involvement of stakeholders in our planning represents a continuing process to insure input into our plans and priorities.
CONCLUSION. The reauthorization of Title VIII of the Farm Act presents those of us involved in agricultural education, research, and extension an opportunity to improve a system which over the years has proven its ability to adapt and succeed. There will, of course, be debates over whether the original land-grant agricultural mission goals have been achieved. After all, production of agriculture crops has evolved to be extremely efficient; most Americans eat well, and our food supply is safer than it has ever been.
On the other hand, new problems continue to emerge, such as the emergence of new plant pests. Protection of soil, water, air and other natural resources will become more challenging as a growing population pushes the urban and suburban boundaries on to farm land. With a move away from Federal crop support programs, economic risks associated with agriculture production will increase.
Increased knowledge is one way of mitigating those economic risks and helping to ensure a reasonably constant and low cost supply of domestically produced food. Continued public support of agriculture education, research and extension programs will be critical in providing the increased research based knowledge necessary to sustain the substantial economic contribution agriculture makes to California and other States. To remain competitive in this modern and complex time, agriculture will need to rely as much on knowledge about social, economic, and political issues as they do on breakthroughs in agricultural science. The University of California Cooperative Extension program is choosing to be there in the future to serve the State's needs on production-related matters, and at the same time maintain an emphasis on human health, food distribution, food safety, natural resource conservation, and helping to generate the research based information to assist in solving societal problems in rural communities and inner cities.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the importance of Cooperative Extension. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
EASTER SEAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASSISTING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE THROUGH THE USDA AGRABILITY PROGRAM
Good Morning. My name is Jon Stauffer. I own a farm near Milford, Nebraska, and have been farming for twenty-nine years. I run a farrow-to-finish hog operation, raising 1700 market hogs per year, and grow 800 acres of corn and soybeans. I also have a disability and have received services from the Nebraska AgrAbility Project. I now serve on the Project's Peer Advisory Network. In my experience, represents a wise investment of Federal seed funds in a public-private partnership that mobilizes and maximizes State and local resources to help disabled farmers to help themselves. It directly benefits farmers with disabilities, their families, and their communities.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk to the Subcommittee about the AgrAbility Program. I am accompanied by Randall Rutta, Vice President for Government Relations for the National Easter Seal Society, and am pleased to share Easter Seals' views with the Subcommittee.
I was born with a rare bone growth disease that caused my bones to grow too quickly. From childhood to adulthood, I had more than twenty surgeries. Due to this disease, I have lost two fingers on my right hand, have had several bones fused in my neck, and have some ongoing problems with my hips.
Nine years ago, at the age of 40, I experienced a stroke, which paralyzed my left side. At first, I could not walk and had to use a wheelchair. But, with therapy, I have regained my ability to walk and to slowly use stairs. I cannot run or climb a ladder. Unfortunately, I did not recover the use of my left arm and hand, which before the stroke, were dominant. I had to learn to use my right hand for everything, even with the missing two fingers.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
When I was released from the rehabilitation hospital following my stroke, I had to think about how my life might change. That first spring, neighbors helped plant my crops, and a hired man and friends kept them irrigated. I asked my sons to assume many duties on the farm; duties that I ordinarily would have performed myself. Throughout the summer, I feared that this would be the last time that I would watch corn grow in my fields or bring in the harvest in the fall. My farm has been in the family for 100 years. I saw myself as a farmer, and wanted to preserve the farm for my sons. But mostly, for me, farming is a way of life, not just a way of making a living. And that's what I feared the most, that my problem was taking away my whole way of life, not just my livelihood.
At that time, there was no AgrAbility Project in Nebraska. I contacted the Nebraska Vocational Rehabilitation Agency for assistance. Vocational Rehabilitation is a Federal-State program that helps people with disabilities to become and stay employed. A rehabilitation counselor came to my farm to look at ways to help me accommodate my disabilities. Power steering was installed on my tractor and a blacksmith devised a handle for a hydraulic hook-up that I could connect by using my knee and right hand. The counselor also suggested a speaker phone to enable me to write notes while using the telephone and other household items that made life easier. Although the vocational rehabilitation program helped me, it was immediately apparent that program staff had no knowledge about farming or making disability-related modifications to support farm work.
In fact, I have come to understand that it was this information gap in the service delivery system for people with disabilities that triggered the creation of AgrAbility in the first place. Prior to 1991, people with disabilities employed in agriculture frequently confronted disability agencies with little or no expertise in agricultural production. Not surprisingly, such agencies offered little practical help for staying in farming, but instead often recommended moving off the farm to pursue alternative careers. For most farmers and ranchers, such advice is unwanted and unnecessary.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Nationally, an estimated 500,000 farmers and ranchers have physical disabilities that limit their ability to perform one or more essential farm tasks. Each year, 200,000 people working in agriculture experience job-related injuries, with a significant percentage (3–5 percent) incurring permanent disabilities that affect their ability to work. Tens of thousands more across the country become disabled as a result of non-farm accidents, illnesses, other health conditions, and the aging process.
For myself, and many others like me, the presence of a disability jeopardizes one's agricultural livelihood and lifestyle. Rural isolation, a tradition of self-reliance, and gaps in rural service delivery systems frequently prevent agricultural workers with disabilities from taking advantage of growing expertise in modifying farm operations, adapting equipment, promoting farmstead accessibility, and using assistive technologies to safely accommodate disability in agricultural and rural settings. Yet, with some assistance, the majority of disabled agricultural workers can continue to earn their livelihoods in agriculture and participate fully in rural community life.
The AgrAbility Program was established under the 1990 farm bill. The farm bill authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to Extension Services for conducting collaborative education and assistance programs for farmers with disabilities through State demonstration projects and related national training, technical assistance, and information dissemination. The program combines agricultural know-how with disability expertise to provide people with disabilities working in agriculture with the specialized services that they need to safely accommodate their disabilities in everyday farm operations. AgrAbility received strong bipartisan support during the 1996 farm bill reauthorization, and was extended through fiscal year 1997.
Under the statute, State and multi-State AgrAbility projects engage Extension Service agents, disability experts, rural professionals, and volunteers in offering an array of services, including: identifying and referring farmers with disabilities; providing on-the-farm technical assistance for agricultural workers on adapting and using farm equipment, buildings, and tools; restructuring farm operations; linking disabled farmers to provide peer support; providing agriculture-based education to prevent further injury and disability; and, upgrading the skills of Extension Service agents and other rural professionals to better promote success in agricultural production for people disabilities.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
The USDA administers AgrAbility on a fair and competitive basis. Applications for State-level project funding are submitted annually to USDA for peer review and, if successful, qualify applicants for up to four years of support. At the end of a funding cycle, previously-funded projects compete on a level playing field with new applicants. Applications must demonstrate collaboration between a State extension service and one or more nonprofit disability organizations, and must propose a workplan that reflects priorities established by the farm bill. Every year, a dozen or more unserved states seek AgrAbility funding from USDA to initiate project services.
AgrAbility provides customized assistance to farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and their families. The nature and degree of assistance depends on the individual's disability needs and agricultural operation.
I became aware of AgrAbility in 1996, when I heard about a program that was seeking ideas to help farmers with disabilities. I called and was connected with the Nebraska AgrAbility Project. My first impression was that AgrAbility staff really understood farming and disability. AgrAbility staff came out to my farm to assess my hog and grain operation, and my need for additional modifications. They recommended changing my pneumatic feeding system so it would no longer be necessary for me to climb a ladder to send feed to a different bulk bin. A switch that was 10 feet high before was relocated to ground level, enabling me to move the feed myself rather that having to seek help.
Project staff also examined the amount of walking that I was doing in the irrigated fields, which , because they are muddy and uneven, is difficult for me. They recommended a four-wheel drive all-terrain vehicle, called a mule, which enables me to get into the fields and around the farm safely and efficiently. Project staff coordinated the purchase of the feeding system modifications and vehicle with the Nebraska Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, which paid for part of their costs in order to keep me working. My income was taken into account and I shared in the cost of these items.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
What is most important to me about AgrAbility is that the staff understand what's involved with farming. They envision solutions to problems caused by disability that make sense to people working in agriculture. Most often, their suggestions involve changes that cost less than $100. For example, for a farmer who has experienced a stroke, getting on and off a tractor can be difficult. AgrAbility often recommends that a couple of steps and grab bars be welded to the tractor to help the farmer get on and off more securely. These items can usually be fabricated with materials on hand and welded on to the tractor either on site or at a neighboring farmer's workshop. In another instance, 4–H members crafted a dozen wind chimes from different materials to hang on buildings and poles to enable a blind farmer to orient himself on his farm as he worked.
AgrAbility is effective because it is a partnership between the Extension Service and one or more nonprofit disability organizations. This partnership engages the agricultural know-how of the Nation's cooperative extension service system and the disability expertise of Easter Seals, Goodwill Industries, independent living centers, and others to jointly solve disability-related challenges and explore alternatives with the common goal of helping a farm or ranch family continue in agricultural production.
The Nebraska AgrAbility Project is one of nineteen projects currently funded by the USDA Cooperative Research, education, and Extension Service. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation of $1.91 million enables USDA to support AgrAbility projects in Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The average grant award per State is $85,000, which generally supports one-to-two persons (often part-time), at each partnering agency.
More than a dozen States have sought AgrAbility funding without success, including Arkansas, California, Georgia, and Washington. Other States, including Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Vermont, had USDA-funded AgrAbility projects in the past and seek to re-establish their programs. Each of these States can demonstrate significant unmet needs among farm and ranch families affected by disability that AgrAbility could potentially address.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Demand for AgrAbility assistance has skyrocketed since 1991. AgrAbility projects report waiting lists of farm families seeking assistance, and ever-greater numbers of requests for first-time and ongoing help from farmers, farm family members, agri-businesses, rural professionals, and the media. Many projects have had to cut back on educational and outreach activities due to lack of resources. In States not served by AgrAbility, people with disabilities who work in agriculture receive information and advice via the mail and telephone. Because AgrAbility is a one-of-a-kind program, individuals interested in farming and disability have no alternative but to wait for assistance from AgrAbility staff. But waiting in a business dictated by seasons, such as spring planting or fall harvest, is unrealistic. Lacking assistance, many disabled farmers employ unsafe or inefficient methods of accommodating their impairments, often leading to new or more serious disability. Mounting demand for assistance puts undue pressure on AgrAbility staff, who are already struggling to carry-out statewide program activities and attract new sources of funding to the program.
The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities. It is the only USDA program dedicated exclusively to helping disabled agricultural producers. It demonstrates the value of public-private partnership by securing donations of funds, talent, and materials to magnify the impact of a modest Federal investment.
AgrAbility projects regularly seek private sector resources to augment Federal funds and thereby enhance the impact of the program. For example, the Kraft Dairy Foundation has contributed $82,000 over five years to help disabled dairy farmers served by the Wisconsin AgrAbility Project. John Deere, Land O' Lakes, Country Companies Farmers Union, Kellogg Foundation, and Reynolds Foundation have invested thousands of dollars in equipment and staff to help AgrAbility clients. In Ohio, Sears and HQ Home Improvement donate materials for building ramps, and SYSCO corporation-manufacturer of Grasshopper Lawnmower-is donating a 28-foot trailer to that state's AgrAbility Project to use as a training center and exhibit.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Locally, individuals and businesses regularly donate money, materials, equipment, and expertise to help disabled farmers. In Michigan, Farm Bureau employees contribute funds to help pay for adaptive equipment that AgrAbility staff recommend. Illinois Rotarians and Elks, and Wisconsin Cheesemen raise funds to meet the needs of farmers that cannot be addressed with Federal seed monies. Last fall, the American Corn Growers Association sponsored the participation of four disabled farmers in the AgrAbility National Training Workshop.
Volunteers are an integral part of AgrAbility. Each project coordinates a peer advisory group that brings together experienced farmers with disabilities with those that are newly injured or have unmet needs and questions. As a volunteer member of the Nebraska Project's Peer Advisory Network, I travel across the State to meet with farmers to discuss their disabilities, share ideas for ways that they might modify their operations, and generally offer advice and support to them and their families. Expenses that I incur as a result of these activities I pay out of my own pocket.
In Nebraska and across the country, AgrAbility provides the strategic insights that promote self-help, peer support, and community responses to disability related challenges. AgrAbility assistance helps prevent farmers from being forced out of farming and, in so doing, prevents the disruption to families and economic damage to rural communities that results. It is estimated that one rural business closes when ten farmers leave farming.
Since 1991, AgrAbility projects have collectively:
Provided direct on-farm assistance to 5,000 farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and their families.
Provided information and advice to 10,000 persons with disabilities employed in agriculture and related occupations.
Educated over 100,000 agricultural, rehabilitation, and rural health professionals on safely accommodating disability in agriculture.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Recruited and trained more than 1,000 volunteers to assist agricultural producers with disabilities and their families.
Reached approximately 6.1 million people through 3,200 exhibits, displays, and demonstrations to increase awareness of the challenges affecting and resources available to people with disabilities who work in agriculture.
The AgrAbility Program is an excellent example of how a relatively modest investment of public resources can boost rural productivity and substantially improve the quality of life for thousands of rural Americans with disabilities. It strengthens rural America by investing in people who, despite having disabilities, are highly motivated to stay in food and fiber production. With project support, these individuals overcome disability-related barriers, work hard, and contribute much to the rural economy. Without support, such individuals might be forced out of farming into non-rural employment, underemployment, or joblessness.
The National Easter Seal Society is proud to contribute to the ongoing success of the USDA AgrAbility Program. In addition to the fourteen Easter Seal societies that partner with Extension Services at the State level, the national society collaborates with Purdue University's Breaking New Ground Resource Center to provide training, technical assistance, and information dissemination services to State-level projects, and provides information on farming and disability to individuals and groups nationwide.
Easter Seals believes that the original 1990 farm bill provision establishing the program in 1990 and restated in 1996, still accurately defines its purpose, scope of activity, and funding authority. Easter Seals is recommending very minor modification of this original statutory language and report language, and has submitted draft language to the Subcommittee for its consideration and use.
Please ensure that the USDA AgrAbility Program is continued in the reauthorization of Federal agricultural research and education programs. Disability is and will probably always be a major presence in American agriculture. Please provide for AgrAbility's ongoing effective and important work. Thank you for your interest and consideration of this statement.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
WILLIAM CHARLES JONES, NATIONAL FFA VICE-PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN REGION
Thank you Chairman Combest and Distinguished Subcommittee members for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing. Currently there are over 21 million people involved in the industry of agriculture or 18.5 percent of the labor force. American agriculture is our Nation's largest employer. Over the next 40 years the demand for educated and motivated young people working in the field of agriculture will grow to record numbers. How are we going to meet the expanding employee needs of this growing industry? We will do this through a comprehensive agricultural education delivery system which currently is preparing nearly half-a-million young people in over 7,500 local communities to meet the needs of America's food, fiber and natural resource systems. Your continued support and guidance of agricultural education and FFA will ensure that the talented young people interested in agriculture have access to the training necessary to carry the industry into the next century. My purpose today is to provide you insights from a student's perspective regarding the value and potential of agricultural education.
I have had the opportunity for the past nine years to be involved with agricultural education and, subsequently, the National FFA Organization. Before enrolling in agricultural education in the seventh grade, I was a shy kid with little direction in my life. Then I began to learn about the numerous opportunities in agriculture. I realized agriculture was more than farming. It is a multi-faceted industry that involves opportunities for career success in science, business and technology. Through my involvement in FFA, I learned the value of leadership and community service. Both agricultural education and FFA have opened the doors for me to continue my personal growth by allowing me the chance to further my education. I am now a Junior at Auburn University studying agriculture economics. Agricultural education courses in high school provided me with career direction while FFA provided leadership development and motivation. Both of them have brought me to you today with a clear career path in mind and the professional and technical skills necessary to succeed.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
As one of six National FFA Officers, I have had the opportunity for the past eight months to travel across America and see the difference that agricultural education and FFA makes in the lives of young people. The stories we read in newspapers and see on television paint a dismal picture of a country lacking young leaders and entrepreneurs. I have seen with my own eyes that for every negative report you see about young people, I can show you a thousand positive examples of students engaged in progressive career paths, students organizing and leading community growth, and students maximizing their personal potential. The American spirit is alive and well and it is personified through the individuals involved with agricultural education and FFA.
Today, an important thrust in education involves a strong national initiative called ''School-to-Work'', a system in which students take what they learn in the classroom and actually apply it to real-life situations. Unpublicized to most, agricultural education has been providing that exact system for the past 70 years. Since 1928, learning in the agricultural education system has been the result of three components, the first being classroom instruction. The classroom provides instruction on the technical facets of the agricultural industry. This learning is complemented by the second component, supervised agricultural experience, or SAE. Each student's SAE program provides them the opportunity to actually take what they have learned in the classroom and apply it in on-the-job situations. Clearly, practical application of classroom instruction in the work environment provides the best learning experience available. The third component, FFA, adds the leadership, personal growth and career success skills to complete the total package. The skills provided through FFA range from teamwork, organizational and leadership skills to competition and community service.
For over 70 years the FFA has provided millions of young people like myself the opportunity to grow and become the agricultural leaders for tomorrow. Agricultural education has been ensuring a bright future for all Americans. How are we going to ensure that the young people of today have that same opportunity? We do that by ensuring that agricultural education is available to develop the potential of the next generation of agricultural leaders.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 4
Again, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about agricultural education, a system that has played a major role in shaping my life and is continuing to impact the lives of over 452,000 young people daily.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Next Hearing Segment(4)