Segment 4 Of 4 Previous Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION PROGRAMS
TUESDAY, JULY 22, 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, Lucas, LaHood, Pickering, Cooksey, Dooley, Brown, Farr, Stabenow, Peterson, Clayton, Pomeroy, Berry, Goode, and Stenholm [ex officio].
Staff present: John E. Hogan, chief counsel; Russell Laird, John Goldberg, Callista Bisek, Wanda Worsham, clerk; and Anne Simmons.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY A. COMBEST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. COMBEST. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome, everyone, here. I would like to thank all of you for coming and the efforts that you have put into your statements and in your travel here.
Today is the last of our four hearings to review agricultural research, education, and extension programs. We plan to conclude our series of hearings on this important subject by discussing specific proposals for reauthorization legislation.
I have found our previous three hearings to be very informative and interesting, but today is when we expect to get into real heavy lifting.
To reemphasize my previous statements, I believe we have a difficult but very important job ahead of us as we approach this reauthorization effort. Today and in the following few months, the subcommittee will search for improvements that can be made in our research and extension programs with the goal in mind of improving efficiencies, eliminating duplication, and striving to accomplish more with the same or possibly fewer dollars.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
While the specific fundings decisions on projects from year to year are made in the Appropriations Committee, we intend to explore suggestions for how we can improve the process for identifying priorities and managing our research efforts, the ultimate goal being to insure the maximum return for our taxpayer dollars through research, education, and extension benefits on the farm and in the classroom.
During an era of shrinking Government resources, I believe that cooperative efforts, such as the public-private partnership reviewed in our previous hearings, are essential to leverage resources to the maximum extent possible.
However, I understand that our current system was not created overnight and should not be recreated in one single bill. As I have said earlier, our current research, education, and extension activities are still the best in the world. Our system is something to be very proud of.
With that, we must insure that whatever we do during this impending reauthorization process is truly helpful and a step in the right direction.
We have assembled a very large panel today that should serve to represent different views and perspectives. I believe that we on this side of the dais do not have all of the answers. That is where you come in and why we have enlisted the assistance and counsel of the witnesses scheduled before us today.
The subcommittee would also welcome the input from any other interested parties that have not testified before the committee.
In addition to the witnesses we have heard from in the three previous hearings, I would like to mention several organizations that have provided testimony for the record: the Alliance for Continuing Nutrition Research and Monitoring, the Farm A Syst and Home A Syst Programs, Kansas State University, Nebraska Grain Sorghum Producers Association, U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund, Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, Council for Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching, and the Eco Scrap Company.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
With unanimous consent of members, I would like to keep the record of these hearings open until the 15th of August to receive any other written statements for the record, and without objection, it would be so ordered.
After that date, the printing of all the official record will proceed, but, of course, we will never stop talking to interested parties throughout this process.
Again, I appreciate very much your being here and look forward to your statements and would recognize Mr. Dooley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for holding this series of hearings on a very important issue.
And I do not have a prepared statement. However, I did have the opportunity to read all of the testimony of the witnesses last night. That is kind of a commentary, I guess, on my life style, but I was struck by one of the statements there that I think Mr. Rose made that I think really sums up exactly what we are trying to do, and I will just go ahead and read it because I think it really captures my sentiments and what we are trying to achieve here.
We fear that simple reauthorization of the status quo will require an ever increasing amount of the static funding base to be allocated to maintenance of current physical and human capacity without examining whether the existing system is, in fact, appropriate and capable of addressing future problems and capitalizing on new opportunities.
I think that pretty much sums up what we are trying to achieve here, which is an analysis of the existing system and trying to understand what changes should be made so that we can be assured that the U.S. agriculture industry is going to be positioned in a way to capitalize on some of the market opportunities internationally.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
And the only way that perhaps we can best position ourselves is to insure that our research base has the infrastructure and the capability to make sure that the industry has the tools and is on the leading edge of technology in order to be that competitor in that marketplace.
So I thank all of you for the time and effort you put into your testimony and look forward to a dialogue that can further, I think, illuminate some of the questions, as well as the answers, to how we reauthorize this research title.
So thank you all.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not like to reminisce about old times, but I was Chairman of this subcommittee when we adopted the goal of establishing the National Research Initiative. I have forgotten exactly when, but it was close to 10 years ago that we were actively debating how we could go about achieving this, why we needed a competitive program within agriculture, and we have not done any better since, and I am very unhappy about that.
The overall funding for agricultural research and extension has gone down. I think all of you know. In real dollars, it has gone down quite substantially. The $500 million that we originally anticipated for the National Research Initiative, we have never even come close to that.
Now, at the time, as I recall, looking around, the committee and the Congress were controlled by people who really did not get much benefit out of the National Research Initiative. They preferred the status quo, which provided for a strong flow of formula funding, and my guess is that those of you at that table may have a little schizophrenia about which benefits you the most sometimes.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But the point here is that if we are really serious about becoming world class, we are going to have to bring world class scientists and world class institutions into this comfortable, old agricultural research system, and we have not done that as well as we should.
And this is not belittling the excellence of the system that we have, but we have got to keep improving it. If we do not, we are going to suffer the consequences.
Now, I preach this little sermon not only to those of you in agriculture, but to most of the other research fields because it is true there as well.
We are declining in our investments in the future. I tried to reflect that this last year by offering my own budget, which I called an investment budget, which provided for precisely what some of you have called for in your testimony, a 5 percent increase in agricultural research and all other research so that we can at least remain level with the rate of growth in the gross national product, which requires about a 5 percent increase, and we have not done that.
We are declining in comparison with most of our advanced competitors. Now, you know that. We know that. The question is: are we willing to act to achieve that kind of a change?
And this is what I am listening for in hearing your testimony this morning. Frankly, we did not get a hell of a lot of support for that 5 percent investment budget. We got 93 votes on the floor. I would like to have a little more influence on some of those who voted on the grounds of basically pandering to the political popularity of a tax cut.
I like tax cuts, but if we are serious about making the proper investments and if we are serious about balancing the budget, we reserve tax cuts until we have balanced the budget and made the proper investments, and we are just not doing that. We are letting politics as usual run the show.
Thank you for allowing me to make that brief sermon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Amen.
If there are other statements from Members they may be included at this point in the record.
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
[The prepared statements of Mr. Canady, Mrs. Chenoweth, and Mr. Sanders follow:] "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. COMBEST. Let me introduce our witnesses who are at the table, and then we will proceed.
I would ask you, as is obvious. There is a large number of witnesses. We have your statements and have and will read them. If you could summarize them and/or add additional comments that you would wish and try to do that within a 5-minute period, the light in front of you will light up. When it goes to red, that has been 5 minutes, and I would certainly ask you if you could to hold it in that so that it gives us an opportunity for questions.
We probably do not need to introduce Dr. Robinson. We are going to have to get Dr. Robinson an office up here. He has been here for all of the hearings, and we appreciate that very much.
Dr. Robinson is Administrator of Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service for USDA. Dr. Robinson is accompanied by Dr. Ron Phillips, who is the chief scientist for the National Research Initiative for USDA. I believe he is accompanied by Dr. Ed Knipling, who is the Acting Administrator of Agricultural Research Service.
Mr. William Knill is president of the Maryland Farm Bureau. Mr. Knill is here on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Mr. David Erickson is president of the American Soybean Association.
Mr. Kenneth Rose is vice president for research and education for National Grain Sorghum Producers Association.
Mr. Tom Anderson is chairman of the small grains research and communications committee for Minnesota Wheat Growers Association.
Dr. Gary Weber is executive director of regulatory affairs for National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Dr. Weber is here on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Coalition.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Dr. Perry Adkisson is chancellor emeritus for Texas A&M University System at Texas A&M College of Agriculture, and also is a board member of the National Science Foundation.
Dr. Paul Gilman is executive director for the board on agriculture of National Research Council. Dr. Gilman is presenting the testimony of Dr. Bruce Albert, who could not be here today.
And, Dr. Robinson, I would begin with you, and we will just go down the table in that order.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. 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, and I am certainly pleased to be here once again today in these important hearings to discuss the administration's position regarding the reauthorization of the research, education, and extension activities at USDA.
As you pointed out, I am accompanied by Dr. Ron Phillips, the chief scientist for the National Research Initiative, and later with your permission he will speak to one of our initiatives called the National Food Genome Strategy.
Also with me today is Dr. Ed Knipling, who will be here to respond to questions along with the two of us.
I come today to discuss what we believe to be the most critical Federal mission in agriculture research, education, and economics. The continued success of U.S. agriculture and, indeed, world agriculture is dependent upon knowledge.
Agriculture research and education have long been the engine of productivity in American agriculture, providing an affordable food supply, assuring our comparative advantage in many areas of production, and substantially contributing to our balance of payments.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But today the public demands even more of agriculture: to conserve the natural resource base, to create more nutritious and better quality foods, and to assure social and economic progress in agriculture and rural areas.
Policy changes, leading to changes in the structure of support for commodity producers, new international trade agreements and environmental regulations also position the agricultural knowledge system as a critical element in the new safety net for agriculture and rural America.
Two fundamental challenges face agriculture. First is how to achieve the long-term, sustainable agricultural productivity, while simultaneously achieving and maintaining profitability, minimizing negative environmental effects, and developing and improving strong rural and agricultural communities.
The second fundamental challenge facing agriculture is responsiveness to a broad public concern for safe, nutritious, and accessible foods. Recent legislation underlines that activity.
Mr. Chairman, as we have examined options for reauthorization of the research title of the 1996 farm bill, we do so in the context of a series of challenges that I have pointed out, and the administration has adopted 4 principles.
One is that USDA and the research mission area invest in creating and strengthening the research and educational capacity essential to meeting the national goals for food and agriculture.
Second, the programs of the mission area are dedicated to maintaining, as you pointed out, world leadership and excellence in agricultural science and education.
Third, the Federal Government has a distinct role to play in partnership with State and local Governments and the private sector.
And finally, a wise strategy for public investment supports a diverse portfolio of funding sources and mechanisms, as well as diverse institutions performing research, education, and extension.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We have several legislative proposals, and I will try to summarize those quickly.
First, we propose that Congress authorize a new competitive grants program to invest in a national food genome strategy comprised of the plant genome initiative and the animal genome initiative. The challenges facing agriculture both in the area of competitiveness and improving the interface with the environment and the natural resource base actually demands that we learn more, know more, and use more about our knowledge base in this area.
Dr. Ron Phillips will highlight this activity after I complete my remarks, with your permission.
Second, we propose that Congress reauthorize the regional aquaculture centers and the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, with the provisions that we establish private aquaculture as a form of agriculture for USDA programs, and that we extend the authorization of appropriations for regional aquaculture centers and the 1980 National Aquaculture Act, and that we establish a program to accelerate the transfer of promising research and technical advances, including environmental technologies to commercial aquaculture production.
Mr. Chairman, we also propose that Congress correct a technical flaw by providing funding for 1998 for the Fund for Rural America, in addition to the current funding for fiscal years 1997 and 1999. The fund is a multi-functional, multi-disciplinary, integrated approach to solving problems and fills many gaps in knowledge.
The current funding for the program has made available $100 million on January 1, 1997, and on October 1, 1998, October 1, 1999, and the amendment would move the funding back one year to insure that we have continuous funding over the length of the program.
We propose that Congress establish a new authority for an integrated applied research, extension, and education competitive grants program. This program would address national and regional issues and would require 100 percent non-Federal match for commodity or location specific activities.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
This would allow us to integrate many of our current research and extension programs, such as the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program and the IPM Program.
We propose that Congress also amend Smith-Lever (b) and (c) authority to require that not less than 25 percent of Federal extension formula funds be used for multi-State, regional, or national collaborative activities, including distance learning.
This recommendation parallels the requirement for the Hatch Act, which requires that 25 percent of Federal research formula funds be spent for regional research activities. It would require that we put in place an activity similar to the Regional Research Committees in terms of administering this program, but would allow significant leveraging of funds.
We propose that Congress consider flexibility to the system under two components: first, to amend the Smith-Lever Extension Formula Program and the Hatch Research Formula Program, to permit Land Grant universities to redirect up to 10 percent of their total research and extension formula funds to any research or extension purpose, and that would ratchet up we propose to 25 percent for fiscal 2001 and 2002.
In addition, we proposed that 25 percent of the appropriations above the 1997 level for research and extension be distributed to Land Grant universities in a single allocation, which would allow maximum flexibility at the option of the universities.
We propose that Congress amend the authority for international research, education, and extension activities to clarify the section as it applies to higher education and teaching, as well as research and extension.
We propose that Congress consider an amendment to the National Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to permit the agencies to enter into cost reimbursable agreements with all universities and colleges.
We propose that Congress amend the National Agriculture Weather Information System Act of 1990 to establish a partnership between the National Weather Service and USDA, agricultural experiment stations and Extension Services, and State regional and climate programs.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The elimination in April 1996 of this program by the National Weather Service has caused significant hardship on the agricultural community.
We also propose that we amend Smith-Lever 3(d) to expand eligibility from 1862 Land Grant universities only to 1862, 1890 and 1994 Land Grant universities.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, where competition is deemed appropriate to achieve the goals of the program, competition would be open to all Land Grant universities as well as other established colleges and universities.
We also propose that Congress amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to phase in non-Federal matching requirements for 1890 formula programs in support of extension and research. We have laid out more completely the Department's position in the written version of the testimony.
We also propose that Congress eliminate the matching requirements for equipment grants under the NRI to better enable capacity building activities at small universities.
Under the area of accountability, we propose that Congress require accountability for all USDA administered extramural research, extension, and higher education programs through the Government Performance and Results Act process to the strategic goals of CSREES and the mission area.
Section 1402 of the act would be amended to add five goals of the REE strategic plan, and it is the five goals I have spoken of before and are in the testimony and I will not repeat here.
A second section would be added to the purposes that describes management principles for USDA research, education and extension programs with accountability included as a principle.
We also propose that Congress require recovery of indirect costs for all competitively awarded USDA research grants and integrated grants be capped at 25 percent of the total grant award. This amendment would increase the current cap of 14 percent for indirect recovery costs for competitively awarded research grants.
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Finally, we propose that Congress no longer consider our 1995 Blue Book proposal to establish a competitive grants program to fund university building and facilities projects. Our reasoning is that in moving to a cap of 25 percent for indirect cost recovery on competitively awarded research grants will partially eliminate the barriers that were created.
And, secondly, the 1996 farm bill established the strategic planning facilities task force to develop guidance for the Department relative to Federal support for research facilities.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for this opportunity to present the administration's position regarding reauthorization of title 8. That position is more clearly stated, and in more detail, in the written testimony.
And with your permission, I would like to turn to Dr. Ron Phillips, who would highlight, if you will, our proposed food genome initiative.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robinson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Certainly, Dr. Phillips, we will be happy to hear from you.
Let me just say thank you for presenting some very specifics about proposed legislative activity. That is helpful, and I assure you we will be working closely with the Department as we move forward. I think all of our goals are the same, and while not every area may be in total agreement, I assure you you will be a major player in the drafting of a final bill.
Mr. ROBINSON. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Dr. Phillips, please proceed.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to discuss the administration's proposal for a national food genome strategy.
I am a regent's professor of agronomy and plant genetics at the University of Minnesota and chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture's National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
Recently I was appointed as the chair of the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes by Dr. John Gibbons, science advisor to the President and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
As you know, Mr. Chairman, genetics is the study of an organism's characteristics and the transfer of variations in those characteristics through heredity. A genome is a set of chromosomes located in plant and animal cells which contains the DNA material responsible for the determination of hereditary characteristics.
The administration's proposal for a national food genome strategy authorizes a competitive, merit based program for plant and animal genome and associated microbes research supported by $200 million over a 4-year period.
Mr. Chairman, genetics research over the past 100 years has led to significant improvements in plants and animals which has been translated into benefits for producers, but also for consumers. Unlocking the genetic secrets of plants and animals is critical to the future of U.S. agriculture.
The national food genome strategy promises to address the Nation's needs for identifying, mapping, sequencing, and manipulating the genes responsible for those traits that are economically important to agriculture. Investment in a national food genome strategy will build on research work USDA is already doing in genetics.
Most everyone is aware of the important advances in understanding the structure and function of genes in humans. Similar advances also have been made for agriculturally important plants and animals.
One of the useful aspects of genetics has always been that the theory applies across organisms. We have entered a new era of understanding, however, on how gene content and even gene order are similar within broad groupings of species. For example, we now know that if a gene is located on a chromosome of rice, the cereal with the lowest amount of DNA, the occurrence in chromosome position of the gene often can be predicted in other grasses, including corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, rye, sugar cane, millet, and even a forage grass at this point.
USDA scientists and researchers from State agricultural experiment stations and elsewhere have produced genetic maps of important animals like cattle, swine, sheep, and poultry, and plants, such as corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, and others.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But these maps and the underlying techniques need to be expanded and improved before their full potential can be applied to new crop and breed development. Additional gene tagging work is needed for all of the agriculturally important species.
In plants and animals, continued work is needed to improve the resolution of the various maps and isolate genes that govern desirable traits. Even as a plant geneticist in the middle of genome research, I am amazed to think that we now have within reach the possibility of knowing every gene in an organism.
The task at hand is not only to know the DNA structure of each gene, but also to know its product, how the synthesis of its product is controlled, how that product affects the organism. We also need to learn how to efficiently manipulate these genes so that we can better improve the plants and animals on which we depend and to be able to respond more rapidly to crisis situations, such as the occurrence of a new disease.
There's increasing demand also for crops designed for special purposes, such as corn that will give greater swine or poultry productivity. Genomics research will greatly facilitate development of such new products.
The national food genome strategy will be designed to understand and map genetic traits of importance to agriculture. A small set of plants, animals, and microbes would be selected on the basis of their importance to agriculture and their scientific advantages and relationships.
The competitive grants program proposed by the administration will be part of a multi-agency program with USDA as the lead agency and with efforts to take advantage of international cooperation and public-private partnerships.
Access to genetic information through gene sequencing and mapping and other research is vital to the future health of American agriculture and forestry. The development of economically, environmentally, and nutritionally important traits will be much more dramatic if the scientific community has ready access to the needed genetic data. The goal of open access to data is fundamental to the program.
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
With this new level of understanding, that what we have learned in one species can be more directly applied to another than previously presumed makes it timely to develop a coordinated genome strategy to achieve the greatest return on the investment and maximize advancements in agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the national food genome strategy.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Dr. Phillips.
Mr. Knill.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KNILL, PRESIDENT, MARYLAND FARM BUREAU, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. KNILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bill Knill. I am a Maryland farmer. Our farm consists of a very diversified operation that includes beef, small grains and corn, and we have a vegetable production operation and sell at a farm market.
I also serve as Maryland Farm Bureau president. I am pleased to speak to you today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Mr. Chairman, when I think about the future of our agriculture research system and the contributions this system has made in the past, it would be easy to request a simple reauthorization, but that would also be ignoring the fact that recent changes in agriculture policy, both domestic and global, will increase the need for greater output from the system and increase cooperation among all public and private research and extension organizations.
It is paramount that all Federal research, extension and education funds be administered in a system that provides greater accountability and is relevant to the problems currently facing agriculture.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Most of Farm Bureau's recommendations focus in some form on the three issues we believe to be most important to the debate: adequate industry input through the priority setting, budgeting, implementation, and review stages, along with relevancy and accountability.
If these issues are addressed, we believe the opportunity to secure increase in funding requests in the future is more likely.
Let me highlight some ideas on each of these issues.
Industry input. If industry input and the structure and responsibility of the advisory board can be enhanced, we believe it will insure more relevancy and accountability. To that end, we recommend that the majority of the members of the advisory board consist of producers or industry representatives.
We also suggest a wider variety of priority setting mechanisms be forwarded to the advisory committee for their consideration rather than the current practice of having them only evaluate the REE strategic plan.
In addition, we believe each Land Grant university or other non-Federal recipient should be required to establish and implement a process for obtaining stakeholder input concerning the use of funds prior to them receiving Federal funds for agricultural research and extension.
The relevance. A standard should be established for federally funded, competitive, and intramural agricultural research.
Extension and education. The research should address high priority topics which are based on priorities set by the National Advisory Board, with significant input from stakeholders.
In addition, there should be a merit review of each extension and education project competitively funded by the Federal Government.
Accountability. For research activities, Federal funds should only be spent if the project has undergone an independent, scientific peer review. For extension and educational activities, Federal funds should only be spent if the project has undergone an independent merit review.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Also, those who receive Federal funds should be required to submit a report annually describing the results of the activity and the merit of the results.
We also believe the Secretary of Agriculture should develop guidelines for insuring the performance of research and extension to determine whether the federally funded programs result in public goods that have national or multi-State significance.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus the rest of my oral testimony on our suggestions for changes in the Fund for Rural America. We suggest it be used for a limited number of priorities which address complex problems, which require a significant initial investment, cooperation, and collaborations between the private and public sectors among State and Federal Government organizations, between Federal and university research facilities, and among diverse academic disciplines.
We believe this approach, when coupled with the resources from other research programs, can yield significant results in the shortest amount of time on topics important to the future of U.S. agriculture without reducing our ability to address existing research priorities.
In addition, this design can build a constituency for the fund and encourage its review as a potential model for insuring greater cooperation and accountability within all agricultural research endeavors.
We recommend extending the authorization for the fund from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2002, with the annual authorization of at least $50 million for rural development and $50 million for research, education, and extension programs.
In order to get the new program underway and hopefully avoid unnecessary delays in funding of grants, we propose that for fiscal year 1998 and 1999 the entire $50 million for research, education and extension would be spent on the following six priority areas, with equal funding for plant and animal projects:
National food genome project; Food safety and quality; maintaining and enhancing the environment; economically significant value added products; international competitiveness; and precision agriculture.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
For Federal year 2000 and thereafter, the advisory board will designate no more than 6 priority areas for the fund that are consistent with the national priorities identified by the board.
We suggest the advisory board establish a panel for each of the 6 priorities to recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture the desired projects to be solicited and in a request for proposals under the fund.
The panel should include representation from the advisory board, as well as farm and commodity groups, private industry, universities, private research organizations, and Federal agencies.
In order to further improve stakeholder input, we recommend the Secretary publish a request for the proposals in the Federal Register. A competitive merit review process to select the projects to receive the grants should be established.
Priority should be given to projects that leverage funds from other Federal, State, and/or private sources to those who integrate research, extension, and education in their proposals.
In summary, we believe a strong constituency for the program can be built by modifying the fund in the manner suggested.
I close this morning with a point that represents a belief that many farmers have expressed many times. We believe agriculture has already sustained many billions of dollars in cuts to farm programs. This has been done with the understanding that a significant portion of these funds would be reinvested in programs that could give us a better chance to be competitive in the increasingly competitive global agricultural economy.
We took that as a commitment and will work hard to see that this commitment is met. We believe it is now time for Congress to honor its commitment to the American farmer. There are many reasons to be excited about the future of production agriculture, but we will not realize that bright future and compete as effectively as we can and should if we do not have the benefit of a strong food and agriculture research, education and extension program.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We ask for your help. We are eager to assist you in your efforts to craft a research title that insures a growing and efficient food and agriculture system for the United States in the 21st century.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knill appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Erickson.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ERICKSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
Mr. ERICKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am David Erickson, a soybean and corn producer from Illinois and president of the American Soybean Association. Thank you and the committee for allowing me to provide testimony today.
Before being elected president of ASA, I also had the opportunity to take on other responsibilities, which included being chairman of our research committee, and while ASA does not fund research per se, we do set research priority policy for soybeans, and we work with State and national soybean checkoff boards in developing priorities for funding using producer dollars from the soybean checkoff system.
And in fact, as you know, soybean producers support that system, the soybean checkoff system, that spends about $12 million on an annual basis on research, and in my State alone, the State of Illinois, a State checkoff board that also spends another $3.5 million annually of farmer dollars on research, research that is a priority for soybean growers, and we think is a good investment for producers and for our Federal Government, as well.
State organizations across the growing region have developed individual, yet coordinated processes for work from Federal, State, and Land Grant institutions with those dollars, and we also worked with private companies and continue to expand that work in setting research priorities and helping develop guidelines for Federal funding as well.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We think it is important that we use producer dollars from the checkoff system to help leverage dollars invested by State and Federal Governments. For example, there is a group of 10 southern soybean producing States that work on an annual basis developing priorities and carrying out those priorities in funding research for the benefit of producers in that area, as well as eight north central U.S. soybean producing States that do the same thing on an ongoing basis to see that they are using producer dollars to help direct dollars at other levels, as well as even combinations down to bi-State efforts like there are now in Illinois and Iowa to help address research needs and priorities there, as well.
Some of the projects that have been targeted through these processes include such things as accelerating transformation and regeneration of the soybean gene, combatting major problems, such as soybean cyst nematode and white mold.
Producers in all States are doing a good job of identifying State and regional research needs and setting priorities. However, there is still a strong role for the Federal research system to assist in identifying national needs and priorities.
The USDA research system must also keep up with many changes in agriculture worldwide. As has been mentioned before, we are in a new era where we export or desire to export more of the crops that we produce. Because of a growing world and the fact that the U.S. soybean crop is one-half exported, we think it is not time to shy away from our investment in research, but continue to invest in it to increase our ability to compete on a worldwide basis, and we are going to do that with new technologies that we have developed and further enhanced through agricultural research.
One example that has been talked about before is genome mapping, and certainly it is something that is important for soybeans, a crop that is not a hybrid and is one that could make significant advancements through mapping of genes and, we think, certainly something that the Federal Government should play a significant role in.
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Another key area is biotechnology. Although much of this current research is done in the private sector, as producers we feel the country's best interest might be served in having some basic biotechnology research at the Federal level as well, public research that is available to many users throughout the system.
There is also a strong need for Federal dollars going in commercialization of value added new uses research. We have done a pretty good job of that in the past. We need to see that that emphasis continues in the future. As we add value, it does nothing but enhance income to not only producers, but processors and developers of products on down the line.
There are other areas where a Federal research system must respond to agricultural needs, including bringing precision farming into all producers, and I think the reason we might get involved in a Federal level is to make sure that we are sending consistent messages to why precision agriculture is important to producers and consumers alike.
We need to continue to get that sort of input on these issues by obtaining more direct input from producers in the process, and certainly the make-up of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board is a good place to start.
The American Soybean Association feels that more than half of that advisory committee should be made up of representatives from production agriculture and the agribusiness community. We feel that it is vital that we play more than a 50 percent role in reviewing that process because, quite honestly, we do not feel that those institutions should be reviewing themselves.
Another area where producers can have input also is to gain information through the Extension Service, and while I am sure you have heard a lot about the Extension Service and different opinions, it is a good system that works in varying degrees in varying States throughout the country.
We think there needs to be more emphasis put there, and in fact, we are even suggesting that while you cannot direct how dollars are spent on the State and local level, certainly we think that Federal dollars in the Extension Service area should all go to production agriculture to see that there is a sound base system developed for production agriculture through the extension system.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Certainly there are other issues that you will look at as you continue to reauthorize the research title. In order to keep my time limit here, I want to make sure to point out other documents that we have presented and also submit comments on behalf of the National Cotton Council.
In closing, there is no doubt that the U.S. agricultural research system is a good one and probably one of the best. That does not mean that there does not need to be improvements made in the system and certainly improvements made that can be positive through the Federal system that are positive for both producers and consumers in making our system most responsive to world agriculture as it is developed today.
We do need to see that facilities and the institutions and researchers are input so that basic research is carried out so that that next breakthrough that provides production agriculture the ability to meet the needs of the future are maintained.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Erickson.
All of your statements and information which you may have with you will be made a part of the record, and any information that you would wish to submit after today will also be made a part.
Mr. Rose.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. ROSE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND DUCATION, NATIONAL GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Ken Rose. I produce wheat and grain sorghum, as well as run a cow-calf operation on my farm near Keyes, OK.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
As vice president for research and education for the National Grain Sorghum Producers, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee on behalf of that organization and the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, and the National Corn Growers Association to discuss this reauthorization of the research title to the 1996 farm bill.
As producers, we, along with our partners of production agriculture, namely, input suppliers, handlers, processors, and merchandisers, have all benefitted significantly from the public and private investment in our agriculture research system, as have consumers in the United States and abroad. We have and continue to support increased funding for agricultural research which has consistently produced a return on investment greater than 35 percent.
Unfortunately, current budget realities suggest that increases are unlikely. Reduced Government production and market controls, the need for accelerated yield growth, and increased concern over issues such as biotechnology and environmental enhancement are real challenges which must be met. The reauthorization process provides an opportunity to review these individual system components, examine ways to improve efficiency, and make timely adjustments to maximize productivity into the next century.
We believe five areas should be addressed in the new legislation:
Funding mechanisms and allocation;
Institutional collaboration and cooperation;
Industry input in determining research relevancy and priorities;
System accountability; and
Addressing future opportunities.
Institutional collaboration and cooperation can be enhanced by requiring that Federal research expenditures be limited to projects that address national or multi-State priorities. We believe Federal support of extension should be dedicated to issues of economic importance to production agriculture.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Congress should consider combining a significant portion of research and extension funding into a single allocation to encourage full mission and priority integration of these two disciplines. This will improve information dissemination and establish outreach programs that reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
The current research information system, CRIS, should be improved and full utilization made of new communications technologies to exchange information and improve the level of cooperation among various research entities.
The National Agricultural Research Extension, Education, and Economic Advisory Board was established in the 1996 farm bill. The formal structure of this board is such that a significant number of board members come from the system the board was established to advise.
In addition, the overall size of 30 members makes it difficult for the board to function efficiently in a proactive advisory capacity.
We suggest that this board should operate in a quasi-independent capacity as a resource to both the USDA and to the appropriate committees in Congress. We believe the systems' primarily stakeholders, comprised of producers, input suppliers, handlers, processors, and merchandisers, should be in the position to drive this advisory process by requiring that at least 50 percent of the total board membership represent production agriculture.
In our full testimony we identify specific modifications to the board which will reduce the size to 18 members without disenfranchising those whose terms have not expired, and we recommend an appointment procedure in which the Secretary of Agriculture, the House Agriculture Committee, and the Senate Agriculture Committee will each select an equal number of board members.
Finally, we propose an expansion of board duties to include the development of short and long-term priorities for each of the system mission areas, as well as the National Research Initiative and the agricultural research portion of the Fund for Rural America.
The board should establish a procedure to insure the relevancy of Federal research projects and should conduct reviews of the USDA REE strategic plans and mechanisms for technology assessment.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The board should also perform financial and performance audits of Federal research projects consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. This activity will improve system accountability and strengthen its grassroots support.
We also support the creation of a funding review task force similar to the facilities review task force which would be charged with:
One, comparing the adequacy and efficiency of existing funding components;
Two, providing an analysis of the funding levels and requirements for each USDA REE mission responsibility;
Three, reporting on opportunities to obtain funds from outside traditional USDA sources; and
Four, developing recommendations for changes to the existing funding mechanisms, including capital expenditures.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that exciting opportunities exist in several priority areas to provide a positive impact throughout production agriculture. Although research funds are limited, we believe the new money for research which is provided through the Fund for Rural America should be used to address a limited number of big ticket, high priority issues.
In this regard, we would like to associate ourselves with the specific comments concerning the Fund for Rural America offered by Mr. Knill of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. Please be assured that the organizations I represent stand ready to provide any assistance they can to the committee as they proceed in reauthorizing this research title.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Rose.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
STATEMENT OF TOM ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN, SMALL GRAINS AND RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE, MINNESOTA WHEAT GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Tom Anderson. I am from Barnesville, MN. I grow wheat, corn, soybeans, and sugar beets.
I have submitted remarks for the record and will try to summarize those remarks so that there is more time for questions. I will summarize by making five points.
Point No. 1. It is interesting to note that as the reauthorization of agriculture research programs is being reviewed, several changes are being proposed. Among the changes is the idea of establishing research priorities through advisory committees whose membership would include farmers, business representatives, and researchers.
We do this in Minnesota through the Small Grains Research and Communications Committee, of which I am the present chair. This committee has served in an advisory capacity to the State wheat and barley production sector and their councils, the checkoff group, since 1992.
Research progress is communicated to the public by crop scientists who participate in a research reporting session each November. I feel this committee has been an efficient vehicle for not only prioritizing the money that I invest in research, but also for the communication to the producers who are the stakeholders.
Point No. 2. More regional research and collaboration has also been suggested, with Federal agriculture research funding targeted to priority projects of multi-State or national relevance.
Being from Minnesota, this brings up the problem of scab and vomitoxin in wheat and barley. Until 1996, the problem of scab had pretty much been confined to Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, but in 1996 it hit areas of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and other wheat growing areas as well.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Because the problem of scab and vomitoxin has spread as it has, I think it fits this new regional and collaborative parameter, as well. Scab or fusarium head blight is a fungal disease that can severely reduce production and quality of wheat and barley and create difficulties in marketing, exporting, and feeding, as well as processing.
The scab fungus can produce a toxic contaminant called deoxynivalenol or vomitoxin. Humans and some animals can get sick from vomitoxin if consumed in concentrated amounts.
Thus, vomitoxin is a food safety issue. During the last harvest, the harvest of 1996, vomitoxin created marketing concerns at the Chicago Board of Trade. Vomitoxin is a high research priority for the U.S. milling and malting industry, and recently the Millers National Federation made a decision to help fund research of vomitoxin, together with the Agricultural Research Service.
At this time I would like to pass around some head samples of wheat that I pulled from my farm on Sunday. This is the fifth consecutive year that we have been affected by scab, and as Mr. Robinson pointed out earlier, scab does threaten the wheat and barley production, sustainability, and profitability in all of those States that are affected.
Point No. 3. Recently a study was completed by Promar International on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers. The study concluded, among other things, that losses associated with scab exceeded $1 billion in 1993, the year that was studied.
The study also concluded that scab constituted a serious threat to the future of the wheat industry in the areas vulnerable to the disease.
Point No. 4. Crop scientists from States affected by scab and vomitoxin met last spring to coordinate research priorities. Federal funding aimed at scab and vomitoxin would enable researchers involving 12 Land Grant universities to study in a coordinated effort food safety concerns and post-harvest management of infected grain, evaluated effective crop treatments and sprays, and, most importantly, develop more resistant germ plasm in crop breeding material.
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Now about 40 State and national groups representing farmers, grain millers, bakers, retailers, grain exporters, and the U.S. seed industry have joined to recommend that Federal dollars be allocated to research the scab problem.
The group advised a Federal investment of $5 million for 5 years, which would be one-half of 1 percent of the $1 billion in economic losses from scab in 1993 alone.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask if a copy of the cooperative project entitled ''Securing the Food Safety and Sustainability of Wheat and Barley Industries in the North Central Region of the United States'' may be entered into the record, along with my testimony, as it more completely outlines the proposal I just talked about.
Point No. 5. It is unfortunate that this U.S. wheat and barley industry priority was insufficiently addressed during the FY 1998 appropriation process. However, authorizing legislation has been introduced by Representatives Debbie Stabenow and Roy Blunt, along with others, that would develop a cooperative project between 12 Land Grant universities and the Federal Government to address the problem of scab and vomitoxin in wheat and barley.
We are hopeful that this legislation will gain congressional support.
In closing, I would like to think that the scab problem has brought together several different sectors of the United States wheat and barley industry to try and solve the problem. Perhaps the scab and vomitoxin project can be used as a template to build a better public research mechanism: a Federal investment to address a broad based problem with research components prioritized by an advisory committee consisting of public and private members and coordinated in an efficient manner through the Land Grant university system.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I will just pass on that.
At this time I would like to thank you for your time and attention and answer any questions when the time allows.
Thank you.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Dr. Weber.
STATEMENT OF GARY WEBER, ON BEHALF OF THE ANIMAL AGRICULTURE COALITION
Mr. WEBER. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Gary Weber. I am the executive director of regulatory affairs for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and today I am representing the position of the Animal Agriculture Coalition.
The coalition members that we work with very closely, their livestock and livestock products represent over 50 percent of farm and ranch income in the United States. These are value added products which contribute to the vitality of rural communities.
In fact, animal agriculture contributes directly more than $100 billion in farm and ranch cash receipts annually.
Now, livestock producers must meet high expectations of consumers for safe, wholesome, and affordable food, and at the same time, we must address the public's concerns regarding the impact of agriculture on the environment, food safety, and simultaneously maintain profitability and be competitive in a global market.
To meet these challenges, we need the support of Federal Government investments in agricultural research and extension. Previous investments have produced a more than offsetting return to the taxpayer in terms of safe, low cost, wholesome food, increased business activity which results in vitality of rural communities, and there have been a number of studies which have documented the economic return to the taxpayer for these previous investments.
As we discussed this issue in our group of research extension and teaching, we believe that the system is certainly not broken, but it is at risk, and we cannot allow the system to deteriorate, and it is our collective responsibility to insure that this system, which is the envy of the world, makes the necessary changes in order to remain viable into the 21st century.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
If we look at the return on investment, if we look at what our competitors are investing in terms of agricultural research, we are by no measure or means spending enough to support research, extension, and education in the United States.
But this system is at risk, and through our deliberations we have identified four areas which raise our concerns.
One is we see a research agenda which is not focused on a coherent set of priorities.
We see a teaching curriculum which is struggling to remain relevant to the changing needs of the agricultural sector.
We see evidence of an extension system that has blurred its agenda to accommodate the political demands of urban-suburban votes while in some ways sacrificing its relevance to agriculture.
We see Federal funding for agricultural research, extension, and education systems becoming more of an afterthought, and we have got to address all of these issues.
As we have talked about these issues in our groups, what we have come down to is one common denominator: that we have really a problem with the partnership that exists. The strength of the system has been in the partnership between research, extension, Federal, State, local Governments, farmers and ranchers, scientists, veterinarians, and the general public.
We have seen over time, slowly but surely, the commitment to and cultivation of this partnership has diminished. One symptom of that breakdown has been the concerns about relevance and accountability, and we hear a lot about the need to address that.
You listened to our concerns and established the REE Advisory Board as a way to get at some of these problems of the loss of the partnership, but now we are thinking that the problem is not for the advisory board to look and establish the priorities, but to spend time on the very foundation of it, reestablishing the partnerships that exist in this system because without that, we are not going to have the kind of relevance and accountability that we all need and expect.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We have listed in our document that we have presented to you a few recommendations that will enhance the transparency and enhance our involvement beyond what we believe the REE Advisory Board should do, which is manage a process, work with the FAIR 2002, and Crops 1999 priority setting processes, but we think as the competitive grants and special grants proposals are drafted in USDA, these ought to be published in the Federal Register for notice and comment.
In addition to that, as the Government Performance and Review Act compliance criteria are developed by USDA, we want to see those. We want to have an opportunity to comment on those to make sure we have adequate opportunity for input, to be a partner.
Also, before formula funds are distributed to States, we would like to see the criteria that are required for the States to submit to the USDA before those formula funds are released, and we would like to comment on those.
Also, there has been a lot of discussion about the development of a 2-tier project, a review project for scientifically valid and meritorious projects. Tier 1 would involve a review by scientists and producers who would make a first cut based upon relevance, and we recognize though that the second cut, to establish the very best science, requires a more significant involvement of the scientists.
We think these changes will improve the transparency of the priority setting system.
If we look at the funding structure, we certainly think that the balanced portfolio approach where we have formula funds, competitive grants, special grants, and intramural funding is very appropriate. It has been one of the reasons for the success of the system.
However, as the research title is reauthorized, we hope that there will be an opportunity to dialogue on what ''contemporary description of the roles, mission, policy, and priority setting framework are for each of these components.'' We think there needs to be a more contemporary composition of those.
And one other important point that we feel we need to share with you is that relative to funding of research, we continue to be very concerned about the tendency for Federal regulatory agencies to pursue authorization and appropriations to support their own research and education efforts. We support the current REE system as the primary research, extension, and education arm of USDA, and that the REE programs should continue to meet the research needs of regulatory agencies.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We think that there are a couple of key areas that I would like to touch on that are of very great importance to us. One of the most frustrating and reoccurring challenges farmers and ranchers face is getting quick action to resolve emerging food-animal health issues, very similar to what the crops industries framed with vomitoxin and other things.
In our world, tuberculosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, Johne's disease, the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies that we have heard a lot about this past year are just a few examples that we really need to have funding to cut off these emerging diseases, to deal with them promptly, and this is of great importance as we look at preventing non-tariff trade barriers and assuring that U.S. agriculture remains competitive in the world market.
In closing, I would like to say one other key element of this partnership that we want to focus on is additional resources that are used to establish integrated production demonstrations, conducted in partnership with real world commercially farms. We encourage establishing these partnerships with private commercial operations, with Federal and State and local Governments contributing matching funds.
We would like these demonstrations to validate the applicability of new technologies, methods, and practices in real world settings. These projects would demonstrate that research and education can be integrated at the producer level to insure food safety, improve profitability, protect public health, improve animal health and well-being, protect the environment, stimulate rural communities, and expand our export of products.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to share these concerns and recommendations to you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Dr. Weber.
Dr. Adkisson.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
STATEMENT OF PERRY L. ADKISSON, CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, TEXAS A&M COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, AND BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Mr. ADKISSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
My name is Perry Adkisson. I am retired chancellor of the Texas A&M University System, and prior to being chancellor, I served several years as deputy chancellor for agriculture, was in charge of the agricultural research, teaching and extension activities system. Prior to that I was head of the Department of Entomology for 11 years, and I have been a professional researcher involved in crop protection for almost 40 years.
In addition, I served 2 terms on the National Science Board, but I do not represent the National Science Board here today. I am a past member.
I am retired. I am not engaged in any research activities, but I do own a cotton and soybean farm. So maybe that gives me enough experience that I might bring some perspective to the Congress today. The views I present are my own and not of any of the entities that I have been associated with.
I just wanted to stress the need today for the importance of increasing support for agricultural research by formula and special grant funding, recognizing that might not be the most favored position to take.
Although there has been substantial increase in funding in recent years for the National Research Initiative at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there has been an overall decline in State and Federal funding in real dollars for production oriented research.
Now, the National Research Initiative is an excellent program. It is one I have supported for years, but I want to say it does not meet all of the research needs of our food and fiber production system.
The NRI is a competitive grants program which supports the basic biological sciences, especially biotechnology, that are important to agriculture. The programs are administered in a manner very similar to that of the National Science Foundation, where small grants, typically $100,000 to $200,000 per year, are made to single investigators for periods of 2 to 3 years.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Now, these grants are great. They are great for building blocks of knowledge which may later be used to advance a specific field, but they are not designed to solve problems of immediate practical importance to the agricultural production system.
For this purpose formula funding for special grants are needed. Because of the decline in funding, many talented and production oriented agricultural scientists, the plant breeders, the animal breeders, the plant production specialists, agronomists, the animal scientists, agricultural engineers, and these types of people are underfunded and underemployed. You cannot deal with a sudden unexpected pest or disease outbreak or develop better crop varieties or better food animals or superior trees with a 3-year grant that might not be renewed.
These types of programs require continuous and stable funding for long periods of time, such as provided by formula funds.
Also, funds are practically nonexistent for new, large regional and national problems that can best be solved by a multi-university, multi-disciplinary approach. Problems of these kinds may be highly complex and can best be solved by assembling a large number of scientists of various disciplines in a highly focused, centrally managed effort requiring several millions of dollars per year.
The competitive grants program does not meet this need, nor should it. These needs can best be met by a special grant program where you can choose the best institution and scientists to be involved in the research.
I want to use two examples of the need for special grants that are not being met by the other funding sources. The first involves the need for reducing pesticide use on fruits and vegetables, and the second present the possibility of greatly reducing the risk of diet related diseases.
Now, great concern has recently been expressed about the need for reducing levels of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables, and especially for those consumed by infants and children. I believe from my experience as a crop protection specialist that it is possible that we could develop the technology over the next 10 years which would reduce pesticide use on these crops by 50 percent or more.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But this could be accomplished by assembling a multi-disciplinary team in the State agricultural experiment stations in 7 or 8 of our largest fruit and vegetable producing States. The scientists would have to be chosen on the basis of their expertise and managed in a highly focused manner with well defined goals and objectives and would require a budget of $8 to $10 million per year.
Now, the best and perhaps only way this research could be funded is by a special grant. I do not believe there is any funding mechanism to do that today.
The second example involves an exciting new possibility of reducing the risk of certain diet related diseases, and this could have enormous benefit to society and individual consumers.
Five diet related diseases, certain types of cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, and diabetes are leading causes of death in the United States. These five diseases are responsible for approximately two-thirds of the more than 2 million deaths that occur in the United States each year.
Since the diseases are diet related, it ought to be possible to prevent them, delay their onset, or lessen their severity through dietary changes. There is a growing scientific body of evidence, and you cannot hardly pick up a paper that you do not read, that somebody has discovered that something in some fruit or vegetable can have an effect on tumors or heart disease or stroke.
For example, there are compounds in cauliflower and broccoli that can aid in the prevention of prostate cancer, and there are compounds in garlic and onions that can inhibit tumor formation in esophagus, colon, and rectum. There are compounds in other vegetables and fruits and soybeans that are active in the prevention of certain cancers, coronary heart disease, and atherosclerosis.
But it is surprising that with so much of this data becoming available on the identity of naturally occurring compounds in food plants that may aid in prevention of these most serious diseases that there is almost no work being done to enhance these characteristics by modern plant breed and electrogenetic methods.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
What we need to do is link the premier medical research centers working on this problem with the premier agriculture centers so that we could identify the compounds that could prevent disease, and then we could develop ways to enhance these compounds in the foods that we eat.
We know that these foods have therapeutic compounds, but to do this would require several millions of dollars a year. It would be a highly complex and long-range program, and the only way you could get a program of this type funded would be to go to Congress.
I would hope that Congress in its wisdom will continue and will increase formula and special grant funding, and please remember that there are many worthy agricultural research needs that do not fit the competitive grants mode, and there are many large projects that can only be funded by congressional appropriations.
So I would urge you in your deliberations to consider the needs of all agriculture and increase special grant formula funding for the applied research needs of our food and fiber production system.
Thank you very much for allowing me to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adkisson appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you, Dr. Adkisson.
Dr. Gilman.
STATEMENT OF PAUL GILMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony.
As many of the witnesses have pointed out, our ability to capture the growing world market for agricultural products will rely heavily on our ability to utilize our research in both science and engineering. Many times before the representatives of the National Research Council have spoken to you about the importance of the competitive grants program, which has been authorized, and once again, we would urge you to fund that program at the levels that have been authorized by the prior Congresses.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
I am here today to speak specifically to a report that was released at the end of the last Congress looking at the colleges of agriculture in the Land Grant universities and specifically asking the question whether they are still relevant, given the dramatically changing client base they serve and the fact that there has been little change in the institutional arrangements for the Land Grant colleges since their inception.
This work was funded by a grant from the Kellogg Foundation and from funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
A consensus committee that we put together consisting of almost half the members from Land Grant institutions, including 1890's institutions, the private sector, and public interest groups, concluded that, in fact, the national science and education infrastructure underlying our food and agricultural system is still in the national interest, as is Federal funding for it.
They did conclude though that changes were needed, and those changes have been spoken to by a number of the witnesses already today. The relevance of the contemporary food and agricultural system needs to be exampled. We need to reinvigorate the commitment to teaching, research and public service; to organize programs and projects more efficiently; and ultimately to enhance the accountability to the public for these programs.
Let me speak to a few of the 20 recommendations that are appended to Dr. Albert's testimony. The specifics really reside in refinements in Federal policy, in reorienting incentives and signals to the Land Grant colleges.
The first recommendation would be that the receipt of any USDA administered funds at a Land Grant university would be predicated on the fact that the university demonstrated an ability to get input from a wide variety of stakeholders.
The second recommendation is that a significant share, perhaps as much as 25 percent, of USDA administered funds for teaching, research and extension should be provided for incentives for regional centers, consortia, programs, and projects that integrate and mobilize multi-State and multi-institutional resources.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
A third recommendation is that Federal formula funds for research and extension be combined into a single allocation and that a renewed emphasis on the integration of the tripartite mission be further enhanced by providing that 50 percent of those funds be for projects that do just that, support programs, projects, and activities that are integrating teaching, research, and extension.
A fourth recommendation goes to the question of competitive research, again, recommending that you fund at the levels previously authorized for the National Research Initiative and undertake the implementation of the merit and peer review system, as was mentioned by other witnesses, in a two-tiered fashion similar to that at the NIH.
Last, in the area of research funding, it is important to point out that the committee did find that a role still exists for formula funding for many of the reasons that Dr. Adkisson pointed out in his testimony. The committee did believe though that it is time to revisit that thorny issue of just how that formula is designed and implemented.
The last recommendation of some relevance, also spoken to by the administration witness, is a change in the way that funding is done for research at the 1890's institutions. As you know, current law requires a match in the Federal formula based contributions to the 1862 institutions, and the committee recommended that a similar change be made for the 1890's institution.
In closing, I would like to make a few remarks on the food genome project that was spoken to by the administration and other witnesses. We were asked by USDA in April to bring together a number of research scientists from the private sector and from academia and the Federal Government to discuss how such a program would be put together, what opportunities there might be, what issues might arise.
We brought together folks from the genome programs for the human, the mouse, Arabidopsis, livestock, maize, and I can point out a few things that seem to be shared by most of the participants.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
First of all, they believe that a coordinated effort at mapping and sequencing the genomes of important food, fiber, and microbial organisms was a more cost effective approach to the current piecemeal approach.
And the second point that seemed to resound throughout the room was that good planning done now would pay off in the long term rather than just launching into the project without that intense planning.
And I will end my remarks there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilman appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much.
I would like to compliment all of you on your testimony. There are obviously some very specific recommendations here, and it helps us a great deal to have those specifics.
We are all anxious to get to the same place, and that is to get the maximum return for the research dollars invested, to cut duplication to the extent that is possible, and see what is working and not mess it up and see what is not working and hopefully change it to the better, and that is a fairly formidable task I think we recognize.
A number of you discussed the need to increase industry input, stakeholder input, the recipients' input, and I think that is obviously something that is good. There are some sort of hidden concerns in that, I think, that obviously need to be addressed, as well, and that is to try to make certain that in doing that that you have agriculture represented across the board.
What is a priority and how is that determined? And to some people it may be a tremendous people. To others it may not seem as much as a blip on the screen, and that is something I think we have to address because if you are involving the stakeholder, the recipient of a good research program, you also run the risk of having to answer the question of: is there a special interest involved there?
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
And I think it is something that we need to look at very carefully because if there are groups on the outside that are having difficult times and need research dollars looking into a specific area and have no one to speak for them, I would be the first to scream, if it were me, that I do not have anybody on the board. I do not have anybody looking after my interests, and those people who are there are looking after a special interest.
And I do not know the answer to that, and yet I think it is something that we should look at.
Mr. Knill, you mentioned a number time, calling them stakeholders, and I think obviously that is a self-defining term. We all understand who those are.
One of the things I have been interested in pursuing, and I am certainly not to the point yet of knowing how we do this, but it is to increase the role of the public-private sector and to look for stakeholder investment, and that is not an easy task to accomplish because if you are talking about it in terms of crop specific, if you are doing research on wheat, obviously the wheat producer benefits. Obviously the Nation benefits, too, but then something may be found in that research that is extremely helpful not only to other grain crops, but some other crop that is totally nonconnected.
How much willingness do you—and I could ask this of each of you that would wish to respond—how much more willingness do you think that there is possibly with some restructuring for the private sector to invest in a cooperative effort with public-private dollars in order to try to increase the amount of research that is going on out there?
Mr. Erickson, you had mentioned some things that are going on there and we probably will not get to them in this ground, but I would like to come back to you and find out how that has worked and what suggestions you might have on how we might make that work better.
But how much more willing is the private sector, a farm association, such as American Farm Bureau, albeit soybean or wheat or cotton or whoever, producers, willing to invest in a matching or in some kind of cooperative grant with the Federal dollars to increase the availability of research?
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. KNILL. Sir, you did direct that question to me?
Mr. COMBEST. To anyone that is interested.
Mr. KNILL. Yes. I think there is a willingness to increase. I know within my own State of Maryland our Grain Producers Association is in joint venture with the University of Maryland doing things. There are private foundations, and they can range everywhere from environmental to strictly agriculture that has an interest in teaming up with research to determine environmental impacts, a more economic way of producing food or whatever the case might be.
I think there is an increasing willingness to do that.
Mr. ERICKSON. Mr. Chairman, some of the successes that the soybean industry has had in leveraging and partnering have been in specific projects or end result products, for example, a particular characteristic of oil in a particular variety of soybeans or an increase in protein in a particular variety of soybeans. I think that has been very successful.
I think our ability to carry that the next step to what sorts of general research can be leveraged and partnered to make not only positive gains for soybeans, but for other crops, I think, is the piece that is missing so far. We have not done that part very well, but we have done a good job of using private, public, and producer dollars in some of these specific end product results.
Mr. COMBEST. If anyone else wishes to comment; certainly there is no comment required.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment or two regarding that. I am also the president of the Oklahoma Grain Sorghum Producers Association, and we travel across the State each year holding grower meetings, and this past winter we were able to pass a checkoff program for grain sorghum in Oklahoma.
As we met with the farmers and talked to them about this pending legislation, I expected that we would get some amount of resistance. By and large, the farmers were supportive of this program, although it takes some dollars out of their pocket. They realize that the profitability of agriculture is so marginal that we need every advantage we can get. We need to stay on the forefront of scientific advancement in order to maintain that profitability on our family farms.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. COMBEST. Was that specific to research?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. COMBEST. The checkoff?
Mr. ROSE. Research and market development.
Mr. COMBEST. And the association makes the decision about actually how to spend the dollars?
Mr. ROSE. No, there will be a checkoff board established that will do that that will be elected by the producers. We were just facilitating and educating the farmers.
Mr. ANDERSON. For Minnesota Wheat Growers, I would just like to speak to the issue. In Minnesota, we presently have a 1 cent a bushel checkoff that is dedicated to research and promotion really, and presently we are discovering the idea of dedicating an additional cent per bushel to research and particularly maybe half of that cent to a State wheat breeder, which would be a new position in the State and would work directly with our ARS wheat breeder, who is stationed at the University of Minnesota, and I know that Dr. Phillips could speak to that.
Also, we have money invested in an endowed chair in the Entomology Department at the University of Minnesota. So there is all kinds of evidence of past cooperation and collaboration, and I know that we look forward to a healthy relationship in the future, and producers will step to the plate if there is some chance to enhance dollars.
Mr. COMBEST. My time has expired, but are your checkoffs mandatory? Both of you?
Mr. ANDERSON. Our checkoff in Minnesota at the present is nonrefundable.
Mr. COMBEST. Is yours as well in Oklahoma?
Mr. ROSE. It is refundable, sir.
Mr. COMBEST. It is refundable.
Thank you.
Mr. Dooley.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Combest, and I, too, want to join you in your comments on commending the Department for presenting a specific proposal for us to consider.
And I would like to spend some time going through some of the components of it, and I will do it somewhat in order.
Dr. Robinson and Dr. Phillips, you spent some time talking about the genome project, which I think is terrific. I also had a chance when I was reading Dr. Gilman's testimony though; he had expressed some concerns about whether or not we had developed an implementation plan that was commensurate with what we did with the human genome project and in terms of do we really know how to proceed in a manner which is going to maximize our opportunities and the money that we are investing in this.
And I do not know if you had a chance to hear some of the concerns that he expressed, but I would just be interested in how you respond to that.
Mr. ROBINSON. Let me begin in a general way, Congressman Dooley, and then ask Dr. Phillips if he would respond as well.
We are still trying to refine that approach and the implementation procedure, and so I think that is a valid question on the part of the academy as we begin this process, and trying to lay out a strategy for proceeding with this program that hits two or three things.
One is the state of the science at the moment, the greatest needs, and the greatest cooperation we can get with scientists both in this country and other countries, to be able to develop a strategy that is workable within the potential funding arrangements that we can devote to that kind of program.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, it is in the early stages of development. Perhaps the most advanced is the consideration on the plant genome, for which I am chairing an interagency working group, and we have released a status report at the end of June. We will have a full report by the end of the year with a much more detailed plan.
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But in there there are a number of scientific steps described relative to understanding the structure of the genome and gene isolation and the application, manipulation; also discussions for international cooperation, discussions with public-private partnerships.
So the plan for the plant genome is being very seriously developed. We had the benefit of the National Academy of Sciences meeting in April and the benefit of several other scientific meetings during the summer to help define the science. So we do have ideas, as well as on the animal side. The Animal Coordinating Committee has submitted ideas on how they would see the animal genome program develop.
So we have a lot on the table right now and it could be as available, but the plan is evolving and not a published document yet.
Mr. DOOLEY. On section 3.1, where you talk about having a minimum of 25 percent of the Federal extension funds being multi-State, regional, or national collaborative activities, I have a question. California, Florida, Texas have a large amount of specialty crops. And California, for instance, produces 50 percent of fruits and vegetables, is there any reason for some of that industry, especially crop industry, to be concerned when you have this 25 percent allocation for multi-State and also regional when 100 percent of some of these crops are grown in State?
How does the Department view or how are they going to handle that?
Mr. ROBINSON. Well, particularly in the set of crops you just mentioned, they would not be scattered as much in a region, a geographic region, as they would multi-State across regions, and that is the reason for the multi-State approach as opposed to just a regional approach.
California might be cooperating, for example, with Texas and Florida in a citrus issue or in a vegetable issue, crops which are common to both sides of the country. There might be particular crops that you would want to devote specific attention to in the State of California, for example, if near 100 percent of the production were located in California.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
This does not suggest 100 percent of those extension funds allocated to that, but it really concentrates on a portion of them to allow the leveraging of that portion across States, to be able to develop programs and leverage resources all the way across as opposed to developing a program in California, a program in Texas, and a program in Florida for basically the same kind of work.
Mr. DOOLEY. The other question I have relates to your section 4.3, I think it is, where it is eliminate the matching requirements for equipment grants under NRI to enable capacity building activities.
I guess over the course of these hearings I have yet to be convinced that we have a lack of research capacity in the country, and if we are trying to allocate our Federal funds in order to maximize the return, why are we talking about eliminating a match for Federal investment here?
I am having difficulty understanding the thinking behind this.
Mr. ROBINSON. OK. The purpose of this particular section in terms of eliminating the match on equipment grants would allow small institutions that are trying to build their capacity. Several of the different small institutions, the EPSCoR institutions, the 1890's, have visited us and presented the fact that they have a difficult problem building their own capacity to be competitive in the national research arena, including the National Research Initiative.
In fact, their argument is if they could get assistance through non-matched equipment grants, then that would help them to become more competitive generally.
Mr. DOOLEY. That appears though that it might be a little bit inconsistent with what you are calling for in terms of a match for the 1890's, eventually a 50 percent match, which there currently is none. That does not appear to be consistent with that line of thinking.
I guess I would just go to Dr. Gilman and the research that you did and the publication. I mean, did you find that there was a need to create additional capacity and the elimination of the Federal match on equipment purchases is something that would be a wise policy?
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. GILMAN. I think our committee would answer that probably the first order of business is to realign the resources that we do have to more closely match the problems that the research community is looking at, much like your discussion of going to multi-State and multi-regional questions, to really just reorder the way we apply those resources.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a real parochial issue. I have an agriculture research lab in my district, and I notice that the ARS director is here, but not one of the witnesses, and we have had a little bit of a problem with funding our lab, particularly a pilot project in terms of the construction there, and I just wonder if it is possible for the ARS director or Dr. Robinson to comment on the current funding for that pilot project, that we are trying to get initiated at the Peoria lab.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. LaHood, as I stated in my earlier comments, Dr. Knipling is here to respond to questions, and certainly he has more expertise than I. So I would ask him to respond to your question.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. KNIPLING. Mr. LaHood, I believe you are speaking of the renovation of part of the facility there.
Mr. LAHOOD. That is correct.
Mr. KNIPLING. Speaking of the pilot plant facility at Peoria, that has been under design for renovation. We have received appropriations in increments, and we have actually designed the construction of it to be in 3 phases.
The bids for the first phase came in a little high, which is something we have had experience with, and we made a reprogramming request to the appropriations committees to allow us to move monies from one project to another. That is going through the approval process right now.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We do not expect any problem with that, and we would expect those resources to be available within the coming month. Certainly you can get that contract awarded before the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. LAHOOD. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the number of hearings that you have held on this and the fact that earlier on we did have the director of our lab here and also one of the associated programs at the agriculture lab, the BRDC, and I think it was very helpful to committee to have an opportunity to hear from them.
I wonder if I could just pick up on something that Mr. Dooley said in terms of the idea of do we have too much research going on in our government. Is there too much agriculture research going on? Is there too much research capability, or are we at about the right capability?
I would be curious to know what any of you think about that. As we are writing the research title of the farm bill, I think some of us, particularly those of us who have research labs in our districts, realize the value of them and also realize or I, for one, think that we probably do not have enough, but I am curious to know what the rest of you think.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I might respond. Inherent in the question, Mr. Chairman, I believe you mentioned capacity as opposed to capability. In the National Research Initiative, we receive about 3,000 per year and turn down about 2,300 of them.
Last year, I began to realize that we were turning down proposals that were ranked extremely high. Out of the 28 programs within which we fund, there were 13 that we did not get out of the high category, and most panel review people will agree, I think, that if you make it into the medium category you really have an excellent proposal.
So my reaction is that there is capacity there that we are not able to provide the resources for to have the opportunities that are laid out in front of us. So we have the idea. We have it written on paper. We have someone willing to do it, but we do not have sufficient funds to fund it.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
I think the response to the Fund for Rural America is another example showing that there is capacity there. A tremendous response in terms of proposals.
So resources, I think, truly are limiting to take advantage of what is available to us right now.
Mr. ERICKSON. I think if you review the 64 studies the ARS has evaluated showing a return to taxpayers of over 46 percent, if you were in a private business and you found that return on your investment, you would put more money there.
If you look at the challenges we face in losing cropland every year in the United States and at least we are going to have a growing population and all of that, it is in the long-term interest of every consumer that we invest in these areas.
Environmental issues are increasingly putting burdens on agriculture in terms of getting more efficient and effective. So you look at our competitors and what they are investing, and I think by no measure are we putting too much into this area because it benefits every single consumer in the United States and many around the world.
Mr. WEBER. I think that the Congressman raises a good point, and I tried to point out in my testimony that producers and private industry have, in fact, beefed up, if you will, their investment in research with the understanding that we felt Federal funds were going to follow as well.
So certainly we do not think now is the appropriate time to begin to limit resources there, just as we are making some very positive headway. The Congressman mentioned the lab in Peoria, which I live within about 60 miles of, certainly, one that has provided lots of positive benefit to producers throughout the Midwest, if not even further than that.
So while we may have to look at what we fund and where all we fund it, I do not think that there is any less need; in fact, even a growing need has been mentioned before for continued agriculture research.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes. I think Dr. Adkisson also was wishing to make a comment.
Mr. LAHOOD. Okay.
Mr. ADKISSON. I want to make a comment to say that my experience at Texas A&M University, I left my faculty position about 15 years ago to go into higher administration, and then I returned to the faculty in the Entomology Department, and what I found in that 15 years was that the people that are doing production oriented research now are underemployed and underfunded. The people that are trying to find better insect control programs, breed better varieties, people that are doing farm research at the centers, at the outlying centers are underfunded, and the people in biotechnology have a lot of money, and the people that are not biotechnologists are trying to chase that money, and they cannot get it because they really are not trained in that area, and they really do not want to do that kind of research.
So you find some very fine production oriented scientists that are not fully employed, and they are not answering the problems that these men from the commodity groups have brought to them, and they know that as well as I do.
The other thing I found is that in the departments of entomology and the crops and soil sciences, and I think animal sciences, at Texas A&M—and we are one of the largest agriculture colleges in the country—half of the Ph.D. students are foreign born. They come from Africa. They come from Asia, and they come from all over the world, more from there than from Texas and from Oklahoma and Louisiana and Arkansas and areas where we used to draw students.
So if you go to a graduation exercise, you see the Ph.D.s being put on foreign born, about half of them, which means at some point down the line those old guys like me who have just retired and Ron, who is going to replace us? And they are not going to be people who come off the farms and ranches like we did and become agricultural scientists. They will not have that kind of background. They will not have that kind of knowledge.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
So I can say to you that agricultural research is declining in this country, and the base of the research that we need to sustain our food supply is declining as the world's population is doubling, and I think we take a very short sighted view of where we are going.
You can downsize a car to make it more fuel efficient. You maybe can downsize an airplane and make it more fuel efficient, but all of us require about 1,500, 2,000 calories a day to be efficient. You get below that and you are not very efficient, and there is not any way to downsize that that I know of.
We need to maintain a base for sustaining our food supply in this world.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the ARS Director another question?
Mr. COMBEST. Sure.
Mr. LAHOOD. Dr. Knipling, as you know, in the House version we put about $8 million in for this pilot program or pilot building, and the Senate had, well, close to $4 million. Are you saying that you think the full $8 million will be or are you supporting that?
I know I have been working on trying to get, you know, hopefully the entire $8 million in there because I think that is what the Peoria lab needs. Are you saying that you support that effort also?
Mr. KNIPLING. Yes, we do. That was part of the administration's request for the full $8 million. That particular project is actually different, a different portion of the facility than the pilot plant portion that we spoke of earlier.
This is the so-called north wing of the facility. And that requires an $8 million renovation. The House did provide that full amount on the Appropriation Committee. The Senate did not. Certainly that will be on the conference table.
But we are supportive, yes, of the full $8 million.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and may I repeat what you have already said as to the tremendous value and quality of the testimony we have had as it relates to rewriting of the research provisions of the farm bill, and I am very grateful to all of the witnesses for what they have done.
I just have a few comments. First, with regard to Mr. LaHood's last point about the need for more research, that is a perennial problem in every field of research, and I have come to the conclusion that as long as human hopes and aspirations are unlimited, that we will only be able to fulfill them by the contribution that research makes to meeting those hopes and aspirations, and it applies in every field, not just research.
Currently I think it would be generally agreed, and I think the witnesses agree, that we are underfunding agriculture research, and we are underfunding other kinds of research, but the amount that we should be spending is going to be difficult to determine. We need to think about it carefully.
I wanted to express my appreciation to Dr. Adkisson for his comments, and particularly on the area of the contributions that molecular biology might make in some very important areas. I would like to say that my mentor for many years here in the Congress was the Congressman from College Station, Tiger Teague, whom I am sure you knew very well. He chaired both the Veterans' Committee and the Science Committee, which I served on, and I became subcommittee chairman there, and I owe everything I know about Congress to his help and understanding.
Now, I have a question that I would like to relate to Mr. Erickson and perhaps to Dr. Adkisson as well. It has to do with the possibility that in the case of soybeans there might be a human health effect stemming from a large concentration of a trace metal in soybeans, manganese specifically, which soy has a large concentration of manganese, and soy formula concentrates that and to the point where children who are fed on soy formula may get a large amount of manganese in their brain system.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Now, I brought this up with Health and Human Services with NIH, and they say a lot of research is being done, but nothing specifically on this issue of the concentration of manganese in soybeans. May I ask you specifically if you know of any research being done in this area?
Mr. ERICKSON. No, I do not know of any research, at least farmer funded research, that is being done in that area, no.
Mr. BROWN. Yes. Well, I am a little puzzled by that because if there is an element of an adverse impact upon infants, we are going to face the possibility of something like the alar problem in apples if it turns out to be the case and we have not anticipated it and done some research.
Now, this fits in, Dr. Adkisson, with your position that there could be a lot more research done in the positively beneficial effects of certain components in food that has an inhibiting effect on cancer, for example, and if this kind of research is being underfunded, probably there needs to be some way of calling the attention of the research community to the importance of doing something in this area.
Can you suggest how we could go about that? Do we put more money into it specifically?
Mr. ADKISSON. Let me answer that I do not know about the specific problem you are talking about. I do know that Bruce Ames at University of California, and you may know Bruce, has identified a lot of natural carcinogens in plants as well as official compounds.
So we have some compounds in our food plants that we need to get rid of, and this may be a problem.
I do know that on soybeans there are a number of compounds in soybeans that are very healthy, benefit your health and aid in the prevention of diseases. Work has been done at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana on this, and also at the University of Alabama Medical Center in Birmingham.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
But if we could identify in a crop like soybeans, which in this country is animal feed except for the oil, compounds to make soybeans more of a human food than an animal food, think what the value added would be, in addition to maybe adding some years to our lives.
But we are finding in food plants, and I do not think there ought to be any big surprise that we find food plants' compounds have therapeutic value. There are hundreds of them, and in places like Johns Hopkins, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, University of California Medical School in San Francisco, people are identifying these compounds, but it is surprising to me that in the agriculture research, we do not have anybody yet saying, ''Look. We can enhance those compounds.''
I know in our own case that we have been involved in just looking at like beta carotene in carrots and find out there is huge variability. So these could select farm by conventional breeding, but we do not know what the maximum effective concentrations are. We do not really even know yet what all of the compounds involved are.
So it is very complex. It is a very complex problem, but it is very exciting because we are what we eat, and what I am afraid of, Congressman Brown—and you are one of my favorite Congressmen from many years ago. I was on Winrock with you one time on top of a mountain. Do you remember that?
Mr. BROWN. Right.
Mr. ADKISSON. They are going to find out about this about 25 years from now, and it will be too late for you and me. [Laughter.]
Mr. ADKISSON. We need to find out now so that we can prolong our lives a little bit longer.
Mr. BROWN. Well, I would just like to make a final comment that when we considered the original report from the Board on Food and Agriculture for the National Research Initiative, it was because we felt we were underfunding this kind of complex, interdisciplinary, cellular research, and we are still, in my opinion, underfunding it, and we need to do something about it.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Several of you have commented on that, and I appreciate these comments very much, and my remarks were not meant to indicate there is anything wrong with soybeans. It is just that certain trace elements in certain people can have adverse impact, and we ought to know about that, and we are not doing the research to do it.
I was amazed that NIH was not doing research in this area, and there is a long statement in the appropriations bill which I carefully crafted indicating the need for additional research by NIH in this area, but since it involves food, it should also be a part of the food research program.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Brown, perhaps I could add just a comment to that. We did support through a Federal partner in the research community and in cooperation with the Institute of Food Technology, a scientific conference in Chicago a few years ago dealing with naturally occurring toxicants in foods, and that has been one of the bases that has guided our research agenda.
So it is an excellent point that you make.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the late seventies and early eighties, I was a member of and the public representative on the Joint Council Advisory Group on Food and Agricultural Science, and I was concerned then and I am still concerned that we are not making the necessary effort in tracking the agricultural research that is being conducted in other countries, and some of that research is harder to obtain.
So maybe, Dr. Robinson, can you tell me what kind of staffing, how many people, and how we go about tracking that research?
Mr. ROBINSON. I am not sure that I could answer your question quite as directly as you asked it. We do not have any one designated, for example, to track particular science in different areas in other countries, yet we do have people who are working in the scientific community, for example, research in genetics, and I will ask Dr. Phillips to respond to this, too, because the food genome work that we are proposing in this initiative is an example of that, where we can actually benefit from the research that is going on in other countries, as opposed to just being the provider of research results in the international community.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
That is particularly true, for example, in rice genomic work. Japan has done a good deal more than most other countries, and where we could benefit in a collaborative arrangement.
Mr. SMITH. It would be my concern that if there is not some structure to our investigation and tracking of who is doing what research and finding out the results of that research in other countries of the world, then we are probably in some cases missing the boat if there is not some structure to that examination.
Mr. ROBINSON. The structure comes mostly from the scientists who are in the business of trying to discover where different kinds of research are underway. The beginning of almost any project involves a literature review and attending conferences where you become acquainted with what other scientists are doing.
It occurs more in terms of preparing to initiate a piece of research than in terms of attempts to monitor the research that is underway.
An additional mechanism for that is through scientific societies, both national and international scientific societies.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, I know, and those have existed for the last 30 or 40 years, but still, some countries do not have the publishing requirements, for example, for their public research that we do in this country, and so my impression is and my meager investigation is that if it is not pursued and not structured, too often some things pass by us.
And if there is a particular concentration in the genome research, then I am sure the investigators are going out looking at it.
Does anybody else have a comment?
Mr. ADKISSON. I just wanted to add to what Dr. Robinson said that science is a very competitive sport, and the best scientists in this country know what is going on in their competitors' laboratories, and you do that by being involved in international conferences and symposiums, scientific meetings, by word of mouth, by being involved in the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations.
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
So there are a lot of ways that our scientists are the leaders in the world, and they know what is going on. You know what is going on in your competitor's lab, I can tell you.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I might just add that, of course, some of the resources you do provide goes to support this kind of activity, not a tracking activity, but funding of conferences. The National Research Initiative last year funded 31 conferences each in a small amount, an average of $6,600, and many of those are international in nature. They and are more costly than what any one group can provid, but funding international conferences is one way to increase tracking of international work.
In addition, the Internet is enhancing international communication phenomenally at the present time.
Relative to the food genome issue, we have had a preliminary meeting of key scientists from Japan and Europe and the United States, talking about international cooperation. So on a specific basis and a need basis, it is happening, but nothing formal yet.
Mr. SMITH. After the United States, who would be the next three or four most aggressive countries in terms of their investment in agricultural research?
Mr. ROBINSON. More than likely many of——
Mr. SMITH. Do we know?
Mr. ROBINSON [continuing.] Many of the countries of the European Community would——
Mr. SMITH. Do we know? Is this an absolute? Do we know how much these countries spend? And could you provide me that?
Mr. ROBINSON. I do not have current data, but I can see what I can find and provide you that.
Mr. SMITH. Well, in finishing up, as a farmer I have always been concerned that farmers sometimes are just a short-term benefactor of a lot of our research, and so to the extent we can, I would like to be more selfish in making sure that our research is geared to our particular climate, our particular soils, our particular infrastructure.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
And I would hope we could work in, Mr. Chairman, the kind of language to hopefully build in that kind of criteria.
Just a final comment maybe from anybody that would like to comment on both research and education moving away from production agriculture to other areas, and as money becomes short, a greater willingness possibly to take the co-pay or co-contributions of industry that sometimes is going to be the kind of research that is going to benefit that particular industry more than production agriculture.
Any comments to sort of wind this up on how we make sure that our farmers benefit to the greatest degree? Yes, Mr. Knill.
Mr. KNILL. I think it is important that we stay focused on what the agricultural research should address. Not only do we benefit each and every person here in the United States when they sit down to a meal directly through agricultural research, but we indirectly affect every person in the United States with the balance of payments that agricultural products provide this country, which allows a higher standard of living.
So agricultural research is very important.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Ms. Stabenow.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate everyone's information and testimony today. It has been very enlightening. I specifically want to address a question to Mr. Anderson.
I appreciate the work that you have been doing on the wheat scab issue and understand the seriousness of what is happening as it relates to wheat and barley.
I also would take a point of personal privilege to introduce a constituent of mine who I know is here with you from Michigan State University, Rick Ward, who is an assistant professor and plant breeder, and I want to thank Rick and the folks at Michigan State for helping to lead this.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
I have to put in a plug for my alma mater, Mr. Chairman, whenever I get an opportunity to do that.
We have heard you mention, Mr. Anderson, today about the significant losses to date for wheat scab, and yet we know that if left unchecked, we will see additional losses that I would like to have you talk about. I understand that the zero tolerance policy that many processors have adopted toward vomitoxin has already led to shifts in markets and higher costs to consumers, and I wondered if you could elaborate more on the cost implications, the trade implications associated with the spread of the disease that you talked about this morning.
Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I am going to let Mr. Rick Ward address those questions.
Rick.
Mr. WARD. Good morning.
Your question is regarding the trade aspects of vomitoxin?
Ms. STABENOW. Trade and also consumer aspects just in terms of costs of not addressing this particular issue.
Mr. WARD. Right. What the National Association of Wheat Growers report just concluded and what we have felt intuitively is that the low tolerance or zero tolerance policies will result in a major realignment of where wheat is grown, and for instance, the cereal industry in Michigan the last year to a great extent refused to accept delivery of Eastern United States wheat. They went to Idaho for their wheat.
That added $2 per bushel at least in transport costs. That cost is ultimately passed on to the consumer.
The international community is beginning to focus more and more on vomitoxin as it has on other toxins, and this can represent trade barriers for us and, therefore, declining value of our crop.
I think I will stop there.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Ms. STABENOW. If I might ask you one more question, Mr. Ward.
Mr. WARD. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. STABENOW. I understand that the 12-State cooperative project would be multi-sectored and multi-disciplined. It really speaks to what I have been hearing on the subcommittee as testimony in terms of the direction that is being recommended in terms of public-private sector working together, working with the universities.
But would you describe a little bit more about how that would work as it relates to the wheat scab and vomitoxin issue and why you think that this kind of approach would be effective?
Mr. WARD. The problem of scab is proving to be quite intractable. We would like to have a gene cloned that would stop it cold in its tracks, but at this moment in time we are not sure where the inoculum comes from that infected Tom's field this year unfortunately.
There are very fundamental, simple questions of plant pathology-epidemiology that we do not have answered and that are difficult for an individual scientist to answer. We think we need to pool our resources.
Since this is regional in scope, one needs to have experimentation on a regional basis. For instance, this year the eastern soft wheat areas have to a large extent escaped. The only area that I am aware of that got hit hard was central Kentucky, but Minnesota has been hit again by scab.
First off, we do not know why. The predictions in Indiana and Illinois were that we were going to be clobbered because it was raining during flowering. Well, our dogma was wrong because they did not get clobbered.
How we can address this issue scientifically when we do not understand simple things like when is it going to happen is beyond me, and it is going to take all of our minds to do that.
Multi-discipline because we want to try to keep the vomitoxin from entering the crop, and that involves pathologists, production specialists, and so on, breeders. We want to try to remove the vomitoxin if it does get into the crop. That is a grain handling, grain science, food science arena. It is multi-sectored because it goes from the farmer to the elevator operator, to the miller, to the food processor, and it is amazing how ignorant we are of each other's knowledge base and activities.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. Smith asked about international knowledge, knowing what is going on in another country. I will tell you here that in this process of these 12 States coming together, I will guarantee you every single one of the 40 or more scientists involved has learned about something going on in the neighboring State that they did not know about.
And so we are all islands of knowledge, and we need to actively bridge those, and that extends as well into industry. Every time a miller speaks, I learn something I did not know, and yet I am providing him or her his raw product. Do I know how important something is? Not necessarily, not if I have not sat down and spoken to them.
So we need client orientation. We need an entire multi-sector, multi-disciplined approach, and this is not a brilliant idea. Scab is going to destroy the wheat industry in the eastern United States. It is a mortal threat. That is all there is to it, and we need to marshal all of the resources we can.
We know money is short, but this is a problem that we can document. The billion dollars mentioned was three States. It was three States, but we have been hit elsewhere. So the losses are huge, and it is just real obvious we need to work together to do this, and we need to work with ARS, as well.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Lucas.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As always, it is a pleasure to be here, and if I could direct my one question to my constituent sitting out there in the panel from the panhandle, Mr. Rose.
In reading your testimony, Kenneth, you state that the Secretary has existing authority to shift funds from one agency to another in health emergencies, and that he may well need additional authority to allow focus on specific emergencies which might be deemed to severely impact production of markets.
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Is it your contention that he does not have that authority and should he have that authority?
Mr. ROSE. I think what we are saying there is he should have that authority, and to specifically relate to a problem in the sorghum industry that is just coming to our attention this year is the problem of the sorghum ergot that is moving up from South America into south Texas and into the seed production area of the grain sorghum crop.
That is just one of many instances of emergencies that we see from time to time. You have heard the testimony this morning relating to the wheat scab. We need the ability or I think what we are saying is if the Secretary had the discretion to respond to those with significant dollars for major projects, that would be a way of protecting our food industry and our food resources.
Mr. LUCAS. So preventative medicine is still the best medicine, so to speak.
Mr. ROSE. Oh, yes.
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome Mr. Anderson, one of my constituents. We appreciate your leadership, your organization, and for those that are not aware, I think Minnesota has put what, $3 million into wheat scab research in the last 3 years alone? So we recognize in Minnesota what a problem this is, and it is, I think, showing up again right now in the crop out there.
I guess in light of the fact that I think your organization and the other groups had asked for $5 million in the appropriations bill and we only got $500,000 so far, I guess, is there some other way that this can be accomplished? Does ARS have the authority to shift resources or what is the strategy?
I am concerned. I think Minnesota has made the commitment. The Federal Government ought to be at least matching what we are doing at the State level.
Page 405 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
What is going on behind the scenes? Is there anything going on here that will get us to where we need to be?
Mr. ANDERSON. I do not really know, Collin. I think that is what we are about here today and maybe yesterday. We are hoping that maybe the legislation that Ms. Stabenow is introducing along with Blunt might, as I said, gain congressional support. Certainly I cannot speak for ARS, but Mr. Ward and I will be talking to one of their program leaders this afternoon, and we are really trying to discover every method we can, and I am not a politician. So you might know better how to approach that.
We are certainly open to whatever suggestions, but you are right. In Minnesota, we have stepped to the plate as producers and the taxpayer with our recent initiative.
And just as an aside, I do want to say that I do farm in North Dakota, and this disease does not stop at the Red River. It is going to affect Mr. Pomeroy's constituents as well, and it is a big problem, and we really need to get our hands around this thing.
Thank you.
Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you.
And I am a co-sponsor.
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, you are.
Mr. PETERSON. And, that will help, I think, if we get the authorization.
One of the concerns I have is that time is wasting here, and we need the money in there now so that we can move on this research.
Mr. ANDERSON. Certainly, Collin, we really do need that, and like I said, we are open to any and all suggestions, and as you know we have worked very closely with you, and if you have any thoughts, please get them to us. You always do.
Mr. PETERSON. Yes. One other question, and it might be the gentleman who was behind you there that might know about this or maybe you would know.
Page 406 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
One of our old neighbors, Jim Cook, is a researcher out in Washington State who did research on fusarium in the root of wheat and apparently bred it out after 20 or 30 years, as I understand it. Are people aware of that research, No. 1?
And, No. 2, is any of that useful in what we are doing here? Will it give us any kind of a leg up in getting a handle on this?
Mr. ANDERSON. I will let Rick Ward respond to that.
Mr. WARD. The dogma to date is that the seedling resistance that Dr. Cook has worked on with colleagues is not applicable to the infection of the head, which is the grain developing part that we are concerned with now.
However, my guess is—and I would have to say I am guessing. I do not know that literature myself—but my guess is that the actual mechanism by which that works is as of yet unknown, but it is empirical that we found plants that did not show fusarium seedling blight and amplified their presence in breeding materials.
But why? What is the chemical basis of that? I seriously doubt that that is known. That might lead to a solution in other situations like the head infection. So I think that work should be built upon, but at this point it's not directly. You just cannot take those genes and move them and make that work for head scab.
Mr. PETERSON. This work that is being asked for in this genome, is any of that going to be helpful? Would that type of research be helpful in trying to get at how to solve this problem?
Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, it would definitely be helpful. The University of Minnesota just last week was able to successfully recruit a new assistant professor working in the molecular biology of wheat and barley with scab being one of the primary emphases.
Part of Dr. Cook's work in Washington State that you referred to has to do with the tacol disease, and part of that is to find certain fields do not show the disease, and when they went in there and looked at those fields, they found that in the soil, which they call now suppressive soils, it had certain bacteria in it that suppressed the disease organism, and these bacteria produce a class of antibiotics actually to do it, and that work is through ARS, but also funded through the NRI very substantially.
Page 407 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
So this aspect of looking for fields that may not show scab is another possibility that could relate to his work, although I am not aware of that at this time, but the whole idea of trying to use the genomic approach to understand pathological organisms is paramount to the genome program, as well as other programs within the USDA.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you very much, Dr. Phillips.
I would encourage members of the subcommittee to help us try to figure out a way to get some more money in this program because I think it is a serious problem for not only our area, but the country as a whole.
Mr. COMBEST. Mrs. Clayton.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not have any specific question to the panelists, though I appreciate their testimony and have had a chance to scan them individually, but I do have some inquiries in general, and one is just to recognize the inevitability, as we approach the research component of the 1996 farm bill, that we are in the crunch of limited resources, and trying to find how we maximize and continue the research that is so critical for affordable and safe food now only for our Nation, as you said, but also for the world, as well as what it means to have enhanced value added to the process.
I guess this would be Dr. Robinson. Could you just comment on if there is an opportunity for collaboration between other research entities that the Government does with agriculture? And what is the role of the private sector, NIH, and research as it relates to researchers' pharmaceuticals? And how do we in agriculture require our private sectors to play a role comparable to in some instances what the pharmaceutical companies are required or any other areas?
I am trying to quilt the potential of a future support system for agricultural research, and we are going to have to find a model, and if there is a model you can refer us to, because adrenaline resources stares you in the face. You were here last week with extension and 4-H, and now you are here with the individual commodities. So you cannot escape what is going to be the reality of that.
Page 408 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
So there must be something looming out there that you are going to access to look to as a guide to make these things possible.
Mr. ROBINSON. That is an excellent question, Congresswoman Clayton, much better than I can give an answer to, but let me make a few points relative to it.
Partnership was one of the issues that was discussed significantly during the process of these hearings from the very first hearing through today. I think gets at the core of your question is how to develop those partnerships appropriately between the private and public sectors and between different areas within the public sector. How do we begin to get better and overlapping agreements between NIH, NSF, our National Research Initiative.
The food genome project initiative is one way we are doing that where USDA would take the lead and we would work with the Department of Energy and with other scientific granting organizations to try to further that work?
An additional way is through the Cooperative Agricultural Research and Development Agreements, which are increasing every year in number as private partners come and cooperate with ARS. Agreements bring money, facilities or some other kinds of cooperative arrangements that helps address some of the more important problems that farmers, ranchers, and rural people are facing.
I think each one of the people that were at the witness table today in one way or another gave an example of some kind of partnership that they were dealing with, between the university and ARS or between one of the commodity associations or producer associations and their respective universities.
It is, as you put it, a most complex quilt that is being woven for the future, but it is one that has as its core the issue of partnerships and how to make them work.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Dooley, do you have other questions?
Page 409 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, sir.
Going back, Dr. Robinson, to your proposal, I also just wanted to have a little further insight into the section 5.2 where we would be lifting the current cap for indirect costs of 14 percent at 25 percent. Would this be similar to what we see with a lot of the NIH grants, or what is comparable indirect cost reimbursement in other areas outside of USDA?
Mr. ROBINSON. Most universities have a negotiated rate, and the average, I think, now runs about 45 to 48 percent, somewhere in that range.
Mr. DOOLEY. I mean like if somebody was going to apply for a grant.
Mr. ROBINSON. Right.
Mr. DOOLEY. It would be as high as 48 percent on indirect?
Mr. ROBINSON. It would be as high as 48 percent. The proposal that we have, particularly given the mix of funding mechanisms, is to increase indirect cost recovery to 25 percent on our competitive awards above a restriction on indirect cost recovery for competitive grants capped at 14 percent.
But this proposal is to bring that more in line and to bring some consistency among granting mechanisms. For example, the Fund for Rural America is not subject to this cap, but, in fact, can be a negotiated rate; whereas, the NRI is subject to the 14 percent cap.
And what we were beginning to notice and hear people talk about is shifting among funding mechanisms simply on the basis of indirect cost recovery rather than on the basis of the purpose and goals of the funding program itself.
Mr. DOOLEY. And, Dr. Gilman, this would be something in the investigation or research that you did that you would think would be most appropriate, the indirect cap being increased?
Fourteen does seem to be very low.
Mr. GILMAN. Yes, and the inconsistency among the different grant programs is a serious problem with people shopping based on their indirect cost needs as opposed to the appropriate program.
Page 410 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. The other thing, Dr. Weber's testimony had a recommendation to USDA, and they refer to it as reestablish the partnership, and that basically would be to publish all requests for proposals for competitive and special grants in the Federal Register, and also in the Federal Register purposes of notice and comment, the evaluation criteria for the Government performance and review compliance, as well as a plan of work required, criteria required before formula funds are distributed to respective States.
And thirdly, it said to evaluate the potential role of the two-tiered project review process.
I guess, Dr. Robinson, when I read this it makes a lot of sense to me. Is USDA supportive or interested in incorporating something like this or do you already have something like this in place?
Mr. ROBINSON. Well, we are increasingly trying to make the request for proposals more transparent. There is always a problem in getting those out too rapidly, and you could potentially give some people an advantage, but at the same time, you cannot use that as an excuse not to insure that your request for proposal is addressing relevant issues.
One of the places where we have explored that possibility at the moment, is with the National Advisory Board and the Fund for Rural America because statutorily it is required. So we are developing a process there to explore the priority issues which would be involved in the development of a request for proposals, then ultimately come back in terms of a relevance review.
And I think those were two of the issues that were contained in Dr. Weber's testimony.
Mr. DOOLEY. With what Dr. Weber was advocating, would that process—I know what you are saying being a little bit premature—but would it be too cumbersome? Just in terms of physically, implementation.
Mr. ROBINSON. It certainly would not be without some additional investments of time and energy. How cumbersome? It is difficult to predict at this time.
Page 411 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
If we did it from the point of view of publishing a preliminary request for proposal in the Federal Register for comment and then took those comments in the future development, that is a process not dissimilar from what we are trying to use with the National Advisory Board and the Fund for Rural America.
It is still a process to try to get stakeholder input in building the most relevant request for proposals that we can.
Mr. DOOLEY. Dr. Weber, I do not know if you wanted to comment at all on this. It was your testimony I was referring to.
Mr. WEBER. Well, I know in the Department there is seemingly some concern that they may need to do this before there might even be appropriations for a project, and there had been some concern about that. We feel that as long as that is made known that there might actually not be funds forthcoming or there may be changes, it still provides us an opportunity for input and gives early warning of the directions and gives us a chance to correct the course early on, and we certainly recommend they consider this seriously.
Mr. DOOLEY. And, Dr. Gilman, I guess if you would have any comment one way or the other in terms of this, using the Federal record as a process of dissemination.
Mr. GILMAN. Our study group did not get into the specifics, but certainly endorse that sort of two-tiered system where you get input not just on the science, but from stakeholders as to the importance of the research from their perspective.
Mr. COMBEST. I believe Mrs. Clayton had a followup question.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to do this.
Referring back to the proposal, I guess, it comes as a proposal from the administration in the research. There is a reference to the 1890 colleges now being phased in in terms of there being a requirement of matching share in terms of research. What is motivating this change?
Page 412 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
And second, if there is a motivation, has there been some implication as to what would be the impact of the opportunity for research on this institution if, indeed, this is accomplished?
Mr. ROBINSON. The motivation for the proposal is actually twofold. One, this proposal had its basis in the National Research Council's report of about a year ago in terms of looking at the equity of matching funds for 1890 institutions.
It also is part of the Department's effort for equity and access to funds for research, education and extension programs at 1890 institutions.
There is in this approach, however, an effort to phase in a matching requirement up to a match of 50 percent of the Federal share, realizing that there is a need to move in something like this in a more iterative fashion than to ask for full match at the outset.
Additionally, the proposal as written by the Department has a bit of a fail safe in it in that if a match were not met, that the funds would revert back to the Secretary of Agriculture to address problems important to 1890 institutions, as opposed to those funds reverting back to the Treasury.
Mrs. CLAYTON. How does that work if it reverts back? I see it written, but how does that benefit the institution?
Mr. ROBINSON. There is generally a requirement that if an institution or agency does not meet the requirements for Federal funding, that those funds would revert back to the Treasury.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So it would be lost to agriculture?
Mr. ROBINSON. Right.
Mrs. CLAYTON. So then it benefits the Department. It may not benefit the institution.
Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. Well, this proposal actually has them revert back to the Secretary of Agriculture for use with the 1890 institutions.
Page 413 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mrs. CLAYTON. As research or as something else?
Mr. ROBINSON. We do not get into the detail here, but it would be in the program for research and education and extension at the 1890's.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Could you just provide the committee information just by the extent of research that is being conducted at the 1890 institutions and their opportunity of participation in the research grants across the board for the last 5 years for us?
Mr. ROBINSON. I am sorry. I am not hearing you.
Mrs. CLAYTON. I said could you present for the benefit of the committee the extent to which the 1890 universities have participated in research across the board maybe for the last 4 to 5 years.
Mr. ROBINSON. We can certainly get that data for you, yes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. All right. Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Do any other members have questions of this panel?
Mr. DOOLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COMBEST. All right. The gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess no hearing would be complete without once again addressing formula funding. [Laughter.]
I have been presented with some information, again, that gets into the Smith-Lever allocations and primarily the 3(b) and 3(c). It is kind of interesting when you look at the range in terms of the State and local match and the private match of the Federal dollars.
I think my interest in this and other members' on the committee is if we are trying to get the greatest return on the investment of Federal dollars, how do we leverage more participation from the State and local.
And just to give you an idea on the range we have Rhode Island which their Federal funding constitutes 67 percent of their agriculture research dollars, and we have the low, which is really Florida, which the Federal component is only 15 percent of their agriculture research, and the national average is about, oh, 27 to 28 percent.
Page 414 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
So what I am interested in is I am a little concerned when we see the plant genome project and some of these others, which I think all of the industry groups support. How do we get the dollars to fund these?
When we hear the recommendations coming out of Dr. Gilman and the folks that took a look at the agriculture research, they are talking about getting the more competitive grants, and my concern is how do you find the dollars.
And I guess my question would be to some of you: would it not be a good policy to state that we ought to change some of these formulas which were developed back 40 years ago, a lot of them and maybe require more of a State and local match?
If the average right now is at 30 percent of Federal dollars currently in place, why shouldn't we over a period of years be asking some of those States—and Rhode Island is at 67 percent, Connecticut is at 53 percent, and Massachusetts is at 51 percent, Pennsylvania is at 39 percent. Some of these States are not poor States. I mean they have quite a few resources.
Why shouldn't we be requiring them to come down to at least what the national average is of a 30 percent? And if we did this, my calculations on that, we would generate $17.5 million of additional agriculture research if we got that same level of State match, or that money could be available for competitive grants or plant genome, and I would just be interested if anyone would want to comment on the formula process there.
Dr. Robinson.
Mr. ROBINSON. We seem to continue this debate. Just one comment.
I think the numbers that you are using include perhaps both formula and other Federal sources for research or research and education because except for some of the island countries and territories, all States must fully meet the match to receive formula funds.
So some of those are already involved in competitive grants, and unfortunately since we had a meeting, I did not bring my stack of materials with me, so that I do not have them in front of me.
Page 415 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess it just begs the question though, and, Dr. Gilman, in your recommendations, you made recommendations on some of the formula funds, which were based basically on farm population, which is based on the census, which they include anyone that has $1,000 in gross farm receipts as being a farmer. They also include a definition on rural population, which is a function of this.
The comment that Mr. Rose led off to is a reauthorization basically in a static environment and these formulas constitute not only a static environment, but an environment and formula that was developed 50 years ago. Is that, again, maximizing the opportunities?
You had some recommendations on how some of those should be changed.
Mr. GILMAN. There is no question there have been a number of different suggestions as to the kind of factors that might be considered in a more modernized formula, but recognizing the difficulty of just making decisions.
We have encouraged people in the past to think about simply opening a dialogue, trying to create some kind of more formalized process where we can begin to try and create some consensus in the community as to what better measures might be.
Mr. DOOLEY. And, Mr. Knill, I think you in your statement, if I remember correct, supported encouraging greater local, private, State match. Does the Farm Bureau or what would be your personal opinion if we said that we're looking at this formula. We are wanting to leverage more State and private investment. Why shouldn't we have another component of these formula funds that says that you have to do a better job, States, local, commodity groups, in order to access these Federal dollars?
Mr. KNILL. I think you always have to review those types of funding mechanisms and make adjustments over time. Something that might take into account the farm gate value of products as a different equation in formulating some of those funding mechanisms.
Mr. DOOLEY. Well, yes, being from the State of California, which has $24 billion in agriculture production, we would think that would be a pretty nifty idea actually. [Laughter.]
Page 416 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. KNILL. I did not say exclusively. [Laughter.]
Mr. DOOLEY. I guess just one other issue is that I think throughout the hearings and testimony there has been, I think, some concern that we have got to maintain the flexibility of the Department and the industry to meet some of the emerging priorities.
And, Mr. Erickson, you outlined and several of the panelists outlined a need to strengthen the advisory board or the participation of producers so that hopefully the advisory board can do a better job in making recommendations to meet the priorities of the industry, something I support.
But I also recognize in several of the commodity groups' presentations that where you went down with some of the what I would say fairly generic priorities. You also focus on the precision agriculture, and I am not opposed to precision agriculture.
But I am concerned that if we do empower this advisory board to have the ability and the authority to meet some of the priorities, why should Congress be stepping in and saying that this one area of precision agriculture should have a higher priority than biotechnology or genetic research, which has the potential to also have tremendous benefits to the agriculture sector?
Why should we have that as a part of our policy?
Mr. ERICKSON. I think that what I was trying to indicate is that that is an area that there has been a lot of discussion on, and while it may be a priority for some, it may not be for others, and that we will not get the question completely addressed unless we have the proper input on an advisory committee that is going to allow us to address the issue.
And you may very well be right, that it may not be an issue addressed on a widespread national basis. Then, again, you may find out that there is overwhelming support there because the kind of support that it is getting presently in segmentized research is just that, very segmentized and not very coordinated.
So my point was to raise it as one of those issues that is out there, not to say that it ought to be the priority.
Page 417 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. DOOLEY. And then if we were to define some priorities, it would not necessarily need to be a part of it if we made some of the changes to the advisory board.
Mr. ERICKSON. Yes. I think the whole point is that we need to have appropriate input at the advisory level to make producers, as well as the agriculture industries, feel that they have a direct input to the process and they feel that the priorities are broadly meeting the needs of the industry.
Mr. DOOLEY. All right. Thank you.
Mr. COMBEST. Thank you very much for coming today, and there may be some followup questions, and we would appreciate any consideration that you would give to those, and as I had mentioned earlier, additional information that you may wish to submit would be readily received, and we appreciate very much your attendance.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
STATEMENT OF RONALD L. PHILLIPS, REGENTS PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY AND PLANT GENETICS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me today to discuss the Administration's proposal for a National Food Genome Strategy.
I am Dr. Ronald L. Phillips, regents' professor of agronomy and plant genetics at the University of Minnesota and chief scientist of the Department of Agriculture's National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. Recently, I was appointed the Chair of the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes by Dr. John Gibbons, Science Advisor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, genetics is the study of an organism's characteristics and the transfer of the variations in those characteristics through heredity. A genome is a set of chromosomes, located in plant or animal cells, which contains the DNA material responsible for determination of heredity characteristics.
Page 418 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The administration's proposal for a National Food Genome Strategy authorizes a competitive, merit-based program for plant and animal genome research (and the associated microbes) supported by $200 million over a 4-year period.
Mr. Chairman, genetics research over the past 100 years has led to significant improvements in plants and animals, which has been translated into benefits not only for producers but also for consumers. Unlocking the genetic secrets of plants and animals is critical to the future of U.S. agriculture. The National Food Genome Strategy promises to address the nation's needs for identifying, mapping, sequencing, and manipulating the genes responsible for those traits that are economically important to agriculture.
This investment in a National Food Genome Strategy will build on research work USDA is already doing in genetics. Most everyone is aware of the important advances made in understanding the structure and function of genes in humans. Similar advances also have been made for agriculturally important plants and animals.
One of the useful aspects of genetics has always been that much of the theory applies across organisms. We have entered a new era of understanding, however, on how gene content and even the gene order are similar within broad groupings of species. For example, we now know that if a gene is located on a chromosome of rice (the cereal with the lowest amount of DNA), the occurrence and chromosome position of that gene often can be predicted in grasses, including corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, rye, sugarcane, millet, and even a forage grass.
USDA scientists, working with researchers from State Agricultural Experiment Stations and elsewhere have produced genetic maps of important animals like cattle, swine, sheep, and poultry and plants such as corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum and others. But these maps must be and the underlying techniques need to be expanded and improved before their full potential can be applied to new crop and breed development. Additional gene ''tagging'' work is needed to improve the resolution of various maps and to isolate genes that govern desirable traits.
Page 419 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Even as a plant geneticist in the midst of genome research, I am amazed to think that we now have within reach the possibility of knowing every gene in an organism. The task at hand is not only to know the DNA structure of each gene, but also to know its product, how the synthesis of its product is controlled, and how that product affects the organism. We also need to learn how to efficiently manipulate these genes so that we can better improve the plants and animals on which we depend and to be able to respond more rapidly to crisis situations such as the occurrence of a new disease. There is increasing demand for crops designed for special purposes, such as corn that will give greater swine or poultry productivity. Genomics research will greatly facilitate development of such new products.
The National Food Genome Strategy will be designed to understand and map genetic traits of importance to agriculture. A small set of plants, animals, and microbes would be selected on the basis of their importance to agriculture and their scientific advantages and relationships. The competitive grants program proposed by the Administration would be part of a multiagency program, with USDA as the lead agency and with efforts to take advantage of international cooperation and public/private partnerships.
Access to genetic information, through gene sequencing and mapping and other research, is vital to the future health of American agriculture and forestry. The development of economically, environmentally, and nutritionally important traits will be much more dramatic if the scientific community has ready access to needed genetic data. The goal of open access to data is fundamental to the program.
With this new level of understanding—that what we have learned in one species can be more directly applied to another than previously presumed—makes it timely to develop a coordinated genome strategy to achieve the greatest return on the investment and maximize advancements in agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the National Food Genome Initiative.
Page 420 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
STATEMENT OF JOHN CORDARO, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE NUTRITION
A View from the Dietary Supplement Industry. The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 was landmark legislation for human nutrition research. It designated USDA as the lead agency responsible for food and agriculture research and set specific research priorities. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to establish nutrition research as a separate and distinct mission of the Department of Agriculture and to increase support for nutrition research to a level adequate to meet needs. Included within the findings of the Act, Congress declared ''... that there is increasing evidence of a relationship between diet and many of the leading causes of death in the United States; that improved nutrition is an integral component of preventive health care; that there is a serious need for research....''
These findings were derived from more than a decade of media and congressional attention on both hunger in America and the diet-disease relationship. Inclusion in the farm bill signaled an effort to include consumer health and nutrition interests in U.S. food and agriculture policy.
Now, 20 years later, it is appropriate to focus on how well our scarce Federal dollars have been spent; how successful these efforts have been; and what changes are needed to improve our management of Federal human nutrition research. My views have at least two biases.
First, I have been involved in human nutrition programs for more than three decades. I was a player in the events of 1977 as the food program manager in the congressional Office of Technology Assessment, where we published ''Nutrition Research Alternatives,'' which provided substantive support for the human nutrition research sections of the Farm Act.
And second, as the spokesperson for the dietary supplement industry, I believe a higher priority needs to be given to expand the science base for a better understanding of the appropriate role of supplements in the diet.
The Dietary Supplement Industry: A Stakeholder for Consumers. One of the most significant differences in contrasting today with 20 years ago is the increasing recognition that credible science supports an appropriate role for supplements in the diet. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 and, most recently, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 allow health claims for foods and supplements when science supports such claims. The science base that decision makers are to draw from is the accumulated storehouse of research results.
Page 421 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Unfortunately, when I review the few approved health claims for food and supplement products, I must question whether we have obtained the maximum return on the billions of dollars invested in our research effort. Further, when I note that consumers are either unaware of, do not use, or are skeptical about health claims information, I must ask whether the system is doing the job necessary to get the message heard and acted on.
Thus, I must conclude that consumers are not receiving full value for money spent on human nutrition research.
The bottom line of human nutrition research should be to enhance the health and well-being of Americans. To do so, research results must produce useful information that industry can employ to make better products and individuals can use to make more informed dietary choices.
The current system is doing far too little to get information to consumers and to prod the research community to address critical data gaps that must be filled to allow a health claim. Two dietary supplement examples illustrate this.
First, FDA has approved a claim that women of childbearing age should take folic acid, which could reduce by 50 to 70 percent the incidence of neural tube birth defects. Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 25 percent of women who are capable of becoming pregnant have heeded the message by taking folic acid supplements. CDC wants to double that number in the next five years, but lacks the funding to implement a national education initiative. Where is our nutrition education effort to get these research results to potential users?
Second, accumulating evidence suggests that vitamin E, at levels substantially greater than what one gets from diet alone, may reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer. These research findings are so promising that Federal agencies should focus greater research attention on further examining vitamin E's benefits and filling in the critical knowledge gaps to integrate results into public policy and consumer education.
Page 422 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Key Federal officials have lacked initiative and vision to seize upon vitamin E and other areas of exciting and promising research and health promotion opportunities. A different, more dynamic, open system must seek to expedite research opportunities, like vitamin E, that hold out the possibility of positive outcomes with significant public health consequences.
Conclusion. I urge the Forestry, Resource Conservation and Research Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee to take a page from history and support a White House conference on human nutrition research that focuses on potential prevention benefits and especially what needs to be done to apply research results in messages for consumers to use. Such a conference could help establish a national agenda for human nutrition research and education. Let's build on President Nixon's 1969 White House conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, and set 1999 as the date to celebrate 30 years of progress.
The White House conference would be a new beginning and would be followed by biannual meetings to help monitor, implement, and modify our national nutrition research agenda. We need to continually ask ''How well are we doing?''
To help prepare for the conference, I urge that a critical and independent evaluation of our human nutrition research and education effort be launched. This review by a blue-ribbon, broadly representative, independent panel should examine how Federal nutrition research is managed and coordinated and make recommendations for its improvement.
Taken together, these steps will prepare us for the challenges we will continue to face into the next century.
STATEMENT OF DR. BOB ROBINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
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 the administration's position regarding the reauthorization of the research, education, and extension activities at USDA. Accompanying me are Dr. Ron Phillips, Chief Scientist of the National Research Initiative, who will highlight one specific initiative, the National Food Genome Strategy. Also with me today is Dr. Ed Knipling, Acting Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). He will be available to answer any questions you may have at the end of the testimony.
Page 423 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
I come to you today to discuss what we believe to be the most critical Federal mission in agriculture—research, education and economics. The continued success of U.S. agriculture, and indeed world agriculture, is dependent on knowledge. Agriculture operates in an interdependent global economy, driven by advances in information, communication, and biological technologies, and committed to the goals of environmental stewardship and improved human health. In this environment, the challenge of assuring an accessible and safe food and fiber system can be met only through the continuous development and application of new knowledge.
Agricultural research and education have long been the engine of productivity in American agriculture, providing an affordable food supply, assuring our comparative advantage in many areas of production, and substantially contributing to our balance of payments. Today, the public demands all that and even more of agriculture—to conserve natural resources, create more nutritious and better quality foods, and assure social and economic progress in agricultural and rural areas. Further, policy changes in the structure of support for commodity producers, international trade agreements, and environmental regulations, position the agricultural knowledge system as a critical element of the new ''safety net'' for agriculture and rural America.
2Two fundamental challenges face agriculture. The first is how to achieve long-term sustainability in agricultural production through simultaneously achieving and maintaining profitability, minimizing negative environmental effects, and developing and improving strong rural and agricultural communities. Balancing these economic, environmental, and social factors requires new approaches to research and education that emphasize for integrated problem-solving. The Fund for Rural America competitive grants program authorized in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Farm Bill) is one of those approaches; it is providing an opportunity to design new partnerships and linkages to develop and utilize research-based solutions to problems in the context in which they occur.
The second fundamental challenge facing agriculture is responsiveness to broad public concerns for safe, nutritious, and accessible foods. Recent legislation such as the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and public concern about improving food safety signal the need to develop new knowledge which can lead to improved production, processing, and consumer use practices that reduce both chemical and microbial contamination of food. Research—and education—are essential to maintaining public confidence in the safety of the food supply. These efforts also contribute to preserving and expanding export markets for U.S. agriculture. The President's fiscal year 1998 budget responds to these concerns and our request includes major initiatives for USDA in the areas of food safety and human nutrition, and we are pleased the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have responded to these priorities, although we urge that the initiatives be fully funded at the levels required in the President's budget.
Page 424 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, as we have examined options for the reauthorization of the Research Title of the 1996 Farm Bill, we have been working within this framework as follows:
A. Principles
The food and agriculture sector faces increasing complexity meeting the challenges of global markets, increasing concern about enhancing natural resource conditions and environmental quality, and supporting risk management. In the context of these challenges, the administration has adopted the following principles to guide the reauthorization of the research, education, and extension authorities:
(1) USDA and the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area within it 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.
Following the above principles, the REE agencies seek to accomplish the following goals through our legislative proposals to:
(1) position American agriculture to assure sustained economic growth providing producers with a reasonable profit while developing the technologies necessary to attain a sustainable, secure, and globally competitive agriculture;
(2) strengthen the problem-solving capacity of federally-supported, agricultural research, extension, and higher education programs;
Page 425 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
(3) maintain and enhance incentives that build partnerships, as well as maximize the leverage of Federal investments, for agricultural research, extension and higher education;
(4) expand eligibility for competitive award of funds and to assure the best and highest use of Federal investments in the agricultural knowledge system; and
(5) assure program and budgetary accountability consistent with the REE strategic plan for achieving national and shared priorities for agricultural research, education and extension.
B. Legislative Proposals
1. Develop the technologies necessary to attain a sustainable, secure, and globally competitive agriculture.
1.1 We propose that Congress authorize a new, competitive grants program to invest in a National Food Genome Strategy, comprised of the Plant Genome Initiative and the Animal Genome Initiative.
The major challenges facing the United States in the 21st century are the needs for increased food production, a cleaner environment, and renewable chemical and energy resources. The United States values a safe and abundant food supply that meets consumer demands for safety and quality. Major increases in agricultural exports are required to meet the needs of the growing world population while ensuring U.S. competitiveness in agriculture and agricultural research.
The goal of the National Food Genome Strategy is an improved understanding of plant and animal (and their associated microbial) genes, their genetic capabilities, and their genetic structures. Identifying, mapping, and understanding the function and control of genes responsible for economically important traits in the major agriculturally important species of plants, animals, and microbes will permit the development of new genetic technologies for improvement in yield, composition, and quality of the domestic agricultural output. We propose that Congress authorize the program for $50 million for FY99, $50 million for FY 2000, $50 million for FY 2001, and $50 million for FY 2002.
Page 426 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The National Food Genome Strategy is a strategic investment in research that will fill gaps in existing knowledge to underpin the public and private investment in developing the technologies necessary for attaining the goal of a sustainable, secure, and globally competitive agriculture. Through accelerated research, the program will identify and develop a functional understanding of genes responsible for economically important traits in plants, animals, and microbes of importance to agriculture. Knowledge of genome organization and gene function is critical to ensuring future genetic improvement of agriculturally important species. The program will also support the preservation of diverse germplasm necessary to meet the changing environmental and market needs of the future while ensuring biodiversity, thereby maintaining future access to genes that may be of critical importance.
The technology by which agriculturally important genes can be identified has been clearly established. The National Food Genome Strategy will address gaps in knowledge that limit the development and implementation of gene-based approaches for plant and animal improvement. This knowledge gap can be filled by the mapping of expressed and agriculturally useful genes and by achieving an understanding of their function. Focussing on sequencing of expressed genes where sequencing whole genomes is not possible is a rapid and cost effective means for the goal of accelerating the pace of gene discovery. The careful selection of species in each agriculturally important group will lead to information applicable to related organisms. The National Institutes of Health has funded a similar approach to understanding the human genome. Human gene and genome characterization benefits animal agriculture, since human and animal genomes are similar and contain many genes with the same function. Scientists can learn much from comparing the maps and genomic sequences of both.
The National Food Genome Strategy encompasses two major initiatives. USDA would be the lead Federal agency, working with the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy in the Plant Genome Initiative, which would focus on crop species of major agriculturally important plants. Within crop plants, the Plant Genome Initiative will compare the two major groups: monocots (grains such as corn, wheat, and rice) and dicots (legumes and most fruits and vegetables). By comparing monocot and dicot genomes, just like comparing the animal and human genetic maps, scientists will speed the advances in gene discovery in agriculturally important plant species. The Animal Genome Initiative will take advantage of current, ongoing work at NIH on the Human Genome Initiative and the significant work on mouse genomes, and will further the progress achieved to date by the complementary work of the ARS and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. Significant planning for the Animal Genome Initiative is scheduled to occur in FY 1998, with competitive grants awarded in FY 1999-FY 2002.
Page 427 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
1.2 We propose that Congress reauthorize the Regional Aquaculture Centers and National Aquaculture Act of 1980 with the following provisions:
1. Establish private aquaculture as a form of agriculture for USDA programs and activities.
2. Extend authorizations of appropriations for the Regional Aquaculture Centers and the 1980 National Aquaculture Act, which identifies the Secretary as the permanent chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). The JSA is an interagency coordinating group for all Federal agencies working in support of national aquaculture policies and programs.
3. Establish a program to accelerate the transfer of promising research and technical advances, including environmental technologies, to commercial aquaculture applications.
Aquaculture is poised to become a major growth industry, and we propose that Congress extend authorizations of appropriations for the Regional Aquaculture Centers and the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to improve prospects for this growing sector of the food and fiber industry.
Global demand for fish is projected to increase sharply over the next several decades, while harvests from wild-catch fisheries are stable or declining. A dramatic increase in aquaculture is needed to meet future demand, to offset a multi-billion dollar U.S. fish products trade deficit, and to offer consumers abundant supplies of high-quality, safe, wholesome, and affordable fish. The United States has an important opportunity to develop a globally competitive aquaculture industry to serve national needs and the international market. Sustainable, environmentally responsible aquaculture development holds particular promise for rural communities. New aquaculture technologies can create challenging, rewarding new jobs and foster rural economic development by stimulating new business ventures among small, rural and/or minority-owned companies.
2. Strengthen the problem-solving capacity of federally-supported, agricultural research, extension, and higher education programs.
Page 428 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
2.1 We propose that Congress correct a technical flaw by providing funding for FY 1998 for the Fund for Rural America in addition to current funding for FY 1997 and FY 1999. The Fund is a multi-functional, multi-discliplinary, integrated approach to solving problems and filling gaps in knowledge.
Congress created the Fund for Rural America at the same time it fundamentally reformed Federal farm programs. The 1996 Farm Bill eliminated commodity program deficiency payments and replaced them with transition payments that will decline over 7 years. These policy changes are likely to have a substantial and dramatic affect on production agriculture by shifting price and income risk management away from government programs to individual farmers. At the same time, rural America is experiencing a major transition from agriculture-based economies to other sources of income and emigration. The current Fund for Rural America competitive grants program is designed to advance the findings of research into practical applications to address current and emerging problems and to develop new opportunities for the benefit of rural America and the Nation.
Current funding for the program made $100 million available on January 1, 1997, (FY 1997),The amount available for FY 1997 was reduced to $80 million by the provisions of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 105-18. October 1, 1998 (FY 1999), and October 1, 1999 (FY 2000). We propose that Congress amend the program to move FY 1999 funding to FY 1998 and move FY2000 funding to FY 1999, thereby closing a gap in the funding stream for the program.
2.2 We propose that Congress establish a new authority for an integrated applied research, extension, and education competitive grants program. The program would address national and regional issues, and would require a 100 percent nonFederal match for commodity or location specific activities.
This new funding mechanism would be an innovative, flexible way to manage existing agency and departmental initiatives, which increasingly involve multi-functional research and education activities, such as sustainable agriculture and Integrated Pest Management. New USDA research and education programs, developed as part of initiatives such as the Food Quality Protection Act, Managing Change in Agriculture, the President's Food Safety Initiative, and Risk Management also could be managed in a more efficient and coordinated manner under an integrated authority. Management of program resources would be streamlined and could be administered more flexibly at the universities' and other awardees' locations. For those programs not of a national or regional interest that are specifically designed to address the needs of a specific location or benefit a specific commodity, Federal grants would require a 100 percent nonFederal match.
Page 429 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
A related proposal for an applied competitive research program was included in the 1995 departmental Blue Book for the Farm Bill. That proposal was designed as a substitute for the earmarked special grants program. Similarly, this proposal would achieve the goal of establishing competitive processes where earmarks currently exist, but would not supplant fully the section of the current special grants program under which focused national research programs such as global change, pesticide clearance, and emerging pest and disease issues, are conducted.
3. Maintain and enhance incentives which build partnerships, as well as maximize leverage of Federal investments, for agricultural research, extension and higher education.
3.1 We propose Congress amend Smith-Lever 3(b) and 3(c) authority to require that not less than 25 percent of Federal extension formula funds be used for multi-state, regional, or national collaborative activities, including distance learning.
This provision is parallel to the requirement in the Hatch Act, which requires that 25 percent of Federal research formula funds be spent for regional research activities. A regional or multistate emphasis for Federal extension funds will encourage greater focus on sharing of resources, will lead to efficiencies, and will better leverage the Federal investment. This amendment would implement a recommendation of the National Research Council (NRC) report on Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities, by realizing organizational efficiencies to broaden and deepen the Cooperative Extension System's (CES) expertise, access, and relevance. This amendment would facilitate regional, bioregional, landscape and other broad scale approaches to program development and delivery and could reduce redundancy and create efficiency in State programs. In addition, this amendment may help sustain small institutions.
Administrative action by CSREES will be needed to establish a system for joint decision-making, review, and approval of multi-state, regional and national projects, and some distance learning activities, in consultation with the state extension services.
3.2 We propose Congress amend the Smith-Lever extension formula program and the Hatch research formula program to permit a Land Grant University to redirect up to 10 percent of total research and extension formula funds to any research or extension purpose, with an approved plan of work. The goal of this amendment is to provide Federal funding to states in a more flexible manner so states can meet high priority needs and to permit states to better leverage their resources. This flexibility would be increased from 10 percent for FY 1998, to 15 percent for FY 1999, 20 percent for FY 2000, and 25 percent for FY 2001 and FY 2002.
Page 430 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
In addition, 25 percent of the appropriations above the FY 1997 levels for research and extension formula funds would be distributed to Land Grant Universities in a single allocation. The single allocation would increase from 25 percent in FY 1998 to 40 percent in FY 1999, 60 percent in FY 2000, 80 percent in FY 2001, and 100 percent in FY 2002. These funds may be used for either research or extension, with an approved plan of work.
By providing greater flexibility to state institutions to use the Federal investment for high priorities—with appropriate accountability—the Federal investment may be leveraged more effectively. This flexibility would be particularly useful for responding to emergencies and new and emerging needs.
3.3 We propose Congress amend the authority for International Agricultural Research and Extension activities (Section 1458 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977) to clarify that the section applies to higher education and teaching as well as research and extension activities.
Understanding the global market is of increasing importance to the future of American agriculture. Clarifying authorities for higher education and teaching activities will permit U.S. universities to strengthen their programs to assure the continued excellence of graduates of the food and agriculture programs of all colleges and universities.
3.4 We propose Congress amend Section 1473A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to permit REE agencies to enter into cost-reimbursable agreements with all universities and colleges.
Current authority restricts this authority to land-grant colleges only. Expansion of the authority permits USDA to acquire goods and services on a cost-reimbursable basis from diverse institutions when there is a mutual interest in carrying out research, education, and extension activities.
3.5 We propose Congress amend the National Agricultural Weather Information System (NAWIS) Act of 1990 (as amended) to establish a partnership between the National Weather Service (NWS), USDA, agricultural experiment stations, extension services, and state and regional climate programs to operate a National Agricultural Weather Information System (NAWIS).
Page 431 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The elimination of all NWS agricultural weather programs has had a significant negative effect on agriculture. In April 1996, the NWS closed all agricultural weather service centers, terminated all agricultural advisories, and eliminated liaison and cooperation with county and state extension and experiment stations programs and land grant universities.
Current authority under Section 1638(b)(4) would be amended to provide that NAWIS would be administered by the chief meteorologist at USDA, to authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements, grants, and competitive grants in order to collect weather data, and to conduct cooperatively weather-related activities.
4. Expand eligibility for competitive award of funds and assure the best and highest use of Federal investments in the agricultural knowledge system.
4.1 We propose Congress amend Smith-Lever 3(d) to expand eligibility from 1862 Land Grant Universities only to 1862, 1890, and 1994 Land Grant Universities. In addition, where competition is deemed appropriate to achieve the goals of the program, competition would be open to all Land Grant Universities as well as other established colleges and universities in the United States.
The Smith-Lever Act (1914) provides for cooperative extension work between the USDA and the land grant universities. Appropriations for the 1862 universities are authorized by Smith-Lever 3(b), (c), and (d). Appropriations for extension work at the 1890 institutions are authorized in the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977. 1890 institutions do not directly receive Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c) funds. With passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, 1890 institutions became eligible to receive a share of any new or increased 3(d) funds.
Distribution of Smith-Lever 3(d) funds varies across special emphasis programs as formula, competitive, or a combination of awards. This amendment would assure that universities with land grant status, including the 1890 institutions and 1994 institutions, can participate in the program. In addition, this amendment is designed to improve equity in access and assure the best and highest use of Federal investments in the agricultural knowledge system by expanding eligibility for competitive award of funds. Where competition is deemed appropriate, other United States colleges and universities—including the Hispanic Serving Institutions—could compete for funds through nationally competitive processes for implementing special emphasis extension programs. It would contribute to enlarging the pool of expertise, creating and implementing extension efforts that would expand partnerships for more efficient problem solving.
Page 432 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
4.2 We propose Congress amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to phase-in nonFederal matching requirements for 1890 formula programs in support of extension and research.
The amendment would establish a two-part formula allocation for 1890 programs with a nonmatched and a required match component. The phase-in schedule would begin in fiscal year 1999 with an 80 percent of the formula allocation requiring no match and 20 percent requiring nonFederal matching. In fiscal year 2000, the split would be 70/30 percent; fiscal year 2001, 60/40; and fiscal year 2002, 50/50. NonFederal matching funds could be directed to agricultural research, extension, or teaching programs at the discretion of each 1890 institution. Where 1890 institutions fail to meet nonFederal matching requirements for receipt of formula funds, allocations would revert to the Secretary of Agriculture for support of agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs at 1890 institutions.
The purpose of this amendment is to enhance the resources for agricultural research and extension at 1890 institutions and Tuskegee, while not jeopardizing substantially those programs which may need a transition period to develop state and other support. The NRC report recommended requiring a state match for Federal formula funds at 1890 institutions, consistent with requirements at the 1862 institutions.
Many institutions would encounter substantial transitional issues if full matching requirements were instituted immediately. The goal of requiring a match is to assure program equity, leveraging, and increased funding stability for 1890 institutions. Impact of the matching requirement would vary with the current organizational structure and funding of the land grant university system within a state.
4.3 We propose Congress eliminate the matching requirement for Equipment grants under the NRI to better enable capacity building activities at small universities (less than 15,000 students) and in states eligible for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
Page 433 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Small universities and those that participate in the EPSCoR program are eligible for USDA's strengthening program, which is designed to assist universities in developing core capacities to conduct research and education activities. Eliminating the nonFederal match requirement makes it easier for these entities to qualify to compete for these scientific equipment grants.
5. Assure program and budgetary accountability consistent with the REE strategic plan for achieving national and shared priorities for agricultural research, education and extension.
5.1 We propose Congress require accountability for all USDA-administered extramural research, extension, and higher education funds through the Government Performance and Results Act process to the strategic goals of CSREES and the mission area.
Section 1402 of NARETPA would be amended to add the five goals of the REE strategic plan:
1) an agriculture system that is highly competitive in the global economy;
2) a safe and secure food and fiber production and distribution system;
3) a healthy well-nourished population;
4) an agriculture system which enhances natural resources and the environment; and
5) enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.
A second section would be added to the purposes that describes management principles for USDA's research, education, and extension programs, with accountability included as a principle.
5.2 We propose Congress require recovery of indirect costs for all competitively awarded USDA research grants and integrated (research, education, and extension) grants be capped at 25 percent of the total grant award. This amendment would increase the current cap of 14 per cent for indirect recovery costs for competitively awarded research grants with a higher cap across all competitively awarded research and integrated grants.
Page 434 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The current indirect cost recovery cap of 14 percent of the total Federal award applies only to competitively awarded research grants and is established by a general provision in each fiscal year's appropriation act. The proposal to increase the cap to 25 percent and to apply it to all competitively awarded research grants and integrated (research, education, and extension) grants would 1) more closely align the cap with the negotiated indirect rate cost at many institutions; 2) eliminate incentives for applicants to choose a grant program based on the indirect costs permitted; and 3) streamline the administration of competitively awarded programs at USDA.
5.3 We propose Congress no longer consider a 1995 blue book proposal to establish a competitive grants program to fund university building and facilities projects.
Moving to a cap of 25 percent for indirect cost recovery on competitively awarded research and integrated grants will partially eliminate barriers to participation in USDA programs by some universities and agencies, encourage full and sustained efforts, and be consistent with other agency policies. This action is consistent with expanding the expertise addressing research and extension priorities in agriculture. The 1996 Farm Bill established the Strategic Planning Facilities Task Force to develop guidance for the Department relative to Federal support for research facilities. Pending completion of the work of the Task Force, the Department's policy in general will be to fund programs over bricks and mortar, as demonstrated by the President's FY 1998 budget request. The move toward greater reimbursement of indirect cost recovery should allow institutions to capitalize some facility costs.
STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION PRESENTED BY WILLIAM KNILL, PRESIDENT, MARYLAND FARM BUREAU
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Knill. I am a Maryland farmer and serve as President of the Maryland Farm Bureau. I am pleased to speak to you today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Page 435 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
There are two questions that need to be addressed as you consider the reauthorization of the research title of the farm bill. The first is whether a strong Federal commitment to agriculture research is still justified. Secondly, if a strong commitment is justified, how should the existing research, extension and education system be changed to best meet the needs of producers and consumers into the 21st century?
It will probably come as no surprise that we believe a strong Federal investment in agricultural research is as important now as it has ever been. A growing world population and generally increasing standards of living across the globe will require that food production continue to grow. A strong, competitive advantage for American farmers in a rapidly growing marketplace is not a foregone conclusion, unless we continue to stretch our imaginations and knowledge base to make it happen.
The track record of past U.S. investment in agricultural research makes a strong point for continuing and building upon that investment. This investment has helped farmers and ranchers to provide consumers with the safest, least expensive, most bountiful food supply in the world. Americans spend a lower percentage of their disposable income on food than all other countries. This does not happen by accident. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the research and technology transfer system in the U.S. and the ability of producers to apply the results of that research to benefit all Americans.
As we look to the future, the American farmer is being called on to place greater reliance on the markets rather than government programs and to be a major player in world markets. We support this change and welcome the opportunities it presents, but we need the support of an active, innovative agricultural research program if we are to maintain and enhance our competitive edge in world markets. Continued research and technology transfer is also vital as we seek to address current consumers' concerns about environmental, food safety and nutritional issues and new ones which are certain to arise in the future.
Page 436 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The FAIR Act of 1996 reduced government spending on agricultural programs. Implicit in this change was a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on producers and to provide the needed research to facilitate this move toward reliance on the market. Producers have honored their commitment to the agreement with their support of the act. Now it is Congress' turn to honor it by providing a research system that meets the long-term needs of production agriculture and the funds needed to operate it.
If you are convinced, as we are, that the Federal Government needs to continue and expand its commitment to agricultural research, then the next logical question is how we can best provide a sound, sophisticated, well-managed, and well-funded food and agricultural research, extension and education program.
Overall, there are many strengths in the existing institutional structure supporting agricultural research, education and extension programs. The reauthorization process should not harm the parts of that structure that have provided great value to producers and consumers of agricultural products. But neither should we assume that in the future we will need all of the same programs and facilities that have been utilized in the past.
Mr. Chairman, when I think about the future of our agricultural research system—and the contributions this system has made in the past—it would be easy to request a simple reauthorization. It would be easy to say, ''if it ain't broken, don't fix it.'' But that would also be ignoring the fact that recent changes in agricultural policy, both domestic and global, will increase the need for greater output from the system and increased cooperation among all public and private research and extension organizations. The issue reminds me of one of Thomas Jefferson's remarks etched on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial. It says, ''I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.''
Page 437 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
It is paramount that all Federal research, extension and education funds be administered in a system that provides greater accountability and is relevant to the problems currently facing agriculture. Most of the following recommendations focus in some form on the three issues we believe to be most important to the debate—-adequate industry input throughout the priority setting, budgeting, implementation, and review stages along with relevancy and, accountability. If these issues are addressed, we believe the opportunity to secure increases in funding requests in the future is more likely. Let me highlight some ideas on each of these issues:
Industry input—if industry input and the structure and responsibility of the Advisory Board can be enhanced, we believe it will ensure more relevancy and accountability. To that end, we recommend that the majority of the members the Advisory Board consist of producers or industry representatives. We also suggest a wider variety of priority setting mechanisms be forwarded to the Advisory Committee for their consideration rather than the current practice of having them only evaluate the REE strategic plan. In addition, we believe each land grant university or other non-Federal recipient should be required to establish and implement a process for obtaining stakeholder input concerning the use of funds prior to them receiving Federal funds for agricultural research and extension.
Relevancy—a standard should be established for federally funded competitive and intramural agricultural research, extension and education. The research should address high priority topics which are based on priorities set by the National Advisory Board with significant input from stakeholders. In addition, there should be a merit review of each extension and education project competitively funded by the Federal Government.
Accountability—for research activities, Federal funds should only be spent if the project has undergone an independent scientific peer review. For extension and education activities, Federal funds should only be spent if the project has undergone an independent merit review. Also, those who receive Federal funds should be required to submit a report annually describing the results of the activity and the merit of the results. We also believe the Secretary of agriculture should develop guidelines for ensuring the performance of research and extension to determine whether the federally funded programs result in public goods that have national or multi-state significance.
Page 438 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
FUNDING ISSUES. Allocation The research portfolio should contain an appropriate mix of intramural and formula funding, as well as competitive and special grants. We do not believe it is possible to significantly alter the current funding mix during this legislative debate. We do, however, believe that the allocation of each funding component should be seriously assessed in the near future to ensure the most efficient use of available research dollars.
Funding Review Task Force With the ongoing work of the Facilities Review Task Force, there could not be a better time to establish a Funding Review Task Force. While we do not advocate establishing numerous new task forces or advisory boards, we do believe this task indeed warrants an additional task force for a limited period of time, hopefully not to exceed 18 months.
The mission of the task force would be to review all Federal agricultural research funding components to (1) compare the adequacy and efficiency of current components; (2) analyze funding levels, approval procedures, and needs for each REE mission area, including intramural research; (3) identify opportunities for and application of non-REE Federal funds from other USDA agencies, other Federal departments, state agencies, and the private sector; and (4) provide recommendations for changes in current funding arrangements including funding for capital construction, improvements, and equipment.
The task force should be composed of 15 voting members representing a geographic diversity and five non-voting, ex-officio members. A minimum of five voting members should represent production agriculture and a minimum of five should represent the agricultural industry. Other interested sectors would make up the balance. Ex-officio members to be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture would include one representative each from REE, ARS, CSREES, ERS, and NASS. Voting members should be appointed by the Senate and House Agriculture Committees.
Limit Federal Funds to National or Multi-State Priorities. Federal money spent on research and extension should be utilized to address high priority production-related topics that have multi-state or national relevance. Federal support is also justified when the commercial markets for the research products are too small for adequate private gain or when the private sector's incentive to invest in research is otherwise low in relation to the anticipated benefits to producers and consumers. The House Agriculture Committee should provide leadership to assure that funding for agricultural research increases at rates comparable to that for NSF and NIH. Federal dollars should be leveraged with state, local, industry, and other Federal funds from non-REE agencies wherever possible.
Page 439 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The benefits of this type of approach are numerous. First, many of our current problems (i.e. water quality, nutrition, and food safety) have little or no location specificity. Even within the farm sector, production issues are often pertinent to producers in a region that comprises all or parts of several states or regions in several noncontiguous states. Under a dwindling budget scenario, universities cannot continue to attempt to be everything to everybody. Regional and multi-institutional collaborations would enable individual institutions to become more specialized. Increased specialization would also reduce unnecessary replication of programs within the national system.
In addition, as funding resources remain under budget pressure, these partnerships will allow smaller, less well-supported universities to survive. Given the latest computer technology and information systems dissemination capabilities, future research on a multi-state level should be even easier to coordinate.
Last, but not least, encouraging widespread participation offers diverse ideas, perspectives, values and cultures. In the past, the system has benefited from the synergetic ideas of a wide variety of participating scientists. It should continue to benefit in the future.
Enhancing Multi-State Cooperation. The Federal formula and competitive grants outlays for research and extension should be structured so that at least 25 percent of those funds are allocated to programs and projects that effectively integrate and mobilize multi-state and multi-institution resources. If grantees cannot utilize their full 25 percent allocation, the remainder of unused funds should be transferred for use under the National Research Initiative (NRI) for multi-state and multi-institution projects.
Matching Federal Formula Funds. In the interest of equity and the importance of the clientele served by 1890 colleges, states should be required to phase in a match of Federal formula funds to these institutions just as they are required to do for funding to the 1862s. The 1890's and the 1994's should also be encouraged to compete for competitive funding.
Page 440 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Funding for Extension. Extension plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge and has served the Nation well, but it needs to be reinvigorated and improved in order to meet the needs of the future. While many of the traditional functions of extension are being filled or supplemented by the private sector, new demands in both traditional and non-traditional areas of agriculture provide the opportunity for outreach programs to continue their relevance. Increased emphasis on management and marketing as well as developing knowledge and providing unbiased analysis of privately developed products is a critical function for extension relative to production agriculture. Unfortunately, funding limitations coupled with increased non-traditional agriculture demands have tended to reduce the capability of the extension programs to adequately address historic mission responsibilities.
We believe that Federal funding for extension should be directed to issues that are of economic importance to production agriculture recognizing that the majority of extension funding originates with the states who will establish specific priorities for non-Federal funds . Some have misinterpreted the term ''production agriculture'' narrowly to mean ''agriculture production''. Certainly, that was not our intent. We believe the economic viability of agricultural production will depend heavily on post-harvest handling and shipping, value-added processing, packaging, and marketing. Future trading and international competitiveness of agricultural products will depend on our ability to meet food safety standards and many trade debates will center on sanitary and phytosanitary standards. To remain competitive and viable, agricultural producers need to understand international trade and international markets, as well as business and investment opportunities overseas. Agricultural producers will continue to face challenges to meet environmental regulations and standards. They will continue to need science-based tools to cost-effectively manage their resources. The public will continue to demand a food supply that is not only affordable, but also nutritious and safe. We must continue to address all of these issues under the tent termed ''production agriculture''.
Page 441 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Memorandum of Understanding. Extension has been called on to deliver increasing numbers of social programs. We recognize that they are important, but these programs should not drain funds from production agriculture. The Department should aggressively pursue Memorandum of Understandings (MOU's) with other departments and agencies to provide funding for those efforts that are consistent and appropriate with Extension's mission.
Funding Flexibility. The Administration needs additional flexibility to react quickly to emergency situations when they arise. Three recent examples that have had significant impacts on producers are Karnal bunt, ergot in grain sorghum, and vesicular stomatitis. USDA was able to shift part of their research effort to address problems in these areas. As we look to a research system for the future, we need to ensure that this type of flexibility is maintained. While the Secretary has certain existing authority to shift funds from one agency to another in health emergencies, he needs additional authority to allow the research, extension and education services to focus on specific emergencies which are deemed to severely impact production or markets. In addition, the Secretary should be able to provide longer term commitments to addressing those situations after the imminent threat has been resolved. However, we are concerned about giving the Secretary complete discretion on how to spend such an ''emergency reserve fund.'' In order to ensure the funds are truly spent on an economic emergency, we support the Advisory Board having approval authority over any expenditure for a project that will last more than a year.
MERIT REVIEW AND ACCOUNTABILITY. To ensure that Federal research funds are targeted to projects that address priority areas, and are also both scientifically and technically meritorious, we suggest that the review process be modified in the following manner. An initial brief submission should be required that would allow screening for projects which do not meet the priorities to be addressed, or which appear to lack technical merit. It would also provide an opportunity to identify and encourage collaboration between institution with similar proposals on a final submission that could likely be stronger than either individual proposal. The review panels that evaluate these projects must include individuals with expertise to judge the scientific merit of the proposals and also producer or producer representatives to bring a ''real world'' perspective to the process. Care must still be taken that the process does not become too restrictive. Scientists must be able to explore ideas that may be currently unpopular, as well as those that no one else has yet imagined. This freedom is critical to continued progress in agricultural research..
Page 442 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Technological advances, and other considerations, will influence the proper mix of basic and applied research. Taxpayers and Congress need assurance that the dollars spent on research are for relevant projects, but we still must provide for innovative, potentially breakthrough basic research. All branches of our research infrastructure conduct some basic research. Funding is provided, and should continue to be provided through a variety of sources. The competitive grants in the National Research Initiative (NRI) provide for basic research and long-term efforts that are primarily high-risk but which have potential high payoffs. These are usually the types of effort that private funding is reluctant to undertake due to the uncertainty of the payoff, but which are vital to future efforts.
While it is important that Federal research dollars are used on projects that have merit, individuals and institutions receiving grants must demonstrate accountability. To accomplish this objective, projects should not receive continued funding without evidence of progress and new projects for scientists who have not produced on previous projects should undergo additional scrutiny. We recognize that not all projects bear fruit, but the scientist must demonstrate that they did what they were funded to do and that the results of the work were reported. At times what is perceived as a negative result, still is valuable information to have.
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board (Advisory Board). A key issue in establishing research priorities is determining who should ''drive'' the process, and developing the means by which that process can maintain its relevancy on an ongoing basis. The Advisory Board, established as part of the 1996 farm bill, was designed to replace several advisory committees which had either become redundant or failed in their efforts to provide advice.
In our view, the primary causes of failure of the former advisory committee system was the concentration of membership being vested in system personnel— administrators and scientists— who may regard process as being equally important as outcomes and a lack of communications between committees. In order for the system to be responsive to real world research, extension and education needs, the system stakeholders must play a larger role in establishing priorities and reviewing the system's progress in achieving results. We believe a majority of the Advisory Board membership should be composed of producers and industry representatives. As we move in this direction care must be taken to assure that there is an equitable distribution of producer representation by commodity and geographic region.
Page 443 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
In the process of identifying potential members of the committee, the Secretary should consult with and solicit nominees from the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, in addition to groups and individuals who were previously asked to provide nominations. We recognize that this is an advisory committee to the Secretary who has final responsibility for the selection, but the above process should provide useful input to assure that a variety of perspectives are considered in the process.
Advisory Board Duties. The primary role for the committee is to establish priorities and evaluate the research, extension and education agenda. They need to develop partnerships between government, producers and industry. In order to do this they must:
1. Review and provide consultation to the Secretary and the Congress on long-term and short-term national policies and priorities relating to agricultural research, extension, education, and economics.
Congress, through the research title of the 1996 farm bill, established broad goals for the national research system. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) should enable the funding for intramural projects and competitive grants to be tied to those priorities. The challenge continues to be translating these priority-setting processes into resource allocation decisions at the state and regional levels.
At present, federally sponsored research projects (including, but not limited to formula funds and special grants) have no uniform, industry or congressionally accessible measure of accountability in terms of how funding has been used by institutions or whether the funds have been devoted to research issues for which Federal support is justified. There is generally no accessible public record, including the Current Research Information System (CRIS) that documents and provides a rationale for the specific uses of formula funds.
2. Establish long-term and short-term national policies and priorities relating to agricultural research, extension, education, and economics. In establishing these policies and priorities, the Advisory Board shall solicit opinions and recommendations from a wide variety of sources. Agricultural research, education and extension programs need stronger linkages with end users of research and related activities to ensure a close connection between the funding, prioritization and accountability of such programs. Sources should include:
Page 444 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
(a) persons who will benefit from and use federally funded agricultural research, extension, education, and economics;
(b) state stakeholder groups. Priority setting most often needs to begin at the state level and include a broad range of interests. An example of an effort that has worked well is the Council on Food and Agricultural Research (CFAR) in Illinois. This group, which includes approximately 50 organizations representing a wide variety of stakeholders, assists in identifying research priorities and provides feedback to those conducting the research. The education done by CFAR has also helped to increase public and political awareness of the need for and benefits of agricultural research.
We believe such a research advisory committee should be established in each state to assist in determining future research priorities. We encourage you to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a model to be used in setting up the state advisory committees. The committees should be composed of all interested stakeholders, but in no circumstances should producers or industry represent less than 50 percent of the committee. The committees should not have implementation or enforcement authority, however, the Secretary and the Advisory Board should give strong consideration to the recommendations of those committees in administering the research programs. It is important to note that we do not believe ''one size fits all'' and therefore encourage a model which sets parameters, but does not dictate exact memberships. Certainly, different structures are likely to be necessary in different states. In addition, if state stakeholder input is already working, we do not want to reinvent the wheel.
(c) organizations representing agricultural producers and industry;
(d) sector recommendations, such as the Belt-wide Cotton Conference, Sorghum Research Conference, and the Corn Utilization Conference;
(e) symposia held to establish recommendations regarding priorities, such as the Farm Animal Integrated Research (FAIR95) , its follow-up FAIR2002, the Coalition for Research on Plant Systems (CROPS 99), and the American Association of Nurserymen symposia. We urge the Advisory Board and USDA not duplicate existing efforts, but rather incorporate ongoing projects such as FAIR '95, and CROPS '99. They provide a national model of the type of effort that is needed. In each case, they bring together broad-based groups of stakeholders and define priorities that meet the needs of those being served. The results from these efforts should be used to pull together a comprehensive national plan of action;
Page 445 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
(f) from the scientific community; and
(g) regional stakeholder groups, such as the five regional aquaculture centers. They are administered by USDA in association with colleges and universities, Federal and state agencies and facilities, nonprofit research institutions and private corporations. Their mission is to support aquaculture research, development, demonstration, and extension education to enhance viable and profitable U.S. aquaculture production. Selected projects concern issues that cannot be addressed by a single institution and are of importance to aquaculture development in two or more states or territories within a region.
3. Evaluate the results and effectiveness of agricultural research, extension, education, and economics with respect to the policies and priorities.
4. Review and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics on the research, extension, education, and economics portion of the draft strategic plan required under GPRA.
5. Review the mechanisms of the Department of Agriculture for technology assessment.
6. Establish priorities for research within each of the broad funding categories for the National Research Initiative, the Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service, the Economics Research Service, and the Agricultural Research Service.
7. On an annual basis, review the Inspector General's report on the financial and performance audits of Federal research projects and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Congress for ensuring that Federal research funds are spent in a cost-effective and efficient manner on priority areas.
The agricultural research system needs a dedicated financial and performance review process to ensure both a thorough accounting of Federal and matching funds spent per priority area as well as an analysis of the performance of the projects in each priority area. These annual reviews should include all research costs, the portion allocated to Federal funds, the percentage of Federal funds utilized for fixed overhead costs, the generic sources of matching funds, actions taken to avoid duplicative projects and programs, the direct and indirect costs allocated, and such other pertinent information deemed necessary for an objective evaluation of the projects.
Page 446 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The Department should use the Government Performance and Results Act as a model when establishing the agricultural research financial and performance audit. It should be conducted under the auspices of the USDA Office of the Inspector General.
8. Recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture the priorities for the Fund for Rural America.
FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA (FUND). In our proposal for the Fund, it would be utilized for a limited number of priorities which address complex problems which require a significant initial investment, cooperation and collaborations between the private and public sectors, among state and Federal Governmental organizations, between Federal and university research facilities and among diverse academic disciplines. We believe this approach, when coupled with resources from other research programs, can yield significant results in the shortest amount of time on topics important to the future of U.S. agriculture , without several reducing our ability to address existing research priorities. In addition, this design can build a constituency for the Fund and encourage its review as a potential model for ensuring greater cooperation, and accountability within all agricultural research endeavors.
Background. The Fund, authorized under the 1996 farm bill, provides $100 million annually for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999. One third of the fund is dedicated to research, education and extension grants. The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and are not targeted to specific priorities. One third of the fund is dedicated to rural development. One third of the fund is to be used at the Secretary of Agriculture's discretion for either research, education and extension, or rural development, or both. For FY97, the Secretary designated the discretionary $33 million in the following manner:
$20.5 million for rural development; $10 million for USDA research priorities; and $2.8 million for a new competitive grant research program to examine ways to improve delivery of agricultural knowledge to rural communities.
Page 447 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
During consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, the Fund was reduced by $20 million. Since there was only $46 million in FY 1997 for research, extension and education projects, this reduction cut those programs by almost 50 percent. With over 2,000 applicants vying for the competitive research grants program funds included in the original $46 million outlay, this will significantly reduce the amount of research which can be undertaken.
Authorization of the Fund. We recommend extending the authorization for the Fund from FY99 to FY 2002 with an annual authorization of at least $50 million for rural development and $50 million for research, education and extension programs.
In order to get the new program underway, and hopefully to avoid unnecessary delays in funding of grants, we propose that for FY 1998 and FY 1999, the entire $50 million for research, education and extension would be spent on the following six priority areas (with equal funding for plant and animal projects):
(a) National Food genome project, (b) Food safety and quality
(c) Maintaining and enhancing the environment (d) Economically significant value added products, (e) International competitiveness, (f)Precision agriculture
For FY 2000 and thereafter, the Advisory Board would designate no more than six priority areas for the Fund that are consistent with national priorities identified by the Board.
We suggest the Advisory Board establish a panel for each of the five priorities to recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture the desired projects to be solicited in a request for proposals under the Fund. The panels should include representation from the Advisory Board, as well as farm and commodity groups, private industry, universities, private research organizations, and Federal agencies.
The grants will be available to national or multi-state consortia of public and private entities with an established and demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology transfer. The grant shall be used to develop and deliver on a timely basis specific desired products.
Page 448 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
In order to further improve stakeholder input, we recommend the Secretary publish the request for proposals in the Federal Register. A competitive merit review process to select the projects to receive the grants should be established. Priority should be given to projects that leverage funds from other Federal, state and/or private sources and to those who integrate research, extension and education in their proposals.
In summary, we believe a strong constituency for the program can be built by modifying the Fund in the manner suggested.
SUMMARY. I close with a point that represents a belief that many farmers have expressed many times. We believe agriculture has already sustained many billions of dollars in cuts to farm programs. This has been done with the understanding that a significant portion of those funds would be reinvested in programs that could give us a better chance to be competitive in an increasingly competitive global agricultural economy. We took that as a commitment and will work hard to see that this commitment is met.
We believe it is now time for Congress to honor its commitment to American farmers. There are many reasons to be excited about the future of production agriculture. But we will not realize that bright future and compete as effectively as we can and should if we do not have the benefit of a strong food and agricultural research, education and extension program. We ask for your help.
We are eager to assist you in your efforts to craft a research title that ensures a growing and efficient food and agricultural system for the United States into the 21st century.
STATEMENT BY DAVID ERICKSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am David Erickson, a soybean and corn farmer from Altona, Illinois and President of the American Soybean Association. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk to you about agriculture research.
Before being elected President of ASA, I served in several capacities on the ASA Board. One of the tasks I had was serving as chairman of the Research Committee. During that time, I learned a great deal about agriculture research and saw first hand the successes of our system and some of the problems.
Page 449 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
As you may know, soybean producers support a National Soybean Check-off program that spends about $12 million dollars annually on research. Soybean growers also support research through their state check-off programs. For example, my home state of Illinois invests $3.5 million annually of farmer dollars on research. Research is a priority for soybean growers, and we are investing our own dollars to prove it.
State organizations across the soybean producing region have developed their own process for working with Federal, state, and land-grant institutions, and private companies, to set research priorities and funding guidelines. States have also joined forces to leverage dollars and to work on regional issues and problems. For example the ten southern soybean states hold an annual meeting where major regional research issues are reviewed, discussed, and prioritized. Producers, researchers, county agents and other interested groups are involved.
The eight north central soybean states have also organized a regional group that meets several times a year to set regional priorities for research. We also work on multi-state issues. In addition to working with this North Central Consortium, Illinois has joined with Iowa to address soybean research needs and priorities. The two state associations work closely together to leverage funds and avoid duplication. Although this formal relationship is rather new, soybean farmers already are seeing the results of having two of the largest soybean producing states pooling resources. Some of the projects targeted by the states include accelerating transformation and regeneration of the soybean gene, and combating major problems such as soybean cyst nematodes and white mold.
Soybean producers in all states are doing a good job of identifying state and regional research needs and setting priorities. However, there is still a strong role for the Federal research system to assist in identifying national needs and priorities. The USDA research system must also keep up with many changes in agriculture worldwide. One half of the U.S. soybean crop is exported, thus U.S. farmers must remain competitive if not one step ahead of our foreign competitors. Because the greatest benefits from new technologies are reaped in the first years of adaptation, the latest technology and science must be available to U.S. soybean producers.
Page 450 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
One example is , genome mapping. I know all of you have heard a lot about genome mapping for one crop or another. In order to remain competitive, soybeans, as well as other major crops, must be genome-mapped. Genes with the greatest benefits need to be identified by the public research community so this information will be available to all researchers without restrictions imposed to protect proprietary interests.
Another key area is biotechnology. Although much of the current research is being done in the private sector, there is an important role for public research. Also, public/private partnerships must be developed to give U.S. farmers the best, affordable research with accessible results.
There is a strong need for public research in developing and commercializing value-added products and by-products. Soybean farmers have always invested in new and value-added uses of soybeans. And we have been successful in broadening our market base. However, there is still research to be done and there is a role for the Federal research system in developing new products and getting them to the market.
There are other areas where the Federal research system must respond to the needs of agriculture, including bringing precision farming to all producers and helping find answers to growing environmental demands. In order to best meet these needs and others, producers must be a part of the decision making and prioritizing processes. There does not have to be a new formal structure established that will only add another layer of bureaucracy to an agency that is bureaucratic enough. However, there should be a procedure established for USDA's research agencies to obtain input from, and provide adequate feedback to, producers.
One way to obtain more direct input from producers is to change the make-up of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. ASA feels this Advisory Board should be more representative of production agriculture and the agribusiness community. A majority of any USDA advisory board should not be employees of the agencies or institutions being reviewed. Regulators cannot regulate themselves.
Page 451 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Another area where producers can have input and also gain information is through the Extension Service. As I am sure you have heard in previous hearings, Extension fulfills that role in many states, but not in all. Traditionally, the Extension Service has been a valuable resource for producers to learn about the latest technology and production practices. Extension has also been a source of objective views regarding the abundant, and sometimes contradictory information available to producers.
However, in some states the focus and priorities of Extension has shifted from these traditional roles, leaving producers to rely on other sources for information and assistance. This change may not be a significant problem in every state, but all of agriculture suffers when there is not a credible resource and voice for all producers at the local level.
I know the Federal Government cannot influence state and local dollars going into Extension, but we should be able to influence Federal dollars. The Extension Service should work in all states. We urge the Committee to direct that all Federal dollars spent on agriculture research be applied to production agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, there are other issues I know this Subcommittee will be looking at as you proceed to reauthorize the Research Title. In order to keep my comments within the time limit, I will stop here and submit a document that addresses several of those issues. With your permission, I would also like to submit comments from the National Cotton Council.
In closing, I would like to say that there is no doubt the U.S. agriculture research system is one of the best, if not the best, agriculture research system in the world. And, generally soybean producers are satisfied with the existing Federal system. We do not favor a complete revamping of the system, and we think any changes should be deliberate and targeted. We by no means want to change the system in states and regions where it already works. Instead, changes should be made to encourage the system to be responsive and helpful in all states and regions. We are committed to preserving a strong, viable Federal research system that will continue to educate, train, and employ the most qualified researchers, and that will maintain state-of-the-art research equipment, facilities and institutions, so the finest research will continue to be available for U.S. producers.
Page 452 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
TESTIMONY OF TOM ANDERSON, BARNESVILLE, MN, WHEAT GROWER
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tom Anderson, and I grow wheat, corn, and soybeans near Barnesville, Minnesota. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss federally-funded agricultural research, and how it may be delivered more efficiently in the new millennium.
It is interesting to note that as the reauthorization of agricultural research programs is being reviewed, several changes are being proposed. Among them is the idea of establishing research priorities through advisory committees whose membership would include farmers and business representatives. We do this in Minnesota through our Small Grains Research and Communications Committee, which has served in an advisory capacity to the State's wheat and barley production sector since 1992.
With a limited base of funds generated by our state's wheat check-off, we need to get the most out of any research that's funded, and leverage those dollars from other sources. That's why we formed a group representing producers, the media, state and Federal crop scientists, and the agri-business sector, to identify crop problems and industry challenges, and prioritize research projects.
Researchers submit progress reports, which we emphasize should be understandable to the layman, on projects funded partially or in full by the committee's recommendation. Research progress is communicated to the public. Crop scientists participate in a research reporting session held each November that is open to the public. I serve as the current chair of our Small Grains Research and Communications Committee, and as a producer, I feel this committee has been an efficient vehicle for not only prioritizing the money I invest in research, but also to talk more directly with the crop scientist about production questions I have that are not being answered, ideas that may help me grow wheat better, and what type of research I think is needed to help improve my crop business. I recommend that a similar advisory system be considered for federally-funded agricultural research.
Page 453 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
More regional research and collaboration has also been suggested, with Federal agricultural research funding targeted to priority projects of multi-state or national relevance. The problem of scab and vomitoxin in wheat and barley fits these new parameters exactly.
Scab, or fusarium head blight, is a fungal disease that can severely reduce production and quality of wheat and barley, and create difficulties in marketing, exporting, processing or feeding. The disease can also cause stalk rot in corn. All U.S. wheat varieties now are vulnerable to scab.
The scab fungus can produce a toxic contaminant, deoxynivalenol (DON) or ''vomitoxin.'' Humans and some animals can get sick from vomitoxin if consumed in concentrated amounts. Vomitoxin is a food safety concern which has caused large price discounts for farmers and grain handling problems. During the last harvest, it created marketing concerns at the Chicago Board of Trade, and the toxin is a research priority for the U.S. milling and malting industry.
In the 1990's, scab and vomitoxin have plagued bread wheats, barley, and durum in the Plains, and soft red winter wheat grown in states east of the Mississippi. Some trade estimates put total scab losses at the U.S. farm gate alone at over $3 billion in the last four years.
Lynn Daft with Promar International just completed a study on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, to assess the economic impact of wheat diseases, primarily the three which have received the most headlines in recent years: Karnal bunt, TCK smut, and scab.
The study concluded that while significant losses result from all three diseases, the losses associated with scab are the largest by far, exceeding $1 billion in the year studied, and constitute a serious threat to the future of the wheat industry in areas vulnerable to the disease. The study further concluded that most of the losses from Karnal bunt and TCK smut resulted from regulatory actions rather than the diseases, suggesting that the ultimate solutions are dependent on policy changes, not production research.
Page 454 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The study warned that, if not controlled, diseases like scab can and probably will have major structural effects on the U.S. wheat industry, resulting in reduced output and a smaller share of the world market. The study also noted that consumers and users of wheat products have at least as much at stake from reducing or eliminating the costs associated with wheat diseases as do producers.
Crop scientists from states affected by scab and vomitoxin met last spring to coordinate research priorities. Federal funding aimed at scab and vomitoxin would enable researchers involving 12 land grant universities to study in a coordinated effort, food safety concerns and post-harvest management of infected grain, evaluate effective crop treatments, and most importantly, develop more resistant germplasm and crop breeding material.
Producer groups, the Millers National Federation, and some states are already funding research to address the scab problem. Now about 40 state and national groups representing farmers, grain millers, farm retailers, grain exporters and the U.S. seed trade have joined to recommend that more Federal dollars be allocated to research the scab problem. We advise a Federal investment of $5 million, which would be one-half of one percent of the $1 billion in economic losses from scab in 1993 alone.
It is unfortunate that this US wheat industry priority was insufficiently addressed during the FY98 appropriations process. However, authorizing legislation has been introduced by Representatives Debbie Stabenow and Roy Blunt, that would develop a partnership between a consortium of 12 land-grant universities and the Federal Government to address the problem of scab in wheat and barley. We are hopeful that this legislation will gain congressional support.
If anything, the scab problem has brought different sectors of the U.S. wheat and barley industry together, to see that this disease gets remedied. Perhaps the scab and vomitoxin problem can be used as a template to build a better public research mechanism. A Federal investment to address a broad-based problem, with research components prioritized by an advisory committee consisting of public and private members and coordinated in an efficient manner through the land-grant university system.
Page 455 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Answer to Submitted Question from Mr. Combest to Mr. Anderson
The reason for the suggestion of an advisory board to oversee a 12-State, multi discipline project is to build in credibility and accountability as well as communication. The board would prioritize projects and assist with the reporting and dispensing of the research results.
In this day and age of computers, interactive television, conference calls, e-mail, et cetera, I think it is possible for boards to communicate and function to their charter at relatively low costs compared to years past when board members had to be in the same room to meet.
I would strongly be in favor of language to encourage cooperation among institutions in all multi-state research programs.
I would have a problem with language dropping the requirement for an advisory board with a project as large as the one that is outlined in my testimony. I am afraid that the stockholders wouldn't have enough input as to what is researched and reported.
STATEMENT OF GARY WEBER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS FOR THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION.
Today I am representing the position of the members of the Animal Agriculture Coalition. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee concerning the reauthorization of agriculture research, extension and education programs. Prior to my employment with the cattlemen I worked for the USDA Cooperative Extension System for over 10 years, including over 7 years as the National Program Leader for Animal Science. In addition, for nearly 4 years I was an area livestock specialist with Michigan State University.
The Scope of Animal Agriculture. Livestock and their products represent over 50 percent of farm and ranch income. They represent value added products which contribute to the vitality of rural communities. In fact, animal agriculture contributes directly more than $100 billion in farm and ranch cash receipts annually.
Page 456 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Livestock producers must meet the high expectations of the consumer for safe, wholesome and affordable food. At the same time, we must address the publics concerns regarding the impact of agricultural production systems on the environment and food safety while simultaneously maintaining profitability and be competitive in a global economy.
We support Federal Government investments in agricultural research and extension. Previous investments have produced a more than offsetting return to the taxpayer, in terms of low cost, safe and wholesome food, and increased business activity and resultant vitality of rural communities.
Status of the U.S. Food and Agriculture Research, Extension and Education System. Despite what you may hear, our research, extension and education system which serves agriculture is not broken. However, it is at risk. We can not allow the system to deteriorate. It is our collective responsibility to ensure this system, which is still the envy of the world, makes the necessary changes in order to remain viable into the 21st century and beyond. An Economic Research Service comprehensive literature review indicated there have been more that 64 reviews of the return on investment in agricultural research from 1915 through 1985. These 64 studies document a conservative average return of 46.7 percent . Agricultural research and education continues to be an excellent investment of public resources.
U.S. public sector research and development investments as a percentage of gross agricultural products (17 percent of our gross national product) is approximately 2 percent . Our global competitors, such as Australia and Canada each spend approximately 4 percent.
We are by no measure or means spending enough to support our research, extension and education system in the United States.
A System at Risk. In our view we must deal with 4 critical concerns, and find solutions. These include: (1) The research agenda is not focused on a coherent set of priorities. (2) The teaching curriculum is struggling to remain relevant to the changing needs of the agricultural sector. (3) The Extension System has blurred its agenda to accommodate the political demands of the urban/suburban votes while sacrificing its relevance to agriculture. (4) Federal funding for the agricultural research, extension and education system has become an exercise in afterthought.
Page 457 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
These challenges must be addressed before the system loses critical mass resulting in dangerous lapses which will impact farmers, ranchers and indeed all consumers as well.
Recommended Solution: Rebuilding the Partnership. The strength of our agricultural research, extension and education system has been in the partnerships between Federal, state and local governments, farmers, ranchers, scientists, veterinarians and the general public.
Slowly but surely, the commitment to, and cultivation of, partnerships in the system has been diminished.
One symptom of the breakdown of the partnership has been the concerns about the relevance of research and accountability of the system.
You listened to our concerns and established the Research Extension and Education Advisory Board to improve the priority setting process of USDA and hopefully ensure relevance and accountability of the system.
In retrospect, we now realize what we need the REE Advisory Board to do is not to set the priorities for research, extension and education, but to play a role in reestablishing the partnership in the system. One means to this end is for them to manage a process of gaining input into the priority setting process by encouragement of and working with efforts such as FAIR 2002 and CROPS '99.
We also recommend the USDA reestablish the partnership through taking the following actions:
1. Publish all requests for proposals for competitive and special grants in the Federal Register for the purpose of notice and comment.
2. Publish in the Federal Register, for the purposes of notice and comment, the evaluation criteria for Government Performance and Review Act compliance as well as the plan of work criteria required before formula funds are distributed to the respective states.
3. Evaluate the potential role of a two tier project review process. Tier one would involve a joint review by scientists and producers making a first cut based upon relevance, and the second tier of evaluation oriented to ensure the best science is selected.
Page 458 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
These requirements will improve the transparenc of the priority setting process and place a responsibility on the agriculture sector to provide input into the process, to be an active partner in the system.
Funding Structure. We believe maintaining a balanced portfolio Formula Funds, Competitive and Special Grants, and Intramural funding is appropriate. However, reauthorization of the research title should include the establishment of a contemporary description of the mission, roles, policy andpriority setting framework for each component of the system.
Relative to funding, we continue to be concerned about the tendency of Federal regulatory agencies to pursue authorization and appropriations to supporting their own research and education efforts. We support the current REE system as the primary research, extension and education arm of the USDA and that the REE programs should continue to meet the research needs of regulatory agencies.
A High-Priority, High-Payoff Research Agenda. The REE mission area should include a balanced portfolio of basic and applied research.
There should be a significant investment in programs and projects of national scope. In particular there is a need to fund programs and projects which increase the rate of technology transfer to agriculture, the latter is an important responsibility of the extension system.
The FAIR 1995 process identified research goals and objectives that will further increase the competitiveness and sustainability of U.S. production from animals, including farm-raised aquaculture products. The research objectives link key societal issues to science and technology advances that can come about through basic and interdisciplinary research of food production systems. The goals are:
(1) enhance industry-wide responsiveness to consumer and societal concerns;
(2) meet market demands through increased efficiency, profitability and competitiveness;
Page 459 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
(3) develop integrated food animal management systems;
(4) maintain and enhance environmental quality;
(5) improve food quality control in terms of safety, desirability, and nutritional composition and
(6) enhance animal well-being throughout the life cycle of food
producing animals.
This research agenda, arrived at through consensus, will strengthen technological advances and technology transfer by government agencies, private industry, state universities, and agricultural experiment stations. The new knowledge that will be gained is expected to ensure that food and fiber products from animals will meet consumer needs and expectations and that the industry will remain globally competitive and sustainable.
Adopting this high-priority, high-payoff research agenda will benefit the American public. It will improve the safety and nutritional quality of food products from animals, while ensuring competitiveness of U.S. food production and responsible animal and environmental well-being. In concert, these advances will continue to enhance the quality of life for this and future generations.
Emerging Food Animal Issues. The most frustrating and recurring challenge our farmers and ranchers face is getting quick action and resolution for emerging food animal health issues. Tuberculosis, Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), Johne's disease and TSE's such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Scrapie are just five recent issues that have challenged our industries. Additional funding must be made available to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) as they are called upon to address, emerging issues or needs of USDA's regulatory agencies. Additionally, universities, land-grants, and industry need a closer link with ARS to identify and resolve these emerging issues in a more timely fashion in order to limit their industry impact. Funding is also needed to prevent non-tariff trade barriers and to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the world market.
Page 460 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Integrated Production Demonstration Farms. Food animal producers strongly recommend utilizing integrated production demonstrations conducted in partnership with real world commercially viable farms and ranches. We encourage establishing partnerships with private commercial operations, with the Federal and state governments contributing matching funds necessary to establish and operate these demonstrations to validate the applicability of new technologies, methods and practices in real world settings. These projects would demonstrate that research and education can be integrated at the producer level to ensure food safety, improve profitability, protect public health, improve animal health and well-being, protect the environment, stimulate rural economies and expand U.S. exports of animal products.
In summary Mr. Chairman, we strongly recommend that Congress acts this year to reauthorize research, extension, and education programs. Food animal producers believe that the status quo is not acceptable and that meaningful change is needed. Our testimony has proposed specific policy recommendations that we hope the committee and the entire Congress fully consider. Working together, in a full partnership, we can meet these and other challenges. As a result, we will enhance U.S. agriculture's ability to continue to be the world leader in the production of safe, wholesome food and fiber, produced in an environmentally sound and profitable manner ensuring our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
TESTIMONY OF PERRY L. ADKISSON, CHANCELLOR EMERITUS,THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Perry L. Adkisson. I am Chancellor Emeritus of The Texas A&M University System. Prior to being Chancellor, I served several years as Deputy Chancellor for Agriculture and was in charge of the agricultural research, teaching and extension activities of the System. Prior to that, I was Head of the Department of Entomology for 11 years and for almost 40 years a research scientist involved in crop protection. In addition, I served two terms, 11 years, as a member of the National Science Board which oversees the activities of the National Science Foundation which funds much of the basic research conducted by the Nation's universities. Thus, I have wide experience in the conduct and supervision of research and believe I can bring to this committee a perspective that might be of use to you in reauthorizing agricultural research. In my testimony today, I want to stress the need and importance of increasing support of agricultural research by formula and special grant funding.
Page 461 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Although there has been a substantial increase in funding in recent years for the National Research Initiative (NRI) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there has been an overall decline in state and Federal funding for production-oriented research. The National Research Initiative is an excellent program which I support, but it does not meet all the research needs of our food and fiber production system. The NRI is a competitive grants program which supports the basic biological sciences, especially biotechnology, important to agriculture. The program is administered in a manner very similar to the National Science Foundation where small grants, typically of $100,000 to $200,000 per year, are made to single investigators for periods of two to three years. These grants are great for building small blocks of knowledge which may later be used to advance a specific field. They are not designed to solve problems of immediate practical importance to the agricultural production system. For the latter purpose, formula funding and special grants are needed.
Because of the decline in funding many talented production-oriented agricultural scientists, e.g. plant and animal breeders, plant protection specialists, agronomists, animal scientists, agricultural engineers, etc. are under-funded and under employed. You can not deal with a sudden and unexpected pest or disease outbreak or develop better crop varieties, food animals or superior trees with a three year grant that might be renewed. These types of programs require continuous and stable funding for long periods of time, such as provided by formula funds.
Also, funds are practically nonexistent for large regional and national problems that can best be solved by a multi-university, multi-disciplinary approach. Problems of this kind may be highly complex and can best be solved by assembling a large number of scientists of various disciplines in a highly focused, centrally managed effort requiring millions of dollars per year. The competitive grants program does not meet these needs, nor should it. This need can best be met by the special grant program where you can choose the best institutions and scientists to be involved in the research.
Page 462 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
I want to use two examples to illustrate the need for special grants that are not being met by other funding sources. The first involves the need for reducing pesticide use on fruits and vegetables and the second presents the possibility of greatly reducing the risks of diet-related diseases.
Great concern has recently been expressed about the need for reducing levels of pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables, and especially those consumed by infants and children. I believe it is possible to develop technology over the next 10 years which could reduce pesticide use on these crops by 50% or more. This could be accomplished by assembling a multi-disciplinary team in the state agricultural experiment stations in 7 or 8 of our largest fruit and vegetable producing states. The scientists would have to be chosen on the basis of their expertise and managed in a highly focused manner with well defined goals and objectives and a budget of $8 to $10 million per year. The best, and perhaps, the only way this research could be funded is by a special grant.
The second example involves an exciting new possibility of reducing the risks of certain diet-related diseases. This could have enormous benefit to society and individual consumers. Five diet-related diseases—certain types of cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, atherosclerotic diseases, and diabetes—are the leading causes of death in the United States. These five diseases are responsible for approximately two-thirds of the more than 2.0 million deaths that occur in the U.S. each year. Since these diseases are diet-related it should be possible to prevent them, delay their onset or lessen their severity through dietary changes. Several medical researchers are developing a growing body of scientific knowledge that many food plants contain chemical compounds that can inhibit tumor formation, reduce the risk of heart attack and slow atherosclerosis. For example, there are compounds in cauliflower and broccoli that can aid in the prevention of prostate cancer and in garlic and onions that can inhibit tumor formation in the esophagus, colon and rectum. There are compounds in many other vegetables, fruits and soybeans that are active in prevention of certain cancers, coronary heart disease, and atherosclerosis.
Page 463 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
It is surprising that with so much data becoming available on the identify of naturally-occurring compounds in food plants that may aid in the prevention of these most serious diseases, there has been very little research to enhance these characteristics by modern plant breeding and molecular genetic methods. What we need to do is to link the premier medical research centers working on this problem with a team of top vegetable and fruit breeders and molecular geneticists to identify the most effective compounds for disease-prevention in specific food plants, and the levels required for maximum prevention. The agricultural scientists can then use this knowledge to design food plants meeting these specifications. This is a large, complex problem and will require teams of scientists, several years of effort and millions of dollars. A project of this complexity and expense can only be done with a special grant.
These are the kinds of research projects that we need to be doing but are not as there is no place to go for funding except to Congress. I would hope that Congress, in its wisdom, will continue and will increase formula and special grant funding. I realize there are critics, mostly outside the agricultural community, who have cast a blanket indictment on this type of funding as ''pork-barrel'' and for projects which have not been peer-reviewed. However, these critics do not understand all the needs of agricultural research as well as you do. Most of the criticism can be met with valid arguments if the critics want to listen. All research projects, including those conducted with special grant or formula funding can be peer reviewed. With regard to the ''pork-barrel'', please remember that there are many worthy agricultural research needs that do fit the competitive grants mode and there are many large projects that can only be funded by Congressional appropriations. So I would urge you in your deliberations to consider the needs of all agriculture and to increase special grant and formula funding for the applied research needs of our food and fiber production system.
STATEMENT PRESENTED BY PAUL GILMAN, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD ON AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Page 464 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Chairman Combest and Members of the Committee: I am Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. In this capacity, I also serve as chairman of the National Research Council (NRC), the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
First, let me briefly describe what the NRC is and how we work. I do this because it is important for your understanding of the value of our recommendations. The Academy was chartered by Congress and signed into law by Abraham Lincoln. It differs from most other Academies of Science in the world in that it is not just an honorific Academy. From the outset it was established to be an independent voice on matters of science and technology. It does so through the NRC, using thousands of experts from academia, industry, and other organizations who volunteer their time. During any given year more than 6,000 scientists, engineers, and other experts participate in our activities—most of them at the request of the Federal Government. We actively strive for a balance of views among these individuals and subject them to a conflict of interest review. Our normal product is an independent consensus report. From initial approval of a study to this final report, every project is subject to oversight by supervisory boards and commissions within the NRC whose members are again, volunteer experts—often members of the Academies. The final step in our rigorous quality control process is a review by outside anonymous reviewers who did not serve on the study committee. The sponsoring Federal agencies have no role in the process and do not see a report until it is ready for public release.
I am pleased to testify before you today on the importance of agricultural research, extension, and education programs that must be reauthorized by Congress in 1997. I am going to talk to you today about the even greater importance of these programs given the fact that last year the Congress passed and the President signed into law the most sweeping changes in agricultural policy since the 1930's. The 1996 farm bill and its ''Freedom to Farm'' provisions position the U.S. food and agricultural sector to capture the growth in world markets. In the future, the ability of this industry to capitalize on trade opportunities will depend less on subsidization by the government and more on gains in efficiency and productivity—which can only be achieved if this country has a strong agricultural research base.
Page 465 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
To be competitive in this new era requires major breakthroughs in science and this mandates a strong public research base to provide the fundamental science underlying these advances. Given the long lead time necessary from basic research to development of a new technology (about 7–10 years) that effort must begin now. As I know you are aware Mr. Chairman, the NRC in its previous reports on agricultural research has strongly recommended the need for a competitive grants program. Today I am reaffirming that recommendation in my testimony. This concept has been adopted by USDA and codified by Congress in the 1990 farm bill as the National Research Initiative (NRI). However, funding for the NRI has fallen drastically short of the $500 million annually envisioned for this program and authorized by Congress. Without aggressive expansion in funding, a significant portion of the benefit of new science and technology will go unrealized and so in turn will the promise of a competitive agricultural industry envisioned in the 1996 farm bill.
Beyond fully funding this fundamental program, is the importance of ensuring the conduct and quality of agricultural education and research, and thus the land grant system. Land grant colleges of agriculture (LGCAs), initiated by the Morrill Act in 1862, historically have been entrusted with these functions and supported by public funds to carry them out. However, many questions have been raised by this committee and others as to whether LGCAs have positioned themselves to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The NRC, under guidance provided by its Board on Agriculture, undertook a study of the land grant system because of two main observations. First, the client base for food and agricultural research and education has changed dramatically as the Nation's economy has developed and its population has shifted to cities and suburbs, and the policy issues have shifted accordingly. Second, the land grant system is defined not only by its distinctive heritage but also by a set of institutional arrangements unique within higher education in the United States. These arrangements have changed little since the system's early years despite major changes in the food and agricultural system. The institutional arrangements include:
Page 466 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
A federally legislated mandate to embrace a three-part mission of making education accessible to students of ordinary means, conducting scientific research to underpin teaching programs, and extending research findings to off-campus users to ensure that science serves people; A Federal-state partnership that produced at least one land grant college in every state and territory; A Federal funding mechanism that distributes research funds and extension funds to LGCAs based on the state or territory's share of total farm and rural population; and a network of separate—but not equally well supported-historically black land grant colleges.
In addition to changes in agriculture and its role in society and the economy, new developments in science and science policy and the Federal funding environment motivated the NRC study of and recommendations for land grant universities. The study was sponsored by funds provided to the NRC mainly from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and to a lesser extent by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The NRC Committee Process. NRC studies are conducted by volunteers with relevant experience and expertise. Twenty-one individuals were convened under the oversight of the Board on Agriculture. These people were balanced for age, gender, and ethnicity; geographic location; and disciplinary expertise. They were participants in the land grant system—administrators and faculty with teaching, research, and extension expertise—as well as representatives of public interest groups, state government, agribusiness, and the nonagricultural science community (list attached).
The study was divided into three stages. First, information was collected, reviewed, and assessed on the LGCAs and their operating environment, and expert opinions were solicited from observers of and participants in the land grant system. The NRC published this historical review and collection of public data in Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile.
During the second stage of the study public forums were held at land grant colleges. The forums were important means to garner public input on the relationship between college activities and public needs and priorities. In the third phase, information was synthesized and integrated from the first two phases and a consensus report Colleges of Agriculture at Land Grant Universities: Public Service and Public Policy was published by the NRC last year.
Page 467 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Conclusions and Selected Recommendations. The consensus report concluded that a national science and education infrastructure that underpins continued advances in the food and agricultural system, and Federal support of that system, remain squarely in the national interest. It also concluded that although the land grant system has served the Nation well, there is need for change in four principle areas:
The LGCA system must increase its relevance to contemporary food and agricultural system issues and concerns. It must also continue to develop programs that include a wider array of students, faculty, and clientele of diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
The system must organize its programs and projects more efficiently and more in keeping with regional and multistate requirements of many modern food and agricultural system problems. There is a need for a ''new geography'' for the land grant system.
The system must reinvigorate its commitment to the linkages among teaching, research, and extension in order to fulfill its mandate of conducting science in service of society. The system must enhance its accountability to the public and its reputation for quality in the science community.
Twenty recommendations were developed in support of these key themes and are attached as a supplement to this statement. Several address the teaching, research, or extension components individually, and other recommendations cut across these components. A significant number recommend refinements in Federal policy as a means of reorienting incentives and signals in the LGCA system. Several of these recommend changes in Federal policy are especially pertinent to this hearings and they will be discussed here.
Involving the Stakeholders. LGCAs have a responsibility, based on their philosophical roots and legislative mandate, to be relevant and accessible to the general public and particularly to citizens of ordinary means. However, many of today's food and agricultural system beneficiaries, such as urban and suburban residents and environmentalists, have little knowledge of or connection to many of the LGCAs. Enhancing these connections does not mean abandoning farmers. It means building a broad constituency for programs that respond to and enhance complementarity among the Nation's multiple goals for its food and agricultural system. Enhancing connections to both farm and nonfarm residents is an outcome crucial to extending the colleges' relevance into the 21st century.
Page 468 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
In order to enhance these connections, the report's first recommendation is that in setting program priorities that guide resource allocation, LGCAs should garner effective input from a wide variety of stakeholders. In fact, receipt of USDA-administered funds—including those allocated by formula, special grants, and competitive grants—should be contingent on the demonstration of such input.
Creating a New Geography. Seventy-six institutions in 50 states, six territories, and the District of Columbia comprise the 1862 land grants and the historically Black or 1890 land grants. If the land grant system is to adopt a research and education agenda that responds to the priorities of consumers and the many specialized needs of diverse producer groups, then it must realize organizational efficiencies by reducing duplication and strengthening multistate and multi-institutional partnerships that build upon the specializations of individual institutions.
In addition, the nature of contemporary food and agricultural system issues calls for regional or multi-institutional efforts. Many natural resource and environmental issues, such as watershed management, cross state lines. Many consumer issues such as nutrition and disease, know no political boundaries. In fact, they may be endemic to similar populations located in spatially separated parts of the country. Even within the farm sector, production issues are often pertinent to producers in a region made up of all or parts of several states. In recognition of the importance of regional or other multi-state and multi-institutional approaches coupled with the need for Federal funds to provide incentives for such partnerships, the report recommends that significant shares (25 percent or more) of USDA-administered funds for teaching, research, and extension should be used to provide incentives for regional centers, consortia, programs, and projects that effectively integrate and mobilize multi-state and multi-institutional resources.
Integrating Teaching, Research, and Extension. LGCA administrations, faculty appointments, budgets, and Federal land grant legislation are structured along the lines of teaching, research, and extension. Although it is the historical commitment to its three-part mission that has distinguished the LGCAs, the separate administrative and funding structures too often hinder integration of the three functions and their programs. The different statuses implicitly, if not explicitly, assigned to each function by the university community contributes to the separateness.
Page 469 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
The integration of teaching, research, and extension is valued for several reasons. Research-extension linkages, when they work well, spawn a two-way flow of insights and information that enhances the relevancy of research and uses research findings where they are most valuable to the public. Strong research-extension linkages help ensure that outreach programs reflect the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. The integration of teaching, research, and extension is of special value to students because it offers an academic experience that involves the students in both the process of scientific discovery and public service. To put a renewed emphasis on an integrated tripartite mission, the report recommends that Federal formula funds for research and extension be combined into a single allocation. Further, 50 percent of the combined funds should be used to support programs, projects, and activities that explicitly integrate teaching, research, and extension or alternatively, the work of multiple disciplines.
Enhancing Accountability to the Public. It is widely recognized that USDA-administered research funding differs from other R&D funding in the much smaller percentage allocated to individuals and projects on the basis of merit and competition. This difference is because of (1) the relatively large share of agricultural research conducted intramurally by USDA, and (2) the use of formula funds and Congressionally designated grants in allocating extramural funds to institutions. Arguments can be made for and against both formula-based funding and competitive grants. However, some of the early reasons for formula funding of state experiment stations, such as the need to draw each state into agricultural research and the site-specific nature of agricultural research, carry less weight today. Today most states provide far more financial support than is required to match Federal dollars; and many types of food and agricultural research, such as nutrition, food safety, biotechnology, have little or no location specificity. Other arguments for formula funds, such as support they provide for structural linkages between research and extension that respond to local, state, and regional needs and for certain applied research projects that require long-term continuity, remain quite compelling.
Page 470 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Despite its uniqueness, agricultural research needs to enhance quality, accountability, and equity through greater use of competitive grants. The report reaffirms previous NRC reports and as I stated at the beginning of my testimony, recommends that the Federal partner should increase its use of competitive grants to fund projects and individuals on the basis of merit as determined by peer review. Greater use of competitive grants in relation to formula funding and Congressional earmarks will enhance quality and accountability, and lessen the perception that experiment station researchers are insulated from competition with the rest of the research community.
The Federal Government should increase competitive funding of food and agriculture projects. The funding level for competitive grants should be no less than the $500 million authorized by Congress for the National Research Initiative in Agriculture, Food, and the Environment. Recognizing fiscal constraints, options for increasing the share of Federal support for competitively awarded peer-reviewed research include (1) directing funds to research from other USDA budget categories, particularly as a means of reinvesting savings on agricultural subsidies; (2) transferring to competitive grants programs a portion of the funds distributed to experiment stations by formula and special grants; and (3) drawing on USDA intramural noncompetitive research funding. A two tier review similar to that of NIH should be used at the Federal level to guarantee that public benefits as well as scientific merit guide the selection of research proposals. To those who would criticize a reallocation of funds from formula and intramural funding, it needs to be pointed out that the scientists affected by such a reallocation can apply to the NRI for funding since all scientists are eligible for these funds.
Nonetheless, a continued role exists for formula funding, particularly in supporting linked teaching, research, and extension. The report recommends, however, that new formulas be designed and implemented by which food and agricultural research and extension funds are allocated within the land grant system. The current formulas are outdated in relation to modern food and agricultural constituencies. These formulas were generated in an era when a much higher percentage of the Nation's population was rural and farm based, and the Nation's agricultural interests were dominated by concerns with domestic crop production and food security. Today, many issues of concern to the U.S. public, such as diet and health, families and youth at risk , and food safety are not specific to farm production regions, suggesting the need to rethink formulas for both research and extension. In revising the formulas, consideration should be given to variables such as states' proportionate contributions to total population, relative poverty rates, or shares of cash receipts from farm and food marketings—as appropriate reflections of the LGCA system's broadened contemporary customer base.
Page 471 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Federal legislation requires that state governments match Federal formula-based contributions to research conducted at experiment stations located at 1862 institutions and as noted earlier, states contribute far more than their matching requirements. However, no such requirement applies to Federal contributions to research based at the 1890 institutions. Aside from the obvious inequity among institutions within the land grant system, this discrepancy in Federal funding requirements also means that the clientele of the 1890 institutions are less likely to receive adequate research and education attention. The 1890's have been uniquely focused on issues, problems, and needs of African Americans and other ethnic minority groups, small-scale and limited resource farmers, and low-income rural and urban families. Thus, the report recommends that the Federal Government require that states match Federal formula funds going to the historically Black 1890 institutions in the same manner as is required for the 1862 institutions. This recommendation is meant to enhance the vital role of the 1890's as providers of access to research and education to under represented segments of our society.
Looking to the Future. The land-grant system has served the Nation well, but changes are needed that reflect modern realities, challenges, and opportunities. The system must increase its relevance to contemporary food and agricultural system issues and concerns; reinvigorate its commitment to teaching, research, and public service; organize its programs and projects more efficiently and more in keeping with regional and multistate requirements of many food and agriculture system problems; and enhance its accountability to the public.
Their historical commitment to public service distinguishes the LGCAs. The tripartite tradition of teaching, research, and extension at land grant colleges is a unique institutional base on which to erect the structure of knowledge that can assure a competitively, socially, and ecologically sustainable food and agricultural system. It is that unique base of support adapted for the challenges of the 21st century that will continue to make this segment of our Nation's research system as vital and important as its historical past.
Page 472 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
An Agricultural Genome Project. Aside from the important questions about land grant colleges of agriculture you will also be considering USDA's authorization request for a Food or Agriculture Genome Project. This is an extremely important project. Over the last decade we have made a major investment in genomic activities of importance to agriculture. Thus far, the approach taken has not set priorities among the major commodities of interest to agriculture. Questions have been raised as to whether that is the best approach. Last year USDA along with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) jointly funded the Arabidopsis genomic program. As a model plant with an unusually small genome, Arabidopsis has become the plant world's equivalent to the laboratory mouse, and it is now poised to become the first plant to have its entire genome sequenced and made available for study. Like work with the mouse, the ultimate value of research on Arabadopsis lies in what it teaches scientists about many other, more important species.
The question now is where do we go from here. This past April, USDA requested the NRC to provide a forum for discussing the opportunities and issues that would arise if a coordinated agricultural genome program were begun. Scientists from industry, academe, and Federal agencies shared their experiences in mapping and sequencing programs in diverse areas of genomics including human, mouse, Arabidopsis, livestock, and maize. Many of the scientific experts agreed that a coordinated effort at mapping and sequencing the genomes of important food, fiber, and associated microbial organisms could be more cost effective and timely than the current piecemeal approach. Forum participants identified numerous scientific and programmatic issues that should be considered by USDA before launching a full scale genomic research program. Many participants also seemed to believe that the project should be planned in greater detail before major amounts of money are spent on it, since timing and coordination among the different components will be a key factor in its effectiveness.
Similar types of issues and concerns were raised in 1987 with regard to a Human Genome Project. I was privileged to chair a NRC committee at that time that was assigned the task of examining the desirability and feasibility of mapping and sequencing the human genome and suggesting options for implementing a possible project. The resulting report called Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome (NRC, 1988) provided the foundation for the implementation plans that were subsequently developed by NIH and DOE—the two agencies Congress designated to jointly work on the human genome project.
Page 473 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Before USDA, NSF, DOE and other potential agencies commit to the details of an agricultural genome project, I strongly urge you to consider the preparation of an implementation plan—such as the one we prepared for the human genome project. It is even more important that such a plan be developed for agriculture because it is more complex and will involve more agencies. For example, in choosing target species to map and sequence, is genome size as important a criterion as agricultural importance? How can we most effectively exploit our knowledge of the DNA sequence of one species to determine that of another species using comparative mapping? What are our special needs in bioinformatics? What is the role of the public and private sectors in mapping agricultural genomes? Should we collaborate with international partners to share costs? If so, how should we do it?
The importance of mapping agricultural genomes cannot be overstated and there is a great deal of enthusiasm for this initiative. But we need to plan before spending major resources. It is therefore imperative that a blueprint be prepared that provides a detailed strategy for such a large undertaking, harnessing the very best wisdom of the scientific community.
Attachments for the Statement of Bruce Alberts, Ph.D., President, National Academy of Sciences, Chairman, National Research Council
Recommendations of the National Research Council Report Entitled
Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture: Public Policy and Public Service
RECOMMENDATION 1. Receipt by LGCAs of USDA-administered research and extension funds—including formula funds and competitive grants—should be contingent on their ability to demonstrate that a wide variety of stakeholders have effective input into a systematic prioritization (no less often than biennially) of research, extension, and joint research-extension issues, that specifies areas of increased and decreased emphasis. Further, LGCAs must demonstrate that a wide variety of stakeholders are consulted in resource allocation decision making processes.
Page 474 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
RECOMMENDATION 2. In light of the changing structure of agriculture and the importance of diverse participants in production agriculture, the LGCA system should critically assess the needs of all producer population groups, develop priorities and targeted programs for each, and adjust technology transfer and information delivery modes appropriately.
RECOMMENDATION 3. Federal programs and policies should enhance the LGCA system's efforts to realize organizational efficiencies and synergies that broaden and deepen the system's expertise and expand access and relevancy. Significant shares (25 percent or more) of total current USDA-administered extramural funds—including formula funds and competitive grants—for food and agricultural research, teaching, and extension should provide incentives for
regional centers, consortia, programs and projects that effectively integrate and mobilize multi-state and multi-institutional (including 1862, 1890, and 1994 colleges') resources; and distance learning and other technologies that expand access, broaden clientele, and enhance multi-institution collaboration in teaching, research, and extension.
RECOMMENDATION 4. The LGCA system and the Federal Government must revitalize the linkages among teaching, research, and extension. To further this goal, the committee recommends the following.
Federal formula funding for research and extension should be combined into a single allocation to LGCAs for food and agricultural system research and extension, requiring that the use of these combined funds reflect a coordinated effort to link university research and extension in the national interest. (It should be strongly underscored that the intent of this recommendation is not to reduce the importance or destroy the integrity of one function or the other but to encourage their integration.)
It should be required that one-half of the formula funds for research and extension at each institution be directed to fund programs, projects, and activities that integrate teaching, research, and extension, with a special emphasis on inter- and multidisciplinary programs and projects, and the engagement of students on research teams and in extension programs as interns and aides.
Page 475 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
RECOMMENDATION 5. Regular and critical evaluations of federally funded research and extension programs should assess the congruence between such programs to which Federal funds are devoted and the provision or enhancement of public goods of regional and national significance.
RECOMMENDATION 6. The bridging programs among 1862s, 1890's, and 1994s deserve special emphasis from Federal funding programs, such as Federal challenge grants, including evaluation of their effectiveness as models for expanding access and diversity in the food and agricultural sciences. The Federal Government should also become an active promoter of the use of articulation agreements among institutions within and across states to facilitate student exchanges and transfers, and encourage collaborative internship programs among institutions in the LGCA system.
RECOMMENDATION 7. The colleges of agriculture should require students to take at least one internship from a wide range of creative, mentored internship opportunities representing the diverse career settings for which graduates in food and agricultural sciences are prepared.
RECOMMENDATION 8. The Federal Government should expand competitive challenge grants to creative teachers and teaching teams to develop innovative multidisciplinary and systems-based course material and curricula.
RECOMMENDATION 9. The Federal Government should increase competitive funding of food and agricultural research projects. The funding level for competitive grants should be no less than the $500 million authorized by Congress for the National Initiative for Research in Agriculture, Food, and the Environment (NRI). Additionally, the share of total Federal research support awarded competitively to projects and individuals (including teams) on the basis of peer-reviewed merit should be increased. Recognizing fiscal constraints, options for increasing the share include (a) directing funds to research from other USDA budget categories, particularly as a means of reinvesting savings on agricultural subsidies; (b) transferring to competitive grants programs a portion of the funds currently distributed to experiment stations by formula and special grants; and (c) drawing on USDA intramural noncompetitive research funding. Consistent with Recommendation 1, a two-tier review system similar to that of NIH, should be used at the Federal level to guarantee that public benefits as well as scientific merit guide the selection of research proposals.
Page 476 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
RECOMMENDATION 10. USDA should continue its role in enhancing participation and success in competitive grant programs by all institutions in order to build human capital nationwide in food and agricultural research. For example, it should (a) continue to designate 10 percent of the enlarged competitive grants pool for institutions in USDA-EPSCoR states; (b) allocate 5 percent of competitive grants for 1890 institutions, while maintaining capacity building grants; and (c) streamline the Federal competitive grants application process without sacrificing accountability or the adequacy of information on which to judge scientific merit.
RECOMMENDATION 11. A new formula by which food and agricultural research funds are allocated within the land grant system should be designed and implemented to accurately reflect the full range of food and agricultural research beneficiaries.
RECOMMENDATION 12. The Federal Government should require that states match formula research funds going to 1890 institutions in the same manner as is required for 1862 institutions.
RECOMMENDATION 13. Data on extension projects and programs, goals, and outcomes should be compiled and organized more systematically to enhance their usefulness to extension administrators and clientele and to aid in analyses of the returns on public investments in farm and nonfarm extension programs.
RECOMMENDATION 14. The Federal Government should require that states match formula extension funds going to 1890 institutions in the same manner as required for 1862s.
RECOMMENDATION 15. Extension programs must be underpinned by an academic research base in the land grant university. Consequently, the committee strongly encourages land grant universities to embrace the mandate of outreach and extension and to ensure that the entire university is accessible and responsive as the research base for farm and nonfarm extension programs. To accomplish this, administrative structures, incentives, and reward recognition must be generated within the university to promote the commitment and involvement of faculty, staff, and administrators across the university to actively participate in outreach, extension, and public service.
Page 477 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
RECOMMENDATION 16. Federal agencies (operating under the auspices of a Cabinet-level task force) should identify appropriate opportunities to link programs at the Health and Human Services, Commerce, and other departments to USDA-based extension, especially in the delivery of services to nonfarm clientele.
RECOMMENDATION 17. The research base for extension's nonfarm programs, such as community and economic development, human development, and public policy, should be enhanced by strengthening the land grant universities' applied research capacity in economics, sociology, public health, and related disciplines and their applications to extension programs.
RECOMMENDATION 18. New and innovative approaches to augment extension financing should be pursued, as appropriate, taking into account implications for access to extension by limited-resource farmers and other limited-resource clientele groups.
RECOMMENDATION 19. A new formula by which base food and agricultural extension funds are allocated within the land grant system should be designed and implemented to accurately reflect the full range of food and agricultural extension service beneficiaries.
RECOMMENDATION 20. All national extension initiatives should be available on a competitive basis to land grant and nonland grant institutions. Consistent with the committee's prior recommendations (Recommendations 3, 4, 15, and 17), these competitive grants should provide incentives for multistate, multi-institution, or regional extension programs; new and innovative approaches to the delivery of extension services, particularly where access can be expanded significantly and benefits shared across political boundaries; programs that significantly improve the science base for extension programs, such as those dealing with human nutrition education and social science issues; and programs that enhance the public service component of academic programs.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. ROSE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, NATIONAL GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCERS
Page 478 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ken Rose. I raise wheat and sorghum, as well as manage a commercial cow/calf operation on my farm near Keyes, Oklahoma and serve as vice president for research and education for the National Grain Sorghum Producers. I am pleased to appear before this Committee on behalf of the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association and the National Grain Sorghum Producers. I would like to offer the following observations and suggestions concerning reauthorization of the research title to the 1996 farm bill.
Background. For over 100 hundred years, the U.S. system of agriculture research, education and extension has provided the foundation upon which the United States has built the world's most productive and efficient agricultural system. This system has benefited not only agricultural producers, processors, merchandisers, input suppliers, grain handlers and others involved in production agriculture, but also the consuming public both domestically and abroad. The return on public investment in agriculture research has been conservatively estimated to exceed 35 percent annually. When one considers the reduction in human suffering, ability to transfer human and capital resources from food production to other enterprises, and the improved standard of living we all enjoy, it is readily apparent that the true return to research is significantly underestimated.
Given these benefits, one can conclude that the level of investment should be increased. Unfortunately, current budget reality suggests that the significant increase in Federal investment in agriculture research which the rate of return would justify is unlikely. Maintaining the current level of support in terms of dollars adjusted for inflation spent on research projects and human development directly applicable to enhancing agriculture productivity, improving food quality and safety, ensuring international competitiveness and satisfying other consumer needs is a more difficult hurdle with each passing year. In addition, while we recognize the past accomplishments of the system and enjoy the benefits it has provided, simply maintaining the status quo is unlikely to provide the new technology, products and human capacity required by production agriculture and consumers in the future.
Page 479 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We fear that simple reauthorization of the status quo will require an ever increasing amount of the static funding base to be allocated to maintenance of current physical and human capacity without examining whether the existing system is in fact appropriate and capable of addressing future problems and capitalizing on new opportunities. Reduced government intervention in agriculture production, lagging productivity growth, privatization and globalization of markets, and increased concern over issues such as bio-technology, food safety and environmental enhancement are real challenges which must be met. Through the reauthorization process, Congress has the opportunity to review the individual system components, examine innovative ways to improve efficiency and make adjustments which will ensure system relevance and productivity as we enter the next century.
We believe five areas should be addressed through the reauthorization process: 1. Funding mechanisms and allocation. 2. Institutional collaboration and cooperation. 3. Industry input in determining research relevancy and priorities. 4. System accountability. 5. Future opportunities.
It is our view that creating a Funding Review Task Force, establishing additional funding guidelines, redesigning the operation and responsibility of the National Agriculture Research, Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) and modifying the Fund for Rural America can serve as the means to address the five issues in a proactive fashion.
Funding mechanisms and allocation. Federal funding of agricultural research contains a mix of formula funds, competitive and special grants and intramural funding. Each of these funding components provides support for the maintenance and development of institutional, physical and human research capacity in both basic and applied agriculture research. Additionally, these funds are utilized to leverage additional research investment from states and private sources. While we support maintaining a mixture of funding sources, we believe it is appropriate to review the current allocation of these resources. The Facilities Review Task Force has recently begun its work in analyzing the current state of the physical agriculture research infrastructure, and will make recommendations to the Congress concerning the Federal role in providing research facilities. We believe it is appropriate during this period to engage in a review of Federal research funding mechanisms as a parallel activity to that of the Facilities Review Task Force. The Funding Review Task Force should be charged with: (1) Comparing the adequacy and efficiency of existing funding components. (2) Providing an analysis of funding levels, requirements and needs of each REE mission responsibility, including intramural research. (3) Reporting on opportunities to obtain non-REE Federal funds from other USDA and Federal agencies and departments, state agencies and the private sector. (4) Developing recommendations for proposed changes in existing funding arrangements including capital expenditures.
Page 480 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
A majority of the task force should consist of representatives of production agriculture (input supply, farm production, handling, processing and marketing), and the remainder from other interested sectors. All voting members should be appointed by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, and should represent both sectoral and geographically diverse interests. The Secretary of Agriculture should appoint 5 non-voting, ex-officio members, one each to represent REE, ARS, CSREES, ERS, NASS. The task force should be expected to report on its findings within 18 months of its formation.
In addition to an overall review of existing funding mechanisms and allocation procedures, we believe that USDA must have flexibility to react quickly and decisively to emergency situations. While the Secretary has existing authority to shift funds from one agency to another in health emergencies, he needs additional authority to allow the research, extension and education services to focus on specific emergencies which are deemed to severely impact production or markets. Furthermore, the Secretary should be able to provide longer term commitments to addressing those situations once the imminent threat has been resolved. In order to ensure the funds are actually spent on emergency situations, we support providing the National Agriculture Research, Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board with authority to approve expenditures for emergency projects that will last more than one year.
Institutional Collaboration and Cooperation. Federal funding of research and extension programs should be utilized to ensure that our research institutions seek opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with others in both the public and private sectors. Federal research expenditures should be limited to projects that address national or multi-state priorities, and topics where the incentive for other investment is low compared to the expected benefits which might accrue to production agriculture or consumers. By so doing, we will be recognizing the need to increase system efficiency and specialization, reduce unnecessary duplication and the fact that many of the issues which need to be addressed have little location specificity. Improving the Current Research Information System (CRIS) and full utilization of computer technology to exchange information should enhance opportunities to improve the level of cooperation among various research entities.
Page 481 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Funding limitations from all sources and broadened responsibilities have weakened the ability of extension to fulfill its historic mission and adequately address the many new challenges which confront producers and other agriculture participants. We believe that Federal support of extension activities should be dedicated to issues of economic importance to production agriculture which includes the many sectors engaged in the production, processing and merchandising of food and fiber products.
Congress should also consider combining a significant portion of research and extension funding into a single allocation to encourage full mission and priority integration of the two disciplines. This action will also improve the timely dissemination of information and establish outreach programs that reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
NAREEEAB (Board). The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board was established in the 1996 farm bill to replace numerous existing advisory groups with a single committee for the purpose of reviewing USDA/REE planning objectives and providing recommendations to that Federal research agency and the land grant universities. The Board consists of 30 members, representing a wide range of industries, organizations and institutions that have some level of interest in agricultural research, education and extension programs, and 5 ex-officio members who represent USDA. All members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The formal structure of the Board ensures that a significant number of members come from the system the Board was established to advise, and the overall size makes it difficult for the Board to operate efficiently in a quasi-independent advisory capacity.
We believe the system's primary stakeholders (input suppliers, producers, handlers, processors, and merchandisers) should be in the position to drive the process. The Board should then take the lead in accepting input to establish research, education and extension priorities, define a process to ensure the relevancy of research proposals and develop a methodology utilizing a financial and performance audit, consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), to review research expenditures in relation to the output of the system.
Page 482 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We recommend that the Board be modified as follows to ensure that it is able to effectively undertake both its current responsibilities as well as those defined above:
Proposed modifications to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board
Membership. The Board shall consist of 18 members, appointed as follows: Six members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture; Six members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives in consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee; andSix members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate in consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee.
Annual Appointments. To ensure an orderly transition from the current Board, consisting of 30 members, to the new Board, consisting of 18 members, and to ensure staggered terms, a total of 6 members shall be appointed each year, as follows:
Two members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture;
Two members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives in consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee; and two members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate in consultation with the ranking minority member of the Committee
{Note: In each of the years, 1997–1999, the terms of ten members of the current Board expire. The membership during the three-year transition period will be as follows: In 1997, 6 members are appointed and 10 members retire for a total board membership of 26; In 1998, 6 members are appointed and 10 members retire for a total board membership of 22; In 1999, 6 members are appointed and 10 members retire for a total board membership of 18.}
Qualifications. At least 3 of the members appointed each year under each of the above paragraphs shall be an individual who represents agricultural producers or agricultural industry.
Page 483 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Terms of Members; Vacancies. A member of the Board shall serve for a term of 3 years. A vacancy on the Board shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made and the term shall be the remaining time of the original term.
Executive Committee. The Board shall establish an executive committee. As necessary to replace the officers, the members of the Board shall elect from among the member of the Board a chairperson, vice chairperson, and 3 additional members to serve on the executive committee for a term of two years. A majority of the executive committee shall be representative of agricultural producers or agricultural industry.
Executive Committee Duties The Executive Committee of the Board shall be responsible for working with the Secretary of Agriculture and the officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture to summarize and disseminate the recommendations and actions of the Board.
Board Duties. Review and provide consultation to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Congress on long-term and short-term national policies and priorities relating to agricultural research, extension, education and economics.
Establish long-term and short-term national policies and priorities relating to agricultural research, extension, education and economics.In establishing long-term and short-term national policies and priorities, the Board shall solicit opinions and recommendations from: (a) persons who will benefit from, and utilize federally funded agricultural research, extension, education, and economics; (b) symposia held to establish recommendations regarding priorities; (c ) local, state and regional stakeholder groups; (d) organizations representing agricultural producers and industry; (e) sector recommendations, such as the Belt-wide Cotton Conference, Corn Utilization Conference, National Grain Sorghum Research Conference, and the National Barley Improvement Committee; (f) national conferences such as the FAIR 2000, the CROPS '99, and the American Association of Nurseryman symposia; and (g) from the scientific community.
Evaluate the results and effectiveness of agricultural research, extension, education, and economics with respect to the policies and priorities developed. Review and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics on the research, extension, education and economics portion of the draft strategic plan required under the Government Performance and Results Act. Review the mechanisms of the Department of Agriculture for technology assessment. Within each of the broad funding categories for the National Research Initiative, the Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service, the Economic Research Service, the Agriculture Research Service, the National Agriculture Statistics Service, and the Fund for Rural America, establish priorities for research.
Page 484 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
On an annual basis, review the Inspector General's report on the financial and performance audits of Federal research projects and make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Congress for ensuring that Federal research funds are spent in a cost-effective and efficient manner on priority areas.
Powers. Hearings—The Board may conduct such hearings, sit and act at such times, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Board deems necessary and appropriate for carrying out its duties.
Assistance From Other Agencies—The Board may secure directly from any department or agency of the Federal Government such information as may be necessary to carry out its duties. On the request of the Chairperson of the Board, the head of the department or agency shall, to the extent permitted by law, furnish such information to the Board.
Mail-The Board may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as the departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
Assistance From the Secretary of Agriculture—The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide to the Board appropriate office space and such reasonable administrative and support services as the Board may request.
Future Opportunities. The Fund for Rural America (FRA), authorized under the 1996 farm bill, provides $100 million annually for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999. The FRA represents the only significant source of new agriculture research funding within the USDA. Currently, one third of the fund is dedicated to research, education and extension grants. The grants are awarded on a competitive basis and are not targeted to specific priorities; although the USDA has identified three objectives for utilization of the fund: international competitiveness, profitability and efficiency; environmental preservation and improvement; and rural community enhancement. One third of the fund is dedicated to rural development. The remaining third is to be used at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture for either research, education and extension, or rural development, or both. For fiscal year 1997, the Secretary designated the discretionary funds, which total $33 million, as follows:
Page 485 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
$20.5 million for rural development; $10.0 million for USDA research priorities; and $2.8 million for a new competitive grant research program to examine ways to improve delivery of agricultural knowledge to rural communities.
Over 2000 applicants have submitted research proposals to be considered for a portion of the $46 million which were to be awarded under the competitive research grants program of the Fund. During consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, the Fund was reduced by $20 million. Due to the fact that most of the rural development projects to be funded by the program had already been approved prior to the reduction, those cuts are likely to be focused on the remaining $46 million in FY 1997 for agricultural research, extension and education projects. This amounts to nearly a 45 percent reduction in the amount which can be allocated to those priorities, and will significantly reduce the amount of research which can be undertaken.
We recommend that the authorization of the Fund be extended from FY 1999 to FY 2002, and that in place of the discretionary allocation $50 million be dedicated to research, education and extension programs and $50 million for rural development projects.
In order to ensure that research, education and extension programs are implemented in a timely fashion, and avoid the potential that another round of reductions could be focused on the research portion of the FRA, we propose that the allocations for research, education and extension projects for FY 1998 and FY 1999 be dedicated to the following five priority areas within USDA's stated objectives:
National food genome project. Economically significant value added products. International competitiveness. Precision agriculture. Food safety. For FY 2000 and thereafter, the National Agriculture Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board (Board) would designate no more than five priority areas to which the research, education and extension portion of the fund could be utilized.
We suggest the Board establish a panel for each of the five priorities to recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture the desired outcomes which would be part of the request for proposals under the Fund. The panels should include representation from the Board, as well as farm and commodity groups, private industry, universities, private research organizations and Federal agencies. These panels would review applications as to their relevancy to the established priority and, on an annual basis, report to the Board on the progress being made it meeting the desired outcome.
Page 486 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Eligibility for grants would be dependent upon the applicants established and demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology transfer related to the priorities, and would require successful applicants to establish a process for collaboration among both public and private research entities The applicants shall demonstrate the ability to create partnerships and mechanisms which ensure the integration and management of a complex array of regional, multi-state and multi-disciplinary resources, institutions and capabilities to the extent such activities are necessary and desirable in fulfilling the goals of the research.
To further improve stakeholder input, we recommend the Secretary publish the request for proposals in the Federal Register. A competitive, merit review process to select the entities to receive the grants should be established, and priority given to those applicants able to leverage funds from other Federal, state and/or private sources.
Under this scenario, the FRA would be utilized for a limited number of priorities which address complex problems and that require a significant initial investment, as well as cooperation and collaboration between the private and public sectors. The grants would be available to public and/or private institutions with the capability to coordinate, develop and deliver on a timely basis specifically desired products.
We believe this approach, when coupled with resources from other research programs, can yield significant results in the shortest amount of time on topics important to the future of U.S. agriculture without severely reducing our ability to address existing research priorities. In addition, this design can build a constituency for the FRA and encourage its review as a potential model for ensuring greater cooperation, and accountability within all agricultural research endeavors.
Conclusion. U.S. agriculture is undergoing unprecedented change in the manner is which crops are produced, processed and marketed. Reduced government intervention in agriculture, reflected both domestically and internationally, through increased privatization, market competition and global economic factors; consumer expectations relative to food quality, safety and convenience; concern about the environmental impact of agriculture and the prospect of new technological developments have all increased the risk and opportunity for U.S. agriculture producers and other production agriculture sectors. The ability of the U.S. agriculture industry to reduce risks and capture the benefits of change will in large part be determined by our ability to develop and adopt improved production and marketing practices and technology which reflect the industry needs associated with this new environment.
Page 487 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
gricultural research, education and extension has a vital role to play in enhancing productivity growth and economic viability throughout the industry. We recognize and are appreciative of the positive impact the Federal/state/private research partnership provides production agriculture, U.S. consumers and others throughout the world. However, given the limited prospects for increased Federal investment in the system and the challenges faced by production agriculture, we believe it is appropriate to review several aspects of the system. Critical to the task before us is further strengthening the relationship between the partners in this important effort to better demonstrate to consumers, taxpayers and policy makers that increased investment in agricultural research, education and extension is in their own self interest.
We have provided several suggestions to improve the performance of the Federal agriculture research system. We believe improvements through enhanced opportunities for production agriculture to become more fully involved in establishing regional and national research priorities, and determining project relevancy similar to what is effectively occurring on the local level in many states would be a positive step. Additionally, we propose that mechanisms be adopted which will increase the accountability of the system to both the primary stakeholders and, importantly, to the general public. This effort should include a thorough review of existing funding mechanisms. Finally, although research funds are limited, we believe that exciting opportunities exist in several priority areas to provide a positive impact throughout production agriculture. We have proposed that the Fund for Rural America be utilized to address these big ticket, high priority issues as a potential model for the future.
Mr. Chairman, our organizations look forward to working with you and the members of the Committee throughout the reauthorization process to ensure the current and future research needs of agriculture are adequately addressed.
TESTIMONY OF NANCY CHAPMAN, OF THE ALLIANCE FOR CONTINUING NUTRITION RESEARCH & MONITORING
Page 488 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Mr. Chairman and other members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing the Alliance for Continuing Nutrition Research and Monitoring the opportunity to submit this testimony to this Subcommittee. The alliance consists of 11 groups representing farmers, health professionals, physicians, scientists, food technologists, educators, and food manufacturers. The alliance is a diverse constituency of approximately 15 million individuals, and is united in its support of human nutrition research and monitoring. The true tally of supporters could include the entire population because everyone gains from the valuable contributions of human nutrition research, as we illustrate in our testimony. I am Nancy Chapman, a public health nutritionist, member, and volunteer of several of the groups represented here today. I have used the health and dietary information from the Federal surveys and the findings of Federal nutrition research throughout my professional career as an evaluator, educator, policy analyst, and communicator.
Congressman Combest, you have long been a champion of agriculture research and recognize that the advances in agriculture, as well as human health, depend in large measure on high quality research, conducted in both public and private institutions. This Alliance wants to describe to you and your esteemed colleagues the numerous junctures among animal/plant science, human nutrition research, agriculture production and human health. We want you to envision nutrition research along with food science, agricultural biotechnology, and other research fitting together as a train moving agriculture more quickly, smoothly, and efficiently down the competitive track in a global economy. Human nutrition research and monitoring help:
focus Federal food assistance programs where they are most needed; health professionals to devise strategies to lower the risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and other diet-related diseases by increasing the understanding of specific relationships among diet, heredity, and lifestyle.
Reduce health care costs due to lower incidence of chronic diseases; generate a more nutritious food supply by identifying health-promoting properties of plant and animal foods in a balanced diet; identify public health problems that can be corrected through changes in food supply such as nutrient fortification, fat reduction, and interventions to prevent obesity; keep dietary guidance current and appropriate for nutritionally-vulnerable groups from infancy to old age to realize full growth, development, health, and physical well-being; and provide data for estimating possible intake of incidental contaminants, pesticides, and naturally occurring toxic substances as part of regulating the use of certain substances.
Page 489 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Return on Investment. Conservatively, the approximate $60 million investment in USDA nutrition research and monitoring guides over $40 billion in food assistance expenditures. The Federal investment in USDA research has also guided the well-known nutrition labeling program and the USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Research also guides the nutrition education programs in schools, preschools, hospitals, and elderly feeding programs as well as such public campaigns as, Five-A-Day for Better Health. These and other nutrition education programs have the potential for reducing some of the $200 billion annual costs for treatment and care of diseases linked strongly to nutrition, such as cardiovascular diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and osteoporosis. Virtually all major chronicle and degenerative diseases are linked to nutrition. This will become increasingly important as our country's population ages.
Request for Congressional Support. Because the Federal Government receives an excellent return on its investment in human nutrition research and monitoring, the Alliance for Continuing Nutrition Research and Monitoring believes Congress should readily support three core elements of nutrition research and monitoring. These requests mirror the President's Human Nutrition Initiative in the USDA budget and are as follows:
Maintain a comprehensive nutrition monitoring system that harmonizes the health research of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the dietary data from the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) without losing essential components of either survey. The President's budget includes additional $6 million of funding to determine the food consumption of infants and children that will enable better estimates of dietary exposure in reassessment of pesticides under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act.
2. Provide measures and support that assures updating and reporting nutritional status, food consumption and composition data in a timely manner that reflects advances in technologies and plant and animal breeding. Accurate nutrient data information available from industry, commodity groups, and other private sources, often developed for nutritional labeling, should be incorporated into databases to portray the new products in the market place.
Page 490 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
3. Allocate sufficient funding to support basic human nutrition research at USDA. The President's budget requests an additional $6 million dollars of funding for USDA nutrition research to meet the challenges of the new century.
A Comprehensive Nutrition Monitoring System, Its Time Has Come
Congress passed the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 with the expectation that the existing NHANES and CSFII surveys would be well-coordinated in data collection, analyses, and reporting. This goal has not been achieved. It is time for Congress to restate the expectation that USDA and DHHS closely collaborate to establish a comprehensive nutrition monitoring system that provides timely and pertinent data on food and nutrient intakes, health indicators, and socio-demographics. Requisite funds for such a system are justified given the extensive use of the data for directing Federal food assistance expenditures, public health programs, pesticide registrations, food labeling, dietary guidance, food additive evaluations, and developments of new products, seeds, and breeds. For example, food consumption data underpins the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) on which the food stamp benefit levels are based.
Survey data are used by programs such as the Supplemental Food Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) in determining what nutrients and foods should be targeted in the WIC food package for recipients; data are also used to determine the size of the potential WIC population.
An additional $6 million of funding has been requested by the President to survey infants and children's food consumption to better estimate nutritional risk, exposure to environmental contaminants, and dietary exposure to pesticides and other substances for purposes of registering and reassessing a product. This supplement in the budget is critical in light of EPA's review of pest control substances under the Food Quality and Protection Act.
Food Composition Data Must Reflect the Current Food Supply
USDA and DHHS have progressed in revising and maintaining food composition tables to analyze the food consumption data from NHANES and CSFII, however, much more is necessary to make the nutrient database more efficient and effective. With the rapid advancements in technology to lower fat, sodium, and calories in foods, estimates of food and nutrient intakes would be rendered inaccurate if food composition databases are not kept current. Forming partnerships with the food industry and commodity groups would permit updating databases, using information developed for nutrition labeling or similar purposes.
Page 491 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Nutrition Research Has An Important Role In USDA. In previous legislation on agriculture research, Congress established USDA as the Federal Government's lead agency for human nutrition research and recommended developing national human nutrition research centers. With health care costs rising, this is a great time to invest in USDA nutrition research grants to attract the best investigators to explore tomorrow's health challenges. The unique combination of disciplines, cross fertilization of research projects, and varied cluster of talented researchers can produce the next major steps to improving diets and maintaining health.
USDA funding of the six Agriculture Research Service (ARS) laboratories and competitive grants has led to many breakthroughs in human nutritional science. But our overall knowledge of nutrition fails to keep up with emerging information about how the brain develops, how the immune system resists infectious disease and fights off foodborne illness, and how the body ages. Additional funding for USDA nutrition research will advance our understanding of critical changes that need to be made in our food supply, dietary advice,
gene/nutrient interactions, plant and animal composition, and public health programs to keep our nation healthy and economically competitive.
Let me share just a few breakthroughs that illustrate where USDA Nutrition Research is advancing a critical knowledge base. Improved protein profiles of beans and grains to advance human growth and development makes these commodities more desirable in heart healthy diets and in emerging economies. An ARS developed product known as Oatrim, which received a lot of press recently, is a high fiber fat substitute which improves glucose tolerance, lowers blood lipid levels, and produces weight loss, subsequently preventing some forms of heart disease. The ARS Carotenoid Research Unit in Beltsville is currently involved in leading research on carotenoids. New research showing tumor control in animals fed certain plants may hold promise for humans. Recent studies suggest plants such as soybeans, fruits, and vegetables naturally contain substances such as phytoestrogens that may lower cholesterol, halt or perhaps prevent tumor growth, or retard osteoporosis. Studies have also shown a positive effect of trace elements (or constituents) on disease prevention such as folic acid and neural tube defects, chromium and diabetes, selenium and cancer, and copper and heart disease.
Page 492 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Role of private sector in advancing human nutrition research and monitoring. Alliance members have supported basic nutrition research and clinical trials, conducted food and nutrition research and surveyed consumers about dietary and health behaviors. We all agree that the Federal Government must maintain the primary responsibility for gathering comprehensive data on all population groups and building the foundation of fundamental nutrition research.
In turn, health, nutrition, commodity, and food industry groups have invested in food and nutrition research that expands knowledge, but usually in a direction commensurate with an institutional mission. Examples of alliance members' investment in nutrition, food and consumer research include:
since 1995, $861,000 has been spent on investigating the role of soy protein and phytoestrogens in fighting cancer;$600,000 per year to assess the role of dietary cholesterol on health; $2 million annually for food safety, nutrition and consumer education programs; almost $40 million in research in diet, nutrition and cancer prevention and treatment;more than $2 million over the past 5 years to conduct observational and intervention studies of the impact of infant feeding practices on growth and health outcomes in early childhood, and nutrient bioavailability from weaning foods; and several studies tracking eating behaviors and nutrition knowledge of adults and children.
Congressmen, you face difficult decisions about how to set priorities for agriculture research dollars. The practical public and private uses of the data from nutrition research and monitoring efforts at USDA, outlined in our testimony, are clear evidence that these programs warrant your continued support. The Alliance wants you to view nutrition research as a safeguard on Federal expenditures. For every $1 spent on USDA nutritional research, we assure that $570 of Federal funds allocated for USDA food assistance programs are spent wisely. Factoring in the various ways the USDA nutrition research and monitoring data are applied, this multiplier would be astronomical.
Page 493 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We thank you for giving the alliance a voice to explain the significant benefits of nutritional research to agriculture and the public well-being.
STATEMENT OF NEBRASKA GRAIN SORGHUM BOARD AND NEBRASKA GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
On behalf of Nebraska's grain sorghum farmers, we are pleased to have the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the future of agricultural research.
Through the years, agricultural research has provided knowledge and technology that has resulted in tremendous economic benefit to the U.S. economy. Over time, the mission of agricultural research has remained the same: to unlock and develop new information, techniques and products that help solve problems for American producers and consumers.
The public's investment in agricultural research has enabled U.S. farmers to become the world's most efficient producers of a wide array of abundant, high quality food at an affordable price. The need for continued public support for a strong agricultural research program is more important than ever if the United States is to remain on the cutting edge of technology and a world leader in food and fiber production.
Recent changes in U.S. farm policy require American farmers to secure a greater portion of their income from the marketplace, rather than relying on government programs. They must become active players in world markets. At the same time, they must respond to public concerns about the environment and food safety issues. These factors make it paramount that strong support for agricultural research and marketing remain in place to facilitate this transition and to assist in addressing important societal concerns.
Legislation to reauthorize agricultural research programs must provide adequate funding and a means to identify, implement and evaluate priorities for research, education and extension programs. The process for priority-setting and evaluation must include producers since they are the primary stakeholders.
Page 494 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
A mix of formula, competitive and special earmarked funding is required to maintain an effective agricultural research system of top-quality scientists and facilities. The distribution and allocation of funding should be thoroughly evaluated to make certain that the dollars are most effectively and efficiently applied.
In Nebraska, Federal formula funds are matched five to one by state appropriations, and together, these funds provide an appropriate level of infrastructure to carry on base programs and retain the capacity to respond to new needs as they arise.
Competitive grant funding provides the resources for fundamental research that will enable U.S. agriculture to stay on the cutting edge of technology in production, processing, marketing and environmental and natural resource conservation. Through the competitive grants program, resources can be targeted to issues of national importance that require immediate answers. Funding is also necessary to address unique problems that may exist in limited regions or states that are not readily addressed by other means. Where possible, Federal funding should be leveraged with state, local or industry resources.
Partnerships formed between university scientists and private companies will provide a means to more rapidly commercialize ideas and technology developed in research programs. Care must be taken, however, to assure that research findings do not become proprietary and result in limitations or restrictions in the access to knowledge and technology.
Cooperative agreements and collaborative projects should be encouraged among researchers and entities to leverage resources, integrate knowledge and avoid redundancy and unnecessary duplication of effort.
We would point to the Central Plans Grain Sorghum Breeding Program as an excellent example of this type of cooperation. This unique arrangement involves the University of Nebraska, Kansas State University and the USDA Agriculture Research Service and encourages cooperation on all grain sorghum research projects—especially breeding programs, field-testing sites, joint hiring practices, etc. Joint appointments between the institutions will also be encouraged.
Page 495 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
Extension/education programs play a vital role in assuring that research information and technology gets transferred from the laboratory to the field in a factual and unbiased fashion. These programs should be designed to stay current and address the needs of agriculture that cannot or are not otherwise being addressed by the private sector.
To make certain that research funds are properly targeted and invested, a review process is vital. It is critical that agricultural producers are involved in this review process, along with the scientific community. We share the concern of other agricultural groups that the membership structure of the current National Agricultural Research, Education and Economics Advisory Board demands review and modification. There currently exists an imbalance in the representation between the scientific community and agricultural producers. We feel strongly that involvement of the primary benefactors of the research is paramount in assuring that research programs are relevant and targeted to priority areas. Producers and industry should represent at least 50% of the committee membership.
In reauthorizing the research program, great care must be taken not to dismantle programs and services that have longstandingly provided value to producers and consumers. We, however, understand the need to be responsive to the changes in needs and limitations on available resources. The sorghum producers in Nebraska pledge to do our part in providing strong industry leadership and dollars to support sorghum research programs.
U.S. grain sorghum acreage in recent years has experienced a dramatic decline. While there are a number of factors that have contributed to the situation, limitations in research dollars, both public and private, have prevented the same rate of genetic improvement for sorghum that other commodities have enjoyed. We remain confident, however, that there are exciting opportunities yet to come for increases in sorghum production and the discovery of new food and industrial uses. Those opportunities and discoveries are, however, dependant upon a strong research, extension and education program.
Page 496 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 4 Of 4
We urge Congress to reauthorize the agricultural research programs and are eager to do our part in identifying research priorities for grain sorghum that will ensure effective and efficient use of public resources.
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."