[Senate Hearing 107-304]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-304
TO PREPARE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION
TITLE OF
THE UPCOMING FARM BILL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-981 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina TOM HARKIN, Iowa
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado ZELL MILLER, Georgia
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan
MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
Keith Luse, Staff Director
David L. Johnson, Chief Counsel
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Mark Halverson, Staff Director for the Minority
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
To Prepare for the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Title of the Upcoming Farm Bill...................... 01
----------
Tuesday, March 27, 2001
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana, Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 01
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Ranking Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.............. 15
Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from Arkansas............... 17
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from Michigan.............. 02
----------
WITNESSES
Hefferan, Colien, Administrator, Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.................................... 04
Horn, Floyd P., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service,
U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC...................... 07
PANEL I
Caspers, Jon, Board Member, National Coalition for Food and
Agricultural Research and Vice President, National Pork
Producers Council, Swaledale, Iowa............................. 24
Kirschenmann, Fred, Director, Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, Ames, Iowa........................................ 28
Lemmermen, Jay, Chair, Animal Ag Coalition and Director of
Quality
Assurance, Southeast Milk, Inc., Ocala, Florida................ 26
Robertson, Phil, Member, Committee on an Evaluation of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, National Research Council/National
Academy of Sciences, and
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State
University, Hickory Corners, Michigan.......................... 32
Stuckey, Richard E., Executive Vice President of Cast, The
Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology............................ 30
PANEL II
Chicoine, David, Chair, National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges Board on Agriculture, and
Dean, College of Agricultural, Consumer, and Environmental
Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois....................................................... 41
Lechtenberg, Vic, Chair of the National Agricultural Research
Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board and Dean of
Agriculture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana........ 45
Phills, Bobby, Chair of the 1890 Legislative Committee and Dean
and Director of Land Grant Programs, College of Engineering
Sciences, Technology and Agriculture, Florida A&M University,
Tallahassee, Florida........................................... 43
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Harkin, Hon. Tom............................................. 52
Caspers, Jon................................................. 70
Chicoine, David.............................................. 98
Hefferan, Colien............................................. 53
Horn, Floyd P................................................ 61
Kirschenmann, Fred........................................... 83
Lechtenberg, Victor L........................................ 113
Lemmermen, Jay............................................... 75
Phills, Bobby................................................ 109
Robertson, Philip G.......................................... 94
Stuckey, Richard E........................................... 91
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
The American Society of Plant Physiologists.................. 129
Barcinas, Jeff, D.T., Ph.D,.................................. 125
Cochran, Hon. Thad........................................... 124
Roberts, Hon. Pat............................................ 122
HEARING TO PREPARE FOR THE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND EDUCATION TITLE OF THE UPCOMING
FARM BILL
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room
328-A, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Thomas, Allard, Hutchinson,
Harkin, Conrad, Lincoln, and Stabenow.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Agriculture
Committee is called to order.
Today the committee holds a hearing to prepare for the
Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Title of the
upcoming Farm bill.
We look forward to hearing about current research programs,
learning about implementation of the 1996 Farm Bill and the
1998 Agricultural Research Bill and gathering recommendations
for ways to strengthen and improve our programs.
For our preparation, we need to pose several obvious
questions and take stock of our current situation. What is the
current status of Federal research programs and funding? What
gains have been achieved through implementation of the 1996
Farm Bill and the 1998 Agricultural Research Bill? Where do we
go from here?
Should we have funding goals such as doubling of
agricultural research, as many are now proposing? I am a
proponent of increased investment in agricultural research.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and father of the Green
Revolution, Norman Borlaug, whom I meet with on occasion and
who has testified frequently before our committee, endorses the
need to double funding. I believe this is a critical need.
But I am interested in how others have documented this
critical need. While we might not be able to fully address that
today, it may also be helpful to review what has been
accomplished through Federal funding of agricultural research.
What are the breakthroughs or discoveries that would not
have been achieved in the absence of this funding? Is U.S.
agriculture losing ground against some of our competitors
because Federal research funding has been flat for so long?
We will also be interested in learning more about those who
are just starting out as researchers in the agricultural area.
At one of our committee's four hearings about agricultural
research in 1997, the President of the National Academy of
Science testified that from his interaction with scientists and
graduate students, it was his view that many of the most
ambitious young people who were becoming researchers were
choosing to go into biomedical research rather than
agricultural research because more competitive grant funding
was available for that area.
As the cornerstone of the 1998 Agricultural Research Bill,
I proposed a new competitive grant program initially for future
agriculture and food systems. The program was funded at $120
million annually for five years. The funding was to be devoted
to critically needed research in the areas of future food
production, natural resource management and increased farm
income.
While this new funding was intended to augment research
funding provided by Congress through the annual appropriation
process and not to replace it, it has been difficult to ensure
that funding would be maintained for this new program. In fact,
USDA was prohibited from using funds to implement the program
in fiscal year 1999.
I was heartened that USDA was able to finally award the
first grants under this new program last fall. There was an
enthusiastic response to this new competitive grant program.
One thousand proposals involving 500 scientists and
educators seeking funding of over $1.4 billion were submitted.
However, the USDA was able to award funding to just 86
projects.
In the appropriation process, funding was maintained for
this current fiscal year, but eligibility has been limited to
colleges and universities, precluding Federal research
agencies, national laboratories or private research
organizations from competing for the funding. USDA is now
soliciting proposals for funding to be awarded later this
fiscal year.
I look forward, as do my colleagues, to hearing the
testimony today. We will hear from the United States Department
of Agriculture, from producer representatives, researchers,
scientific societies and the land grant institutions.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
committee and all of those who are testifying as we work toward
preparing for an agricultural research, extension and education
title in the next Farm bill.
I would like to call upon my colleague, Senator Stabenow of
Michigan, for her opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE A. STABENOW, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is
wonderful to be here with you this morning and to make some
opening comments regarding the research, extension and
education title of the Farm bill. I appreciate the opportunity
to be here with you on this important topic.
I share your desire and statements regarding doubling of
the funding. I think it is a very important priority for the
Farm bill.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, I am a product of both
undergraduate and graduate studies at Michigan State
University, which is a premier research and education
institution. I also have to say it is a premier basketball
institution. I am inviting all of you to join me in Minnesota
on Saturday as we root in the Final Four. So, it carries over,
the gene pool goes from agricultural research to sporting
events to many other areas of our important university.
MSU has been not only my home in terms of my studies, but I
represented them for many years at various levels. I am very
proud of the work they do and the contributions that they make
to the topic that we are talking about today.
When I was on the House Agriculture Committee, we debated
the Agricultural Research Reauthorization. I think that we made
a number of advances in ensuring adequate resources for
agricultural research and extension activities, including
creating a new ARS research initiative to battle Wheat Blight,
which I authored.
I know that much more needs to be done in that area.
Agricultural research and extension keep our agricultural
economy armed with the tools that it needs to continue to
produce the most plentiful and safe food and fiber in the
world. I am hopeful that the new Farm bill recognizes the need
to increase our national investment in agricultural research
and extension, as the Chairman has indicated.
The research, extension and education title of the Farm
bill must address the needs of agriculture in the 21st Century.
New challenges in food safety and diseases require a
reinvigorated approach to research and consumer education.
I also believe that biomass fuels and biotechnology hold
great promise in developing new markets for agriculture, but
that tremendous work is required to make this happen safely and
to ensure consumer confidence.
I look forward to working with the committee to increase
our efforts in research, extension and education during our
farm bill debate.
Today, I would like also to welcome one of the witnesses
who is a fellow Spartan, Professor Philip Robertson. Professor
Robertson is the Professor of Crop and Soil Sciences at
Michigan State University, a Director of the NSF long-term
ecological research program in agricultural ecology at the W.
K. Kellogg Biological Station.
His research is supported primarily by NSF and USDA. He has
made significant contributions in the field of terrestrial
biochemistry. Some of his research includes investigating
nitrogen cycling in row crop ecosystems, the impact of trace
gas fluxes from agricultural landscapes on global atmosphere
chemistry and soil and carbon sequestration.
Not only has Dr. Robertson served as a member and chairman
on a variety of national and international scientific
committees, I would like to also mention that he is an active
member of his community as president of the Plainwell Community
Schools Board of Education, which we know also is a tough job.
So, I would welcome Dr. Robertson. It is a privilege to
introduce you. I know that you will be testifying on an issue
that you know a great deal about, the National Research
Council's report on the National Research Initiative, as you
served as a member of the council and contributed a great deal
to the report that you will be summarizing today.
So, again, welcome. I am looking forward to the testimony,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well thank you very much, Senator Stabenow.
It is great to have such an enthusiastic ally as yourself in
this quest. We wish you the best at Michigan State, both
academically and athletically as the week proceeds.
Let me say that staff has visited with our first two
witnesses from the United States Department of Agriculture and
indicated that that we would hope that your testimony would be
given in a 10 minute period, more or less. Then, with the
following two panels, that each of the witnesses would
summarize in five minutes.
Your written testimony, that you have prepared will be made
a part of the official record, as well as our questions and
answers as we proceed.
The Chairman. It is a privilege to have as our first panel
of witnesses, Dr. Colien Hefferan, who is Administrator of the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services,
United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C.,
and Dr. Floyd P. Horn, Administrator of the Agricultural
Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Hefferan, would you proceed, to be followed by Dr.
Horn. Then we would like to have the opportunity to question
you.
STATEMENT OF COLIEN HEFFERAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
EXTENSION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Hefferan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Stabenow,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
Today I would like to describe the steps that our agency
has taken to implement the research provisions of the 1996 FAIR
Act and the 1998 Agricultural Research Extension and Education
Act, an act which I call ``our era,'' a term which almost no
one else has adopted.
As information technology has revolutionized the global
economy and technological innovation is sweeping across the
country, agricultural science and education has changed
dramatically in the last decade.
The food and fiber production systems are changing before
our eyes. CSREES is the agency of USDA which engages our
national, widely dispersed, university-based knowledge system
to develop science-based solutions and technologies to help
farmers, rural communities and others remain productive and
profitable in the face of these changes and helps consumers
navigate the growing complexities of the agricultural system.
CSREES accomplishes its mission by supporting research,
education and extension activities through peer review,
competitive research and education and education and extension
grants, formula-funded support for all land grant institutions,
and Congressionally determined special projects.
Each of these types of work supports a broad portfolio in
support of American agriculture. The formula programs provide a
critical base of support for agricultural experiment stations
and for cooperative extension systems. They are highly
leveraged by State and local funds.
The National Research Initiative supports investigator-
initiated basic and mission-focused research, which is really
the seed corn from which new technology and development occurs
in Agriculture. The new program established in the 1998 bill,
the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, as well
as programs supported under Section 406 of that bill for
integrated research, education and extension, link together on
the ground in a problem-focused way the research, extension and
education system. I will talk about those in some depth in a
few moments.
Our higher education portfolio is designed to expand the
educational capacity and address the issues that have been
raised over the last decade about the future for food and
agriculture as it is determined by the scientific capacity in
those fields.
These higher education programs are particularly important
as they support education and extension at historically Black,
tribal colleges and at Hispanic-serving institutions.
A number of other programs including the Fund for Rural
America research education and extension grants program and the
Small Business Innovation Research Grants Program are some of
the things that in collaboration with the Congressionally-
targeted programs and other national programs such as
Integrated Pest Management and Expanded Food and Nutrition,
create the broad portfolio that brings the capacity of
America's universities to address issues in agriculture.
It is through this collection of programs that we have been
able to achieve important results. There are many examples of
work which is funded initially through the National Research
Initiative and is translated into applied problems solving
through the initiative established in the 1998 bill and becomes
the foundation for education and extension programs.
Our agency was formed in 1994 with the reorganization of
the department. But the bringing together of research and
extension was really enhanced through the 1998 Agricultural
Research Reform Act. Prior to that we really had no mechanisms
by which we could integrate the grants programs to link
together knowledge generation and the use of that knowledge.
The law that was passed in 1998 essentially allows us and
gives us the tools needed for that integration. It also places
enormous emphasis on stakeholder input as the method by which
we identify research priorities and establishes peer review and
multi-institutional and multi-State mechanisms as the means by
which we affect our goals.
Let me begin by telling you a bit about the Initiative for
Future Agricultural and Food Systems, which, as you identified,
provided $600 million over a five-year period in mandatory
funding to support new problem-focused work in agriculture.
In the first year in which we were allowed to administer
the program, fiscal year 2000, we were only able to award
grants to eight and a half percent of those who applied. Of the
1,000 proposals that we received, one-fourth of those proposals
were deemed as fully fundable, excellent research. Again, of
that group, fewer than 90 were actually funded.
But the work that was funded focuses on a number of
critical issues, including development of biobased products for
solvents, for greases and for latex substitutes. It includes a
consortium of institutions in Texas, Florida and California
that is looking at the reduction of microbial contamination in
the production of fruits and vegetables, both the mechanisms to
do that and farm worker education and other extension
education.
There is a consortium of University of Tennessee and Purdue
researchers which is developing natural resource management
solutions for private landowners. There also are consortia of
institutions that are helping producers and consumers to
understand the application of new agricultural biotechnologies.
One of these consortia includes 1890 land grant institutions
and is focused on developing and delivering biotechnology
applications for underserved farm communities.
This initiative has really resulted in a fundamental shift
in how CSREES manages its portfolio, drawing upon substantial
stakeholder input and bringing together in the peer review
system and the merit review system scientists, educators and
practitioners.
Well, one of the intents of the 1996 and the 1998 bill were
to involve more stakeholders. The first line of stakeholder
involvement that we have benefited from is the National
Agriculture Research Extension Education and Economics Advisory
Board. As Administrator of CSREES, I like to find an acronym
that is more difficult than our own agency name, and that one
does it.
This body is really our first contact for taking the pulse
of the stakeholder community when seeking to implement new
programs or taking existing programs in new directions. This
group, the Advisory Board, has been critical to us in the
implementation of the Fund for Rural America in providing
substantive guidance as well as the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food system.
We also have developed a number of new practices for
seeking stakeholder input on each of our programs including
requesting in our Requests for Proposals input on the nature of
what we are asking for as well as responses.
As I mentioned a moment ago, we also have revised our peer
review system, where appropriate to use not only scientific and
educational peers, but lay people who have an understanding of
the issues to be addressed are included in some of our
programs. Each of our peer review panels is managed jointly by
a USDA staff member and a nongovernment, scientific expert who
work together to recruit peer panel members that represent our
diverse institutions and stakeholders.
Well, let me go on to a second theme in the past
legislation and that is that we focus on multi-institutional
and multi-disciplinary projects. It has been clear as we look
at genetics or water quality or insect or microbial ecology or
consumer behavior that no one discipline is sufficient to
address the complex issues facing agriculture.
While we have had a longstanding program of multi-
institutional work through the Hatch Regional Research Program,
now through the 1998 legislation we are implementing a program
of multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary work that is
supported through the formula based programs at the Land Grant
Universities. Each institution is working collectively across
State lines and across disciplines and functions at their
institutions to make the highest and best use of the formula
based dollars.
The mandate of the law strengthens the commitment of the
universities to achieving the goals of problem solving through
agriculture. We have also tried to model within the agency the
goals of multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary work by
mounting more of our programs in collaboration with other
Federal organizations.
We have strong collaborations with NSF in the area of
genomics research. We are working with the Department of Energy
and NSF to complete the Arabadopsis Genomic Sequencing Program
and have initiated new programs with NASA, with EPA and with
the Food and Drug Administration where there are clear points
of tangency between the agenda of those agencies and
Agriculture bringing new resources and new opportunities to
utilize the capacity of the universities.
Well, let me end by reiterating that the principles of the
1996 and the 1998 legislation, including stakeholder input,
multi-disciplinary work and problem-focused work has aided the
agency in refocusing its programs on issues that are critical
to American agriculture. But we recognize there are two things
that are critical to us as we continue. That is that we need to
build more collaborations with other Federal organizations to
address the points of tangency between our programs and theirs,
including those between agriculture and medical research, and
that we need to be able to continue to work toward systems that
are able to respond quickly to emerging problems where the
science base needs to be applied to solving those problems.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hefferan can be found in the
appendix on page 53.]
The Chairman. Our friend, Dr. Horn, will you give us your
testimony?
STATEMENT OF FLOYD P. HORN, ADMINISTRATOR,
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
Floyd Horn, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service.
ARS is the intramural research organization of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
I am pleased to be here today to update you on our response
to the directives of the 1996 Farm Bill and the 1998 Research
Title and to talk about what ARS is doing for America and
American agriculture. First, I would like to tell the committee
how ARS responded to the expanded research purposes in the 1996
Farm Bill and how we implemented the priority setting and peer
review sections of the 1998 research title.
Frankly, most of the provisions of these two bills were not
directed at ARS. Those sections that were, though, provided the
impetus for us to take a fresh look at our programs and
accomplishments to more fully engage our stakeholders and to
refine our peer review processes.
This committee's interest and input into those activities
is acknowledged and appreciated and I believe ARS is a much
stronger organization today because of that interest.
To fully integrate the tenets of the eight agricultural
research purposes into the agency's every day processes, ARS
incorporated them into its strategic plan. Indeed, they are in
fact the basic framework for our strategic plan.
Most importantly, ARS restructured its research programs
into 22 national programs that link the purposes to the
agency's objectives.
The 1998 research title made it clear, that Congress
expected rigorous peer review of federally funded research for
both relevance and merit. It also directed that research
priorities should be established with input from our customers,
our stakeholders and our partners.
In response to the latter, ARS held more than 40 national
program workshops at different locations across the country.
These workshops for the first time really brought ARS
scientists and our national program staffers together with our
customers. Over 3,000 of our customers attended these
workshops, including hundreds of growers and ranchers.
During the workshops, our customers discussed their needs
and problems with our scientists. Our researchers found meeting
producers and consumers face to face especially helpful and
quite gratifying.
In addition to producers and consumers, representatives
from all of our customer groups attended the workshops. These
included Federal and State partners, industry groups and
businesses, non-governmental organizations, a group that we
have had very little contacts with in the past, and university
researchers.
We also made a special effort to invite small and
disadvantaged producers to these gatherings to be sure that we
attended to their needs. We are really quite proud of these
workshops. For the first time we have a major influx of
information from the outside into our program priority setting
process.
In addition to integrating stakeholder input into our
priority setting to insure program relevance, the 1998 Research
Title directed ARS to peer review each of our research projects
at least once every five years. These reviews are conducted by
independent and objective expert panels that base their reviews
on scientific merit criteria.
In response to this requirement, ARS established the Office
of Scientific Quality Review in 1999 to review each research
program systmatically. The Office is headed by a senior
scientist called the Scientific Officer, who selects the panel
chairs from outside ARS. There are six panel members on each
panel. Each panel reviews approximately 20 projects. The panel
chair selects the panelists and resolves matters relating to
conflicts of interest, diversity and expertise through the
Scientific Officer.
The peer reviewers are, as they should be, technical
experts and good scientists with relevant knowledge and
experience in the research that they are reviewing. The peer
reviewers may be ARS scientists or non-ARS scientists, but the
majority of the reviewers on each panel must be non-ARS
scientists.
To date, we have held panel review sessions for four of our
22 national programs, but this is an ongoing process that will
repeat every five years for each research project.
Since our time is limited, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
now address several urgent issues that loom on the horizon.
First is that of our research programs developing biofuels. The
recent energy crisis in California has clearly demonstrated the
nation's need for alternative energy sources.
ARS research into biofuels is aimed at developing knowledge
and technologies to increase the use of agricultural crops and
by-products. Our success could reduce America's dependence on
foreign petroleum and reduce the net production of greenhouse
gases, as well as create economic opportunities in rural
America.
ARS conducts alternative energy research at four locations,
in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and California. We are
developing methods to enable the more efficient production of
ethanol using agricultural and forestry wastes, grain crops and
fast-growing crops that might be grown solely for their energy
production.
ARS research is also exploring the development of biodiesel
from vegetable and animal fats and we are developing energy
alternatives for use on the farm that involve a combination of
wind, solar and biofuels.
To aid in our research efforts with biofuels, the research
title offered $1.5 million for construction and design of a
corn-to-ethanol pilot plant to be built in Edwardsville,
Illinois. ARS is at the moment overseeing a $14 million
extramural grant to Southern Illinois University for that pilot
plant construction.
A second urgent issue we face regards a key mission of the
ARS, ensuring a safe food supply. In recent months, to many
americans having a safe food supply has come to mean preventing
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow
Disease, and Foot and Mouth Disease from entering the United
States.
Of course, there are many other aspects in which we have
significant program elements, but these are the ones that are
in the news. We are fully engaged in efforts to keep these
diseases out of the country. Although we have not conducted
research with BSE directly, these are not new issues for ARS.
We have extensive research experience and ongoing research
programs both in Foot and Mouth Disease and Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies, known as TSE, including Chronic
wasting disease and scrapie.
Current research on TSEs includes a diagnostic research
program in conjunction with the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) academia, and the animal industry
aimed at developing new live animal and post-slaughter tests.
These are major barriers to understanding this disease.
The test we are developing at the moment will detect
scrapie, which affects sheep, and Chronic Wasting Disease found
in deer and elk. Both diseases are found here in the U.S.
Chronic Wasting Disease affects a significant number of our
wildlife. So far it has not apparently transferred to domestic
species.
We also conduct research into how these TSE diseases are
transmitted, to better understand the fundamental aspects of
Mad Cow Disease ultimately.
ARS also recently held a two-day special conference of
experts on BSE research needs. Frankly, this was a result of
the recent National Cattlemen and Beef Association meetings at
which BSE or Mad Cow Disease was listed as the top priority.
As a result, we are prepared to initiate a research program
that will address the detection of ruminant proteins in animal
feeds, believed to be the source of BSE.
Foot and Mouth Disease poses a more immediate threat
because it is one of the most contagious diseases of livestock
known. ARS has an ongoing research program into many of the
complexities dealing with Foot and Mouth Disease. Because it is
so contagious, all of this work is conducted in high-level bio-
containment laboratories at the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center in New York.
During the past year, ARS scientists have completed
important research concerning how FMD is spread and we are
currently testing vaccines which induce protection against
several of the Foot and Mouth Disease virus types.
Incidentally, there are seven major types of Foot and Mouth
Disease virus and about 70 or so bio-types. This is a reason
why it is difficult to get cross-protection, for instance, from
vaccines.
These vaccine candidates will allow positive
differentiation of vaccinated animals from naturally infected
animals, an extremely important distinction if you want to have
a vaccination program.
We are also working on very rapid diagnostic tests, as well
as test to differentiate animals vaccinated with existing
vaccines from naturally infected animals. The validation and
adoption of these tests in the field by APHIS and the
international laboratories will have an impact on FMD control,
hopefully in time to save the devastation that we see in
Europe, but certainly, we hope, in time to save any problems
that we may have here.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions that you or any other members of the
committee may have regarding ARS' research and implementation
of our new responsibilities as directed by the recent
legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn can be found in the
appendix on page 61.]
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Horn.
I would like to begin by saying that I am deeply
interested, as all of us are, in American foreign policy and
security policy, in addition to agricultural policy. We have
come to a juncture and the last part of your testimony really
shows the intersection of the two. First of all, with the bio-
fuels research, our pace here I would not characterize as
leisurely. But on the other hand, for at least 20 years and
before that, there have been thoughts that somehow we might be
at risk as a nation in terms of our fuel supplies and our
energy supplies. It would be a good idea if we took a stronger
look at renewable resources, namely, things that grow every
year and that are available to us.
Back in President Carter's administration, we had numerous
hearings then, in the Agriculture Committee and the Foreign
Relations Committee, trying to see if we could establish more
independence. This has waxed and waned as times have gone on.
Sometimes we have become less urgent about the situation. Even
now, many Americans are not really aware of how critical a
problem we may have, although increasingly they are becoming
aware as crisis occur in our power grids or natural things
transmission or debates over general supplies.
Having said that, it has always struck me as curious why
the Nation as a whole did not see more urgency in establishing
bio-fuels, leaving aside what the base would be. Those of us
who are involved in corn farming have always fostered ethanol
from corn. That has proceeded. But ethanol could come, as we
have heard around this table, from all sorts of bio-fuel
sources, as a matter of fact.
Testimony by Jim Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, has
suggested that there are very promising sources in switch
grasses and sugar canes and even bark on trees. A good number
that might finally get us to a cost point that is equivalent or
better than that of petroleum based source.
That, it seems to me, is a critical element because,
essentially, our bio-fuels policy in the country depends
heavily on a subsidiary or a payment or however one must
characterize the difference in the cost of ethanol and gasoline
that comes from a petroleum base.
It is just that simple, but that critical, that we have not
narrowed that gap. I was intrigued that you mentioned that $14
million is going into another pilot project out in Illinois
which I gather is state-of-the-art and will narrow the gap
substantially. Some cynically pointed out last year in
testimony that given the rise in gasoline price, they may
overtake whatever is happening with regard to corn-based
ethanol and the market may solve our problem. But I am not that
optimistic about it.
What is your general sizing up, either one of you, as to
the urgency or in fact some say pessimistically, that we in
agriculture are always looking for the rainbow out there, some
type of bio-fuel that really does measure up economically to a
natural gas or to a petroleum, or what have you. It simply
isn't there. In other words, they would say, you really have to
recognize that it just is not there and all of these efforts,
interesting as they are, are fated to finally end in a waste of
time and money.
Is that to be our fate or can you give us some prognosis of
this?
Ms. Hefferan. Well, I think the likelihood of a solution to
the fuel problems for agriculture is not so much a scientific
question. It is an economic one. The science has support
through a number of the projects that we support and suggests
that there are many alternative ways to develop fuel through
agricultural products.
Last year in the New Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems we supported four separate projects that focused
on bio-fuels as part of a broader program in bio-based
products. That is in addition to the work that was supported
through the National Research Initiative and some special focus
programs.
There are a variety of different mechanisms, which are
microbial in nature, looking at how microbes can change the
fuel content of various agricultural products to looking at how
we can overcome problems like lignin in the conversion of plant
material to ethanol fuel.
So, I think the question of investment is one that we have
addressed through the programs established primarily in the
1998 bill. It is an area where we are asking for new work in
anticipation of growing demand as the economics of fuel
changes.
The Chairman. But you believe the science is there. You
don't have the money to do the things you want. How do you make
this transfer, promising as this may be, to somebody's actual
plant where they begin to turn out something that might be
bought by a consumer somewhere? Where does the transition come
and how do we get to that point?
Ms. Hefferan. I can give you a partial answer to that and I
am sure Dr. Horn has much more to say on it as well. You know,
we support activities such as the Small Business Innovation
Research Grant Program, which really looks at commercializing
the benefits of agricultural science, wherever it may have come
from.
Within the last several years, that program also has
supported demonstrations and models that look at fermentation,
and that look at new mechanisms for enhancing the fuel content
of biological products.
So, I think it is going to take a very deliberate effort
and a continuous ramping up of our research, but I think so
long as we have the knowledge base on the shelf that we can
draw down as the economics becomes more favorable to bio-fuels,
there are scientific solutions that can address this problem.
Mr. Horn. I would agree with this. The areas of research
needed, fall into two categories: improving the efficiencies of
converting agricultural materials into both ethanol and bio-
diesel and developing high value industrial feed stocks and co-
products from by-product streams.
We have major programs in this area at the National Center
for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria. We also have
work at the Eastern Regional Research Center in Philadelphia
and the Western Research Center in Albany, California. Much of
this is on fermentation chemistry, and fermentation systems
that can be used to convert agricultural commodities, primarily
corn, into ethanol.
We also are working, with corn residues trying to convert
those into non-food biomaterials. We are also looking for ways
to convert vegetable oils, such as soybean oil into bio-diesel.
At the Eastern Regional Research Center we have a number of
different approaches to the production of ethanol, but one of
the more interesting with regard to bio-diesel is the enzymatic
process for converting animal fats and vegetable oils and
already used restaurant greases into bio-diesel fuels.
At the Western Regional Research Center in Albany,
California, we are looking into grain fractionation
fermentation systems that could produce not only ethanol, but
very high value co-products.
I do think it is a matter of economics at the moment. We
have been told a number of times by economists that there are
places in the country in close proximity to the source, where
we could develop a profitable industry, but by and large it
will always relate to the cost of available fossil fuels.
The Chairman. Let me ask, Dr. Horn, for you to work with
our staff, if I may. I would like to know what is going on in
each of those sites that you have named.
Mr. Horn. Very good. We also have auxiliary projects in
about a dozen other locations for a total of $13.2 million in
this program.
The Chairman. Great. Just one further point: On the second
large issue that intersects foreign policy and agriculture, the
BSE and the Foot and Mouth Disease situation.
During December I visited an agricultural laboratory, as it
was so described in Russia, about 100 miles from Moscow. It was
a very obscure place and rather rundown at this point. But it
was interesting because they had bunkers that were supposed to
protect whatever was happening there from nuclear attack from
the United States in the past.
They had various supplies inside the bunker. Now, the gist
of what they were about, the Director who had been there 40
years said, was to protect the herds of the former Soviet Union
against a terrorist attack by the United States in which we
would use Hoof and Mouth Disease and/or at least 13 other
diseases that they identified to destroy the entirety of their
livestock.
So, as a result, they claimed that they were building
antidotes to this, various vaccines. As a matter of fact, in
the past they did produce a lot of vaccine for cattle herds and
have distributed this in various parts of Russia.
Interesting enough, they also brought in from Africa
strains that were not native to Russia or Europe. When I
queried why they were interested in those situations, they
said, ``Well, they thought the United States might discover
those, too, and they wanted to work out some toxins in case we
were that original about it.''
The flip side of the coin, having seen these 14 vials of
material which was kept in refrigeration there in this
dilapidated structure, these were the crown jewels of the
laboratory. It could go either way. Toward the building of
anti-toxins or toward the use of something that would be an
aggressive weapon of mass destruction.
Their claim, routinely, is that they were never involved in
that, and perhaps it is so. But in any event, I mention this
because others have been at work and have thought through the
predicament, not of an accidental case of Hoof and Mouth
Disease, but of a deliberate attempt.
This is inconceivable to most of us and we really don't
want to think about it. But we are thinking about it because
now at risk are the herds in this country. We are diligent at
USDA, as you are every day, in beefing up at least the
inspections and trying to think through, really, how do we stop
it so there is not this epidemic and this plague that could
visit us and change life in America very substantially.
So, I applaud you on the work that you are doing. Once
again, those of us who are enthusiastic about research always
ask, ``Is it enough?''
Is it a question of research now or enforcement, rigorous
exclusion or how would you characterize what you are up to?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like you have been to
Vladimir and perhaps to Oblensk. We have been following in some
of the same footsteps and we are very, very concerned about
biological weapons the former Soviet Union had.
The Chairman. In fact, I found an ARS man in Russia.
Mr. Horn. Yes, we sent him over there to see you.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Horn. The ARS scientist was Dr. Rick Bennett. It was an
opportune encounter. But frankly, we have been very, very
worried about this for a good long time. In fact, almost every
country that has had an offensive bio-weapons program has had
an agricultural component to that program. The most serious was
the Soviet Union where, if we are to believe the testimony that
has been presented before the Congress by defectors, that of
33,000 bio-weaponeers in the former Soviet Union, 10,000 were
working on agricultural issues.
Just to compare that, the total work force in ARS is about
7,500 now and we have 2,000 scientists. So, it was a huge
program and we don't know where all of it is, obviously. Foot
and Mouth Disease was weaponized and a number of others, may
have been Rift Valley Fever, Tularemia and others. Some were
zoonotic and some just against animals.
There are really four categories that we are worried about.
One is animal diseases. One is crop diseases. Another is
zoonotic diseases of animals that can transmit, to humans. The
last is technological surprise. With new biotechnological
sciences at their disposal, those interested in biological
weapons can change pathogens to either get around vaccines or
to make them more virulent than they would ordinarily be.
So, this is a huge issue. Zoonotic and ``new'' diseases
that we would not normally see in this country like Glanders
and Rift Valley Fever pose a totally new mission for the
Department of Agriculture.
We have, as you say, been working diligently on things like
Foot and Mouth Disease, Brucellosis, and Bluetongue. But there
is another whole set of pathogens that our veterinarians would
be ill prepared to encounter that have been prepared for use
against us.
The Chairman. Well, this committee is eager to work with
you in trying to inform the American people of the good work
you are doing. I think this is one of these situations of
extraordinary work because it was not topical. It has been
unseen.
But the basis of our work, as you know, and your work every
year is to provide an ongoing funding of research which is
absolutely vital. Whether people have topical interests or not,
these emergencies occur and we have to be ready.
Mr. Horn. We appreciate your support very much in this
regard. In fact, I know you are responsible for much of the
State Department activity that allows us to talk to these
people and direct their activities in more peaceful ways. They
are in fact, in cases that I can think of, assisting us in
developing prophylactics against some of the diseases they
created right now.
The Chairman. That should be mentioned. I have mentioned
the sad side of it. That is potential terror, but the fact is
that the cooperation now is extensive because of the fear of
Russians that they themselves may make a batch of it and kill
their livestock or injure their people. So, it is an urgent
situation.
Mr. Horn. We are very enthusiastic about the potential to
work with these former biological weaponeers.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask
that my statement be made a part of the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
Senator Harkin. I am sorry I was a little late, but this is
a great segue into my questioning for Dr. Horn.
We have a National Animal Disease Center and a National
Veterinary Biologics Lab at Ames. It has been there for over 40
years now, almost 50, I think. I visited it a number of times.
I had the former Secretary of Agriculture, Glickman, out there
to look at it.
I am going to hope to get Secretary Veneman out to take a
look at it also. In fact, I was just there last Friday. They
were bringing a number of sheep from Vermont that had TSE to
dispose of them. This made quite a bit of national news. Of
course, it made a lot of news in Iowa, too. A lot of people are
concerned about this.
The National Animal Disease Center at Ames, after 40 some
years, needs to be upgraded, not only just for the present
kinds of diseases, but all the things that you just talked
about with the Chairman. We don't know what is coming down the
pike. We know that some of these diseases are mutating. They
are becoming stronger. They are becoming more virulent. They
are manifesting themselves in different ways.
Then there is the whole issue of bio-terrorism that we have
to be concerned about. A lot of this falls in the lap of the
National Animal Disease Center and the National Veterinary
Biologics Lab at Ames. They are so spread out now that they are
actually doing some of this work in a shopping center. Quite
frankly, I am concerned about that.
We are doing some stuff with toxins and things that are not
in really secure areas. That has to be addressed. I am
concerned that something might happen. The ARS proposed a plan
calling for integrating and modernizing these disease
facilities in Ames with the requirement that a study be
completed by March first. The current facilities are grossly
inadequate.
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Senator Harkin. They need to be upgraded for the new
century ahead. As I said, some of them are in a strip mall.
Instead of shopping center, I should have said ``strip mall.''
I think the stories about animal diseases and the fact that
we had to transport sheep there to be disposed of just shows
that we are not out of the woods on this.
In looking at what is happening in Europe, I am told that
they are losing something like $200 million a day in Europe. I
think in Great Britain it has already cost them in the billions
of dollars.
So, again, I guess I am just laying the ground for asking
you what is the current status of the mandated report and when
can we expect to see it? I would like to have any of your
comments on the need to upgrade those facilities.
Mr. Horn. Senator Harkin, before you came the Chairman made
some opening comments that included some discussion of the
proposals that are around to double the investment in
agricultural research. It is absolutely true that we have
under-invested in agriculture research for some time.
It is particularly apparent with regard to the condition of
some of our animal health facilities. This is the principal
jewel in the crown with regard to domestic threats against
American livestock and agriculture.
All of the things that you have said are very true. We have
Nipah and Hanta viruses. We have things that are mutating
naturally that threaten our country's huge agricultural
enterprise.
We must respond by repairing those facilities. The
Department of Agriculture is not seen as a ``big science''
agency. We have less than two percent of the Federal research
and development budget. This issue must be dealt with.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is urgent.
We also have a sizable project there at Ames. We in ARS are
in 84 different buildings on that site and APHIS is in another
25 buildings. A few years ago, the preliminary estimates for
upgrading the facilities which, in a significant part, meant
replacing buildings, was upwards of $400 million, a huge number
in agriculture.
The report that you make reference to has gone through a
couple of iterations and recently more reiterations to be sure
that it is conservative, yet compelling. It is a very large
project for us and we want to make sure that we get it right.
We started out in 1992 proposing separate facilities to
house APHIS and ARS. More recently, we took the approach that
these could be combined and coordinated in a way that would
save the Federal government a considerable amount of money.
I hope that is the case. The report is pending. We expect
the report to go to the Secretary for the beginning of the
departmental clearance process within a week or 10 days. Our
guess is that shortly thereafter, it will be presented to the
Congress.
The master plan that is coming out of the combined efforts
of APHIS and ARS will be completed in June 2001 or a lot of us
will be asking why it isn't.
It is an extremely important project for us and I can
assure you we are working with due diligence to make sure that
this is an effective proposal, because we know in these
economic times it is going to be difficult to get this kind of
an investment. It is not the only one we have like it.
We also have the exotic animal disease issues that we deal
with at Plum Island. That is another huge project. But you are
absolutely correct. It is urgent and it has to be dealt with.
Senator Harkin. Well, we have to get on with it because we
have got to start laying the groundwork for the rebuilding,
consolidation, and putting up a little bit more secure
parameters than what we have had in the past. We must get that
stuff out of the strip mall and back into an area where it can
be controlled more tightly than it has been in the past.
So, I look forward to the report and I urge you, with as
much rapidity as you can, to get it to us so we can see what we
are going to do here on this committee and on the
Appropriations Committee to get this facility upgraded.
I just want to note for the record that the testimony of
Jay Lemmermen, who will be up next, on behalf of the Animal
Agricultural Coalition, spoke specifically about the need for
this. He said that the existing facilities were ``antiquated,
inefficient, and seriously undermine USDA's role as a world
leader in animal health and diagnostics.''
He says, ``For example, the United States currently does
not meet the standards that we require of our trading partners,
leading us to rely on foreign laboratories and foreign
diagnostic procedures.''
I just wanted to note that for the record. That is why it
is so important to get moving on this.
Mr. Horn. We also have certain standards to meet with
regard to the certification of our animal handling facilities
and our veterinary laboratories. That is at risk as well.
Senator Harkin. Exactly. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin can be found in
the appendix on page 52.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin.
Senator Hutchinson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Horn, it
is good to see you again. For my own benefit, and I came in
late and I apologize for that. If you have addressed this, then
forgive me for asking it again.
But on the Foot and Mouth Disease and our national effort
to prevent the spread of Foot and Mouth Disease to the United
States, can you just give me an overview of how many agencies
are involved in that effort, who is coordinating that effort?
What is the role of ARS and the USDA and how great is the
threat to United States livestock?
Mr. Horn. Well, I will do my best. This is a fairly
complicated affair. Certainly, every country that we trade
with, and interact with and have significant amounts of
traveler exchange with, is trying to contain this disease. So,
I would say that our partnerships with Europe including Great
Britain, for instance, are very important deterrents to the
movement of Foot and Mouth Disease to this country.
The companies that actually transport people back and forth
are sensitive to this and there are a great many steps being
taken by partners. But within the Department of Agriculture,
clearly the key is with APHIS. APHIS is both coordinating and
providing the action and regulatory responses to Foot and Mouth
Disease surveillance.
The ports of entry are the points of focus. We are trying
to identify and confiscate contraband materials, livestock
materials, livestock, and livestock products that are capable
of carrying the virus. We are trying to educate people as they
come to our ports of entry that if they have been on a farm
they need to tell us about it and we need to exercise the
appropriate disinfection precautions to keep them from bringing
the disease to the United States.
We are also doing what we can to help those afflicted with
this problem by providing scientific expertise. This is where
we begin to come to ARS. ARS is a crosscutting research agency
whose primary function in the department is to provide science
and technology to the action and regulatory agencies, including
APHIS.
So, we would be developing the new diagnostic kits that can
be used by APHIS in their effort to keep the disease out of the
United States. We are field testing a kit right now that can
determine a positive or negative Foot and Mouth Disease sample
in 40 minutes or so, as opposed to the current 40 hours. It is
also much more sensitive than the existing tests. That is
important because in Europe the disease primarily being spread
by sheep. Sheep don't show the symptoms that you see in cattle
or swine.
So, oftentimes you can move apparently normal and healthy
sheep and yet they are diseased. So, we are helping with
science and technology there as well. We will probably be
working also with the French.
Second, we would focus on the potential for the use of
vaccines in ways that haven't been possible in the past and
other technologies that might be used to understand the spread
of the disease and help contain it.
Of course, there is a big issue of carcass disposal that is
researchable now. It is a tremendous environmental issue. What
is poorly understood at the moment, but rapidly coming to the
forefront, is that the big losers in this are not just
agriculture, but virtually every aspect of life in the U.K. has
been affected. Tourism is down 85 percent. There are major
losses to the country's economy because of Foot and Mouth
Disease.
Senator Hutchinson. So, do you feel that the coordination
in the United States is adequate and that our response has been
well coordinated?
Mr. Horn. Well, unfortunately, that is the kind of question
you can only answer with assurance in retrospect. The way it is
is as good as it can be. I think virtually every veterinarian
in the United States, livestock veterinarian, is sensitized to
the need to be careful and watchful.
APHIS has been operating for some time now on an emergency
basis, communicating with Europe and Great Britain and
Argentina and other countries where Foot and Mouth Disease is
being found.
Senator Hutchinson. If I could quickly move to another
subject, the Chairman spoke about ethanol in our bio-fuels. I
am very interested in the bio-diesel that you made reference to
and its feasibility in the future.
We have a soy oil glut in the United States. I have worked
with the Soybean Association on possible legislation that would
do something like we currently do with ethanol. But you said
that the future of these bio-fuels is really dependent upon the
cost of energy out there. I think that is a fair reflection of
what you said.
Do you feel that some kind of incentive program on bio-
diesel could play a role as our ethanol legislation?
Mr. Horn. I don't know much about incentive programs. In
agricultural research we tend to focus on making the technology
available. It is clear from what we are hearing from the
Economic Research Service that there are many parts of the
Nation where it is close to competitive as an energy source,
but it is not there.
I think as was the case with the Farm bill in the first
place, that increased research was supposed to be a part of the
safety net. If it is that kind of incentive that you are
talking about, I believe that additional research will make it
a more efficient and competitive fuel.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. One last point, in the
budget blueprint that was presented, the administration says
that in 2001 USDA funded approximately 300 Congressionally
earmarked projects for research, education, extension grants to
land grant universities not subject to merit based selection
processes and therefore do not represent the effective use or
limit Federal funding and that the budget proposes to eliminate
funding for these earmarked projects, saving taxpayers about
$150 million.
On the surface, that sounds very logical. But I am
concerned that we may have made a sizable investment in a lot
of these land grant universities and programs through the
earmark and that to make an across-the-board elimination of
those may in fact not be in the national interest or the public
interest.
If you would comment on that, and is there any way that
those kinds of earmarks could be subjected to a meritorious
evaluation and assessment of how much value they are without a
simple kind of meat-axe approach on eliminating all the
earmarked funding.
Mr. Horn. Thank you for asking me that question, Senator
Hutchinson. This aspect of the administration's budget, of
course, will come forward in much more detail in April. It may
be easier to determine exactly what process was used at that
time.
But I would say this much: In prior year budgets, the
process has been almost identical. Those items that have not
appeared in President's budget have been slated for
redirection. That process has led to debate with the Congress.
In recent years, certainly most of those have been restored.
I think that is because of the sense of the Congress that
there is value in many of these projects. I believe our
responsibility at the agency level is to be sure that should
the funds be forthcoming from whatever source, that they are
used properly. I did speak earlier about the merit and
relevance reviews that we go through to make sure that that
happens.
So, regardless of the outcome of this particular aspect of
the budget blueprint and what follows, I think that we will do
our very best to assure that the money is well spent, should it
be forthcoming.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to bring the panel up to date on my background, I am a
veterinarian, so obviously, I am interested in what research
you are doing right now. Is Plum Island under your
jurisdiction?
Mr. Horn. Yes, the research that goes on at Plum Island is.
Senator Allard. The researchable problems that are out
there?
Mr. Horn. Yes.
Senator Allard. That is what I am interested in, the
research side of it. What is it that you are doing specifically
on Foot and Mouth Disease research in relation to the vaccine?
I have had a State veterinarian contact me about his thoughts
about a vaccination program. I know that it is controversial
and I kind of want to know just what it is.
He felt perhaps more research needed to be done in that
area. I would kind of like to have your comments on that.
Mr. Horn. There are clearly researchable problems
associated with vaccination programs and policy. Of course,
there have been several problems over the years. First of all,
because it wasn't possible to regulate the vaccine production
industry to the level necessary, occasionally there were
batches of vaccine prepared, so-called killed virus vaccines in
which not all virus particles were ``killed''. Therefore, you
could get an outbreak actually caused by vaccination, which is
unacceptable in a disease that is as contagious as Foot and
Mouth Disease.
Senator Allard. Exactly.
Mr. Horn. Second, the purposes of international trade,
there have been tremendous barriers to the export and import of
food from livestock or livestock themselves if a country had
Foot and Mouth Disease and you couldn't tell the difference
between a vaccinated animal and an exposed animal. That has
changed. We have developed technology now where one can, in
fact, tell the difference between the two. We did that at Plum
Island.
Third, we are taking new approaches to vaccination and
vaccine development. There are two promising candidates, but
unfortunately neither is on the shelf today. One is a peptide
vaccine and the other is made of genes taken out of the Foot
and Mouth Disease virus and put into a human adeno virus.
Once these go through the proper clearances, they may be
the answer because they are not the full Foot and Mouth Disease
virus.
Senator Allard. There is just enough shared anti-genicity
there that cross over?
Mr. Horn. Exactly. Our sense is that this technology is
probably, under the best of circumstances, two to five years
away. Excuse me. The adeno virus is the one that is probably
two to five years away. The synthetic peptide, it may be
possible to clear that much more quickly. We can make a
synthetic peptide vaccine. In fact, these are in production
right now on Long Island, and they are sold in other countries.
Taiwan in particular. Taiwan had a big outbreak recently, and
is consuming a tremendous amount of that synthetic peptide
product.
That would simply be a process of clearing the product
here, running some animal tests to provide data, to show
efficacy, sensitivity and specificity, and clearing the
facility that would produce it for us. So, we are working on
that as well.
Then the other aspect of work that I think is extremely
important is rapid diagnostics. As you may know, if you have
followed this issue, it took three weeks for the British to
realize that they had this disease. Great Britain has a
wonderful veterinary service. It took almost six weeks in
Taiwan for them to know they had the disease, and they probably
have the best vet service in Asia. Hog cholera in the
Netherlands--six weeks, and so forth.
So, rapid diagnostic kits are essential. We are working on
that. We hope to field test soon in the U.K. a detection test
that shows in 40 minutes or so whether or not the virus is
present and it is very, very specific.
So, we think these are going to be important parts of the
overall strategy.
Senator Allard. Now, help me with your background. Are you
a veterinarian?
Mr. Horn. No sir, I am an animal nutritionist and
biochemist.
Senator Allard. OK. Now, let me move on then to the other.
What is being done on research on Spongiform Encephalopathies?
You know, these are the kind of diseases that have lesions like
Mad Cow Disease. The media is using Mad Cow Disease-like, which
I think is making everybody think that all these species of
animals get Mad Cow Disease. But these are all Spongiform
Encephalopathies. What kind of research are you doing on that?
Mr. Horn. It is clearly misunderstood. We have two in
particular that we are concerned about in this country, Chronic
Wasting Disease in deer and elk and Scrapie in sheep. We are
doing work on these diseases at the National Animal Disease
Center in Ames, Iowa and in our Blood-borne Disease Program at
Pullman, Washington.
We are working primarily on two aspects of that problem.
One is trying to find diagnostic tools that can be used in live
animals. That is not easy, but we have developed an inner
eyelid test for Scrapie with sheep that appears to work. One
normally goes after lymphatic tissue to test for the prion that
is presumed to cause these diseases. The inner eyelid test is
quite good with regard to identifying the presence or absence
of the prion.
We are also looking for this in blood. There is some
promise to this approach, although it is still very much at an
experimental level in blood.
There is no BSE in America. I think it is very important to
say that. That includes in our research program. We have not
worked on Mad Cow Disease in the United States because it is
important to be able to say we don't have it here.
What we have decided to do, because of the urgency of this
and the spread of it in Europe, is to start a new Mad Cow
Disease or BSE research program. We are going to do it at the
outset in two ways with the full support of the livestock
industry. One is to add our talent and expertise to the efforts
underway in other countries that have it.
We would presumably put American scientists in laboratories
in Britain and perhaps in Canada. They don't have it in Canada,
but they have studied some of the tissue samples in Canada.
Then, disabled, dead materials could be brought to the
United States and subjected to research programs, probably on
Plum Island. But these would be things that were inactivated
and not carrying the agent.
Senator Allard. So, even on to Plum Island, you would be
bringing in inactivated material, then. That is the plan.
Mr. Horn. That is the plan, because the perception of
having absolutely no BSE in the United States is so important
to the livestock industry. BSE inactivated, of course, could be
handled anywhere. It could be handled at Ames or whatever. But
it is wonderful to be able to say, ``We don't have any BSE
agent in the United States.''
Incidentally, in terms of the international animal health
community, Plum Island is outside the continental United
States.
Senator Allard. I didn't know that.
Mr. Horn. Yes. It is a very important concept. It is the
only place in America where we can do Foot and Mouth Disease
work.
Senator Allard. Because technically it is outside the
United States.
Mr. Horn. That is correct under the International office of
Epizootics.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
Let me ask a question on behalf of Senator Stabenow, who
had to go to another hearing. She is concerned about Bovine TB,
an issue in Michigan. Can you give us any information as to
your work in that area?
Mr. Horn. Well, we are aware of this as well. Of course, it
is a big problem in Michigan, a relatively virulent and
antibiotic-resistant strain of tuberculosis has broken out in
the deer population. There is a possibility of having it re-
established in the livestock population.
Particularly it has occurred in Michigan, but there are
other States as well. We are cooperating with the State
University System and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service to evaluate the potential of controlling this disease
in livestock, should it occur in livestock, and in wildlife.
In the last five years we have actually found this new TB
in 12 counties in the northern part of the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan. It would appear that about five percent of the wild
deer are identified as TB-positive. It can also be found in
other creatures that interact with the deer, coyotes, raccoons,
fox, bear, feral cats, bobcats and a few beef cattle. We have
had ten beef cattle test positive and two dairy cattle herds in
northern Michigan.
So, turberculosis in this wildlife reservoir is extremely
problematic for us and it threatens the modified--accredited
status of Michigan.
What our research is going to do, and it, too, is
conducted, incidentally, Senator Harkin, at the National Animal
Disease Center in Ames, is lead to more sensitive and specific
diagnostic tools for TB and a new set of strategies that might
be more applicable to our life.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Harkin, do you have further questions of this
panel?
Senator Harkin. We thank both of you for your testimony and
for your extensive testimony and for your extensive questions
and answers and dialog with us. We appreciate your own
achievements. We look forward to visiting again soon.
Mr. Horn. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hefferan. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair would like to call now a panel
composed of:
Mr. Jon Caspers, board member of the National Coalition for
Food and Agricultural Research and vice president of the
National Pork Producers Council in Swaledale, Iowa;
Mr. Jay Lemmermen, chair of the Animal Agriculture
Coalition and Director of Quality Assurance, Southeast Milk,
Inc., of Ocala, Florida;
Dr. Richard Stuckey, executive vice president, Council for
Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa;
Dr. Phil Robertson, member, committee on an evaluation of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program. He is from the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences and a Professor of
Crop and Soil Sciences at Michigan State University, Hickory
Corners, Michigan;
Dr. Fred Kirschenmann, director of the Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa.
I want to call upon the distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Harkin, because three of this panel are in fact from
his native State of Iowa. I suspect he wants to make a comment
about that.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
welcome them. Jon Caspers is a very well known, very prominent
pork producer. He is vice president of the National Pork
Producers Council and has been very much involved in leading
this new group, this Council for Agricultural Research to try
to get the funding doubled over five years.
Dr. Stuckey has been executive vice president for CAST, as
we call it, in Ames, Iowa. He has a broad domestic and
international background in agricultural research. He is a
recognized expert in plant pathology. CAST has been an
indispensable resource over the years to many of us on this
committee and in this room.
Dr. Fred Kirschenmann was recently appointed director of
the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa.
The Leopold Center is at the forefront of research into
environmental and economically sound agricultural practices.
Dr. Kirschenmann has been a leader in this movement for
sustainable agriculture for a long time. He is a recent import
to Iowa from the Dakotas and we are glad to have him there.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having my fellow
Iowans here.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. I would
like to call upon each of you to summarize your testimony in
five minutes, if possible. All of your testimony will be made a
part of the record in full.
We will proceed with questions and answers after hearing
from all five of you.
First of all, Mr. Caspers.
STATEMENT OF JON CASPERS, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL COALITION FOR
FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL, SWALEDALE, IOWA
Mr. Caspers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research to testify at this important hearing on food and
agriculture research.
I am Jon Caspers, a pork producer from Iowa, a member of
the board of directors of the National Coalition for
Agricultural Research and Vice President of the National Pork
Producers Council.
Our Coalition looks forward to working with this committee
as we seek to double Federal investments in food and
agricultural research over the next five years.
I need not remind this distinguished committee that the
food and agriculture sector faces many immediate issues, and
yes, even crises every day. Safeguarding our borders against
the introduction of the devastating BSE and Foot and Mouth
Diseases, low farm incomes and consumer concerns about
biotechnology are some of the urgent issues.
We believe the best long-term strategy for preventing these
problems and capitalizing on the opportunities is increased
support of food and agriculture research and education.
To paraphrase the old adage, ``An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.'' We believe a dollar of funds invested
in research now will pay back $8 or more dollars in public
benefits in the future.
Research based on technological advances such as the
ability to produce higher yielding crops in animals with
improved human nutritional qualities have allowed for a more
abundant, safe, efficient and environmentally friendly food
supply, improved human health and well-being, and yes, longer
lives and lower health costs.
We want to thank the Chairman and other members of this
committee for supporting programs and funding that have helped
make these accomplishments possible. Yet, despite the best
efforts of this committee, and the world-renowned success of
U.S. food and agricultural research, Federal funding has not
kept pace with inflation.
In real terms we now spend less on food and agricultural
research than we did in 1978. We believe this is statistic
suggestion that Federal support could be as much as a quarter
century behind.
Today we spend only one dollar of Federal food and
agricultural research in the USDA for each $500 consumers spend
on food and fiber. Concern that this less than optimal
investment in food and agricultural research will
unintentionally restrict our nation's competitiveness, living
standard and general economic growth and development, a new
coalition has been formed, the National Coalition for Food and
Agricultural Research. National CFAR is a broad-based
stakeholder coalition of food, agriculture, nutrition,
conservation and natural resource organizations.
Our mission is to double Federal funding of food,
nutrition, agricultural, natural resource and fiber research,
extension and education programs during the next five years.
This is to be net additional funding on a continuing basis that
will complement, not compete with or displace the existing
portfolio of Federal programs of research in education.
Our ultimate goal is not budgetary but the many benefits
that will accrue to each American that a doubling of funding
will bring about.
Currently, National CFAR has over 60 members broadly
representing all phases of food and agriculture sectors. Our
members include major national organizations such as the
National Corn Growers Association, National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, American Dietetic Association, National Pork
Producers Council, American Soybean Association, National
Cotton Council, American Crop Protection Association, U.S. Rice
Producers Association, Institute of Food Technologists,
Wildlife Management Institute, American Farm Bureau, Ducks
Unlimited and the Forest Land Owners Association.
We want to stress the continuing need to build the capacity
to do quality research and education including human resources,
infrastructure support, formula funds and core programs. It is
important to maintain a balanced portfolio of Federal research
and education programs including competitive grants, formula
funds and intramural programs.
Major areas of research that have been identified by our
members and related coalitions that are in need of additional
funding include food security, safety, fortification,
enrichment and allergens; nutrition and public health,
production quantity and quality; nutrient adequacy; global
competitiveness; and new market opportunities. Environmental
stewardship and resource conservation and the scientific basis
for public policies relating to the environment, plants and
animals.
Increasing knowledge, skills and expertise, emergency
preparedness for emerging plant and animal diseases and bio-
terrorism; product pioneering for food, nutrition, biomaterials
and bio-fuels; genetic resources, genetic knowledge and
biotechnology, rural community economic vitality and education
and outreach to producers, processors and consumers, including
food safety, sound nutrition, conservation and management.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members, our
new and growing coalition of a broad-based cross-section of
stakeholders in food and agricultural research recommends that
Federal investments in food and agricultural research be
doubled over the next five years.
This would definitely benefit the American consumer in
multiple ways. It would benefit producers and consumers of all
commodities in all States and it would contribute to the United
States being the best fed country with the lowest share of
income spent on food. It would strengthen our competitiveness
in the global marketplace while achieving the proper balance of
human and environment needs.
It would enable producers to produce safer and healthier
foods and it would find new uses for agricultural products and
enhance the protection of our national resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement. I
will be pleased to answer any questions at a time you see fit.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Casper.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caspers can be found in the
appendix on page 70.]
The Chairman. Mr. Lemmermen.
STATEMENT OF JAY LEMMERMEN, CHAIR, ANIMAL AG
COALITION AND DIRECTOR OF QUALITY ASSURANCE,
SOUTHEAST MILK, INC. OCALA, FLORIDA
Mr. Lemmermen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Jay Lemmermen. I am Chair of the Animal Agriculture
Coalition and Director of Quality Assurance for Southeast Milk
in Ocala, Florida.
The Ag Coalition is a coalition of livestock, poultry and
aquaculture trade associations, the veterinarian and scientific
communities that monitors and influences animal health,
environment, food safety, research and education issues. AAC
appreciates the opportunity to present to you and the Senate
Agriculture Committee our priority items for the research,
extension, and education title of the Farm bill.
Now in the prepared statement, the value of animal
agriculture and the challenges facing animal agriculture and
the importance and economic value of ag research is fully
listed in detail. So, I would like to skip over those and just
present the highlights of our priorities.
One, AAC sees the critical need for increased funding for
ARS and CSREES research. As noted in the statement, this
research provides the tools for APHIS which needs to protect
our animal industries from both accidental and intentional
introduction.
We are grateful for the 9.7 percent and 4 percent increases
that ARS and CSREES received in fiscal year 2001. But these
increases must be at least maintained lest they get eaten up by
inflation and mandatory pay raises.
NRI needs to be funded at the full amount requested by the
administration. Last year it was decreased by 10.9 percent from
the previous year. It was actually 29 percent less than what
was requested by the administration.
NRI is where the basic targeted research is done. It
provides new diagnostics and prevention-based biologics. Right
now, a critical need in this area is for an injectable
euthanasia agent for Foot and Mouth Disease. Right now the
agent they are using in the U.K. is useful only as an IV
product requiring tight restraint of the animals which is both
dangerous for the people who handle them and hard to do and
time-consuming. They are getting behind just euthanizing the
animals.
No. 2, facilities, adequate places to safely conduct
research on large animals and dangerous biologic agents is a
must. Therefore, AAC strongly supports the ARS-APHIS master
plan for $440 million to rebuild the NADC, NVSL, and CVB Labs
in the Ames, Iowa area.
Plum Island, New York is also in need of adequate funding,
not just to repair and maintain, but to modernize and come into
compliance. We need BL-4 capability there to work on large
animals. We rely on Canada and Australia to work on the adena
virus on swine. We can't even do it in our own country.
Three, FAIR 2002 guidelines for animal health emergency
management systems. The AAC members participated actively in
the food-animal integrated research conclaves and fully support
the concept of coordinating research priorities of ARS and
CSREES along the FAIR 2002 guidelines.
Members of the coalition also participated in the
safeguarding review at APHIS and through these exercises
recognized the need for an emergency management system for
animal health.
The monitoring and surveillance portion is dependent again
upon the quality of diagnostic tools provided through ARS and
CSREES research.
Prevention is the key. The initial price of $500 million or
more for these items that we have listed is a large sum of
money. But compare that to the devastation suffered by Taiwan
when Foot and Mouth Disease destroyed their swine industry or
BSE and Foot and Mouth Disease in U.K. As the Chairman has
noted, it is over $1 billion already and the damage is far from
total.
To restate AAC's priorities, No. 1, increase funding for
research. We are also a member of John's coalition for doubling
agriculture research.
No. 2, proper facilities to do the research,
No. 3, coordinating the planning along specific guidelines
to get the most research for the dollar spent with an eye on
preventing the kind of animal industry disasters we have seen
recently around the globe.
Speaking for the AAC, I would like to again thank you for
the opportunity to share our thoughts with you as you prepare
for the 2002 Farm bill.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Lemmermen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lemmermen can be found in
the appendix on page 75.]
The Chairman. I want to acknowledge the presence of Senator
Conrad, who has joined us and who would like to make a comment
about one of our witnesses. We will hear from that witness and
then proceed back into the order.
Senator Conrad. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
the Ranking Member. Well, thank you for holding this series of
hearings. I apologize, because of my Budget Committee
responsibility I have not been as faithful an attendee as I
have been in the past, but we are getting to the end of that
process.
Mr. Chairman, I did want a chance to introduce one of our
witnesses here this morning, Fred Kirschenmann, who is from
North Dakota and someone we are very proud of in North Dakota.
Are you trying to take credit for him in Iowa? Well, that
is what happens, you know, when you are a good person and have
an outstanding reputation, everybody tries to take credit for
you. But Fred lives in North Dakota.
He is the director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture in Ames, Iowa. That is where Iowa gets in on
claiming Fred. But he also runs the Kirschenmann Farms in
Windsor, North Dakota. That is a certified organic farm, a
3500-acre farm that is really, I think, one of the show places
of North Dakota.
Fred is a national leader in the organic movement. He has
been on many boards and commissions. I will just mention it
would to the Members here. Fred has just completed a 5-year
term on USDA's National Organic Standards Board and he has been
a member of the board of the Henry Wallace Institute for
Alternative Agriculture since 1974. In 1997, he was its
president.
We just couldn't have a better witness, one that carries
more credibility than Fred Kirschenmann.
We put on an event every year in North Dakota that we call
``marketplace.'' It attracts about 5,000 people. Fred has been
a participant in that, has taught classes there. It is a joy to
see him here as a witness. Again, I want to thank the Chairman
and Ranking Member for permitting me this opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Conrad, for your testimony
about our witness.
Dr. Kirschenmann, would you proceed.
STATEMENT OF FRED KIRSCHENMANN, DIRECTOR, LEOPOLD CENTER FOR
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, AMES, IOWA
Dr. Kirschenmann. Thank you very much. I was deeply honored
to be invited. Now, I feel especially honored.
Thank you, Senator Conrad, for your kind comments. Thank
you, Chairman Lugar. I have long been an admirer of your work
and I am very pleased to be here this morning.
In my adoptive State of Iowa, we recall Senator Harkin with
deep affection, so it is especially a pleasure to be here this
morning with all three of you here.
As has been indicated, I am a farmer, first and foremost. I
have taken an off-farm job to support my farming habit, as of
November last year. So, I am now deeply involved in the
research agenda at the Leopold Center.
It is very gratifying to hear the comments about support
for agriculture research because as a farmer, I recognize the
vital importance of our ongoing research agenda.
On the other hand, I think, again as a farmer, we have to
simply recognize that our research has not done the job in
terms of our farming community. The statistics simply don't
look very promising right now.
Over half of our farm income now comes from direct
government payments. Costs of production exceed the market
price for most of our commodities.
There are now more farmers over age 65 than under age 35 in
this country and we now have more prisoners than farmers. My
friends ask me whether that means we have too many prisoners
and not enough farmers and maybe it means both.
The farmer side of that equation, of course, is inflated
because as everyone here knows, we still count everybody as a
farmer that produces at least $1,000 gross income.
Our environment problems persist. In some cases they have
gotten worse. Our rural communities are in a state of decline.
Most States have an extremely narrow crop and income base. We
have some serious problems facing us.
I think one of the things which I want to urge us to do is
to think about redirecting at least a small portion of our
research dollars so that we can begin to change some of that
picture which I have just described. Otherwise, we may indeed
have an agriculture in this country without farmers.
Our suggestion is that we really look at three interrelated
initiatives as we think about our agriculture agenda for the
future. Incidentally, all of these initiatives have now been
demonstrated in terms of field experience that they are
effective.
The first initiative which I would like to suggest is that
we take more seriously looking for solutions to agricultural
problems from our natural capital, in other words, the
ecological kinds of solutions. There is much evidence that
indicates that these are successful approaches.
The reason that they are beneficial for farmers is that
farmers can begin to achieve their production goals without as
many costly inputs. It is the costly inputs which in many
cases, while it may increase yield, does not increase their net
income.
Of course, net income for the farmer is one of the crucial
factors.
There is a recent report, which was reported in the New
Scientist Magazine, a study just released entitled ``Reducing
Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture, a Summary of New
Evidence.'' The report was put together by Jules Pretty and
Rachael Hine, who are with the Center for Environment and
Society at the University of Essex in Great Britain.
It is interesting. They looked at 208 cases from 52
countries where sustainable agricultural practices have been
put in place. What they discovered was an overall 40 to 100
percent increase in yield by using these technologies compared
to previous technologies.
The way they did it was by better use of natural capital,
through introduction of new regenerative elements and through
new and local appropriate crop varieties and animal breeds. It
was an excellent example of this kind of research, which also
appeared in Science Magazine last fall.
The study actually appeared in Nature Magazine and was
reported in Science Magazine where in China they took two
varieties of rice that had been locally adapted and companion-
planted them. They had an 18 percent overall increase in yield
and a dramatic reduction in inputs for diseases control because
the varieties were adapted to those local conditions.
So, my question is how many of those kinds of solutions are
currently unknown to farmers because we haven't devoted very
much of our research to those kinds of solutions.
The second and third solutions that I won't have time to go
into are in the marketplace. We think there are many
opportunities in the marketplace, but as long as farmers are
going to only produce commodities which are essentially raw
materials, there really isn't much hope for increasing their
income. We have to find new markets that add value to those
commodities so that there is a greater return into the farm
sector of agriculture.
Then, finally, our farm policies. We think that the kind of
research that the Sustainable Agriculture Research Education
Program has been doing in past years, which is clearly a
showcase of success in agricultural research in this country,
the idea is being copied in much of our other research and
policies that would support that kind of research more as well
as policies that would reward farmers for doing the right
thing.
Certainly, Senator Harkin's legislation entitled the
``Conservation Security Act'' is a prime example of that kind
of research. So thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kirschenmann can be found in
the appendix on page 83.]
The Chairman. Dr. Stuckey.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. STUCKEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF
CAST, THE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Stuckey. I am Richard E. Stuckey, executive vice
president of CAST, the council for Agricultural Science and
Technology. I am pleased to testify on behalf of CAST. CAST
represents 37 professional scientific and engineering societies
whose individual members exceed 180,000 scientists.
Our mission is to bring science to public policy
decisionmaking. The members of CAST represent a broad spectrum
of the food and agricultural sciences including rural
sociology, animal science, plant science, plant protection
sciences, agricultural engineering, food technology, nutrition,
toxicology, veterinary medicine and many other related
disciplines.
Although CAST is comprised of the various disciplines I
have mentioned, today I have been asked to focus on the plant
science research needs. Others on this panel have addressed
animal and other discipline needs.
There are two points I would like to make. First, there is
a need for significantly increased investment in agricultural
research extension and education.
Second, the earth has limited natural resources. With the
United States budget surplus, why not invest in the science
that has helped contribute to that surplus?
There was genuine excitement in the academic community when
in 1989 a new program was introduced which many of you
supported, called the National Research Initiative. But the
authorized $500 million never materialized beyond the
approximately $100 million over the past 10 years.
A healthy agricultural system provides the building blocks
for human health. We are what we eat. Today's world is becoming
even more complex with more issues and more challenges to face.
Simply slicing the budget research pie into more pieces is not
the answer. We must make the pie larger.
The examples of funding increases at NIH and NSF over the
past 5 to 10 years certainly come to mind. Our goal is to
protect our environment, maintain a sustainable agriculture and
food system, and provide an economic return for those who labor
long hours and assume financial risks. This can be improved
with increased research spending.
The approach to reaching these goals is what may differ. No
longer does one size, one approach, fit all. Choices are not
black and white, but rather shades of gray. For some the
approach would be highly technology driven. For others, it
would rely more on human capital.
I believe this diversity in approach is well illustrated in
the CAST report released yesterday on vertical coordination of
agriculture in farming dependent areas. More and more we find
there is no one approach or single way. Rather there are
multiple approaches worthy of research and educational support.
This brings me to my second point, the earth's limited
natural resources. We all know that the world's population
continues to grow and is projected to add another 50 percent to
six plus billion during the next 30 to 50 years.
We need to conserve existing natural resources. More food
will need to be produced with the land and water that we have
available today. There is no more land and water to be made.
The supply is finite.
Our plant research priorities should have the preservation
of natural resources a primary goal. The primary mission areas
of the Agricultural Research Extension and Education Reform Act
of 1998 remain priority areas today.
More specific to plant research, the Coalition for Research
on Plant Systems, CROPS, was organized to determine the
societal needs and to develop a comprehensive coherent natural
research strategy. Recommendations from the CROPS 1999 Forum
were endorsed by more than 75 organizations.
The three research priorities identified were the
following: One, expand the science and application of plant
genomics. Two, develop practical, sustainable production
management systems for the protection of the food and fiber
supply of our natural resource base. Three, develop mechanisms
to enhance producer profitability while minimizing risk of
financial loss and ensuring food safety and security.
Invasiveness of plant and other nonnative pests and bio-
security concerns are also becoming priority issues. More
public research and education dollars are needed, not only for
the development of new products, but also for the safety
testing of these products as they come to market.
The diminished role of the public-funded agricultural
research has shifted the research heavily to the private sector
for which there has been some public distrust. I often wonder
how the acceptance of genetic engineering may have been
different if a majority of this research had been done with
public rather than private funds.
In conclusion, there is a need for greatly increasing the
Federal agriculture and research budgets. The need greatly
outweighs our ability to select and choose the areas for where
this research should be conducted. There are simply too many
choices for a stable or declining budget to address.
The world today is more complex than ever before.
International travel and trade bring on new dimensions, new
problems and new opportunities. We are responsible for the
careful nurturing of the planet so that it benefits mankind and
the creatures that inhabit it, while protecting the resources
for future generations.
Thank you for allowing me to share some thoughts and this
testimony on behalf of the members of CAST.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Stuckey.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stuckey can be found in the
appendix on page 91.]
The Chairman. Dr. Robertson.
STATEMENT OF PHIL ROBERTSON, MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON AN EVALUATION
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE
COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL/NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, AND
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CROP AND SOIL
SCIENCES, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, HICKORY
CORNERS, MICHIGAN
Mr. Robertson. Good morning, Senator Lugar and Senator
Harkin. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.
I am Phil Robertson, Professor of Crop and Soil Sciences at the
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University.
I serve as a member of the National Research Council's
Committee to evaluate the USDA's National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, known as the NRI. I am here this
morning to summarize the committee's report.
As you know, the National Research Council is the operating
arm of the National Academies, which includes the National
Academy of Sciences, a private nonprofit society that was
chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on
matters of science and technology.
The study that I will address today was requested and
supported by the USDA. It has undergone the usual rigorous
independent review by volunteer experts, internal and external
to the NRC.
It is hardly necessary to describe to this committee the
importance of scientific research for providing the American
public a food and fiber supply that is safe, affordable, and
environmental responsible.
The fundamental success of our efforts to produce food and
fiber at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of a fast growing
national and global marketplace cannot be reasonably questions,
not can the starring role of research in this success be
underestimated.
Agriculture is more than ever a knowledge-driven industry.
Advances in genetics, in field crop technology, in animal
health, in food storage and processing, in pest protection and
forest health, advances in all stages of the production chain
are driven largely by research findings.
The NRI was launched in 1992 in response to an NRC report
calling for an expanded competitive grants program to address
emerging basic research needs in agriculture. Enabling
legislation authorized annual spending of up to $500 million on
a new competitive grants program.
Annual funding has remained at or near $100 million since
1992. Since its inception, the NRI has functioned as a pilot
program to support high quality research related to the
nation's food, fiber and natural resources system.
In 1998, the NRC appointed a 14-member committee to assess
the quality, value and other aspects of the program and to
remember changes for the future. To carry out this change, the
committee gathered data, conducted surveys and interviews and
solicited testimony from industry, professional societies, farm
organizations, universities and agricultural experiment
stations and other Federal agencies.
Throughout this process the committee found a great deal of
consistency in its findings. In general, the committee found
NRI to have financed high quality scientific work within
Congressional guidelines. In this sense the program was judged
to be a substantial success.
The committee also found, however, that the program is in
danger of languishing. The program size, the size and duration
of individual grants and the low overhead allowance have led to
reduced application numbers, especially from scientists outside
the traditional food complex.
Moreover, the committee found that traditional stakeholders
in the NRI are losing confidence in the health and direction of
the program.
The committee has made 16 specific recommendations to
bolster and revitalize the NRI. Many of the recommendations are
structural and relatively easy to address, given administrative
will and Congressional approval.
I would like here to emphasize three of the most difficult
but important recommendations made by the committee.
First, the committee recommends that the NRI and other
competitive USDA research programs be moved to a new extramural
competitive research service that would report to the Under
Secretary for Research, Education and Economics.
Second, the committee recommends the establishment of a new
extramural advisory board that represents NRI stakeholders and
has a non-USDA chair.
These two changes would place the NRI at a level equivalent
to USDA's other main research agencies. The committee believes
strongly that unless extramural competitive research is given
the same organizational stature as formula-funded and
intramural research in USDA with its own advisory board, that
it will remain difficult for the program to achieve its
mission.
Third, the committee recommends that by 2005 the NRI budget
be increased to a level equivalent to the $550 million
recommended by the NRC in 1989, so long as recommended changes
in priority setting, documentation, and organization are put
into place.
The committee believes that inadequate funding of the NRI
has significantly limited its potential and placed the program
at risk. A substantial increase in funding will ensure a robust
and high quality public research effort that can significantly
transform the nation's food, fiber and natural resources system
in response to critical needs in agricultural productivity,
environmental health and societal well-being.
The committee also believes that after reaching this budget
level that future budget growth of the NRI should be evaluated
and compared with the budgets of complementary programs in NSF,
NIH, and DOE.
Allow me to conclude with a reiteration of the
extraordinary importance of public merit-based, peer-reviewed
research in food, fiber and natural resources.
In the opinion of the committee, which included scientists
and non-scientists from both industry and the public sector,
past public research and current private activities cannot meet
the needs that are being created by population growth, climate
change and natural resource deterioration or the challenges
related to food safety and nutrition and to the growing
convergence of foods and medical research.
To meet these needs requires a vibrant, reinvigorated NRI
that provides consistent funding for the investor-initiated,
curiosity-driven research that is the backbone of the U.S.
basic research enterprise.
Thanks again for the opportunity to speak this morning. I
will be glad to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Robertson.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Robertson can be found in
the appendix on page 94.]
The Chairman. I would pick up one comment that you made in
the latter part of your statement about the merit-based aspect.
This has arisen at another point in our hearing in which, as I
recall, Dr. Horn was queried by Senator Hutchinson that as many
as 350 projects, being done at land grant colleges or various
other situations, were not merit-based, but, nevertheless.
Dr. Horn, I suppose with some sense of realism, suggested
they might very well be restored by the time we are through
with the appropriation process.
This is sort of a normal course for our situation. You
offer some illumination because when we passed the 1998 act,
the $600 million, $120 million each year, the thought was that
this would be merit-based. There would be peer review. These
would be something well beyond the normal funds that go to keep
the doors open in a lot of our research efforts in colleges
around the country.
Our House colleagues did not see as much merit in that as
we did. There are legitimate differences of opinion in a
democracy. As a result, nothing of this occurred, zero, really,
for the first year. USDA, to its credit, has tried to revive
this idea administratively, with the Secretary of Agriculture
intervening. Dan Glickman, last year, found a clause that gave
him the ability to go out and award 86 grants. There were 1,000
competitors.
So, the political situation is in a nutshell in this
predicament, on the one hand perennially. Gentlemen such as you
come before us and point out the benefits of cutting edge
research, thinking outside the box, and new ways and peer-based
and merit-based and all the rest of it.
But in the practical politics, as Senators look after their
constituents and Members of the House likewise, sometimes this
happens more or less. I would hope still that we would persist.
I think there is value in what you have to say. Many of you
have underlined this in various other ways.
I want to spend my time on questions and on some comments
that appear on Dr. Kirschenmann's testimony because he touched
upon this briefly as he had to summarize.
But essentially he says, and I quote, ``The brutal truth is
that if all we expect from agriculture is that it produce
sufficient quantities of food and fiber as efficiently as
possible on a global scale, then we should get out of the
farming business altogether.''
He points out essentially, as I think almost anybody
involved in farming would, that at least currently the return
on investment from most farming operations in this country, and
I presume that may be true around the world, is very low. This
is sort of a dim secret that never quite bubbles up in these
situations.
Just for the sake of argument, in the Farm Bureau meetings
around Indiana, I point out that for my own farm, in the 45
years that I have had responsibility and by the best accounting
that I have, has had roughly a four percent return on invested
capital.
Many farmers say, ``Well, that is far too high.''
But other people looking at this who are not farmers would
say, ``What has been going through your mind for 45 years, with
Treasury Bonds regularly, 30 percent bonds at 6, 7, or 8
percent? You know, we can see why you might indulge this for a
while, but why have you persistently maintained this for 45
years at this low rate of return?''
Others would just simply say they want to know how we got
the four percent. I am not really sure how that has worked out.
This is why we start each of our Farm bill debates with a
business which essentially is not making very much money. Then
we proceed through the processors who come before us.
We have a big argument about concentration, whether it is
the stockyards or the food processors or the people who are do
retail. Indeed they are concentrating because many of them are
not making very much money, either.
But the Wall Street people come and say the whole industry,
whether you start from the producer all the way from the time
it passes out of the supermarket, is a low return business. If
you were to advise clients in America who have venture capital,
which have substantial amounts of capital, this would not be
the place that they would put it.
So, I am intrigued by the testimony that Dr. Kirschemann is
giving because he is saying essentially we have to not only
market the corn, but market the farm. There are a good number
of things that may need to happen.
Now, many people to stay alive on farms discovered this a
long time ago, all sorts of alternative systems of income quite
apart from the in-town job, but they were doing things
creatively on their farms that resulted in greater income.
The question then, obviously, is how do you couple this
with our reverence for the soil, for the ecology, the heritage
we have? That is a very difficult situation, too, although not
impossible, given the interest in conservation, not only of
this committee, but of this country.
Along this combination of conservation and research, not
long go after we had testimony from the local conservation
people as part of the hearing, Senator Harkin, I give him
credit, wanted to concentrate on conservation early on to get
this started and I agree with that. I think it is a very
important thing.
But I found that on my own farm, the local conservation
person, now given the software that they have been able to
produce, they have coupled together all the soil surveys and as
a matter of fact, all the data that they have, really, from the
State of Indiana.
They can put overlays on a screen in front of you that show
you what they would predict for an average year of the yield of
corn literally acre by acre on the 604 acres that I have. They
will show some places that I would never have thought of
planting corn or soybeans or whatever else it is that you have
a mind to do.
They can show what kind of retention there will be of
moisture in any of these soils, what are thoroughly
inapplicable for septic tank systems if you ever should think
about putting housing there and a whole raft of things, just
one revelation after another. All of this is available through
USDA, through the Conservation Service now, through
extraordinary research efforts.
This is a different kind of research in a way. It is a data
collection, but it is also imaginative so that farmers such as
myself or those who are helping me, can make better decisions
in terms of conservation, production, maximization in terms of
inputs or not inputs at all, if that were to be the decision,
in ways that I could not have conceived that we would have
these options even 15 years ago, maybe even five years ago.
All of this strikes me as tremendously important, if the
four percent return is ever going to be something else. If we
are ever to have debates on the Farm bill that are something
other than a perpetual recession and how you either revive
those who survive or keep a few more alive.
So, the need for research to tackle this holistic situation
just seems to me to be imperative. That doesn't take away for a
moment how we might make the yield of corn triple.
People like Dr. Borlaug who I cited earlier on would say
that is probably necessary if the world is to be fed in 2050,
hard as it may be to distribute the corn, given all the
political circumstances and governments that intervene and
distribution systems even within countries. But at least
basically, tripling of yield has been a goal in USDA and has
been achieved, say, from the 30's until the present.
Can it be achieved again is really a big question or should
it be achieved? Can you stretch the wee plant that further. As
has been suggested, we think about crops that we don't think
about very often that are still to be discovered as
commercially viable and valuable. That may be the more
promising situation, but one that really stretches even beyond
the energy debate we were having earlier, how you make that
transition.
So, I appreciate the work that all of you have done in your
testimony. I have read each of the papers. They are a
composite, really, of very good guidelines of what in public
policy we ought to be doing.
I just take this opportunity to sort of monologue on the
problems that we face in total in this committee in trying to
help the income of farmers as well as the heritage, as I say,
conservation-wise and try to be prepared, really, for a day in
which maybe we got the export thing straightened out in which
the politics of world trade are more propitious.
Dr. Kirschenmann, since I zeroed in on your paper, do you
have any comment on this?
Mr. Kirschenmann. Well, I think your assessment that we
really need to start looking at these things from a holistic
perspective is exactly on target. The reason I made the comment
in the paper about getting out of the farming business
altogether, of course, that is not original with me.
Stephen Blank at the University of California suggested
that in his book, ``The End of Agriculture and the American
Portfolio.'' A lot of people got mad at him for that. I
personally applauded him because I think we really need to take
that seriously.
You know, if all we expect of farmers is to produce raw
materials for our food and fiber system, the brutal truth is
that farmers in other parts of the world who have cheaper land
prices and cheaper labor prices can do that more cheaply than
we can. So, he is simply saying, ``Let us face that fact.''
Now, I think the piece that he doesn't tell us about is
that farmers really do produce a whole lot more than the raw
materials for food and fiber. They are major players in
protecting our environment. With the right policies and the
right resources, they could be more important players. They
play an important role in keeping our rural communities
vibrant.
So, I think that a debate which we need to have is whether
or not the citizens of this country want simply the raw
materials or whether they want some of the other public goods
that farmers are in a position to provide. The answer to that
question seems to me to be critical in terms of the future of
agricultural policy.
I believe and in terms of citizens that I have talked to,
that they do want these other public goods from farmers. That
plays in to part of the market and my comment about marketing
the farm instead of farming the market. We have a lot of things
to market through our farms.
Most of the studies, the Hartman Report and others indicate
that 30 percent of the consuming public today and that
percentage is increasing would like to buy a food story with
their food. They would like to know the farmer that produced
the hogs or the corn. They would like to know the processor who
processed it. They would like to know that there was good
environmental stewardship. They would like to know that the
animals were treated properly.
They are doing a much better job of this kind of marketing
the farm where there are computer scanners in the store and you
can pick your package of pork chops off the shelf and run it
through this computer scanner and it will bring up the picture
of the family that produced the hogs, where it was processed,
how it was handled, all the way right down to the supermarket.
So, the story is right there.
I think there are tremendous opportunities here,
particularly for our mid-sized farmers which are the ones who
are the most vulnerable now. According to the 1997 statistics,
we have only 575,000 of those farms left. They are the ones
that are the most vulnerable, because they are not big enough
to get access to the major commodity markets and they are too
big to do the direct marketing which has been the avenue that
the smaller farmers have been taking. We have seen some
increase in numbers now of those smaller farms.
So, I think here is a marketing opportunity. With a little
bit of research and the right kind of policies that sort of put
them on a level playing field and some imaginative work at the
Leopold Center we intend to zero in on that and see if we can't
do a hopefully successful demonstration in Iowa of how this
could be done and create some new markets for these farms.
So, I think your assessment of that, looking at the whole
system, is exactly what we need to do.
The Chairman. Doctor, parenthetically, I have mentioned
that on Thursday the committee will hold a hearing. This is
only a very small part of this problem. But we are trying to
think about the potential markets to farmers for CO2
sequestration or no-till policies or the various items that are
coming along, that are big concepts.
How do you work out the markets so there can be some buyers
and sellers? We had testimony at one conservation hearing from
the State of Michigan that they have a website now in which
people on the farm who are, say, doing no till or various other
practices, are in a position to sell to industrials in Michigan
who have some problems right now with regard to waterways.
These credits, an actual transfer can occur. They plan to
go on line with actual trading of this, which means income for
the farmers who are doing the selling. This is, as I say, only
a very small part of the forest, but it can become a much
larger one as our negotiations continue throughout the world
with regard to clean air and clean water.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a
fascinating discussion. I have listened intently. I am sorry
that I have to leave. In fact, I have to go talk to a group
about conservation.
I think, just picking up on what you just said, that a lot
of times we look for the big fix and we look for something that
has a universal application, whether it is in our commodity
programs or whatever.
Maybe we ought to be thinking about a lot of small fixes
that go to make up the big fix, rather than a big fix that you
try to impose on everyone.
Yes, there are a lot of things out there. If you do one
small thing, you say, well, everybody can't do that. I
understand that but if you have a lot of different things out
there, I think maybe that is what I think our challenge is in
research.
It seems to me we have a couple of components. We have the
basic research which is just ``why.'' A lot of people ask
``why.'' That is basic research. We have to do a lot of basic
research and focus more on basic research.
Then there is the directed research; how? How do you do
these things? What is the end goal you want to seek and how do
you get to this end goal and more of the things that you were
just talking about there, I think, Dr. Kirschenmann?
So, I think we have to look at both of these, both the
basic research and some of the directed research in trying to
accomplish certain societal goals that we may want. I am not
certain that there has ever really been a consensus here on
what those goals out to be.
We all wax eloquently about the need for healthy rural
environments, family farms, viable communities with good
schools and hospitals and things like that. But then, it seems
like the policies we have had in the last 30 or 40 years have
made us go just in the opposite direction.
Just take for example the capitalization of land values. We
had two good hearings in Iowa this weekend, Mr. Chairman. Some
of the testimony from Iowa State, Mr. Duffy and Neal Harrel,
talking about how our farm programs really have elevated the
capitalization costs of land, and we can't just pull the plug
now.
You have that all locked in so what do we do? How do we get
young people who may want to do some agriculture? Maybe they
don't want a farm, 3,000 or 4,000 acres of land. But they would
like to do something and have a good life style and perhaps
find a niche market that is out there that would provide them a
good income. But there is no way they can do it with the
capital cost of land right now.
So, somehow, we have to try to figure out how we address
that, too. I don't have the answer. I sure have the questions,
but I don't have the answers to this.
So, in other words, it was a good discussion. Dr.
Kirschenmann, I look forward to working with you in Iowa at the
Leopold Center on this.
Basically, I think one of the things we have to start
looking at, and I will just make this last pitch, we have to
look upon conservation as a commodity. Conservation should be a
commodity and it should be treated as something that a farmer
produces, producing conservation. But I won't get into that.
I just want to ask one question going back to what I said
earlier. I was at the Ames Lab again this weekend, as I said
earlier. I want to ask Mr. Caspers and Mr. Lemmermen of the
various commodity and animal health groups, what is your
position regarding the need to modernize the Ames ARS and APHIS
facilities? Do they meet international accreditation standards
and how do you feel about it?
I read your testimony, Mr. Lemmermen, and you mentioned it
specifically. I just wondered how the two of you feel about how
fast we have to proceed on this. Mr. Caspers.
Mr. Caspers. Thank you, Senator. Certainly I am familiar
with that project and very aware of the need, certainly because
it is in my backyard, literally, but also because of the
industry and my involvement with pork production.
That is a perfect example, I believe, of a facility that we
need to improve the basic infrastructure for research and
support for agricultural industry. But our coalition certainly
cites the need to build that infrastructure around the country.
That is one example of something that is desperately needed, I
believe.
Certainly in other industries there are other needs also.
We would like to see more emphasis and more funding put toward
building that infrastructure to support research needs for ag.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Caspers.
Mr. Lemmermen.
Mr. Lemmermen. Well, Senator Harkin, our policy, I don't
know we have a direct policy, but any time we could have had it
done before yesterday would be great. When it was first
proposed we were looking at $380 million. Two years later we
are $440 million. By the time it is done it may be over $1
billion to get it done.
So, any time we get it done prior to yesterday is great. We
need this type of facility. It supports our Yones Programs in
dairy. It supported the pseudo-Rabies in swine. There are a
number of things that it does and it does well because of the
ability to cross-disciplinary lines with APHIS and ARS being
right there together and doing these things.
One thing we have to remember that as we pass regulations,
part of the thing that has hurt Plus Island and Ames is
regulations were passed for, say, animal welfare. Where they
used to have five animals in a pen, now you have a certain
number of square feet, so there is only room for one animal in
that pen.
Well, now you have to build five times the size of the
facility and the money is not there to do it. I mean the
regulations came alone without the money. This has put us
behind. As Congress looks at regulations, they need to bring
the cart along with the horse.
True, animal welfare is important. We need to take care of
those animals. But we also need to take care of the industry
and bring the money along to modernize the facilities so we can
still do the work that needs to be done.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Dr. Lemmermen.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
Gentlemen, we thank you very much for coming today and
offering such important testimony. Your response has been
appreciated. Thank you very much.
The Chair would like to call right now a panel composed of
Dr. David Chicoine, chair of the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges Board on Agriculture and
Dean of the College of Agriculture, Consumer, and Environmental
Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois.
Dr. Bobby Phills, chair of the 1890 Legislative Committee
and Dean and director of Land Grant Programs, College of
Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture, Florida A&M
University in Tallahassee, Florida.
Dr. Vic Lechtenberg, chair of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board and
Dean of Agriculture, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Gentlemen, it is a privilege to have you with our committee
this morning. As I mentioned earlier, we will ask you to
summarize your testimony if possible in five minutes. Your
statements will be made a part of the record in full and we
will proceed with questions and answers at that point.
For those of you who are trying to gauge your time or for
others who may be watching this on closed circuit television
and want to come in, we will try to conclude the hearing about
noon, when I understand a vote will occur on the Campaign
Finance Reform Bill, an amendment being considered even as we
speak on the floor.
Doctor, would you please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CHICOINE, CHAIR, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES BOARD
ON AGRICULTURE, AND DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA,
ILLINOIS
Dr. Chicoine. Thank you, Senator Lugar. Thank you for the
invitation to testify today. I am David Chicoine and I am Dean
of the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental
Sciences at the University of Illinois and I do serve as the
chair of the board on Agriculture of the National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
Dr. Phills will speak on behalf of the historically Black
institutions. I understand that the tribal colleges and the
U.S. territories will be submitting testimony for the record.
We support addressing specific issues and needs of these
institutions. I commend you for your support for research,
extension and education that is supporting the U.S. food,
agriculture and natural resource system. A special note of
appreciation for the establishment and support of the
initiative for future agriculture and food systems, IFAFS.
We recommend the expansion and further refinement of these
programs in the reauthorization of the Farm bill. As we have
heard from testimony here today and previously, there is
widespread recognition of the need to increase investments in
agricultural science and education.
The Board appreciates and commends the broad spectrum of
interest groups that have come together to form the National
Coalition for Food and Agriculture Research, the National CFAR.
We support their recommendations and that of their membership
for a doubling in funding for agricultural research, extension
and education in five years.
To address the critical issues of the new century, we
believe a strong science and education system is essential to
effectively deal with all of the policy issues in the next Farm
bill.
In my written testimony, we provide a number of specific
examples of how the research, extension and education system
can be better harnessed and coupled with the action agencies of
the USDA to address all of the issues facing this committee.
This includes better support for farmers and ranchers,
building international trade and market opportunities,
conserving natural resources, better nutrition and health
including food safety and revitalizing rural economies and
their communities.
Let me comment briefly about each of these.
Better research and education support for farmers and
ranchers, for example, for using the enhanced and new
management tools made available by the new Farm bill have the
greatest impact will be essential.
In building international trade and market opportunities,
science and education are the drivers for new technologies. New
technologies provide the foundation for new economic
opportunities and value added activities that yield profits and
positive trade balances.
Publicly funded research and development has provided the
U.S. a global competitive advantage. It is essential to enhance
this advantage because future growth will be in international
markets.
On conserving natural resources, continuing to improve the
stewardship of natural resources and the environment is a very
critical issue. USDA and U.S. EPA are focused on a new approach
emphasizing results-based outcomes, rather than regulating
practices. Under this new approach, we can collaborate with
USDA and RCS and the National Association of Conservation
Districts to provide needed cutting edge research and education
and outreach programs.
For nutrition and health, we believe using the knowledge
system can improve this nation's nutritional programs. An
example is the Family Nutrition Program, FNP, where extension
staff educate food stamp program participants.
Universities can partner with USDA on enhanced nutritional
research to improve understanding of consumers' behavior.
Through improved diets and better nutrition, health can be
improved.
Revitalizing our rural communities is essential. But little
is really known about the success of various strategies to
encourage long-term growth and development in rural economies
and their communities.
Universities and land grant colleges are well positioned to
help rural economies and their communities develop strategies
and programs based on good science, sound research, and using
effective extension programs to address their futures.
Research on and education programs about possible new
economic opportunities based on natural resources, bio-energy
and biomaterials development and new business structures for
value added agriculture are needed.
New models of collaboration between university, Federal
laboratories and the private sector are needed to ensure that
results of advanced discovery research are commercialized into
new products and activities creating jobs, businesses and
economic growth.
For research, extension and education, we support the
intent of Congress to facilitate greater cooperation between
research and extension and between States.
We support the intent of Congress to enrich meaningful
stakeholder development and recommend the reauthorization of
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Advisory Board.
We endorse and recommend the continued authorization of a
balanced portfolio of funding mechanisms, making it possible to
address long-term needs and short-term issues. Funding from
both mandated and discretionary accounts is recommended.
In summary, we are interested in tightly linking the
research, extension and education system to the critical policy
issues addressed throughout the Farm bill.
We believe that the increased investments in research,
extension and education being called for can most effectively
address challenges and add value by linking the knowledge
system tightly with agencies in USDA.
By doing so the Federal agency and State and land grant
universities can, as partners, better serve agriculture and
rural communities.
We look forward to working with the committee and your
staff on details for these recommendations.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Chicoine.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chicoine can be found in the
appendix on page 98.]
The Chairman. Dr. Phills.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY PHILLS, CHAIR OF THE 1890
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE AND DEAN AND DIRECTOR OF LAND GRANT
PROGRAMS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES, TECHNOLOGY AND
AGRICULTURE, FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Dr. Phills. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the 1890 Land Grant Universities.
I am Bobby R. Phills, Dean and director of Land Grant
Programs, for the College of Engineering Sciences, Technology
and Agriculture, at Florida A&M University. I also serve as the
chair of the 1890 Legislative Committee.
I would like to begin my testimony by associating myself
with the testimony and remarks of my colleague, Dr. David
Chicoine, who serves as the chair of the NASULGC Board on
Agriculture.
There are three key issues that I would like to address.
One is the critical need for increased investments. Two is
equitable access. Three is appropriate funding mechanisms.
I am heartened by the recent calls to double the investment
in agriculture research, extension and education. As we support
critically needed investments in agriculture research,
extension and teaching, it is essential that the specific
funding needs facing the 1890 community also be addressed.
Chief among these is the establishment of an 1890 Land
Grant Endowment Fund. The 1890's are Land Grant Universities.
We did not receive funding benefits from the distribution of
Federal lands, as did our colleagues in the 1862s.
Through the years the 1890 universities have struggled with
inadequate funding resources to meet the especially challenging
needs of the underserved communities. The proposed endowment
account could be utilized to help address historical inequities
of resources and to allow 1890 institutions the opportunity to
build our capacity to effectively compete for other funding
resources.
In the 1998 Agriculture Research, Extension and Education
Reform Act, a 50 percent State matching requirement was
established for the 1890's. Since passage of this act, we have
made significant headway in securing State matching funds for
our programs.
We are now recommending increasing the State matching
requirement to 100 percent. We request that this matching
requirement be ramped up over the current requirement of 50
percent with an increase of 10 percent per year over the course
of five years.
We recognize that it will be harder for some of our 1890
universities to meet this matching requirement than others. We
therefore ask that the Congress provide the Secretary of
Agriculture greater flexibility in waiving an institution's
matching requirement in response to the petition from the
university.
We also recommend the reauthorization of the following 1890
programs: The 1890 Capacity Building Grant Program with a
provision to include 1890 extension as an eligible participant.
The 1890 Facilities Program, recognizing that quality academic,
research and outreach programs demand that we have quality
facilities for training and research exploration.
The Socially Disadvantaged Program for small and limited
resource farmers, Section 2501 and the Base Formula Program for
Research and Extension.
We further recommend that the minimum funding level or
floor for both of these base programs, research and extension,
be raised from 15 and 6 percent to 25 and 15 percent,
respectively.
In addition to our needs for increased funding, the 1890's
need equitable access to existing funding sources so as to
become fully active participants in the Federal/State land
grant partnership.
Currently, the 1890 universities are not eligible for
formula funds targeted to forestry issues of the McIntyre-
Stennis Program. Many of our institutions are located in States
where forestry is a major agricultural industry. These
institutions have forestry and natural resource programs that
are germane to the forestry industry.
We recommend an expansion of authorizing funding for
McIntyre-Stennis and increasing eligible participants to
include the 1890 universities.
We welcome the return of West Virginia State College to the
ranks of 1890 land grant institutions. We recognize the need
for West Virginia State to retain the base funding that was
used to reestablish them. We agree that they should be eligible
to participate in those programs in which the 1890 land grant
institutions and Tuskegee University are eligible.
We would hope that additional resources are made available
to all of the 1890 land grants and Tuskegee, such that West
Virginia State's participation does not put an additional and
unintended burden on their colleagues.
We would like to commend the leadership of the USDA CSREES
and the land grant community for the development of the new
IFAFS Competitive Grants Program. The departmental staff and
others went the extra mile to make sure that our institutions
were fully aware of the new program and gave us the opportunity
to compete as equal partners in this process.
We have achieved some success. However, with enhanced
support to increase our competitiveness, we will do even better
in the future.
While we support competitive grants, we are concerned that
some mistake the term ``competitive'' with the term
``quality.'' The Competitive Grants Program does provide a form
of quality control for awarding funds for relatively short-term
projects. However, many of the programs that we provide need to
be sustained over time.
Short-term competitively awarded projects do not adequately
serve the longer-term needs of the underserved populations that
we work with. Formula funds and endowment funds provide the
necessary sustained funding that is required to truly build
capacity.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for the
opportunity to testify here today. We look forward to working
with you and our colleagues in the land grant community as we
move through the reauthorization of the Farm bill.
We urge you to use this moment, this opportunity, to invest
in our 1890 universities and in the future of our communities.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Phills.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Phills can be found in the
appendix on page 109.]
The Chairman. It is now my privilege to introduce Dr. Vic
Lechtenberg. Let me have a point of personal privilege. Earlier
in the day, very much earlier this morning, as many of you will
recall, Senator Stabenow of Michigan you were not here at that
time Dr. Lechtenberg, but she introduced Dr. Phil Robertson who
was to appear on the panel before you. She noted that Michigan
State University was indeed in the Final Four. She was planning
to head to Minneapolis to watch all of that.
I would mention parenthetically that Purdue University has
a Final Four entry with the women's team. So, we shall be
excited with you about that prospect.
Dr. Lechtenberg, in addition to being Dean of Agriculture
at Purdue, has been the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on
Research that was mandated by the 1996 Farm Bill. He has
conducted those duties. We had a recent meeting with his panel,
which was very productive, I think, for many of us.
Dr. Lechtenberg.
STATEMENT OF VIC LECHTENBERG, CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EXTENSION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
ADVISORY BOARD AND DEAN OF
AGRICULTURE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE,
INDIANA
Dr. Lechtenberg. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the
opportunity to talk with you for a few minutes about the
activities of the National Agricultural Research Economics and
Education Advisory Board.
As you know well, the Board is a statutory committee
established by the FAIR Act in 1996 to help foster a successful
and healthy U.S. food and agriculture system by improving
USDA's research and education programs.
Then the Research Reform Act of 1998 added some additional
responsibilities. I am going to talk briefly about some of the
responsibilities of the Board and some of the recommendations
that we have made to the Secretary.
One of the responsibilities of the Board is to try to
engage in stakeholder input activities. We have, in our
recommendations, tried to reflect the collective interests of
stakeholders from whom we have heard around the nation.
The members on the board come to their role from 30
specific constituencies. They really all acted, I think, in a
manner that truly reflects the best interests of the entire
food, agriculture and natural resource system.
They have not been advocates solely for the interests of
their special constituencies, but have been effective
spokespersons for the entire research and education system.
This, in my opinion, has really enhanced the Board's
credibility and it has made it a pleasure to serve on the Board
as chair. It would have been less comfortable had they not been
such good statesmen.
The recommendations that I am going to talk briefly about
include several. The first three are recommendations that the
Board has made very recently to the Secretary of Agriculture
and previously, a few months, to the Transition Teams as the
new administration was coming into office.
They deal with the profile of agriculture and food system
programs. As you heard from others before the committee today
and I know in discussions with Dr. Borlaug and others, the
population of the world has quadrupled in the 20th Century and
it is really research and technology that have made it possible
for the world food system to feed that population.
We think that the challenges that we face in the next 50
years as we try to cope with environmental stewardship, with
global trade, with biotechnology, emerging diseases, food
safety, health issues of diverse populations and so on, are
challenges that are going to be at least as great as those that
this world food system has faced in the last 50 years.
As we face those challenges, we are convinced that public
sector research in agriculture does not appear to have the
level of national priority that we think it should have, at
least not if one judges it on the basis of funding levels that
have been appropriated.
The Board believes clearly that it should be a high
priority, and we further believe that USDA should lead the
efforts, to elevate the importance of agricultural research and
education on all fronts--with Federal agencies, with the
Congress, and with the public.
We think that there are phenomenal opportunities for
advances across the entire food and agricultural research
system and that this system merits that level of priority.
We further think that USDA, with its other agencies as
partners, should determine what these research priorities are
going to be. If USDA is setting these priorities and helping
determine the new technologies in advance, we are convinced
that they are going to have greater relevance to the world of
agriculture and food systems and adoption of those technologies
is going to be hastened.
We made a second recommendation in terms of communications.
We believe that a proactive public communications strategy is
essential to inform Americans about two things: One, the
important contributions that the agriculture and food system
makes to our nation's economy; and two, the importance of
agricultural research and technology to the underpinning of
that sector of our economy.
We think that is essential to help improve and strengthen
our production and market competitiveness and to help harness
these new technologies for the benefit of all society.
We further think that these communications responsibilities
ought to in some way be separated a bit from the day-to-day
public relations duties of the office of the Communications
Director and the Secretary of Agriculture's Office.
Our third recommendation in our transition statement had to
deal with partnerships. The partnership among research,
education, extension, and economics, and units of USDA and the
land-grant universities and colleges of agriculture is known
worldwide and respected. It should be strengthened.
We believe that further incentives are needed to expand
multi-institutional efforts to help foster interagency
cooperation and to build the strength of the 1890 and 1994
institutions.
In that context, Senator, the 2501 Program to Minority and
Small Farmers, we believe to be especially important.
In addition to those three items, we talked about peer
review. The Merit Review System in USDA really needs to address
two critical issues: One, are the endeavors that are undertaken
relevant to solving real problems? Two, is the science of high
quality?
The board believes that increasingly USDA's review
procedures recognize both of these components and it has
already been mentioned that the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems was, in our opinion, very well
managed in that regard.
Also, ARS has revamped its peer review system this past
year and a half and the Advisory Board has had significant
input into that process and has been working to review that
approach. We believe they have done a very good job and that
that system now is very credible and we want to commend them
for their efforts.
Based on our stakeholder symposia, the Advisory Board has
also made some specific recommendations for priority areas for
research and education. You have heard some of these words.
They include some things like: added value and new use
products, agricultural genomics, education and information
issues, emerging animal and plant issues including the
emergency preparedness and response capability, environmental
stewardship, food safety, human nutrition, communications and
outreach. All of these, we think are vitally important.
Then in 1998, the 1998 Reform Act added an additional
responsibility to the Board to review adequacy of funding. You
heard some things about that already today as well. The board
believes that when we have a sector that represents 15 percent
of the nation's economic output, but only 2 percent of the
nation's research R&D, that it is grossly underinvested in
research and technology.
We strongly support the efforts of the National Coalition
for Food and Agricultural Research to expand funding and to
expand broad stakeholder input into the program priorities.
We have also made recommendations to the Secretary with
respect to human resources. We believe that USDA is in a unique
position, with the various partnerships that it has, to enhance
human capital development and building and we encourage them to
do everything they can in that arena.
Other agency cooperation has also been on our radar screen
and we are encouraging USDA across all the REE missions as well
as other mission areas to do more to work cooperatively and
avoid duplication of effort.
As we think about the future and look at some targets of
opportunity, we think there should be more connections between
agriculture and the food, nutrition, and health arena; between
agriculture and the environmental protection and ecology;
biomaterials and bio-energy offer exciting opportunities; and
the preparedness and emergency issues and defenses against bio-
terrorism are critical.
Structural changes are causing upheavals across many rural
communities. We think there needs to be some empowerment of
rural communities in terms of developing local leadership that
USDA can help foster.
Advances in other fields of science and technology are
critical and we would like to see some greater effort on the
part of USDA to try to capture some of those possibilities and
opportunities as well.
There are several features that we think are unique to
agricultural research that I have outlined in my prepared
comments and I would be very happy to answer any questions
about those.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I want to thank
you and the committee for your support. I would also like to
take this opportunity to thank all of those across the country
who volunteered to serve on the Advisory Board and who have
come before the panel to offer their thoughts and comments in
the stakeholder symposia and you and other Members of Congress
who appeared before our session last week. We thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lechtenberg can be found in
the appendix on page 113.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Lechtenberg.
Dr. Phills, I note the careful thought you have given to
specific ways in which the 1890 universities could be
strengthened. I appreciate that. That is important information
for our committee as that portion of the Farm bill is
formulated.
Dr. Lechtenberg has picked up your thoughts with regard to
the Section 2501 situation and the broader Advisory Committee
recognized that. There appear to be very specific funding
difficulties with many of the 1890 colleges.
I just simply note without more editorial comment that I
appreciate your itemizing those as completely and thoughtfully
as you have because that will be helpful to us.
Mr. Phills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just want to be a
full partner.
The Chairman. You have noted historically that the 1862
Morrell Act got off on a different basis than the 1890 Act.
This doesn't necessarily bring about a whole set of
inequalities forever, but there are differences in the basis
here. We need to be cognizant of that.
Mr. Phills. Yes.
The Chairman. Dr. Chicoine, the 1998 Agriculture Research
Bill tried to implement a process to solicit input from those
who use agricultural research. I just wondered, can you give at
least some anecdotal or more systematic evidence as to how that
has proceeded in the colleges of which you have some knowledge?
Mr. Chicoine. Well, at least the institutions that I have
more knowledge of than others, in fact there is has been a
concerted effort to reach out again aggressively not only to
the organized structure within the food and agriculture sector
which are commodity groups and farm organizations, but as well
into the community-based systems we serve through our extension
programs.
In our own State of Illinois, there has been substantial
restructuring of the relationship that we have with our
customer base, our stakeholders, if you will. They have formed
coalitions that we interact with on a routine and frequent
basis that gets beyond the sort of the typical advisory
committee meetings that typically take place.
I know others across the country are changing their
relationships with the people that they work with in similar
ways.
The Chairman. You described those meetings more
graphically. Are they out in the field? Who are the people who
show up for meetings and interacting with professors such as
yourself and researchers?
Mr. Chicoine. Literally, all of the above. Essentially,
they include both on-campus experiences so that in fact we can
help people understand what it means to do research, both the
sort of basic research, but yet research that is applied to
target specific problems.
In our case, we actually have a working group structure,
five working groups that are focused on particular goals that
we work toward helping achieve. There are some 60 people that
are involved in each of the working groups. They meet quarterly
and interact about the activities that are underway, assessing
how well we are progressing in those activities as well as
talking about the big picture.
It is really important when we think about research and
education, the understanding of the particulars that are going
on in any particular project are key, but also having guidance
that is in fact more strategic and global is really important
for us as we think about the challenges we face and can address
those challenges with research and education.
The Chairman. Are any of these meetings covered by local
press? In other words, is there some greater broadcast of this
important dialogue and of research generally? Do local people
find it to be helpful?
Mr. Chicoine. Well, there is really interest in having
people communicate with the press about what is going on
because in fact the press likes to have the localized version
of what might take place within the context of a land grant
university's program.
Individuals that are involved in these working groups are
very active in communicating in a broad sense within their own
organization as well as through the media, about what is taking
place and the confidence that they have from the interaction
about the progress that we are making with them in addressing
some of the issues through research and education.
The Chairman. Dr. Lechtenberg, you have complimented, and I
think appropriately, the members of the Advisory Commission
that you have chaired. As you have mentioned, I had the
privilege of meeting with them just a short time ago, again, as
they came to some conclusions, at least, as we approach the
Farm bill.
Should we have a similar mandate in the next Farm bill,
that is, to set up such a commission. As we head down the road
again, we ought to have a broadly based group of leaders in
agriculture throughout the country, very diverse constituencies
sort of discussing this all the way along and then helping us
as we come along in the research part of it.
We had another group that took a look at the Farm bill as a
whole and we have had testimony from them in a public meeting
of the committee. But in this research effort, can you offer
some advice, and if not today, will you subsequently, as to how
we ought to approach some thoughts about the Research Advisory
Group?
Dr. Lechtenberg. Let me offer a couple and then follow-up
with maybe some more thoughtful comments. One of the important
elements, I think, and one of the important features that the
1996 and modifications in 1998, those two bills, started down a
path that is important is in terms of stakeholder engagement
and involvement.
We have had on the Advisory Board a National Stakeholder
Symposium each year after the organizational year of the Board
and we have used input from folks around the country to help
focus recommendations on what we thought to be some key areas.
Equally important, in my view, we have regional sessions.
We have had subgroups of the Board meet in each region of the
country about once a year and try to get outside this area and
bring in some thoughts from folks in some focused areas.
That is one of the things that I would suggest to the
committee that is vitally important, to maintain some high
level of pressure for the stakeholder engagement.
As I mentioned in my testimony, I believe there are two and
the Board believes there are two really important elements of
research review. One is the scientific quality which peer
scientists are perhaps best qualified to provide. Equally
important, and perhaps more important, we are making sure that
the efforts in which we are engaged focus on real issues to the
food, agriculture, and natural resource system.
Stakeholder engagement is critical to achieving that. I am
particularly pleased as I think about and look at the way the
National CFAR group is beginning to come together and be
organized that it is not just an advocacy group for the
funding, but it is going to be a strong stakeholder input
organization as well and help provide some of the direction for
priority setting that is important.
I think that is probably the most important issue that I
would flag to the committee's attention, but I will give a
little more thought to your question and followup.
The Chairman. Stimulated by this invitation, perhaps your
colleagues can pitch in and help you.
We appreciate very much each of you coming this morning and
offering your testimony. I think we have had a good hearing
with regard to research.
Again, it is the beginning of our consideration of that
chapter. I would invite all of you and those who have testified
before, as you have second and third thoughts, to help us,
because we have time to try to do a quality job in this very
vital area.
Having said that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 27, 2001
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.068
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 27, 2001
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7981.078
-