**Testimony of**

**Dr. Bruce A. McPheron**

**Associate Dean for Research and\
Director of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station**

**The Pennsylvania State University**

**Representing the**

**Board on Agriculture Assembly**

**National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges**

**Before the**

**Committee on Agriculture**

**Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research**

**United States House of Representatives**

**"Agriculture Research Programs"**

**May 10, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you this morning representing the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) to discuss our proposals
for the Research Title of the Farm Bill.

As you know, NASULGC has been working diligently over the past two years
to reach consensus within the land-grant community and among our
stakeholders about how the Federal-State Partnership[^1] in food,
agriculture, and natural resources research, education, and extension
should be updated and improved to meet the opportunities and challenges
of the 21st Century.

The land-grant system traces its roots to the First Morrill Act of 1862,
with major statutory authorities enacted in 1887, 1890, 1914, 1962,
1977, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Although we have a long history and many
proud traditions, we have looked hard at how we have been doing
business, listened to our critics, and embraced change.

Specifically, we have decided that future funding increases for both
fundamental research and integrated activities (projects that integrate
research with extension and/or education) should be distributed
primarily through competitively-awarded, peer-reviewed grants. However,
for reasons explained below, this [must]{.underline} [not]{.underline}
be done by reducing the funding streams that sustain the basic capacity
of U.S. Department of Agriculture's intramural research units,
land-grant universities, state agricultural experiment stations, or
cooperative extension offices. In fact, just the opposite is true; these
capacity programs need greater funding too!

**CREATE-21: A Bold and Comprehensive Plan**

CREATE-21 is, as I said, the result of a deliberative process to rethink
the basic structure of the Federal-State Partnership that guides,
manages, and funds America's food, agriculture, and natural resources
research, education, and public outreach. The acronym we've chosen
stands for "Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching Excellence for
the 21st Century," and we believe that ours is the best plan to
accomplish that objective.

CREATE-21 originated, in part, as a response to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) efforts over the last three years to eliminate entirely or
redirect to competitive mechanisms a portion of appropriated research
funds flowing through the USDA to state agricultural experiment
stations, forestry schools, and veterinary medicine schools.[^2]

However, CREATE-21 is much more than just a response to OMB criticism.
It is a bold and comprehensive plan to bring together in a
[sin]{.underline}g[le]{.underline}
[or]{.underline}g[anization]{.underline} the many research agencies,
offices, programs, projects, personnel, and facilities currently spread
across USDA and more tightly integrate this "intramural" research
capacity with the "extramural" research, teaching, and extension
capacity within land-grant universities and related institutions. (See
Fig. 1, pg. 7.)

The other fundamental purpose of CREATE-21 is to double USDA funding for
intramural and extramural food, agricultural, and natural resource
research, teaching, and extension programs. This element is included
within CREATE-21 because there are [dozens]{.underline} of critical and
urgent national problems that will [not]{.underline} be solved in an
acceptable timeframe unless USDA science program levels are
substantially and immediately increased. (See Fig. 2, pg. 7.)

**CREATE-21: Details and Benefits**

Food, agricultural, and natural resources research, extension, and
education programs are spread over four USDA agencies: (1) Agriculture
Research Service (ARS); (2) Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES); (3) Economic Research Service (ERS); and (4)
Forest Service R&D (USFS R&D). As a result, there is frequent
programmatic duplication, no "lead-agency" to address critical national
issues, and a lack of clear and simple integration across agencies.

CREATE-21 addresses the shortcomings of this situation by integrating
ARS, CSREES, ERS, and Forest Service R&D (including their functions,
personnel, programs, and activities) into a new organization to be
called the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture (NIFA).[^3]

-   NIFA will be an independent agency reporting directly to the
    Secretary of Agriculture and headed by a Director who is an
    acknowledged expert. The Director will be nominated by the
    President, confirmed by the Senate for a single six-year term, and
    guided by a Council of Advisors.

-   The Director and his team will manage a broad and integrated
    portfolio of programs organized by problem/solution areas and will
    include six national institutes:

\(1\) Economic Opportunities in Agriculture and Natural Resources;

\(2\) Nutrition and Health;

\(3\) Rural and Urban Community Development;

\(4\) Natural Resources and Environment;

\(5\) Food Safety and Agricultural Security; and

\(6\) Families, Youth, and Communities.

-   NIFA's "competitive" programs will be open to all qualified
    universities/investigators and will be aimed at solving problems of
    pressing multistate, national, or international significance.

-   NIFA's "capacity" programs will maintain and expand the intramural
    research capabilities within USDA (e.g. ARS, ERS, and USFS R&D) and
    the research, extension, education, and international capabilities
    within land-grant universities and related institutions.

-   Finally, NIFA will have special funding provisions to enhance the
    capacity and competitiveness of the 1890, 1994, small 1862
    land-grant institutions, and related agricultural colleges.

Consolidating ARS, CSREES, ERS, and Forest Service R&D into
[one]{.underline} [cohesive]{.underline}
[or]{.underline}g[anization]{.underline} will, we believe, have many
advantages:

-   Program integration will be strengthened by integrating the research
    capacity of ARS, ERS, and Forest Service R&D and aligning these
    intramural resources more closely with the research, education, and
    extension capacity of America's land-grant universities and related
    institutions.

-   Budgetary efficiency will be improved through elimination of
    duplicative programs and activities and a streamlined bureaucracy.

-   Organizational flexibility will be increased through a variable
    structure organized around six major problem-solution areas (the six
    institutes listed above).

-   Stakeholder participation will be enhanced through a Council of
    Advisors and other mechanisms for improved and increased input at
    all levels.

In addition to the organizational elements described above, CREATE-21
envisions increased funding (compared to current agency baselines) for
NIFA's competitive and capacity programs.\
If CREATE-21 is enacted and fully funded, after seven years:

-   Competitive funding will reach \$2.1 billion per year, with
    fundamental research constituting\
    55 percent of the total and integrated programs the remaining 45
    percent.

-   Capacity funding will reach \$2.9 billion per year, enabling
    intramural USDA research and extramural programs at land-grant
    universities and related institutions to maintain and extend their
    base operations.

-   The competitive/capacity ratio --- considering existing funds (\$2.7
    billion) and new funds\
    (\$2.7 billion) --- would be 42 percent competitive and 58 percent
    capacity funding. Currently, the ratio is approximately 10 percent
    competitive and 90 percent capacity.

However, to "jump start" the funding enhancement program, \$200 million
per year in mandatory funding would flow immediately to NIFA from the
statutory authority for the Initiative for Future Agricultural and Food
Systems (IFAFS) program.

**Urgent National Example: Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder**

Mr. Chairman, the land-grant community realizes that CREATE-21 is
ambitious in its objectives and scope. We have coalesced behind this
proposal because we believe that neither the status quo nor halfway
measures are acceptable. To illustrate why a comprehensive approach ---
dealing with both organizational structure and funding issues --- is
absolutely necessary, let me present a single, detailed example[^4] of
an urgent national problem that would be better addressed if CREATE-21
were enacted.

The Associated Press ran a story recently that appeared in hundreds of
newspapers across the country relating to the sudden and wholesale
disappearance of honey bee colonies. This problem, which has been called
"Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD) is well known to us at Penn State and
to me, personally, as I am an entomologist whose research has focused on
insect genetics, including honey bee genetics. It is a problem with
enormous implications:

-   Honey bees pollinate \$15 billion in U.S. crops each year.

-   Major crops that depend on honey bee pollination for 90 to 100
    percent of their fruit set include apples, blueberries, cherries,
    almonds, cucumbers, and squash.

-   Crops that depend upon honey bee pollination for significant
    fruit/vegetable production include asparagus, avocados, broccoli,
    cantaloupe, celery, citrus, cranberries, melons, peaches, pears, and
    strawberries.

-   Feed crops that depend upon honey bee pollination include alfalfa
    and soybeans.

Beekeepers have experienced honey bee losses for many years.[^5]
However, in late 2006, beekeepers reported sudden, catastrophic losses
of colonies on a scale that they had not previously experienced.
Moreover, the causal agent of these losses was not readily apparent to
beekeepers or university and ARS researchers.

The problem is widespread. According to our best information, CCD
symptoms have been reported in 24 states, Canada, and Europe. In
addition, CCD affects both migratory colonies (those that are moved from
region to region to service the pollination needs of commercial
agriculture) [and]{.underline} colonies that remain in one location
throughout the year.

A variety of potential explanations exist for CCD. Researchers are
examining mite load, disease presence (both known diseases and new
pathogens), pesticide effects on bees, the impact of transportation on
bee colony health, the health of imported honey bees, the contents of
imported royal jelly, and the impact of reusing old beekeeping equipment
on CCD incidence.

The explanation for CCD is likely to be a complex mixture of factors:

-   Mites have been a major factor in honey bee health for the past 15
    years. Work at Penn State, the Pennsylvania Department of
    Agriculture, and ARS is examining collapsed and healthy colonies to
    assess the impact of mite presence in the syndrome.

-   A variety of pathogens --- viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoans
    --- have been identified in bees from collapsed hives. Work at Penn
    State is now focusing on comparing healthy and collapsed hives to
    look for patterns in which pathogens might be associated
    specifically with collapsed colonies.

-   Methods for analyzing pesticide levels in hive compounds (wax,
    honey, and pollen) are under development so that healthy and
    collapsed colonies can be compared. This work, begun at Penn State,
    has expanded dramatically, with cooperation from USDA, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, and pesticide producers.

***What does this problem have to do with CREATE-21?***

***1. It underscores the vital link between research and extension.***
CCD was first reported by a stakeholder (beekeeper) through the
Cooperative Extension System at Penn State. The close link between
extension and research permitted us to immediately design research
experiments to address this emerging problem. Without such a
relationship, our response would have been greatly delayed as the data
slowly made their way from the field to the laboratory. Thus, it is
important for Congress to increase funding for both research
[and]{.underline} extension and thereby stop the slow, steady erosion
(by inflation) of capacity funding programs such as Hatch (research) and
Smith-Lever (extension).

***2. It points out the enduring value of capacity funding.*** The Hatch
and Smith-Lever programs provide Penn State and other land-grant
universities with support for the world-class laboratories, scientists,
and staff necessary to tackle urgent national problems. Our immediate
response to CCD was to initiate research and successfully leverage
federal capacity funds with monies from external funding sources.
Without Hatch and Smith-Lever funds, we would [still]{.underline} be
raising money and recruiting scientists instead of moving ahead with
this time-critical research!

***3. It demonstrates the significance of a [national]{.underline}
network of state agricultural experiment stations and cooperative
extension units.*** While Penn State is at the forefront of the CCD
effort, we are collaborating with colleagues in dozens of states. Yes,
some of the answers to the CCD riddle may come from Pennsylvania, but
they may just as likely come --- in whole or part --- from research in
Florida, Maine, or Montana!

***4. It illustrates the need for greater integration among USDA
agencies and the Department's external partners.*** Both ARS and CSREES
have national program leaders for "bees and pollination" and both
agencies sponsor research in this area (with the ARS work performed
internally and the CSREES research at land-grant and other
universities). While there is ad hoc [coordination]{.underline} among
the various entities, there is no clear and simple
[inte]{.underline}g[ration]{.underline} as would be the case under
CREATE-21.

***5. It shows the importance of fundamental research.*** Recently, the
honey bee genome was sequenced (mapped) and we now know that honey bees
do not have the normal complement of genes to eliminate toxins from
their systems or genes to fight immune disease. Armed with this
information, researchers are able to narrow the focus of their current
investigations and thereby produce results (hopefully) in a more
expeditious manner.

***In summary, CCD is a good example of what we are promoting under
CREATE-21: (1) enhanced capacity funding; (2) increased funding for
fundamental research; and (3) greater integration among USDA agencies
and better coordination with the Department's external partners.***

**Concluding Remarks**

***CREATE-21 Compared to the Other Leading Plans.*** As described above,
CREATE-21 addresses both the organizational and funding issues that this
subcommittee must tackle as you craft the Research Title of the 2007
Farm Bill. The two other major proposals before you have much to
recommend them, but as the attached document illustrates, neither
represent a truly comprehensive approach. Now, this is not to say the
other proposals are bad; they are both sound and would serve to improve
upon the system now\
in existence. They are just not as all-encompassing as CREATE-21.

The leaders of America's land-grant universities believe that this may
be the only near-term opportunity to reinvigorate all of the components
of the Federal-State Partnership. Therefore, we urge you to create an
organizational structure and funding framework that will serve our
stakeholders over the next 50 years. Collectively, if we fail to adjust
to new economic and environmental conditions, then we will surely fail
in our mutual responsibility to provide America's farmers, ranchers,
foresters, families, and children with the service, science, and
education they so rightly deserve.

***Other Farm Bill Recommendations.*** Mr. Chairman, NASULGC's Farm Bill
Committee has developed a number of other proposals to improve the
operation and effectiveness of Farm Bill programs and authorities beyond
CREATE-21. These include suggestions to further enhance the
contributions that our research, education, and extension programs make
through the Farm Bill's research, energy, conservation, nutrition, rural
development, trade, and other titles. These were developed by consensus
over the past year, and include provisions to improve research,
extension, and teaching at 1890 universities, Tribal colleges, Insular
Area institutions, as well as traditional land-grant colleges. We will
be pleased to submit draft legislative language to achieve these goals
to you or to the committee staff. We urge your favorable consideration
of these proposals as well as CREATE-21.

***Conclusion.*** On behalf of the Board on Agriculture Assembly of the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges let
me thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. We look
forward to working closely with you in the weeks ahead to craft a
Research Title to the 2007 Farm Bill that seizes the opportunity to
update and improve both the structure of the USDA science apparatus and
the mechanisms by which the Federal-State Partnership funds food,
agricultural, and natural resources research, teaching, and extension.

\# \# \#

Figure 1:

  --------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------
  Current Situation                      Future Situation

                                         

  From Coordination...                   to Integration
  --------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------

Figure 2:

  --------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------
  Current Situation                      Future Situation

                                         

  From Mostly Capacity...                to a Balanced Portfolio
  --------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------

[^1]: The unique partnership arrangement between the Federal Government
    and the governments of the several States is described in Section
    1409A (a) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
    Teaching Act of 1977 (as amended).

[^2]: OMB's objections stem not from the quality of the research work
    performed --- after all, these programs routinely garner high OMB
    program evaluation scores --- but rather from the fact that the
    funds are distributed by statutory formulas and not competitive
    processes.

[^3]: "NIFA" as included in the CREATE-21 proposal refers to the new
    organization to be formed from ARS, CSREES, ERS, and USFS R&D. Under
    the "Danforth" proposal, "NIFA" is a [new]{.underline} stand-alone
    agency reporting to the Secretary of Agriculture and providing
    fundamental research grants.

[^4]: Although this example focuses on the honey bee colony collapse
    disorder, there are many other problem areas that could illustrate
    our case (such as avian influenza, human health and obesity,
    biofuels/bioproducts, international competitiveness, animal health
    and disease, climate change, sustainable agriculture, etc.).

[^5]: A variety of diseases and, more recently, two species of parasitic
    mites have resulted in death of colonies and reduction of surviving
    honey bees within surviving hives.