U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–981 PDF 2002

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

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLER, Georgia

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan

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)

(III)

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

Page

IV

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

(1)

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.

2

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

3

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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
4

munity 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.

5

CSREES accomplishes its mission by supporting research, education and extension activities through peer review, competitive research and education and education and extension grants, formulafunded 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

6

$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

7

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 agVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
8

riculture. 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, nongovernmental 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.

9

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.

10

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 biotypes. 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

11

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 biofuels, 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 biofuels as part of a broader program in bio-based products. That is

12

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.

13

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?’’

14

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.

15

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.

16

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

17

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, liveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
18

stock, 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.

19

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?

20

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, socalled 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.

21

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.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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 broadbased 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 comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
25

pete 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.

26

[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.

27

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.

28

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

29

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 supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
30

port 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

31

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.

32

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

33

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.

34

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, curiositydriven 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 quanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
35

tities 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

36

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?

37

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.

38

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

39

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.

40

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 crossdisciplinary 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.

41

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.

42

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 longterm 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.

43

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.

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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 landgrant universities and colleges of agriculture is known worldwide

and respected. It should be strengthened.

We believe that further incentives are needed to expand multiinstitutional 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

48

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 communitybased systems we serve through our extension programs.

49

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 discussVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 17, 2002 Jkt 077981 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 77981.TXT SAG1 PsN: SAG1
50

ing 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.]

(51)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 27, 2001

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

(121)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 27, 2001

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Æ