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

35–042 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–42

INVESTING IN OUR NATION’S FUTURE

THROUGH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 7, 2007

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

TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

MARK HALVERSON, Majority Staff Director 

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk 

MARTHA SCOTT POINDEXTER, Minority Staff Director 

VERNIE HUBERT, Minority General Counsel 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

HEARING(S):

Investing in our Nation’s Future Through Agricultural Research ...................... 1

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS 

Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., a U.S. Senator from Missouri .................................. 3

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia ......................................... 2

Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................ 5

Panel I 

Buchanan, Gale, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC .................................................... 6

Panel II 

Armstrong, Jeff, Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan .................................................. 21

Danforth, William, Chancellor Emeritus, Vice Chairman of the Board of 

Trustees, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri ..................................... 23

Leshner, Alan, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC ............................................................. 19

Thicke, Francis, Radiance Dairy Farm, Fairfield, Iowa ....................................... 25

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Cochran, Hon. Thad ......................................................................................... 40

Crapo, Hon. Mike ............................................................................................. 42

Grassley, Hon. Charles E. ................................................................................ 43

Salazar, Hon. Ken ............................................................................................ 47

Armstrong, Jeff ................................................................................................. 48

Buchanan, Gale ................................................................................................ 58

Danforth, William ............................................................................................. 64

Leshner, Alan .................................................................................................... 69

Thicke, Francis ................................................................................................. 80

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Harkin, Hon. Tom: 

Written questions for Gale Buchanan ............................................................ 90

Cochran, Hon. Thad: 

Written questions for all panelists .................................................................. 93

Crapo, Hon. Mike: 

Written questions for Gale Buchanan ............................................................ 94

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L.: 

Written questions for Jeff Armstrong ............................................................. 95

Written questions for Gale Buchanan ............................................................ 95

Buchanan, Gale: 

‘‘National Institute for Food and Agriculture, a Proposal’’ ........................... 96

Page

IV

American Society for Nutrition, prepared statement ........................................... 163

American Society of Plant Biologists, prepared statement .................................. 168

American Society for Horticultural Science, prepared statement ....................... 174

Council of Scientific Society Presidents, prepared statement .............................. 175

National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, prepared statement .... 182

National Corn Growers Association, prepared statement .................................... 188

National Wheat Improvement Committee, National Association of Wheat 

Growers and North American Millers’ Association, prepared statement ........ 189

(1)

INVESTING IN OUR NATION’S FUTURE 

THROUGH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Harkin, Stabenow, Salazar, Casey, Chambliss, 

and Thune. 

Also present: Senator Bond. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

Chairman HARKIN. The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will come to order. 

By the way, I was just notified that the votes we were supposed 

to have were moved to this afternoon, so it looks like we will be 

OK for our hearing this morning. We had three votes scheduled at 

10 o’clock, and I think they have been moved. 

Today’s hearing will examine an often overlooked yet vital portion of the farm bill, and that is the research title. This provides 

a wide range of benefits to our society, from agricultural producers 

to consumers. Every kind of research related to food and agriculture is supported by the farm bill, from nutrition to food safety 

to energy, plant and animal diseases. So much of what we seek in 

our Nation’s future depends on the quality and quantity of our ag 

research, extension, and education programs. 

I believe we take agricultural research for granted because many 

of us here in the United States take our food supply kind of for 

granted. Every fruit, vegetable, and cut of meat the public eats has 

a research story behind it, whether it is a story about improving 

its nutrition, safety, flavor, or production. The products of agricultural research are literally consumed by Americans every day of 

their lives, and I hope to ensure with this year’s farm bill that 

every ounce of renewable energy that someday every American will 

use will have a research story behind it, too. And I will be asking 

a lot of questions about research and energy in our hearing this 

morning. 

Ag research has already produced countless success stories. We 

continue looking to it to guide our food production, our eating habVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35042.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
2

its, and now, again, our energy production. Because of agricultural 

research, we know that particular foods contain anti-cancer compounds. We have developed crop varieties that are resistant to particular diseases. And we know that conservation is important to 

keeping farmland productive. 

The list could go on and on. The successes are many. But I think 

it is safe to say the fact that we have the most abundant supply 

of food, the biggest variety of food, and the cheapest food available 

to our consumers of anywhere in the world really tells the story of 

agricultural research. 

But America’s investment in ag research, extension, and education has fallen behind. That fact is clear when we compare agricultural research funding with other non-defense research and development funding. 

For example, I sit on another Committee that has authorization 

over the NIH, and the National Institutes of Health experienced a 

doubling of their funding in a 5–year period, from 1998 to 2002, a 

very strong bipartisan effort with the White House to get that 

done, encompassing two administrations. 

In comparison, funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

research, education, and extension programs has remained almost 

flat in inflation-adjusted dollars over the past two decades. 

Now, biomedical research, of course, is important and saves lives 

every day. No doubt about it. But agricultural research does the 

same, and when its vast potential is unleashed, the effects are profound. Again, we only need to look at the work of Dr. Norman 

Borlaug to see the millions of lives saved by agricultural research. 

So I look forward to our witnesses today in the hearing and the 

questions and answers that we will have, and now I will turn to 

our distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Chambliss. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Harkin, and as always, I appreciate your holding a hearing on such a 

critically important matter to agriculture and the various proposals 

being presented today and look forward to our discussion on them. 

The U.S. investment in agricultural research, extension, and education programs has been one of the primary reasons for the great 

productivity of our farmers and ranchers over the past century. 

This investment also has helped farmers protect and enhance the 

natural resource base of this country. It is hard to imagine how we 

would have survived and reversed the damage caused by the Dust 

Bowl years without research, extension, and conservation programs. We need to continue to invest in our research institutions 

and programs to ensure U.S. farmers and ranchers can meet the 

growing demand for food, fuel, and fiber, while also protecting the 

environment. 

Some believe we are at a crossroads for U.S. agricultural research systems. Stakeholders are asking if the current structure 

and funding mechanisms will work as well for us in the future as 

they have in the past. I thank the individuals and organizations 

that have made recommendations. Their proposals cover a wide 

range of policy options. I understand the time and effort it takes 

3

to develop a serious proposal and realize that by suggesting something new, criticism can follow. I appreciate that this discussion is 

taking place and encourage all stakeholders to engage in this issue 

and work with this Committee to ensure our agricultural research 

system can meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

And let me say, Mr. Chairman, our first witness today is a longtime dear personal friend of mine, a guy who spent part of his academic career in Iowa, and he wandered out there but found his way 

back to Georgia. 

Dr. Gale Buchanan was Dean of the College of Agricultural 

Sciences and Environmental Works at the University of Georgia for 

many years, and in that capacity, boy, what a fan of research he 

has been and a guy who just devoted a lot of time and effort to ensuring that funds flowed not just to the University of Georgia, 

where we have an outstanding Department of Research, but that 

the funding our land grant colleges around the country was made 

available at least at the level that we are seeing it. So I am very 

pleased that he is here this morning to share some thoughts with 

us. In his new position now, he is officially the Under Secretary for 

Research, Education, and Economics, but he is a great American 

and a great friend. He actually lives down in my part of the world. 

He has a farm over in Cook County, Georgia, which adjoins my 

home county. 

So I am very pleased that Gale is here to share some thoughts 

and ideas with us this morning. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Chambliss. 

Now, for the purpose of a statement but also I know Senator 

Bond has a schedule he has to make this morning, and also for the 

purposes of an introduction of someone who is going to be on the 

second panel, Senator Bond. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Harkin 

and Senator Chambliss. Thank you for holding this critically important hearing on agricultural research and for giving me this opportunity to introduce a dear friend, a distinguished scientist, Dr. 

William Danforth. I will submit his very lengthy and distinguished 

resume for the record, but I think all of the people from the academic and science communities who are here with us and, I trust, 

members of this Committee and staff know about his great record. 

I apologize because if I were controlling my schedule, I would be 

here for the entire hearing because it is that important. Unfortunately, my very attentive staff has scheduled me back to back for 

the rest of the morning, and I will not be able to do it. I will submit 

Dr. Danforth’s resume, but one of his most recent contributions to 

the science community was his service as Chairman of the Research, Education, and Economics Task Force, which was authorized in the 2002 farm bill. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, on all 

these things we worked over the years in this Committee and in 

the Appropriations Committee to push this vital subject of ag research, which you so eloquently described. 

The Secretary of Agriculture appointed five other members from 

different land grant institutions, the President of the BBI and a 

4

representative from Watershed Agricultural Council, to review and 

evaluate the merits of establishing one or more national institutes 

focused on disciplines important to food and agricultural sciences 

and then report the findings to Congress and the USDA. 

The task force report to Congress entitled ‘‘The National Institute for Food and Agriculture,’’ or NIFA, as I understand it is appropriately pronounced, highlights the challenges, opportunities, 

models, recommendations, and the need for action. The challenges, 

quite simply, are that American agriculture faces serious challenges, including increasing foreign competition, diseases of plants 

and animals, calls for greater food safety, demands for better diets 

that promote health and avoid obesity, the need to protect and enhance the environment, demands for renewable sources of energy 

and new sources of domestic energy and biodegradable products, 

and not the least, world hunger. This provides tremendous opportunities for America’s agricultural community. Advances in the life 

sciences and genetics, proteomics, cell and molecular biology provide the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations. 

Fortunately, the National Institutes of Health and the National 

Science Foundation have long and successful experience in fostering that research, which has led to spectacular innovations in 

health and other fields. Especially effective have been programs 

that allow scientists to compete for grants and fund proposals on 

the basis of scientific merit and national need. These lessons have 

not been applied to the field of agriculture. 

On a personal note, I worked with you when I had the privilege 

of chairing the subcommittee that funds the National Science 

Foundation, and while you and Senator Specter were able to double 

the funding for NIH, we have not been able to get NSF funding any 

substantial increase. I have been blasted by the President’s Science 

Adviser, and I pointed out to him that OMB has not put any money 

in, and we did not have the money to increase the NSF budget. But 

about 10 years ago, I did a wild and foolish thing, which gained me 

a lot of scorn and obloquy from the scientific community by directing that the NSF expand its genetic engineering research and 

begin mapping the plant genome of commercial commodities, beginning with maize. Fortunately, Dr. Mary Clutter, a cell biologist, 

took that program and made it into a major program in NSF. So 

we sneaked one into the NSF budget, and the results have been 

spectacular and I think show what can be done for agriculture if 

we can adopt the kind of program that is laid out in NIFA. 

The task force that was chaired by Dr. Danforth recommended 

a National Institute for Food and Agriculture. To be successful in 

promoting modern life sciences research, NIFA will have to develop 

its own culture and its own relations with Congress that are similar to those of NIH and NSF. NIFA should not replace the traditional research programs of the USDA that remain valuable for 

many reasons, including the practical challenges of making sure 

that advances from fundamental research are adapted to local and 

regional needs and that we can have applied research and development. And I say that to keep my friends from land grant colleges 

and agricultural institutions off my back. It is not to replace—you 

gentlemen have heard me all right. The proposed program would 

grow in cost hopefully over a 5–year period, eventually reaching an 

5

annual expenditure of $1 billion, which, frankly, is not much given 

the potential in this field. 

The National Academy of Science and others have somewhat 

similar recommendations. For over three decades, the interim challenges to American agriculture have become more acute and the 

scientific opportunities have grown. The task force concluded that 

funding for fundamental research is woefully inadequate. Other nations are making investments in agricultural science with a goal of 

competing more effectively in the world markets. The time for complacency is over. The task force members have faith that America’s 

response will be appropriate, and I hope that with your leadership, 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Chambliss, we can make Congress take 

the necessary steps. 

Personally, I think Dr. Danforth and the members of the task 

force for their commitment to science, and particularly to the future of agricultural research. And I look forward to working very 

closely with you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, to introduce 

the NIFA bill in the 110th Congress. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Bond, and I 

understand that you have other things you have to do. 

Senator BOND. Unfortunately, I do. 

Chairman HARKIN. Senator Salazar, did you have a brief opening 

statement that you would like to make? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR. I have a statement that I will submit for the 

record, Mr. Chairman, and let me also just say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I very much appreciate your willingness to come out to 

Colorado and to hold a hearing on the farm bill. The people are 

Colorado are excited to have you there. We will be doing beyond 

just a farm hearing, also looking at the National Renewable Energy 

Lab for about 3 hours, and I know that is such an important part 

of the bipartisan effort here that we will see on biofuels in Title 

IX in the farm bill. 

So we are excited to have you there, and we look forward to 

working with you on all the issues of the farm bill, including the 

issue of research, which is so much at the foundation of the future 

of Colorado. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARKIN. How much snow will we have before we get 

there? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. It seems like every time I look at the weather 

map, you are getting more snow in Colorado. Of course, the ski 

country has been great, I guess, right? 

Senator SALAZAR. Well, we have had up to 4 feet, but most of it 

is gone. So I think the skies will be blue, and it will be a welcoming 

time for you there. 

Chairman HARKIN. Very good. 

Well, we welcome Dr. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at USDA. Again, as my good 

friend Saxby Chambliss said, Dr. Buchanan earned most of his degrees in Florida, and then came to Iowa State, and got his Ph.D. 

6

at Iowa State. We are very proud of you, proud of your involvement 

with Iowa and just proud of your whole career, Dr. Buchanan. 

Your statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety, 

and if I could ask you to sum it up, I think we would much rather 

get into kind of a colloquy with you on some of these issues. But, 

welcome, Dr. Buchanan, and please proceed. If you can sum it up 

in 5 minutes or so, I would sure appreciate it. Then we will just 

have—like I say, we will just talk to each other. 

STATEMENT OF GALE BUCHANAN, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you very much. Chairman Harkin and 

Ranking Member Chambliss and other distinguished members of 

the Committee, this is the first time I have been back before the 

Committee since my confirmation this past May, and it is a real 

pleasure to be here this morning to talk about the Department of 

Agriculture’s research, education, and economics area, and particularly about Title VII of the 2007 farm bill proposals that were recently released. 

In my 40–plus years in agricultural research and administration, 

I have never seen such exciting times in agriculture, and that is 

a very important statement. We are in the early stages of a major 

change in agriculture. I do not think it is anything like we have 

seen in 150 years. We have gone from the mission of producing 

food, feed, and fiber to a responsibility and a mission for producing 

food, feed, fiber, and fuel, or energy, and that is a major undertaking. 

Along with this great challenge and exceedingly high expectations are unparalleled needs for research, education, and extension 

programs to support this effort. Science has served us as a vitally 

important foundation for our Nation’s agricultural system. This 

systems provides this Nation and much of the world with the need 

for the necessities of life. 

While there has been excellent success in the past, I think we 

must build an even stronger foundation to maintain our leadership 

in agriculture for the future. This is imperative if this Nation’s agricultural system is to continue to be a world leader and not be severely crippled by the ever increasing problems that we have in agriculture, from pest threats, changing world markets, droughts, 

and other natural impacts that always seem to affect agriculture. 

The administration’s Title VII of the 2007 farm bill proposals 

provide the organizational structure and specific funding of particular high-priority initiatives for meeting the immediate and 

long-term scientific needs of agriculture. 

While the organizational structure of our programs has served us 

well in the past, we have a responsibility to strive continuously to 

improve their efficiency and effectiveness. However, I think we 

must make some changes to ensure our success in the future. 

Looking to the future, the administration proposes the creation 

of the Research, Education, and Extension Service, REES. This 

would be through the merger of the Agricultural Research Service, 

ARS, and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This new agency would be under the leadership of a 

7

chief scientist who would have overall responsibility for both intramural and extramural research efforts within the Department. All 

current formula funding authorities, including those for Hatch, 

Smith-Lever, McIntire-Stennis, 1890, 1994, Hispanic Serving Institutions would remain in effect. Duplication of effort between intramural and extramural programs would be minimized while better 

identifying and utilizing comparative strengths of USDA’s in-house 

capacity as well as USDA’s university partners and other cooperators in this great effort. Having a single national program staff 

would greatly facilitate stakeholder interaction. Another part of the 2007 farm bill proposals is the call for $50 

million in annual mandatory spending for the creation of the Agricultural Bioenergy and Bio-based Products Research Initiative to 

enhance the production and conversion of biomass to renewable 

fuels and bio-products. This new addition would focus research and 

development efforts on two primary objectives: the first is producing biomass in a sustainable way; and, second, to convert that 

into biofuels or other useful bio-products. 

Since the sun is our most reliable source of energy, and agriculture is in the business of converting the sun’s energy into things 

useful to man, it is absolutely clear to me that agriculture will play 

a vital role in this Nation achieving a greater degree of energy 

independence for the future. 

Another part of the administration’s proposal is a recommendation for the establishment of a Specialty Crops Research Initiative 

supported by $100 million of annual mandatory funding. During 

the farm bill listening sessions, we repeatedly heard the call for an 

increased investment in research for specialty crops. Specialty 

crops comprise a substantial part of the total crop portfolio of 

American agriculture, and they also play a critical role in providing 

a balanced nutritional diet for all Americans. Some of the specific 

issues to be addressed would include but not be limited to genetics, 

genomics, bringing new varieties, food safety, quality, production, 

efficiency, mechanization, et cetera. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee regarding USDA’s farm bill proposals to 

strengthen the Nation’s agricultural research, extension, and education programs. I look forward to hearing your comments and responding to your questions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buchanan can be found on page 

58 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Buchanan, and I 

will just start off here and take 5 or 6 minutes, and then we will 

go around. I think we will probably have a couple of rounds. 

First of all, Dr. Buchanan, one of the things about having been 

here as long as some of us have been, we remember things. In 

1977, I was on the House Ag Committee. In fact, I was on the subcommittee that dealt with research on the House side. And the 

then-Secretary of Agriculture, Bob Bergland, from Minnesota, Secretary Bergland, in response to, I think, some congressional input, 

did a similar thing. They created the Science and Education Administration in 1977. It consolidated ARS, the Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension Service. About 4 years later, 

the Science and Education Administration was dissolved because it 

8

created another level of bureaucracy for stakeholders, and that is 

what we heard. Again, I was still in the House at the time. We 

heard from our land grant colleges, we heard from others, who said 

the Science and Education Administration was just another layer 

of bureaucracy, and that they were not getting through like they 

had in the past. And so, the whole thing was dissolved. 

Well, it sounds like what you are creating here is just like what 

was created in 1977. So how is USDA’s current proposal to combine 

the same elements again, how is that different than what occurred 

in the Science and Education Administration in 1977? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, Senator, I think that what we are proposing is the merger of just ARS and CSREES. This would be accomplished by having only a single agency that would have responsibility for the research programs in the Department. Another very 

key part of that effort would be to have a single national program 

staff. At the present time, we basically have two research organizations within the Department—one in-house, our intramural programs; one extramural, or programs that support the land grant 

universities and other universities that have agricultural programs. 

So I would see this as certainly quite a bit different from what 

you have mentioned that occurred in 1977. I am aware that there 

were changes made later that combined the Extension Service and 

the Cooperative State Research Service at the time which brought 

all of the programs that support the land grant universities together. But basically I think that what we are proposing would be 

a more simplified effort. It certainly would facilitate stakeholders 

from making contact for research. Rather than going to two separate agencies, they would go to one national program staff. And I 

think it would be beneficial from that perspective . 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, I would like to take a look at it. I would 

like to just see what the differences are and why this proposal will 

be better than what we did back in the seventies. I don’t know the 

details of your proposal from what you’ve said, but perhaps it will 

become more clear when my staff and I review the proposal on 

paper. I’m sure your proposal has its merits, but I do remember 

when we consolidated programs in the past and it did not work out 

so well. 

Can I just ask you a couple questions about formula funds, Dr. 

Buchanan? We have several formulas under which USDA distributes research, education, and extension funding, and maybe the 

question I am going to ask, you cannot answer now, but I would 

appreciate it if you would answer it for the record, at least, anyway. 

What are all the specific factors in each of these formulas? In 

other words, what data is plugged into each of the formulas? And, 

again, let me just tell you what I am getting at here. I understand 

the value of formula funds for what is commonly called ‘‘capacity 

building.’’ I have been generally supportive of that over the years. 

But the formulas that we rely on go back a century or more, and 

I am just wondering if maybe we ought to look at the formulas we 

use. 

How long have these formulas been in place? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Sir, I honestly do not know how long they have 

been in place, but I do know that they go back a long way. 

9

Chairman HARKIN. Some to the 1800’s. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, the Hatch Act of 1887 is what created the 

experiment station system, and I would assume that that is—some 

of them go back that far. But I think the thing regarding funding 

mechanisms, obviously we employ a number of different mechanisms for extramural programs through CSREES, and obviously it 

is common knowledge that the most popular way of funding in the 

future is probably going to be through the competitive process. This 

has certainly been the story that you are hearing more and more 

every day. But, clearly, there are roles for the formulas to play. In 

fact, the administration supports a balanced portfolio. 

Originally, when the Hatch Act was passed in 1887, the formula 

money was supposed to be for experiment station directors in every 

State to address specific locals needs in that State. But over the 

years, things have changed a good bit, so that we are a much more 

integrated society now, and on problems we coordinate more. But 

there is still a role to play. 

So I think the approach of the administration in taking a balanced portfolio of looking at different ways of funding research, certainly the NRI is a wonderful competitive program that has standards equal to any other agency here in town. My point, I guess, is 

that it takes different ways of funding research. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, again, would you supply for us—and 

maybe my staff can get this information from your office—just the 

names and purposes of the several formulas under which USDA 

distributes research, education, and extension funding; what are 

the specific factors in each of these formulas; in other words, what 

is the data that is plugged into the formulas. 

Now, again, as you know, when the land grant schools were set 

up, the formulas were based upon the rural population in each 

State. But as you well know, our land grant colleges reach out way 

beyond State borders. You yourself came from Florida to go to Iowa 

State and then went back to Georgia. I mean, they blend all over 

the place. Stuff that is done in Georgia I am sure affects us up our 

way, and what is done at Iowa State affects ag research in Georgia. 

So this old idea that is somehow bounded by rural population in 

States seems to me to be an old system that demands further examination. I must ask, is it time to re-examine how the formulas, 

right now as they stand, to meet the challenges of the day? You 

mentioned that the administration proposed a balanced program. I 

understand that. But just creating a balanced program does not, 

examine the underlying assumptions made in the formulas, and I 

am wondering if it is not time to take a look at just that. Any response on this issue? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. One of the things that I would say is I certainly agree that different approaches to funding research is important. One of the things that we are doing is the development of the 

multistate competitive program using formula funds to encourage 

States to work together, because you are absolutely right, one of 

the great strengths of our system is the cooperative nature that we 

have by working across State lines. Many of the problems clearly 

are approachable more effectively by working together with different States, and so the multistate competitive program, by using 

10

some of the formula funds in that light, is certainly a step in the 

right direction. 

Chairman HARKIN. I appreciate that, Dr. Buchanan. 

I yield now to Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Buchanan, going back to this issue of consolidation of ARS 

and CSREES, I understand the idea would be to make it more efficient, consolidate requests for research and whatnot. What are you 

asking for now in this new proposal that you do not already possess 

from the standpoint of being able to make these agencies more efficient and operate in a coordinated way? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, Senator, what we really are asking for in 

the farm bill proposal is simply a framework. It is going to take 

a lot of implementation planning to really put the meat on the 

bones, so to speak, because all we have is a framework. And what 

we plan to do is in time develop implementation plans that includes representatives of both of the agencies to help us put the 

ideas together that will make it work. 

The last thing I want to do is simply have a plan that then we 

try to force on people. I want this to be something that we all put 

together that would make our system stronger. 

One of the questions that, in fact, you asked me during my confirmation as what did I want to do while I was here in my short 

term, and clearly I want to leave the research and education programs in the Department stronger than when I came. And I think 

this would be one of the ways that I could do that, by putting together a unified effort, and by merging areas in CSREES with a 

single national program staff, I think we would have a much 

stronger system in the future. And that is what I want to do, Senator. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Would you anticipate closing any existing offices, eliminating any personnel in that process? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is a very important point, and I have tried 

to make it very clear that the proposal that I have on the table 

does not have any closures of facilities, that we are not looking at 

reducing personnel. I am simply looking at a new structure that 

would let us do a more effective job with the people we have got 

and the locations we have got. 

So I do not anticipate this being the cause of any closure of facilities or any loss of personnel. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. How do you respond to the criticism that if 

we consolidate these agencies into one agency instead of actually 

four agencies requesting research funds, we are now going to have 

one agency that is going to make the decision on where the money 

goes, and if it dominated by any one segment of the agriculture 

community, that one segment may get more funding and more 

projects devoted to them than other segments of the research community? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Senator, that is a question that a lot of our own 

people have asked, and I have tried to assure that I do not anticipate the reorganization as changing the balance between intramural and extramural because that is a very critical issue. But it 

is also important to recognize that I think that the importance of 

having the idea that everyone can work together, you will still have 

11

the structure within the Department, and I make this point very 

forcefully, that we will maintain the administrator, the chief 

science administrator of the new agency. And, of course, that person will answer to an Under Secretary who answers to a Secretary. 

So we have checks and balances to ensure that we do not go off 

in left in any direction, just as we have now. 

So while I tried to assure folks that this is not what I anticipate, 

and I think that what we are proposing would ensure that that 

does not happen. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Let me ask you a sort of somewhat related question here. One of the critical aspects of agriculture that 

nature takes care of is the issue of pollination by honeybees. And 

I read some stories in the press in the last several days about honeybees across the Nation dying. 

I have been a supporter of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign in its efforts to highlight the importance and potential problems facing pollinators, including honeybees. Can you give 

us any idea about what is happening to the honeybees? And what 

is USDA doing about that right now to try to get some answers for 

our farmers across the country on this issue? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I would like to respond in two or three 

ways. 

First, I am very much aware of the problem with the honeybees 

and the die-offs, and it is caused by a problem, and there is a lot 

of research going on trying to address that problem at the present 

time. I would point out that the recipient of the outstanding research paper aware for the CSREES National Research Initiative 

effort was won by a scientist at Texas A&M University, and her research was involving honeybees. 

We also have a major effort within ARS. Certainly when I was 

dean at the University of Georgia, the honeybee program was a 

major program, and we had a strong industry support in that 

State, as we do in many States. 

Also, it is important in this Specialty Crops Initiative that so 

many of our specialty crops, and particularly some of our vegetables, depend upon pollination by honeybees. So I can see where this 

whole issue is going to continue to be a major challenge and one 

that I would hope that in the Specialty Crops Initiative we can 

probably carve out some money to help continue this effort. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I realize I may have caught you off guard 

with asking about this particular issue, but it is a critical part of 

agriculture. Would you mind just checking on that and giving us 

for the record what the position of the USDA is on this right now, 

what we know about it, and what we are doing about it? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. We will get you some of the specific research 

that is underway and where we are and so forth. We would be glad 

to, Senator. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Good. Thank you. 

Thanks, The Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Salazar? 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

12

Let me say, Dr. Buchanan, I am excited and share your enthusiasm about the vision for renewable energy in agriculture and 

moving from food, fiber, and feed, to also add fuel to that equation. 

My question to you has to do with the Agricultural Bioenergy and Bio-based Products Research Initiative. You have added $50 

million annually, $500 million over 10 years. How did you come up 

with that amount of money as necessary to move forward with this 

Bio Research Initiative? And what are the components of what 

would be included in that $50 million annual outlay? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, certainly we identified this as one of the 

real challenges, and, of course, there are many, many others, but 

this was something that during my interim between retiring as 

dean and before I came here, I got interested in the energy picture. 

In fact, I took a group of farmers and county and State officials out 

to your State, visited NREL at Golden, Colorado. Then we went on 

to Nebraska and to Iowa and to Minnesota, looking at windmill 

farms, ethanol plants, and so forth. 

So this was an issue that was cooking in my mind even before 

I became Under Secretary. And as we started thinking about for 

the farm bill this was certainly a topic that I wanted to see included, and it was accepted. And so this is a major infusion of resources that will help us be a player within the other parts of the 

Federal Government, certainly DOE and other agencies that are involved. And we want to be—I just think agriculture needs to be at 

the table and involved in developing how our Nation becomes energy independent or greater independence. 

Senator SALAZAR. And I appreciate that, and I think you are 

going to find a great bipartisan support for moving in that direction 

here in the U.S. Senate, and I think in this Committee. My question to you has to do with how it is that you arrive at the $50 million figure. Why not $150 million? Why not some other figure? And 

if this program is funded at this $500 million over a 10–year period, what do you expect to be the outcome, say, after the first 2 

years? If we spend $100 million in the first 2 years, what do you 

expect to see? So how did you arrive at this number? And what do 

you expect to see 2 years out if we fund it at this level? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, certainly the Department has a number of 

issues in the proposed farm bill that address this, certainly in forestry, also in rural development, and we have, I think, a balanced 

portfolio of requests. And this is a very bold request for our part, 

and I am delighted to support the $50 million. There certainly 

much, much more enhances the current funding we have in the 

area. So I am pleased that we have this in the budget proposal. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me push you just a little bit more. In terms 

of the $50 million figure, I realize it is an enhancement, something 

that I very much support. But is this a figure pulled out of the air 

that says we need to have an enhancement in terms of research 

with respect to biofuels? Or is there some meat under the $50 million-a-year dedication to——

Mr. BUCHANAN. One of the things that I have done when I was 

confirmed is that I hired a person to work with me in my mission 

area to really get a handle on what we are doing in the RE mission 

area in bioenergy. And that person is helping develop a plan as to 

what we would do, and I am pleased to say that we are developing 

13

that plan as to be a part of the total energy research effort within 

the Government. We will be cooperating, obviously, with DOE and 

other agencies. 

But I guess the thing I would go back to is that within the Department the $50 million a year or $500 million over 10 years is 

a very bold effort, and when you add that to the effort in rural development and they have a $500 million grant program, also a $2.1 

billion plan for cellulosic ethanol, I think this is a very good approach and a very balanced approach to address what I think is a 

very important topic. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask you the same question with respect 

to the specialty crops. You have $100 million in your proposal in 

the initiative on specialty crops. How did you arrive at that figure? 

And what is the meat under that figure that says this is what we 

are going to do with respect to specialty crops? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, to start with, the specialty crops issue has 

emerged over the past few months, and certainly when the Secretary had the hearings all around the country, the specialty crop 

interests—and I think everybody is aware that there are about 60 

percent of our farmers that do not participate in farm programs, 

and those are the specialty crop growers. And the common point 

that most of these folks made was that they wanted to be in the 

farm bill, but their interest was in three areas, primarily: first was 

research and education; the second was in phytosanitary issues; 

and markets and trade relations. 

So certainly the research and development area was one that I 

was concerned about. We also had a NAREEE board, our advisory 

board to the mission area, and they had a specialty crops symposium this past summer in Chicago, and clearly it was made abundantly clear that the specialty crops interest wanted to see enhancement of research and education. And so looking at the magnitude of this effort—and, of course, when you talk about specialty 

crops, you are talking about a major segment of U.S. agriculture. 

Almost half or a little over half of the value of U.S. agriculture is 

in specialty crops. So this was a very bold figure, and I am pleased 

that the administration saw fit to include this in the farm bill proposals. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Dr. Buchanan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Casey? 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your hearing 

today and getting us together on these important issues. And, Dr. 

Buchanan, thank you for your presence and your testimony and 

your public service. 

I am from Pennsylvania, and we have not only a great agricultural tradition but it is a significant part, as you know, of our economy. We are very proud of Penn State in particular when it comes 

to some of these issues, the Cooperative Extension Program that 

that institution has had for years. They have done research on 

ways to increase agriculture profitability, trouble-shooting production problems, water and soil management, nutrient management, 

animal diseases, go down the list. And you know that. 

14

But I wanted to ask you a question about your proposal today 

in terms of consolidation. What do you think is the basic difference 

between what you are proposing, to restructure research agencies, 

and what has been proposed by the acronym CREATE–21? Can you 

just give us an overview of the differences and whether or not—I 

guess the second part of the question is whether or not there is a 

way to combine the two proposals into one initiative. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, certainly there are a lot of similarities. In 

fact, when we started the planning for my effort, I have been 

briefed by both Dr. Danforth on NIFA as well as by the CREATE–

21 group, and we listened to both groups. In fact, we spent a good 

bit of time studying and listening to what other people were saying, 

and so we did not start in a vacuum. We started by listening. 

And I decided that we probably need to use some of the ideas 

that were brought forth, and I want to say for the record that by 

lifting up this idea, everybody should be commended for talking 

about the importance of these programs. So I want to compliment 

both of those groups. 

But also I want to say that when we started out, I started with 

a letter to all people in REE, everybody that is on board, and I had 

three goals if we did any restructuring. Those goals were: 

First, I wanted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our 

organization. 

Another one, which is very dear to me, is I want to see us 

strengthen the relationship between the Nation’s land grant universities and other universities with agricultural programs in the 

Federal Government. I think this is one of the great strengths of 

American agriculture, and I just simply want to see this strengthened. 

And the third one was I wanted to enhance not only the quality 

but the recognition of the quality of science that is supported and 

conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

So those are the three goals that I had in mind, and what then 

we started to do was putting together a plan that would enable us 

to do that. And basically there are a great deal of similarities. 

There are some differences, and I think you wanted me to respond 

to some of those. 

One is that we would—the plan that I proposed, the framework 

I would propose, maintains basically the structure within the Department. We would maintain the Under Secretary position. We 

would certainly have the—we would not have a separate entity. Of 

course, I think in some of the others it is a little bit different, but 

we would maintain the integrity of the organizational structure 

within USDA. I like to think that research and education is an integral part of the core mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and I believe that with all my heart. So that is one of the 

things that I think is important. 

Another difference is the entities that would be incorporated into 

any restructuring, and we have all included two: the ARS and the 

CSREES. Those are the two primary agencies. We do not propose 

to include the Forest Service and, of course, there are some real 

reasons for that, because some of their oversights come from different committees, and that I think is important. But also we do 

not include ERS, and, of course, the Economic Research Service is 

15

another one of the agencies within the mission area I have responsibility for. And, of course, ERS does a lot of research, but they do 

a lot of other things as well. They are a national designated statistical agency and as such have responsibilities beyond research and 

education. So we chose not to include those two. 

Also, the leadership in our proposal would be a chief scientist/administrator of the REES agency, the new combined agency. We 

would maintain the Under Secretary, who would have oversight 

and overall responsibility, who would report to the Secretary. 

Another one is the Advisory Council. The proposal that we have, 

we would maintain the NAREEE Board, the National Agricultural 

Research, Education, and Extension Advisory Board, as is presently constituted, and, of course, there might be a different advisory group in the CREATE–21 proposal. 

Also, we proposed to maintain the authorities that I mentioned 

in my opening comments. We would maintain the authority for 

Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, Smith-Lever, 1890, 1994, and Hispanic 

Serving Institutions. We do not propose to change those authorities 

at all. 

So those are some of the highlights of the differences. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you. I am in overtime. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Buchanan, I want to just probe for a little bit on the biomass 

energy proposal that we have before us from the administration. 

You mentioned you wanted to make sure that ag was at the table. 

I would just perhaps modify that a little bit and say that ag should 

be at the head of the table. We are talking about bio-based products and bio-based fuels. That is agriculture. 

Now, DOE, fine, but, you know, the biggest portfolio, the biggest 

part of DOE’s existence is managing our nuclear stockpile. That is 

their biggest deal. They manage our national labs. They do a fine 

job at that. And certainly they are involved in all kinds of energy, 

from coal to nuclear to gasification and a lot of other things. We 

are involved in bio-based energy, and to some extent wind, because 

I always tell people if you are going to build wind energy, you are 

not going to build it in the cities, you are going to build it on the 

farms, in rural areas, which is under the jurisdiction of Agriculture. 

So when we talk about bio-based energy—and Senator Chambliss 

and I had a meeting with the President last week in the White 

House. What I got out of that meeting was very clearly that the 

President wants to move ahead on this. He is committed to it. He 

mentioned it in his State of the Union message, getting that 35 billion gallons, and I think he really wants to move ahead on this. 

And so, I want to make clear an observation: we are dividing this 

topic between DOE and Agriculture, and I do not think that is 

healthy. I just do not think it is. You may say we have good relationships and perhaps we do, but I am not certain that that is a 

healthy way to start on this. 

I would just point to the fact that in just trying to get out some 

of the DOE grants to some of our new biorefineries around the 

country, look how long that took. We know how to do it. Agriculture knows how to do that business. We have been in the loan 

portfolio business and grantmaking business for a long time. DOE 

16

has not. That is not their job. So I am hopeful that the administration and the Congress working together will start to focus on what 

we have to do in USDA on this. 

Similarly, I am wondering about the $50 million a year proposal 

you mentioned. Let me make sure I have got it here. Yes, dedicating $50 million annually for an Agricultural Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Initiative. Well, it seems to me that is 

less than what we are doing right now. That is less than what we 

are doing right now, if I am not mistaken. We had requested, $1.6 

billion requested for the next 10 years, that is $160 million a year. 

So if you are only talking about $50 million, it seems to me this 

is a lot less than what has been proposed in the past. What am I 

missing here? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. In fact, I had my staff look it up. We had about 

$21 million in ARS and about $6 or $8 million in CSREES in biomass and bioenergy this past year. 

Chairman HARKIN. Say that again? How much was that? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I believe it was $21 million and $6 million in 

CSREES. 

Chairman HARKIN. 21 plus 6, 27. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. That would be a total of 27. So this would be a 

major boost, and I go back and say that the administration, if you 

look at the total farm bill, has a number of other areas in which 

we have proposed funding, certainly in rural development as well 

as in forestry. But I want to go back and respond to what you said 

earlier, and that is that clearly the area of bioenergy and bio-based 

products is the future of agriculture. We simply have to do our part 

to address that. And, of course, the ultimate source of energy is the 

sun, and as I pointed out in my opening comments, agriculture is 

converting the sun’s energy through photosynthesis into something 

we can use, and we can use food, feed, fiber, but we can also use 

fuel. So, Senator, I am committed. 

The other thing that I think is important is, while in your part 

of the world corn is clearly a high priority now and still and will 

be, we have got to look at other parts of the country. I do not think 

we are going to solve our energy issue simply by working in one 

part of the country with one or two commodities. We need to be 

looking at what we can produce on the High Plains of Texas——

Chairman HARKIN. That is right. 

Mr. BUCHANAN [continuing]. And Southeastern United States 

and the Northeast, all over this country, if we are going to do what 

the President wants us to do. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, I had kind of a private conversation 

with the President last week when we were down there about that, 

and he gets it. He gets this idea about switchgrass and where 

switchgrass can grow, and the fact that switchgrass has as much 

protein as an acre—actually, I think more protein than an acre of 

soybeans. An acre of switchgrass has more protein than an acre of 

soybeans and has more energy than an acre of corn. So we need 

the research on how we get the protein out and then utilize energy. 

It is a conserving crop. It can grow in the High Plains of Texas and 

everywhere else. Then we had your guy from Georgia Tech up a 

month ago or a few weeks ago testifying about the wood pulp that 

can be used in the southern part of the United States. It is there, 

17

just the existing wood pulp that was used for the paper industry 

that is no longer here, he estimated that that is about 4 billion gallons a year just from that of ethanol. 

So I agree with you, this is the future and where we have got 

to go. But I guess what I—and my time is running out for my second round, but what I am interested in is your research portfolio. 

How has it changed over the last 5 years? Is it changing to take 

into account the needed research that we need, both basic and applied, in this area of bio-based energy? Is it affirmatively moving 

in that direction? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir. There is no question about that. In fact, 

I want to give you a pre-publication copy of ‘‘Agricultural Research,’’ and I will get copies for the whole Committee as soon as 

it is published. This is a pre-publication copy, but I want to make 

sure you get a copy of this. It lays out a number of things we are 

doing at ARS. We have comparable efforts in CSREES working 

with our universities, but there is no doubt in my mind, Senator, 

that we are moving in that direction. In fact, we have a number 

of—in fact, in fiscal year 2008, the budget has increases in biomass 

plus the $50 million annually in the farm bill. So we are moving 

in that direction. 

In fact, you will notice in this book that a number of the different 

research projects and activities, for example, looking at cell wall—

and, of course, you might wonder, well, what in the world has that 

got to do with bioenergy? But we have a major effort in looking at 

composition of cell wall because one of the—to get all that energy 

that you pointed out in switchgrass, you have got to convert not 

only cellulose and hemicellulose and those critters, but you have 

got to convert lignin. 

Now, when you really want to start converting lignin into energy 

and get the energy out of that, you have got a real challenge on 

your hands. So maybe we can breed plants that have more cellulose 

and less lignin. Of course, it would not stand up very well. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCHANAN. But there are all kinds of things that you need 

to be doing that is in basic science in order to get to the applied 

application of it. And we are doing that. 

In fact, I was out in Albany, California, back earlier in the summer and visiting with a cell wall group that is doing some of this 

basic type research. 

Chairman HARKIN. So you are saying that right now, though, the 

total is $27 million. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. It is $27 million, yes, sir. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, quite frankly, between you and me, and 

me and the rest of the world, that is just not enough. It is just simply not enough. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, we think that the $50 million additional, 

if that stays in the farm bill and becomes a reality, it will certainly 

be a step in the right direction. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, I appreciate that. It is a step in the 

right direction. But we have got to take bigger steps. That is just 

my own view, that we have got to take bigger steps than that in 

the farm bill. And I do not know how that is all going to work out. 

18

But I have used up a lot of my time, and I would yield to Senator 

Chambliss, if you have any further questions. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I do not think I have anything further. 

Chairman HARKIN. Anybody else? Did you have any further 

questions? 

Senator CASEY. No. 

Chairman HARKIN. Oh, there is one last thing I just wanted to ask you. You mentioned organic research, the $10 million that you 

are putting into organic research. I posed the same question to Secretary Johanns. Why did USDA not want to increase funding to organic agriculture given the increased need for price, yield, and 

overall production and marketing information? The current farm 

bill provides $3 million a year in mandatory funds for organics. But 

USDA’s proposal provides $2 million annually over 5 years. That 

is how we get to the $10 million figure. So it is actually one-third 

less than what we already have in the present farm bill, and especially at a time when more and more consumers are demanding 

organics. I can go out to my local Safeway store where a year ago 

they had one little thing there for organic milk, and now it is one 

whole shelf. And people are paying for it. They are paying the extra 

money for the organics. Whole Foods told us that they cannot even 

get enough food to meet the demands. It is growing 20 percent—

it is the fastest growing part of our food sector right now, is organized, 20 percent per year. But then when you meet with organic 

farmers and others that are doing this, there are a lot of problems 

out there in terms of package processing, small farmers getting it 

to regional processors, getting it out to the consumers. And so I 

just do not know how you justify basically cutting it by a third. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I think the answer to that, Senator, is we are 

not proposing to change the 202 program, but simply add to it an 

additional $10 million. 

I would also say that there is a lot of other research that is applicable to the organic growers that is done in basic fertility and 

things that does not involve chemical fertilizers that would also be 

helpful to the organic producers that is not necessarily directly in 

this proposal. 

Chairman HARKIN. So you are saying the $10 million is in addition to what we are doing now? 

Mr. BUCHANAN. As I understand it, the $10 million is in addition 

to what is in the 202, as I understand it, Senator. 

Chairman HARKIN. I did not understand that, and I appreciate 

that. 

Well, I have some other questions, but we have another panel we 

have got to get to. I hope I can submit some questions for the 

record, Dr. Buchanan. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes, sir. I would be more than pleased to respond to any questions that you and other members of the Committee have. 

Chairman HARKIN. And we thank you for your leadership. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, thank you very much, sir. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thanks. 

Now we will call our second panel up: Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief 

Executive Officer of the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science; Dr. Jeff Armstrong, Dean of the College of Agriculture 

19

and Natural Resources at Michigan State University; Dr. William 

Danforth, who has already been introduced by Senator Bond, 

Chancellor Emeritus, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of 

Washington University in St. Louis; and Dr. Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer from the Radiance Dairy Farm in Fairfield, 

Iowa. 

Again, we will go in the order in which I mentioned your names. 

Again, all your statements will be made a part of the record in 

their entirety. If you could just sum it up in 5 minutes, we would 

appreciate that so we could get to rounds of questioning. 

And so we will first turn to Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive 

Officer of the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, who is certainly not a stranger to me on my other Committee dealing with NIH over the years. Dr. Leshner and I have 

had many times when he has appeared before my other Committee 

over there in the past when he was at NIH. And so we welcome 

you to this Committee, Dr. Leshner. Again, if you could just sum 

it up in 5 minutes, I would appreciate that, and we will get to 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN LESHNER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF 

SCIENCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LESHNER. Good. Thank you. It is very nice to see you again, 

and thank you all for allowing me to be a part of this distinguished 

panel. 

I would like to start us off with just a bit about the overall context and structure of the U.S. scientific enterprise of which agriculture is a critical part. I would argue American science is certainly among the best, if not the best in the world, and that its eminence derives both from the strong support science receives from 

many sectors of society and from the breadth of the U.S. research 

and development portfolio. 

America’s scientific leadership also is a product of a multifaceted 

system for both supporting and conducting research. Research 

comes from a broad array of Government agencies, philanthropic 

foundations, and industry. Some research is conducted under 

grants or contracts at individual laboratories and universities, research institutes and industrial settings, what we call extramural 

research. And other research is conducted intramurally within Government agencies in their own dedicated laboratories and contracted. 

The success of American science has been a result of this kind 

of diversity in both the structure and the funding of our scientific 

system. With it all, the keystone of U.S. science across all fields 

has been the awarding of research support on the basis of what is 

known as peer or merit review. Awarding individual grants on the 

basis of peer review allows the Government and other funders to 

do the prioritizing of research areas in a general way, but also to 

have at the same time assurance that the highest quality science 

within those broad domains will be funded based on the judgments 

of top U.S. scientists. Peer review is especially important when 

funds are tight. 

20

Let me next make some comparisons about how the major Federal R&D agencies support science. The National Science Foundation, whose primary mission is to support basic and applied research, is unique among agencies in not having any labs of its own. 

It has no intramural research. On the other hand, the National Institutes of Health has a research portfolio that mixes both intramural and extramural research, as does the USDA. Of the $28.6 

billion in R&D that NIH received in fiscal year 2007, some 15 to 

20 percent went to support intramural research conducted at the 

NIH Institutes, and the remaining 80 percent goes to support extramural research. 

In contrast, the proportions at USDA are reversed. About 73 percent of USDA’s R&D budget goes for intramural research, and just 

about 27 percent goes to extramural, typically academic research. 

Concerning agricultural research, we consider it very unfortunate 

that, overall, USDA R&D has declined significantly in recent years. 

There was a big boost in funding in the early 2000’s, but that was 

not due to increases in the actual conduct of research, but to 

strengthening security requirements at USDA labs that conduct research on dangerous pathogens like anthrax. Moreover, under the 

proposed fiscal year 2008 budget, USDA’s R&D budget would fall 

another 10.8 percent from its 2000 final appropriation to $2 billion, 

mostly from proposed cuts in intramural research. There is more 

detail on the USDA proposed budget in my written statement. 

But going back to the broader situation, the competition for Federal funding has become tremendously fierce regardless of the composition of any given agency’s research portfolio, and that has become problematic. NSF, for example, funded less than 25 percent 

of the proposals that it received in fiscal year 2006, leaving almost 

$2 billion of highly fundable research unfunded. NIH, meanwhile, 

funds only about 20 percent of the extramural research proposals 

submitted, and the situation at USDA is even worse. The agency 

could fund only 16 percent of the proposals it received. 

If one puts all this together, the aggregate of very high quality 

proposals that are declined every year represents a very rich portfolio of lost research and education opportunities, and it also sends 

a very discouraging message to those very bright young people considering science as a career. 

Let me conclude by saying that in an increasingly science and 

technology-based economy that relies on federally funded research 

as the foundation for innovation, the need for a clear, sustained 

Federal commitment to a diverse portfolio of agricultural research 

has never been more obvious. Robust research funding is necessary 

to understand and craft solutions to pressing issues ranging from 

how to react to a changing climate to the development of national 

security tools to protect against emerging biological and agriculture 

threats, to ensuring a sustainable agricultural economy for generations to come. We know that this Committee has been extremely 

supportive of these efforts, and we applaud your commitment to it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leshner can be found on page 69 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much, Dr. Leshner, and for 

the next witness, I will call on Senator Stabenow. 

21

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me 

to introduce a very important person from Michigan. And I must 

apologize for coming in late, but I guess I made it just in time here 

for this panel. 

I want to make sure that Dr. Jeff Armstrong is appropriately 

welcomed. He is the Dean of the Michigan State University College 

of Agriculture, our oldest land grant, first land grant institution, 

Michigan State University, and not only growing up on a farm, but 

also having served in a number of different capacities. He came to 

Michigan State from Purdue University where he was the head of 

the Department of Animal Sciences, and he is serving nationally on 

the USDA board dealing with research and is co-Chair of the CREATE–21 Coalition. And, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be working 

with the coalition to introduce their recommendations for consolidating and focusing on research, and I look forward to working 

with you on this. 

Thank you. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Armstrong, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF ARMSTRONG, DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MICHIGAN STATE 

UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Chambliss, 

and Senator Stabenow, thank you for that introduction. Thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss CREATE–21, the land grant system’s 

proposal to improve the integration and efficiency of research, 

teaching, and extension activities funded through and coordinated 

by USDA. 

Two years ago, a group within the land grant system asked the 

question: If we were going to build the agricultural system today, 

how would it look? We concluded that the current system is inefficient, with too many agencies. Also, we do not have the capacity 

or competitive funding to meet the new complex challenges we face 

today. 

Let me provide an example that really builds on Secretary 

Buchanan’s eloquent statements. ARS and CSREES both have national program leaders in food safety, animal sciences, water quality, natural resources, and the list could go on. CREATE–21 will 

consolidate ARS, CSREES, ERS, and Forest Service R&D into a 

new organization to be called the National Institutes for Food and 

Agriculture. It will more tightly integrate planning and implementation across all available in-house Federal and university capacity 

through a solution-based approach. It will double the authorization 

for food, agriculture, and natural resource research, teaching, and 

extension programs at USDA by greatly increasing the number of 

competitively awarded grants while also expanding our in-house 

ability and the land grant capacity with a special emphasis on the 

minority-serving and small land grant institutions. 

Let me make a few statements about what CREATE–21 will not 

do. CREATE–21 will not take away congressional prerogatives to 

provide special research and extension rants to address local needs. 

It will not prevent Congress from explicitly directing funds to local 

ARS facilities, and it will not cut ARS funding levels. In fact, just 

22

the opposite is true. We propose that ARS and other capacity programs would be guaranteed at the fiscal year 2007 base and we 

would see some increase. 

Mr. Chairman, as the leader of this effort, I have been asked 

many times: How can you propose consolidating these agencies into 

a single organization and have the audacity to ask for more money? 

I think your comments and many others have really answered that 

question. The challenges and opportunities are generational in 

scope. 

We have to put forward a plan that deals with our silos—we are 

in agriculture; we have silos—and also demonstrates the value of 

what we have to offer. If we cannot do that, then we get what we 

deserve. 

Perhaps the best way is to give an example that has been mentioned many times: the bioproducts, biomass area. You know there 

are many goals to increase this. It is going to require a prodigious 

amount of effort and a systems approach. Let me remind you, Senator Stabenow, that you and Senator Levin visited Bruce Dale’s 

lab, an eminent scientist in this area. At the end of the tour, Senator Levin said to Bruce Dale, ‘‘How can we move this cellulosic 

technology faster? How can we get it there quicker?’’ Bruce Dale 

stopped for a moment, and he said, ‘‘Two things. We need a billion 

dollars in fundamental research and we need a billion dollars that 

will allow us to do the systems approach, the extension work that 

is needed to connect everything.’’

Dr. Dale’s assessment mirrors what our USDA Advisory Board 

recently said in a report to you, that we need the fundamental research but that we also need the extension and applied research. 

What we need is a single, well-funded organization. 

The leadership of the land grant system believes that USDA’s 

science programs are at a critical juncture. The current system is 

inefficient. It has served us well, but it must change. I cannot 

speak for anyone else, but I do not want to be sitting here at the 

table at the next farm bill talking about lowering our dependence 

on foreign food. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say that the research and development system that has served food agriculture, forestry, and natural resources so well is no longer sustainable. Recent study results 

that are going to be released next week by the Farm Foundation 

document a substantial slowdown in farm productivity growth 

linked directly to reduced public sector funding. CREATE–21 would 

put USDA at the head of the table on topics like biomass and obesity. Our proposal encompasses the other two proposals. 

Clearly, if we do not solve the problems and seize the opportunities, our institutions will become more and more detached from the 

very people they were created to serve. They are in an environment, as you heard, competitive environment. They will move to 

other models. They will move from a dairy cow model, which is important in Michigan, to a rat or a mouse model because they are 

in an environment that thrives on competition. Let’s not let that 

detachment occur. Let’s enact CREATE–21. 

Thank you so much for placing this important topic on the table. 

I also want to thank Secretary Buchanan and Chancellor Danforth 

23

for their efforts in putting this important topic on the table. There 

is much that we agree upon. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong can be found on page 

48 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you, Dr. Armstrong. 

And now we turn to Dr. William Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus 

and Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Washington University, who was very eloquently introduced earlier by Senator Bond. 

Welcome, Dr. Danforth. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DANFORTH, CHANCELLOR EMERITUS, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 

Mr. DANFORTH. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member 

Chambliss, and members. I appreciate this opportunity. I am William Danforth, and I have been introduced. I have been involved 

in biomedical research for 50 years and plant science for about a 

dozen; in other words, I have moved from trying to worry about 

saving lives retail to saving lives wholesale. 

Despite its enormous potential, agricultural research is, in my 

view, underappreciated, underfunded, and not managed to make 

best use of the Nation’s scientific talent. Fortunately, we know how 

to fix this. For over 30 years, scientific panels have argued for more 

competitive, merit-based grants, but traditions have made change 

hard. Thanks to many, I chaired this task force that has been described. Our recommendations are embodied in a report here, 

which I would like to include in the record of today. 

Chairman HARKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. DANFORTH. Our recommendations are embodied in the National Institute for Food and Agriculture Act, introduced last year 

by Chairman Harkin and Senators Bond, Lugar, Coleman, and others, and in the House by Chairman Peterson. 

Our conclusions were a few basic ones: Continued agricultural innovations are essential. Past innovations have been very successful, giving us food that is plentiful, cheap, and safe. Innovations 

must continue because of a number of challenges that have been 

mentioned several times today, and I will not repeat them, but 

they are very serious. 

Second, modern research into the fundamental nature of farm 

animals and plants is essential to meet these challenges. Fortunately, new understandings and technologies from cell biology, molecular biology, genetics and so on are as usefully applicable to 

plants and farm animals as they are to human medicine. 

Third, American knows how to manage and fund fundamental research. The National Institutes of Health and National Science 

Foundation have long done so with practical benefits. They just invite scientists to submit competitive proposals to meet national priorities. Grants are awarded to the best proposals as judged by a 

confluence of scientific merit and national need, and that is all 

there is to it. The system is in keeping with the American tradition 

of competitive free enterprise. 

Agricultural research has long been underfunded. The NIH 

spends almost $14 to $15 for research for every $1 spent by the 

24

USDA and about $150 in competitive peer-reviewed grants for 

every $1 so awarded by the USDA. Because NRI grants of USDA 

are smaller, of shorter duration, and carry lower overhead than do 

those at NIH and NSF, scientists with agricultural interests are 

tempted to opt for NIH or NSF programs rather than those essential to agriculture. 

Our proposals are narrowed and focused. They are designed to 

expand and enhance USDA’s important fundamental research. 

They are designed to have more scientific input into decisionmaking at all levels, which is especially important in the fundamental research area where the science is not easily understood by 

even the most intelligent lay people. 

Our proposal does not touch existing research authorities, but 

separates the new area so that it might develop its own scientific 

culture. I would add that our charge did not include considering 

larger restructuring. 

Recognizing the chronic underfunding of competitive agricultural 

research, we recommend new money so as not compete with the ongoing programs which we respect. We recommended mandatory 

funding because we believe that a new way of doing things has had 

a hard time getting started, and started well, and needs protection 

for a number of years. 

If nothing is done, we worry that America will lose its competitive edge to cheaper land and low-cost labor, will not capitalize optimally on our opportunities for bioenergy or to protect our health 

and environment, cost of production will likely rise, and future 

farm program spending escalate. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we strongly recommend the adoption of the 

National Institute for Food and Agriculture in the research title. 

Last year, at least we had the support of a number of key groups 

when it was introduced, including the American Soybean Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Farmers 

Union, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National 

Chicken Council. This small investment will reap returns for farmers and ranchers and the Nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Danforth can be found on page 

64 in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Dr. Danforth, thank you very much, and 

again let me thank you and, through you, the members of the 

board that was set up by the 2002 farm bill to conduct this review. 

I can assure you that your findings I believe are going to form the 

basis of how we move ahead on this. I thought you did diligent 

work, and I really appreciate it on behalf of all of us who were involved in putting that into the 2002 farm bill. So thank you very 

much for that. 

Mr. DANFORTH. Thank you, and thank you for putting it in. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, we will have questions later. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Now I get to introduce an Iowan. Dr. Francis 

Thicke has the Radiance Dairy Farm down in Fairfield, Iowa. He 

grew up on a dairy farm in Minnesota, then decided to come to the 

southern climes in Iowa, get rid of those Minnesota winters up 

there. He has a B.A. in music and philosophy, but he returned to 

25

school to get his M.S. in soil science and a Ph.D. in agronomy from 

the University of Minnesota. He had a position with USDA with 

the Extension Service here in Washington, and he worked with 

sustainable agriculture programs as the national program leader 

for soil science. 

So, again, with that introduction, I just might also say that he 

was named a fellow of the Food and Society Policy Fellows Program from 2002 to 2004, and so we welcome a hands-on organic 

farmer to our panel today. 

Dr. Thicke? 

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS THICKE, RADIANCE DAIRY FARM, 

FAIRFIELD, IOWA 

Mr. THICKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. 

As you said, I have been a farmer and I have been a USDA bureaucrat and then back to farmer. I like to call myself a ‘‘bornagain farmer.’’

[Laughter.] 

Mr. THICKE. Incidentally, when I left USDA, my colleagues were 

astounded that a USDA bureaucrat would actually think about 

going back to farming. But I say that facetiously because there are 

many dedicated people at USDA, and they are still my good 

friends. 

The previous speakers have made a good case for the need for 

more research funds for agriculture. As you said, Mr. Chairman, it 

has been flat for many years. I would like to focus a little more on 

applied research, integrated systems research. As a farmer and a 

former extension person, I want to focus on that. And probably a 

good example of that is the IFAFS program, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, which was funded by this Committee—or created by this Committee in 1998, at a mandatory 

$120 million per year. And in the 2002 farm bill, it was increased 

to $200 million. 

Well, this has been an ideal program. broadly supported. I say 

‘‘ideal’’ in the sense that it is interdisciplinary; it involves producers 

on the ground; it solves problems on the ground. It is an outcomebased program. Unfortunately, over the years the funding has 

dwindled. Now it is at about $35 to $45 million a year. That is an 

unfortunate situation, and I would like to see that reversed to 

bring it back up in the new farm bill to the $200 million mandatory 

funding level. And I do not see it as competition to the basic research we have talked about here. I think the two programs can 

be side-by-side, coordinated, parallel programs. 

Let’s look at a couple of points from my written testimony. listed 

are some of the priorities from the previous IFAFS program and 

some new, additional priorities I would like to see added. I will 

mention two of them. One of them is related to sustainable energy 

production, biofuels. We have talked a lot about that, and I think 

we are at a tipping point here now. We are pushing—in the Midwest, for example, our farming systems we could tip to become less 

sustainable, and we could—if we go into cellulosic perennial crops, 

we could actually make it more sustainable and still produce fuel 

at a more efficient rate than with corn and soybeans. So I think 

26

we are at an exciting place. We could go the wrong way. We could 

just start to take all the corn stalks off the cornfields and end up 

with eroded soils, end up with more nitrate leaching, more hypoxia 

in the Gulf of Mexico. Or we could go the other way, grow more 

perennials, and we could actually reduce these environmental problems. I think that is an important thing we need to be concerned 

about. 

Another point in there is support for public plant and animal 

breeding. With all the emphasis on genomics and biotechnology, we 

have neglected classical plant and animal breeding. We have come 

to the point where we not only have few scientists in the universities that are doing this, but we are losing our diversity, our basic 

diversity of plant and animal genetics. We have to be very careful 

here. I think we need to put more emphasis on classical plant and 

animal breeding. 

Another point I want to talk about is organic research, education 

and extension. Actually, just last week I was in Washington to be 

on the review panel for the Integrated Organic Program grants program, and we reviewed about 60 research proposals. It was very 

exciting to see some of the research that is being done there, looking at farming systems as models of ecology, looking at how these 

ecological systems can regulate soil fertility, protect plants against 

insects and diseases, so actually circumvent the need for pesticides 

and synthetic fertilizers. This is really exciting research. 

Somebody mentioned earlier that conventional research actually 

can spill over to organic, but I think the spillover is even greater 

for—of organic research spilling over into conventional systems 

that can help to prevent environmental problems as we go down 

the road. 

Here I would speak on behalf of many organic organizations to 

say that we need to increase that. The organic food market is now 

about 3 percent of the food market. Organic research is about sixtenths of 1 percent of the research funding in USDA. If we were 

to do it on an equivalent, fair-share basis, we would be talking 

$120 million of organic research, though I am not bold enough to 

quite say that. But I think that $40 million per year between ARS 

and CSREES would be a good target for research—per year for research on organic farming. 

Two more things I would like to touch on quickly. One is the 

SARE Program, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education 

Program, funded by the 1985 farm bill. It has been funded for 20 

years. The farm bill said it should be funded up to $60 million. The 

highest it has got is $19 million, and it now has dwindled back. We 

are coming up on the 20th anniversary of this program. It is fitting 

that we should shoot for $20 million funding for the fiscal year 

2008 budget for SARE. That has also been an ideal program that 

has helped farmers be linked with researchers. 

Finally, I want to mention ATTRA, the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, which, as you know, has been zeroed 

out this last—in fiscal year 2007. This is a program that has been 

funded for 20 years. It has provided tremendous service to farmers, 

and suddenly it is being treated as an earmark. And we all know 

that is a mistake, and we need to reverse that mistake. ATTRA 

just last year, 2006, responded with mailings to 37,000 farmers 

27

across the country answering technical questions. It is a national 

program. Six hundred seventy-three thousand public documents 

were downloaded off the Internet from that program. If we lose 

that, we are losing an incredible resource for farmers across the 

country. 

I will end with that. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thicke can be found on page 80 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Thicke, and 

I thank the entire panel. 

First of all, Dr. Leshner, in your written testimony and in your 

verbal testimony, you compared research at NIH, NSF, and USDA. 

To me, the big piece missing from USDA’s research portfolio—and 

you have probably gleaned that from what I said to Dr. Buchanan 

earlier—is the proportion of funds going to competitive grants. Agricultural research’s base, the land grant institutions and extension, are funded by non-competitive grants, and there is a fear that 

if we put additional money into competitive grants, we will shift 

money out of extension and education. 

So, Dr. Leshner, you can provide an outside point of view on agricultural research since you have had extensive experience, as I 

mentioned earlier, at the National Institutes of Health and at the 

National Science Foundation, but not at USDA. How does AAAS 

view formula funds and competitive grants? Is there a value to 

funding research through both formula funds and competitive 

grants? And do you prefer one type of funding approach over the 

other? 

Mr. LESHNER. Well, let me start by saying I think that the formula approach has been historically very productive in establishing 

infrastructure throughout the country for doing agricultural research and that it has provided a very important base of facilities 

and equipment and things like that. 

However, having said that, my view—and I believe the view of 

the vast majority of the scientific community—is that the core of 

scientific progress comes from competitive, peer-reviewed grants. 

Scientists are notoriously argumentative and competitive, and, in 

fact, that competitiveness has, in fact, been one of the mainstays 

of the successes. So my experience has been that the core of research funding really should come from competitive, peer-reviewed 

grant support. 

Chairman HARKIN. Well, now we go to Dr. Armstrong, one of our 

great land grant colleges. First of all, the land grant proposal to 

change agricultural research extension and education seems to 

prioritize formula funds and intramural ARS funds over competitive funds because it sets our current appropriations level as a 

base, with any money above that base going to competitively 

awarded grants. 

Do you believe that this order of priority is the correct one, that 

is, giving the highest priority to preserving formula and intramural 

funds? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, thank you, Senator Harkin. I guess I 

would respectfully disagree with the characterization. I believe 

what we—I look at it, and I think back in my past growing up as 

a three-legged stool, sitting down to milk a cow. That represented 

28

in the panel the competitive funds, but there are two legs to that: 

the integrated systems approach that Dr. Thicke mentioned, as 

well as the fundamental approach that Dr. Danforth mentioned. 

The third leg being capacity. 

Now, someone in OMB asked me: Well, we understand the geographical differences, et cetera, but do you have to have everything 

everywhere? Well, with our system being better integrated with the 

proposal that is common to the Secretary of Ag and Secretary Buchanan and our proposal, we would be more efficient. 

So we are wanting to bolster the capacity, the intramural, and 

the formula funds—only slightly grow them, slightly above inflation. So I would view it as not prioritizing but bolstering something 

that has been going downward when you look at dollars based on 

an inflated basis. And so we are turning to much more competitive, 

but a key point of our proposal—I think Dr. Thicke hit it—is the 

integrated systems approach. We need this. 

A little prop. The latest issue of Time: ‘‘Forget Organic, Eat 

Local.’’ I am not trying to make a statement of what is right or 

wrong, but the systems approach that we need to look at the interface of wetlands, the environment, with the new bio=economy, that 

requires extension work, that requires applied research and fundamental research. So I view our proposal as being balanced in that 

regard. 

Chairman HARKIN. If I might, Dr. Armstrong, what I hear from 

the countryside—and I did not see that picture on Time Magazine—is that the old systems of the non-competitive grants, the formula grants, the way the structure is set up just does not move 

rapidly enough to address the new dynamics that are out there, either in food or in energy; and that if you have competitively awarded the grants, then you have the sort of thing that Dr. Leshner is 

talking about, you have people out there vying for this and saying 

this is the new stuff and we want to compete for that. 

And so that is what I hear a lot of, and that is why I raise these 

questions, because what I am hearing is that the intramural system, the non-competitive grant system, may have served its purpose for a time in terms of capacity building. But if we are going 

to move aggressively ahead in both energy and the new types of 

foods that people want, we need to move more aggressively in competitive grants. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I am not disagreeing with you, and you 

fit well into our debate that the land grant system has had for the 

last 2 years. We have some individuals that wanted to make all 

new money competitive, and some wanted to bolster the formula 

and the ARS funds even more. But the key point is that we agree 

we need more competitive. What we are arguing, a difference—and 

‘‘argue’’ not being a bad word—is the base of the capacity needed 

to sustain what we are doing. We need to have those plant pathologists. We need to have these other individuals working in those 

models. 

So I am agreeing with you. I think there is a degree. Our proposal would take the proportion that Dr. Leshner mentioned and 

move it to a 50–50, fully authorized and appropriated, 70 cents out 

of every new dollar would go to competitive. And we put that on 

the table as certainly a debatable point. 

29

But I think as you indicated earlier in discussing biomass and 

bioenergy, the levels we are talking about are not enough, and we 

need more in competitive funding. I would agree with that. But we 

really will lose a lot of diversity in our system and our minorityserving institutions if we do not bolster the base, especially for 

these institutions. 

Chairman HARKIN. Are you familiar with, have you looked over 

the proposals that came out of the Commission that Dr. Danforth 

headed? Have you looked over those proposals? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir, and, in fact, we greatly admire those 

proposals. One of my dear friends, Vic Lechtenberg, was one of the 

members; And, in fact, we called to CREATE–21 NIFA Plus early 

on because we viewed NIFA as being so fundamentally important 

and needed. But we believe we needed two other things: the capacity bolstering and the integrated IFAFS—Dr. Thicke could not have 

put it better—the IFAFS proposals. We need that as well, in addition to what Dr. Danforth is proposing. 

Chairman HARKIN. I have more questions on this topic for myy 

next round, but I have gone over and I will recognize Senator 

Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Leshner, you are familiar, I am sure, with the fact that in 

ag we are continually arguing over whether or not basic versus applied research is the better route to go. You have experience as an 

agency head, a scientist, a policy expert. Give us the benefit of your 

thought as to how we balance basic versus applied research, particularly in agriculture. 

Mr. LESHNER. If I could say, if you could figure out the right formula, I could get you published in Science immediately. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. That is why we have got you here. 

Mr. LESHNER. But I will say that in the rest of the scientific community we have been having exactly that same debate of what that 

balance ought to be. 

There actually are three pieces to it from my perspective. There 

is a fundamental research piece—and there is no future, there is 

no ultimate new technologies without a base of fundamental 

science. So there is a fundamental research piece. Then on the 

other end there is that applied research piece we all want. But 

there is one more piece that is extremely important, and that is in 

the middle. It is a process now being called ‘‘translational research.’’ But it is the process by which you take fundamental research findings and move them into applied research. 

Now, I apologize that I cannot give you an appropriate formula 

to it, but we need to be attending to all of those three simultaneously. And, again, from my perspective, peer review is the best 

way to help set the priorities within areas, but across areas I think 

the proportions shift over time. There is no magic number at any 

one time. 

The experience at NIH is a very interesting one. Frankly, up 

until the early 1990’s, NIH actually was not doing quite enough 

basic research, increase of the basic research portfolio. But then 

around the turn of the century, there was a need to move more into 

translational and clinical research, and they have chosen to put 

30

more emphasis in that direction. So I think it requires a sort of integrated monitoring and, therefore, frankly, the idea of having a 

unit that can do that monitoring across all domains, and methods 

of supporting research sounds very attractive to me, although I do 

not know all the details so I cannot comment on those. 

Sorry for the long answer to a short question. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Thicke, you are a producer. These gentlemen are experts in policy. Dr. Buchanan is a policy expert. But 

at the end of the day, it is the guy that gets his fingernails dirty 

that has got to take all this research and all this theory and use 

it on his farm. 

You have been a bureaucrat. You are a producer. Tell us, if you 

will, if you could change any one thing we do in ag research or any 

one policy, as a producer, what would it be to help you more in 

your day-to-day activity on the farm. 

Mr. THICKE. I think that we need a lot more working directly 

with producers. Take the examples of organic farming or grazing. 

Grazing is an example where producers in the Midwest and 

throughout the country came up with this grazing system, very innovative, that is working very well, and then the researchers at the 

land grants started to look around and say, ‘‘What are these guys 

doing? We do not know what they are doing.’’ And those researchers who came out on the farm and actually worked with the farmers were very successful in helping the farmers to progress. Those 

researchers who stood back and said, ‘‘I am going to research this 

little part here or this part here,’’ they did not really contribute so 

much. So I think that we need to have more direct, on-the-ground 

work between farmers and researchers. 

For example, the words ‘‘translational research,’’ I question a little what that means. It sounds like top-down, that we are going to 

create the results in the lab and then we are going to bring it to 

the farmers. And I think it does not work that way. I think it is 

more of a top-down, bottom-up, integrated approach that we need 

to be looking at for agricultural research to help farmers. 

Chairman HARKIN. That is a good thought. 

Dr. Danforth, your proposal would add a new program, presumably with its own staff, to the existing ag research structure. Do 

you think your proposal can succeed in the existing structure? Or 

would it do better in a consolidated and reorganized structure, as 

has been proposed by USDA and the land grant universities? 

Mr. DANFORTH. I do not think I am particularly competent to 

make that—to draw a conclusion. I would say this: that we were 

so worried about protecting competitive research because we felt 

that the USDA—if I could just make a little longer answer to that 

question. 

The National Science Foundation makes almost all of its grants 

competitive, and that is true because what they study is the same 

all over the world—chemistry, physics, and so on. The National Institutes of Health is about 85 percent competitive, so it has to—and 

medicine has some more local components to it. 

Agricultural has very strong local components to it, so you need 

both. And in our view, the local things have gotten really well 

funded compared with the fundamental research, and the fundamental research has changed a lot and needs a new approach. 

31

So we felt that, however it is structured, the fundamental research needs protection, and it needs to develop a new culture 

within the Department. And that is why we recommended having 

something that was separate. We felt if it were not separate that 

it might just sort of flow back into the general decisionmaking pool 

and get neglected. 

I appreciate the chance to try and explain that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Just a comment about one aspect of your 

proposal. I notice you have got an advisory board of 25 members, 

including farmers as well as researchers. And my best friends are 

farmers, and what I have always found is if you want 10 different 

opinions, ask 10 different farmers a question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I am wondering how in the world we are 

going to take 25 folks, most of whom are farmers, and have them 

advise anybody about a general—or reach a general conclusion. But 

it is an interesting proposal and great work you have done. 

Mr. DANFORTH. Can I add, I just—thank you. I would like to say 

the reason we did that—we did not say ‘‘farmers.’’ We said ‘‘stakeholders,’’ which might include farmers and grocers and others. But 

the reason we did that—you asked the question about decisions between fundamental and basic research—or basic research and applied research and so on. We think that those decisions are best 

made face-to-face confrontation between scientists and those who 

need the research, the kind of thing where there is actual contact. 

That is pretty well done in some of the NIH panels. And if you had 

that, then you can argue things, like the scientists can say, ‘‘We 

want to do this,’’ and the people will say, ‘‘We do not need all that. 

Why do you want to do that?’’ The people who use the science can 

say, ‘‘You have got to solve this problem.’’ The scientists can say, 

‘‘We understand, and we would like to, but that is beyond today’s 

science. That is going to have to wait until we do other things 

first.’’

So if you want to have the best policies, we felt that bringing 

these people together to argue them out would be a good thing to 

do. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Very much like what Dr. Thicke says, getting down to the local level. 

Mr. DANFORTH. Right. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Dr. Armstrong, relative to CREATE–21, obviously there is a lot of enthusiasm in some parts of the research 

community about CREATE–21. I would like for you just to take a 

minute to explain a little bit more about the process that the Land 

Grant Association went through to develop CREATE–21, who was 

involved, who voted on this, who was entitled vote, and what does 

that vote tell us. We know the criticism of the program. You know 

the criticism. Tell us how you respond to the criticisms that are out 

there. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. A couple of years ago, we put together a small 

group to ask the question how would we do it again. Part of that 

was precipitated by the President’s budget that would have taken 

Hatch dollars and moved it to competitive. And that would have 

been very devastating for the system because that capacity of that 

base, especially in the research area, has been explained, needing 

32

to have dairy work done in one State versus another. And we have 

discussed that. 

The group enlarged, and if you look at NASULGC, it represents 

76 universities that are land grants that are in this particular 

group. NASULGC is actually representing over 220 universities 

around the United States. That group includes veterinarians, individuals interested in human science, different boards. I will not 

bother you, you know, with the structure of NASULGC. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Last year, around August, we had a vote, so 

every land grant university—1994, 1890, historically black, the 

1862—had five to six votes. So Scott Angle and those at University 

of Georgia had five votes. Roughly 400 ballots were cast. Twothirds of the people responded, which is a high rate for our group. 

It is normally about like a Presidential election, 50 percent. And 

86 percent responded in favor of the proposal. And we had a lot of 

discussion, multiple conference calls, some conference calls with 

over 100 people, about this very discussion that the Chairman and 

I were having earlier: What is the balance—or what we are all having: What is the balance of the formula and the competitive? We 

sided on majority competitive. 

One of the major criticisms I addressed in my testimony has to 

do with ARS. ARS is a wonderful organization. We are not proposing to take away that intramural arm. I have worked with ARS 

scientists. We have them at Michigan State. We want to see programming and planning at the national level better coordinated 

and move things together at that level. We would not take away 

any facilities. That intramural research is especially important for 

agriculture and natural resources. Being able to move, dealing with 

at avian influenza, issues related to our health, we need that. And 

we would not disparage that at all. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, The Chairman. 

Chairman HARKIN. OK. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for your leadership on this. This is so important—and Senator 

Chambliss as well. 

Just to follow up with Dr. Armstrong, you started to answer with 

Senator Chambliss what I was going to ask you in terms of the debate in terms of funding capacity versus the competitive funding. 

And it is my understanding that you are suggesting a base and 

then 70 percent—is that correct?—above that would be competitive 

grant funding. Could you speak just a little bit more about why you 

think that having that capacity funding should be protected as part 

of this while you are also recommending competitive funding on top 

of that. But could you just talk a little bit more about that? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, certainly. First, Senator Stabenow, thank 

you for your leadership and support. 

One would be extension, that capacity. Extension is so important. 

It really translates—we are in the knowledge business, and extension takes the knowledge—whether it is generated on that campus 

or an ARS, it takes it out to the field. And it also reaches a broad 

33

range. It impacts Detroit in Michigan as well as it does Sanilac 

County. So it is very critically important. 

That capacity is needed—not to bolster that capacity to a tremendous amount, but let’s stabilize it and let’s get slightly above inflationary increases. So if you look at our proposal over the next 7 

years, for Michigan State University or ARS, there would be a 29–

percent increase in funding over 7 years. That is above inflation, 

but that is well above the 3 to 6 percent we have seen in the last 

9 years, cumulative. So that base needs to be bolstered. 

Now, I said 29 percent and not 30 percent because we take 1 percent and we put it toward the small 1862s—which we believe we 

need to have in the States. Agriculture is different, natural resource is different in every state—and our minority-serving institutions. So that small percentage translates to about 150–percent increase to the 1994s and around a 75–percent increase for the 

1890’s. 

Our USDA Advisory Board reviewed the minority-serving institutions last year, and we heard from the 1994 and the 1890, and believe me, the capacity really needs to be bolstered at those institutions to bring along the partnership. 

The other point is the integrated systems approach competitive 

funding is needed as well to round out the picture, the balance. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. I am going to have to 

leave. It does not reflect my interest level. But I appreciate all of 

you very much and your work. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. [Presiding.] Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

the people who are here today to testify for your input on this, and 

you have invested a lot of time and energy into coming up with 

strategies that make sense in terms of where we put research dollars. This is a farm bill that is going to be important to the agricultural community and all aspects of it, and there is a lot—I have 

talked with farmers and ranchers across my State for some time 

about it, and, of course, was a real interest in making sure that we 

have got a reliable safety net in place for our producers. And we 

talk about conservation and energy development and the commodity title probably the most, but research is a critically important part of this farm bill, and it is critically important to the future of agriculture and, frankly, bioenergy, which has become a big 

area of research and one that I think is going to yield some big 

dividends down the road. 

So thank you for the good work that you put into giving us some 

insights and ideas about how to proceed and what type of a model 

works the best. 

I have, in visiting with South Dakota State University, our land 

grant university in South Dakota, they support the CREATE–21 

approach, and I know that there are a couple of others that are on 

the table as well, including one that was put forward by the Department of Agriculture. 

But that being said, I think coming up with the right balance between how we deliver competitive grants, coupled with the proven 

success that we have had with formula funding, how much of the 

funding is available for direct program funding through perhaps 

block grants or that that would come through the annual approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Jun 06, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\35042.TXT SAG2 PsN: SAG2
34

priations process, those are all decisions that we are going to have 

to deal with here as we put this new farm bill together. 

So, anyway, I would like to just, if I might, focus a couple of 

questions with regard to some proposals that are out there. 

We have had a lot of, hundreds of millions of dollars now going 

into bioenergy research and development and certainly having billions more will be spent in the future. At least I hope that we are 

spending the amount of money we need to, to continue to develop 

what is an incredibly important success story in rural America and 

when it comes to our energy security. 

But the primary agencies that have been responsible for that 

have been USDA and the Department of Energy. How are these 

agencies working today in terms of coordinating that research? And 

how would creating a new Research, Education, and Extension 

Service help or hurt that coordination? And I guess I would pose 

that to any of our panelists. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you. 

Senator THUNE. Dr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, thank you, Senator Thune. I will take a 

shot at that, but that is certainly a question for Secretary Buchanan. 

I think it would enhance the ability because we would have more 

focus. We would have one program leader in that particular area, 

and it would allow us to move forward. I think DOE is certainly—

I know several universities have been working on some center 

grants that really gets at the fundamental aspect of cell walls and 

cellulosic. That work will come along, and it needs to be coupled 

with extension and translational type of research to get that applied. So that is one example. 

I also think it is related to—you know, our chemical engineer, 

our specialist at Michigan State, I asked him, What if 20 or 25 

years ago the Federal Government had invested competitive funds 

in a systems approach and in the fundamental approach to cellulosic 20 or 25 years ago? And he commented that he thought we 

would have less than $1–a-gallon fuel today, and profound impacts 

on rural South Dakota, rural Michigan, et cetera. So that is a very 

important aspect. 

So I would bring in the—I think it would enhance the collaboration. That collaboration is occurring, certainly—so I am not saying 

that that is broken—between DOE and USDA. 

Senator THUNE. Does anybody else want to comment on that? Dr. 

Danforth? 

Mr. DANFORTH. I would just say that I think realistically this is 

a very long-term effort and is very, very difficult, and we just cannot overlook that, and it is going to take a lot of fundamental research, too, and the best scientific minds to try and solve some of 

these very difficult and challenging questions. 

Let me just say at the simplest level we cannot have biofuels 

without greatly increasing productivity per acre. You know, that 

sort of work needs to go on, and that definitely, it seems to me, is 

a USDA challenge, but it also involves a better understanding at 

the basic level of how plants grow, why they need more water or 

less water, and how one affects that and so on. 

35

One also wants to look at growing crops that are easier to convert to energy. You can imagine more energy, useful energy, in 

corn kernels and so on, or oils in soybeans. That is a big problem 

because at the moment NAFTA, at least is a net importer of vegetable oils. And then better attacks on how to convert cellulose to 

energy, not an easy problem, or lignocellulose to energy, an even 

harder problem. These are going to require lots of people working 

on them. They are in the kind of—I would put them as sort of solving certain kinds of cancer. You know, you just—we need to know 

a lot more before we are going to solve them efficiently to get lowcost fuels in sufficient quantities to ever get to $1 a gallon. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Just to follow up, and this is related to industries important to your State, and Dr. Thicke mentioned it, the 

long-term genetic breeding work that we need. The wheat growers, 

I met with their board a week or so ago, Darren Coppock and others, and they had some questions about CREATE–21; They were 

concerned what is going to happen with the capacity, the ability to 

do the long-term breeding research. 

I would contend that if we do not have a balanced portfolio and 

we have the minimal amount of funding that we have now, we 

force scientists into either/or. And they have to make a decision 

that is deeper than competing for the grant. They have to decide 

where they are going to compete. And so if the only funding is 

available in the biomass and in the other hot areas, they move to 

that direction, and they are not there to do the wheat breeding or 

the classical genetics work that is very expensive but very important to particular industries. 

So it is a balancing the portfolio perspective that is very critical. 

Mr. THICKE. Could I make a point on that? 

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Mr. THICKE. I do not have a dog in the fight, really, between formula funding versus competitive grants. But as a farmer and having worked on a national level in extension, I worry about what 

would happen if formula funds were gone completely, because some 

of the small States would not compete well. I know that from working in the competitive grant systems. What we would find is some 

huge universities would get huger, and the money would flow to 

few places, and it would get lost elsewhere. I know that would happen. It is just something to think about. 

And one little aside on the ethanol thing, I did a quick calculation. About 3 percent of our gasoline use comes from ethanol. Now, 

if we increased our miles per gallon by three-quarters of a mile per 

gallon, we would save as much fuel as the ethanol we produced. 

And so you as Senators have to look at that. I would urge you to 

look at that. A couple miles per gallon, from 25 miles a gallon to 

27 miles a gallon, we could eliminate much of this 35 billion gallons of ethanol that President Bush would like us to produce. I 

mean, that is a very important thing. It is like an elephant in the 

room we are ignoring. 

Senator THUNE. I guess the other question I would have, and 

this has to do with the current research structure at USDA, one 

of the—at least what I hear stakeholders talk about is that it incorporates a lot of local input and access to research subjects and topics and the projects. How would CREATE–21 maintain that local 

36

influence and ensure that stakeholders such as farmers and members of universities continue to have a voice in the direction of 

USDA research initiatives? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think it would do nothing but enhance that, 

Senator. I believe it would do that through an advisory board. 

There are some differences in what we propose as an advisory 

board versus the Department’s. In fact, our advisory board is more 

in line with Dr. Danforth’s proposal. But we would not alter the 

connections of the university or ARS at the ground level. What we 

are really talking about is how do we generate the ideas. Where 

is the planning? 

Take the honeybee example. If we have a problem you have to 

now go to multiple people and multiple agencies. There should be 

one place, and then take that and work through the intramural or 

the competitive to solve the problem. 

So it is really a subtle but a very profound change in having a 

single set of program leaders at the national level. I think that 

would enhance the ability of a producer to walk in and say here 

is a national program leader for soil science, and that is going to 

impact forestry, it is going to impact different areas. And then, of 

course, there are teams below that are more specific. Some may be 

more intramural from a delivery perspective. Some may be more 

competitive. And, of course, we want to grow the competitive, 

which all scientists can compete for these competitive programs, 

not just ARS or the land grant universities, but all scientists could 

compete for these competitive programs to get the very best scientists, the very best science. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. My time is well expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman HARKIN. Good line of questioning, though. 

Dr. Thicke, I just was looking here, the response that you just 

said indicative concern about funding going to a few States, a few 

large States, if we did not have the formula funding. Dr. Leshner 

in his testimony pointed out that the top ten State recipients of 

USDA R&D funding receive 51 percent of the total share. But then 

he goes on to point out that the top 10 for NIH get 72 percent, and 

for NSF it is 61 percent. So of those three, agriculture is the best 

in terms of being more widely disbursed in that regard. But, still, 

even with the system that we have had, the top 10 States get 51 

percent of the share. So I am not certain that under the present 

system it is being disbursed evenly either. 

The other thing that Dr. Danforth pointed out that I think bears repeating is that NIH spends about $15 for research for every $1 

spent by USDA. Fifteen times. The NIH awards about $150 in competitive, peer-reviewed grants for every $1 awarded by USDA. For 

the last 20 years, the growth in agricultural research has averaged 

around 1 percent compared with about 6 percent for NIH over that 

20–year period of time. So what that all adds up to, I think, is—

what I have heard from all of you—that regardless of how we 

shape and fashion this, that because of the new challenges facing 

us, both in food and in energy, that we are really inadequate in the 

amount of money we are putting into ag research. I see heads nodding. Dr. Leshner? 

Mr. LESHNER. Absolutely. That is absolutely the case. 

37

Chairman HARKIN. From the AAAS standpoint? 

Mr. LESHNER. Absolutely. 

Chairman HARKIN. Dr. Armstrong? 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Absolutely, Senator. 

Chairman HARKIN. Dr. Danforth? 

Mr. DANFORTH. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HARKIN. And I assume Dr. Thicke. Well, that is interesting. You know, we look at the budgets and what we are doing 

here, and we are getting so much demand on agriculture. And I am 

just not certain that we are responding adequately enough with the 

amount of dollars that we have. 

The only last thing I had was for Dr. Thicke, just one thing for 

the record here. In response to the question by Senator Chambliss 

and what would help you as a hands-on farmer, you said more direct contact with the researchers and things like that. Let me just 

change that question a little bit. Since the organic industry is 

growing rapidly—at least the demands on it are growing rapidly, 

what specific information—information, now—or research needs do 

you have that would help you or help other farmers transition? 

A friend of mine is an organic farmer in western Iowa. He took 

a whole section of land and turned it into organic farming, and he 

grows organic corn and beans and hogs and cattle. He has done 

some rye and a few other different things. It is all organic. And he 

is doing quite well at it now. 

The problem was the transition and to get to that point. And as 

he went looking around for research to help him, there just was not 

much. And here is a college graduate, his wife is a college graduate, two kids are college graduates, in the operation, but they just 

could not seem to find the kind of research needed, about what you 

do and how do you do it. 

So I am just wondering if that rings true with you. Again, I 

would just repeat: What kind of specific information or research 

would someone in your situation need? Not so much the direct contact, but what is the information you need? 

Mr. THICKE. Well, first of all, I think you are right about there 

is a lack of information for organic farmers, and for many years organic farmers were basically put off. They did not feel like extension had the information they needed. They did not know where to 

go. They basically got it from each other. And now extension is 

starting to respond, and particularly where you get people, individuals who are working in that area, it makes a big difference. 

But as far as specific information, in the transition and even in 

ongoing organic farming, some of the big issues are weed management and insect management, especially in vegetable crops; and in 

animal systems, animal health management without synthetic 

kinds of antibiotics and such. 

We tend to think, because we have a long history of many billions of dollars being put into research on antibiotics, that antibiotics are the final bottom line. But that is not the case. There are 

some innovative products out there by little shoestring companies 

that are helpful. I for example, will use for calf diarrhea these little 

herbal boluses that really, really work on something like that, but 

nobody has any idea——

Chairman HARKIN. I have no idea what you are talking about. 

38

Mr. THICKE. I am sorry. Calf sickness for baby calves, sicknesses 

in—a bolus is a big pill. Sorry. And this really helps a lot to knock 

the disease out of the calf. It is something that we think only antibiotics can do. 

But I am coming to the point that there is a lot of innovation 

done here and there, but it needs to be done more systematically. 

We need to have the scientific base to help us understand what is 

happening and to verify which products work and which do not 

work, and also what kind of a holistic systems help to prevent disease. So it is basically a holistic kind of approach. 

Did that make any sense? Did I lose you? 

Chairman HARKIN. I may ask my staff to interpret all that. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman HARKIN. To help me a little bit on that one. 

Well, listen, those were just really the things I wanted to cover 

with you for the record. Again, I think we are going to struggle 

through this on this Committee, and I assume on the House Committee, too, both from the authorizing standpoint of authorizing the 

amounts, but then on Ag. Approps. to try to get the amounts of 

money in, either mandatory or discretionary, one of the two, and 

then to structure itself. 

As you can see, I personally have a lot of questions about the 

structure. I still do not understand how either your proposal or the 

proposal for CREATE–21 is different than what we tried in 1979 

and that did not work out. Maybe it is different. I will just have 

to figure that out, and why this would work and the other one did 

not work. 

But as you can tell, both Senator Chambliss and I are very interested in agricultural research, and all aspects of it, and how to 

strengthen it and how to use this farm bill, to position us for the 

next 5, 10 years and put us in the direction we should go. And to 

that extent, I thank all of you for your input and welcome you to 

continue to give us input as we deliberate on this in the coming 

months. 

Senator Chambliss? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I would just comment, Mr. Chairman, to all 

four of you, as well as Dr. Buchanan, I cannot tell you how much 

we appreciate you, No. 1, doing the work that you are doing and 

thinking outside the box and trying to come up with new ways to 

make a good product better; and, second, for being here today to 

share these thoughts with us. I am a big fan, just like Senator Harkin, of research, period. Whether it is defense, medicine, or agriculture, I am firmly convinced that our children are going to live 

in a better world than we are, primarily because of the investment 

that we are making in your area today. And we just have got to 

continue to do that. 

So I thank you for the work that you are doing out there and trying to help us formulate some long-term policy, and thanks to all 

of you for being here today. 

Chairman HARKIN. Thank you again, and the Committee will 

stand adjourned. Our next meeting will be the 21st, and the subject 

will be trade. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 7, 2007

40


35042.001
41


35042.002
42


35042.003
43


35042.004
44


35042.005
45


35042.006
46


35042.007
47


35042.008
48


35042.009
49


35042.010
50


35042.011
51


35042.012
52


35042.013
53


35042.014
54


35042.015
55


35042.016
56


35042.017
57


35042.018
58


35042.019
59


35042.020
60


35042.021
61


35042.022
62


35042.023
63


35042.024
64


35042.025
65


35042.026
66


35042.027
67


35042.028
68


35042.029
69


35042.030
70


35042.031
71


35042.032
72


35042.033
73


35042.034
74


35042.035
75


35042.036
76


35042.037
77


35042.038
78


35042.039
79


35042.040
80


35042.041
81


35042.042
82


35042.043
83


35042.044
84


35042.045
85


35042.046
86


35042.047
87


35042.048
(89)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 7, 2007

90


35042.049
91


35042.050
92


35042.051
93


35042.052
94


35042.053
95


35042.054
96


35042.055
97


35042.056
98


35042.057
99


35042.058
100


35042.059
101


35042.060
102


35042.061
103


35042.062
104


35042.063
105


35042.064
106


35042.065
107


35042.066
108


35042.067
109


35042.068
110


35042.069
111


35042.070
112


35042.071
113


35042.072
114


35042.073
115


35042.074
116


35042.075
117


35042.076
118


35042.077
119


35042.078
120


35042.079
121


35042.080
122


35042.081
123


35042.082
124


35042.083
125


35042.084
126


35042.085
127


35042.086
128


35042.087
129


35042.088
130


35042.089
131


35042.090
132


35042.091
133


35042.092
134


35042.093
135


35042.094
136


35042.095
137


35042.096
138


35042.097
139


35042.098
140


35042.099
141


35042.100
142


35042.101
143


35042.102
144


35042.103
145


35042.104
146


35042.105
147


35042.106
148


35042.107
149


35042.108
150


35042.109
151


35042.110
152


35042.111
153


35042.112
154


35042.113
155


35042.114
156


35042.115
157


35042.116
158


35042.117
159


35042.118
160


35042.119
161


35042.120
162


35042.121
163


35042.122
164


35042.123
165


35042.124
166


35042.125
167


35042.126
168


35042.127
169


35042.128
170


35042.129
171


35042.130
172


35042.131
173


35042.132
174


35042.133
175


35042.134
176


35042.135
177


35042.136
178


35042.137
179


35042.138
180


35042.139
181


35042.140
182


35042.141
183


35042.142
184


35042.143
185


35042.144
186


35042.145
187


35042.146
188


35042.147
189


35042.148
190


35042.149
191


35042.150
192

Æ