U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–743 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

S. HRG. 106–905

CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH AND AGRICULTURE’S

ROLE IN REDUCING CLIMATE CHANGE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH,

NUTRITION AND GENERAL LEGISLATION

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH AND AGRICULTURE’S ROLE IN REDUCING

CLIMATE CHANGE

MAY 4, 2000

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING:

Thursday, May 4, 2000, Carbon Cycle Research and Agriculture’s Role in

Reducing Climate Change ................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX:

Thursday, May 4, 2000 ............................................................................................ 43

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Thursday, May 4, 2000 ............................................................................................ 101

Thursday 4, 2000

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from Kansas, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Production and Price Competitiveness, of the Committee on Agriculture,

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

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from Iowa, ......................................... 13

Kerrey, Hon. J. Robert, a U.S. Senator from Nebraska, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness, of the Committee

on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ............................................................. 10

Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from South Dakota ...................................... 7

WITNESSES

PANEL I

Collins, Keith, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC. ......................................................................................................................... 5

Hofmann, David J., Director, Climate Change Monitoring and Diagnostics

Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder,

Colorado ................................................................................................................ 3

Stuckey, Richard, Executive Vice President, Council for Agriculture, Science

and Technology (CAST), Ames, Iowa .................................................................. 7

PANEL II

Kimble, John M., Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Lincoln, Nebraska ................................................................................................ 31

Rice, Charles W., Soil Microbiology Professor, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, Manhattan, Kansas ..................................................... 29

PANEL III

Hass, John, Larned, Kansas ................................................................................... 35

Richards, William, Former Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, Circleville,

Ohio ....................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Roberts, Hon. Pat ............................................................................................. 44

Page

IV

PREPARED STATEMENTS—CONTINUED

Collins, Keith .................................................................................................... 56

Haas, John ........................................................................................................ 95

Hofmann, David J. ........................................................................................... 46

Kimble, John M. ............................................................................................... 83

Rice, Charles W. ............................................................................................... 74

Richards, William ............................................................................................. 89

Stuckey, Richard ............................................................................................... 71

DOCUMENT(S) SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Position statement (with attachment), submitted by Clark Woodworth ..... 102

Charts (Carbon Diooxide), submitted by David J. Hofmann ........................ 113

Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils to help Mitigate Global Warming,

submitted by Richard Stuckey ..................................................................... 105

U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (a Report of the Carbon and Climate

Working Group), submitted by David J. Hofmann (retained in the

Committee files) ............................................................................................

(1)

CARBON CYCLE RESEARCH AND AGRICULTURE’S ROLE IN REDUCING CLIMATE

CHANGE

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2000

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRODUCTION AND PRICE

COMPETITIVENESS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in room

SR–328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat Roberts, (Chairman of the Subcommittee,) presiding.

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Grassley, Kerrey,

and Johnson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAT ROBERTS, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM KANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRODUCTION AND PRICE COMPETITIVENESS, OF THE COMMITTEE

ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

The CHAIRMAN. The Subcommittee will come to order.

I have an opening statement, a brief opening statement, and

then we will get right to the witnesses. A special good afternoon

and a welcome to today’s hearing.

Given scientific uncertainties about the magnitude, the timing,

the rate, and the regional consequences of climate change. What

are the appropriate responses to the problem in regards to world

decisionmakers? The administration has decided that the Kyoto

Protocol, which mandates the United States to cut its energy usage

7-percent below 1990 levels with little or no developing Nation participation, may be the appropriate method.

I am not going to open up a debate about the treaty or climate

change, but, obviously, I think all of us are interested in finding

a solution, more especially those of us that have the privilege of

representing agriculture. One component of a solution is croplands,

soils, and forests that can soak up carbon dioxide. We will hear

today from the leader of NOAA, the Agency that reports that crops,

soils, and forests have the ability to absorb most if not all of the

carbon dioxide emitted through fossil fuel emissions. Let me repeat

that: crops, soils, and forests have the ability to absorb most if not

all of the carbon dioxide emitted through possible fuel emissions.

Is there a sensible solution to climate change that has benefits

for agriculture as opposed to pursuing a different kind of strategy—

2

it might be diplomatic, but it also might be highly regulatory—that

may impose harsh unforeseen consequences on the United States?

I have introduced legislation that will promote agricultural research in the area of climate change while giving producers and

policymakers a better understanding of the link between the carbon cycle and agricultural best management practices.

This bill, S. 1066, the Carbon Cycle and Agricultural Best Practices Research Act, would authorize the Department of Agriculture

to conduct needed research on the mechanics of storing carbon in

soil and to perform research that will better define agriculture’s

ability to solve climate change. Why? Agriculture may have the

ability to store 200-million tons of carbon annually or the equivalent of 307-million-tons-of-coal, and that is, to put it mildly, a lot

of carbon. For a regional perspective, a large utility in Kansas uses

about 10- to 11-million tons of coal annually.

The research focuses on best management practices such as conservation tillage, efficient fertilizer application, intensive crop rotations, and increased cover crops. These practices actually reduce

soil erosion and reduce the fuel costs, they improve soil fertility,

they improve water quality, and they increase production. For this

reason, the promotion of conservation practices in agriculture remains a win-win opportunity—and I don’t know how many other

positives I mentioned there, but we could list the same number of

wins after each one—in regards to everyone.

With that in mind, I am pleased to welcome the panels here

today and look forward to hearing about agriculture’s role in mitigating greenhouse gases. Now, today’s panelists include representatives from our Government agencies, leading carbon cycle researchers, and also agriculture producers who have embraced best management practices. Unfortunately, because we are in the middle of

the planting season, one of the producers that was invited to testify, Mr. Clark Woodworth, from Sterling, Kansas, America, could

not make the trip to Washington, and I would like to submit his

testimony for the record at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodworth can be found in the

appendix on page 102.]

Let me welcome to the panel David J. Hofmann, who is the Director of Climate Change Monitoring and Diagnostic Laboratory at

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, in

Boulder, Colorado; the eminent Chief Economist of the Department

of Agriculture, Mr. Keith Collins; and Richard Stuckey, the Executive Vice President of the Council for Agriculture Science and Technology. The acronym for that is CAST, but the real acronym is that

this organization has provided agriculture down through the years

a very strong policy recommendation on behalf of sound science.

Let me remind all the panelists that your entire testimony will

be submitted for the record. I would ask you to limit your statements to no more than 5-minutes so that everybody has ample time

to be heard. We do have, as everybody knows, a tough schedule

here in the Senate with the Appropriations Committee meeting and

the education bill on the floor. And so if you could perhaps hold

your remarks to about 5-minutes, it would be appreciated.

David, why don’t you start off, please?

3

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. HOFMANN, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE

CHANGE MONITORING AND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

BOULDER, COLORADO

Dr. HOFMANN. Good afternoon. I am Dr. David Hofmann, the Director of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory

in Boulder, Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me

the opportunity to testify before this committee on atmospheric carbon dioxide research and the important role that the terrestrial

biosphere—the soils, trees, and plants—now appear to play in taking up human-produced carbon dioxide. I am honored to be here

today and am grateful for your leadership in bringing attention to

this important issue. My written testimony briefly reviews what we

know about carbon dioxide uptake by the terrestrial biosphere

which have been obtained from large-scale global atmospheric

measurements which the NOAA laboratory I work for has been

conducting for many years.

As you know, the burning of fossil fuels and conversion of forested land for agricultural use has caused an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One of the most famous environmental records comes from one of the observatories in

our laboratory, the one in Hawaii at Mauna Loa. And having been

a scientist for about 35-years and only an administrator for about

five, I still have to have a chart in order to speak coherently. And

Andrew Larkin is putting up some charts over there. You also have

a copy on your desk that shows the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide

record, and what you see besides the major increase from the 1957

period when the record began are these oscillations up and down,

and this is evidence how the global biosphere, the terrestrial biosphere, takes up carbon in the summer, and in the winter it increases again.

[The information referred to can be found in the appendix on

page 113.]

If you go to the same latitude in the Southern Hemisphere, you

don’t see these huge oscillations because they don’t have the land

there and the trees to the extent that we do in the Northern Hemisphere.

So that is very important evidence right off the bat that the terrestrial biosphere is important. But data such as these allow us to

get a global picture of how carbon dioxide moves through a mobile

system of carbon exchange. Carbon dioxide is exchanged between

three major global reservoirs, and I show those with the next chart:

the oceans and the land exchanging carbon with the atmosphere.

And the little yellow blocks to the right show how much carbon is

exchanged. The tallest one has about 90-billion tons of carbon, and

that is exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere. Next, the

land exchanges about 50- or 60-billion-tons. And yet the human

emissions are only about 8-billion-tons, the third block from the

left, and the amount that the ocean and the lands actually uptake

is only about half of that, about 4-billion-tons.

So the problem is that we have a system that takes up a lot of

carbon, gives off a lot of carbon, but only keeps about 2-percent of

it. And so the question is: How can we enhance this? Is there some

way that we can do that?

4

Prior to about 1990, it was believed that the oceans played the

major role in taking up about half of this excess human carbon dioxide and that the lands played only a minor role. In the last 10-

years we have a lot of new information, new techniques. For example, not all carbon dioxide molecules are the same. Some of them

have a heavy carbon atom, carbon-13, and plants don’t like carbon13. They discriminate against it. They like to take up ordinary carbon-12. But the oceans don’t care, they take up 13, they take up

12. And so if we measure not only the carbon dioxide but the isotopic composition, about 8- in 1,000-molecules are carbon-13. We

can fingerprint the carbon dioxide. Where does it come from? We

have been doing that now for almost 10-years, and we are convinced that there is a major terrestrial sink on the planet, and

most of the evidence suggests that it is, indeed, in North America.

The next figure shows a block diagram of how we think carbon

is partitioned. This is, again, in billion-tons-of-carbon. Remember,

humans put out about 8-billion-tons. On the left is the amount that

the lands take up. The dark blue bars is the average between 1991

and 1997. We see that the lands have taken up about 3-billion

tons, the oceans about two, and the rest remains in the atmosphere, about 3- to 4-billion-tons. But it is highly variable, and that

is very important.

In 1998, the amount in the atmosphere, the red bar, jumped up

to 6-million tons. The land only took up half as much as it usually

did, the oceans even less. In 1999, the land picked up again and

took up a lot of carbon.

We don’t understand this, Mr. Chairman. We don’t know why

there is such high variability and such large amounts of uptake in

some years. There is other evidence from surveys and models, that

suggests the biosphere does not take up that much carbon. It is

this uncertainty which gave rise to the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science

Plan, and I think it is this plan that will help us understand these

variations and pinpoint where the carbon is going.

Finally, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your interest in this matter. I would be happy to address any questions you or your committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have a final point or some additional

points, go ahead. Don’t pay attention to that red light.

[Laughter.]

Dr. HOFMANN. I would like to say just a little bit more about the

U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan.

The CHAIRMAN. We might as well turn that off. It is abetting the

global warming. We don’t want to do that.

[Laughter.]

Dr. HOFMANN. The U.S. Global Change Research Program several years ago produced a report entitled ‘‘A U.S. Carbon Cycle

Science Plan,’’ and copies of this report actually were sent over

here earlier, and they should be around here somewhere. It looks

like this.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we have it up here.

Dr. HOFMANN. It is a green book with some pretty pictures on

the cover. A group of 15-scientists who are leaders in carbon cycle

research from all the agencies that are involved—NASA, NSF,

5

NOAA, USDA, DOE, USGS—produced the plan which focuses on

the North American carbon cycle sink. Is it a sink or isn’t it?

To me, the atmosphere doesn’t lie. What is in the atmosphere is

sort of where the rubber meets the road because that is what is

going to cause the problems. And now what we have to do is try

to make the measurements on a regional scale, flux towers, inventories, make those measurements converge with the rest of the picture. It is kind of like you have an elephant and you are trying to

identify it, and one group is up close and they say it is gray and

wrinkly. Another one is off in an airplane and say it is a gray blob.

So it is that intermediate range, getting 100 yards from it, and saying, yes, that is an elephant. That is what we need. And we know

how to do it, and the Carbon Cycle Science Plan outlines it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hofmann can be found in the appendix on page 46.]

The CHAIRMAN. That would certainly lend a lot of specificity and

a lot of explanation to what we are trying to get a hold of, a small

gray elephant.

Mr. Johnson, welcome to the Subcommittee, Sir.

Keith, why don’t you proceed?

STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

for inviting the Department of Agriculture to participate today, and

thanks, too, for holding this hearing because it brings attention to

such an important subject. I am going to briefly review our activities in this area and identify some of the places where we think

greater research is needed.

At USDA we believe that human-created greenhouse gas emissions present potential risks as well as opportunities for the Nation’s farmers and ranchers and that over time they could have important consequences for farm production, farm prices, and farm

income. Consequently, we consider carbon cycle research a top priority, a top research priority. And, in fact, in our fiscal year 2001

budget request, we have asked for more than a doubling of funding

for this work.

Our program tries to understand how increasing concentrations

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere affect food, fiber, and forest

production in the ecosystems that they are in and how agricultural

activities can contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gases. We

have a simple goal, and that is to provide credible information for

farmers, ranchers, foresters, policy officials, and the public.

Our research program is conducted by scientists in several agencies: the Agricultural Research Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Forest Service. It is conducted by economists

in the Economic Research Service and also conducted through

grants provided to universities through the Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service.

I want to emphasize that in many of our agencies our efforts are

closely linked with the land-grant university system. And I also

want to emphasize that on our program side, our delivery of conservation programs, we have long had an interest in soil organic

6

carbon because it improves soil, water, and air quality, all co-benefits of sequestering carbon, or sequestering carbon is a co-benefit

of better soil, water, and air quality.

Well, what are we doing? We are doing things like examining

how plants use carbon dioxide and convert it to soil organic carbon.

Some of that work looks at, for example, how higher CO2 concentrations affect yields and how higher concentrations of CO2, working with the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus

cycle, weeds, how they all interact together to affect yields.

We have research at a number of sites on how crop management

practices affect carbon sequestration, and in cooperation with universities, we are taking the results of that research and trying to

build a simple field-level tool, which goes by the name of

CQUESTER, that producers, technicians of USDA, and consultants

could all use in the field to estimate stored carbon based on a soil

type, climate, land use, and crop management practice.

We are also trying to bring the benefits of soil carbon to the attention of the Nation’s farmers and ranchers in various ways and

communicate better with the agriculture community. For example,

the recent agricultural dialogue series that we are conducting facilitated by Meridian House would be one example of that.

On the economic side, we are focusing on the economic costs and

benefits of efforts to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, including looking at the impacts of alternative policies to promote increased sequestration.

In my longer testimony I also outline some of the work of the

Forest Service, and I do that because I think it is very important

for production agriculture. For example, they are looking at costefficient ways to convert wood into ethanol. We might ultimately

see the use of short rotation trees perhaps grown by farmers for

ethanol that could reduce emissions by both sequestering carbon

and by replacing fossil fuel.

Well, despite the good things that we are doing, a lot more needs

to be done, and I know on the next panel we have one of our notable researchers at USDA, John Kimble, who is going to go into

some of those research challenges. We have submitted a budget request for an increase of $22 million for carbon cycle research for

fiscal year 2001. Much of that effort would be focusing on measuring the effects of management practices on crop and grazing lands,

establishing 20 observation sites around the country for measuring

carbon flows. Our work would range from basic research on the

role of soil microbes to more applied research to improve our models that estimate carbon storage under a range of conditions, locations, and practices from the field level to the regional level to the

national level.

We also need improved soil databases. We would like to complete

our soil survey and put online a national soils information system

with soil carbon data for agricultural regions and for major crop

management systems. And we also need to undertake better field

validation and calibration to ground truth the modeling, the remote

sensing, and the statistical carbon stock measurement approaches

that are used.

This year, for example, we have a project called the terrestrial

carbon management project, and what we are trying to do with

7

that is produce credible national estimates of carbon inventories associated with agricultural land uses and management practices.

And we plan to use that work to estimate how a carbon market

would affect land-use change and management decisions on farms,

and the effects of those on farm production, farm prices, and farm

incomes.

In conclusion, I believe that USDA is working in partnership

with other Federal agencies, with the university community, and

we are responding to the information needs of the carbon cycle. But

a lot more needs to be done. Today there is growing enthusiasm in

agriculture for carbon sequestration because many producers, I believe, see an opportunity to benefit the environment, but they also

see a new source of income. Well, I see that potential, too, but I

believe we have to be realistic.

Today there is no effective market for carbon, and there remain

considerable uncertainties regarding the levels and persistence of

carbon storage associated with many agricultural activities. But

what we do know is that sequestering carbon through best management practices is indispensable for soil, water, and air quality benefits. And to make those practices, those BMPs, financially rewarding for carbon storage is going to take some time and a much greater research effort.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins can be found in the appendix on page 56.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Keith.

Senator Johnson, would you like to make any comment at this

point? Welcome to the Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

your leadership on this issue. It is one that I have some interest

in. So that we can expedite the panel discussion here, which I

think is the main point of all of this, I would submit my statement

for the record for the Subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be placed in the record

at this point.

Dr. Stuckey.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. STUCKEY, PH.D., EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY (CAST), AMES, IOWA

Dr. STUCKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Senate Subcommittee. I am Richard E. Stuckey, Executive Vice

President of the Council for Agriculture Science and Technology

(CAST), whose mission is to identify and interpret scientific research information for legislators, regulators, the media, and others

involved in public policymaking. CAST is an organization that represents 38 professional scientific societies whose individual members exceed 180,000 scientists.

Because it is not possible for one person to reflect the multifaceted views of all CAST members, especially on this particular

topic today, I do, however, think that my testimony represents the

8

large majority of our membership. It has been endorsed by the Executive Committee of CAST.

CAST has addressed various aspects of agricultural and climate

change on previous occasions. Many of you will recall the 1992

CAST report that was prepared for the climate change meetings

held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In December of 1998, CAST

cohosted, with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Oak

Ridge National Laboratory, a workshop on ‘‘Carbon Sequestration

in Soils: Science, Monitoring, and Beyond.’’ This was held at St. Michaels, Maryland. CAST subsequently produced an issue paper

that summarized this large publication into about seven or eight

pages on the workshop that was held. CAST has also identified a

new task force that will be meeting next week to begin work on a

new report that is tentatively titled ‘‘Agriculture’s Response to the

Climate Change Challenge.’’ Let me talk just a bit about the St. Michaels’ workshop. This was

attended by nearly 100 invited persons, mostly from the United

States and from Canada. It represented people from the White

House, regulators, congressional staff, plant and equipment industries, Federal agencies and laboratories, consumer groups, growers

and grower organizations, and university scientists. The 3-day

workshop addressed four areas of soil carbon sequestration:

science, monitoring, decertification, and policy and economics. I

would like to make a few comments on the first two.

The science: Findings of the St. Michaels’ workshop were that organic matter contributes greatly to plant productivity and ecosystem stability. Soil organic matter plays a central role in the

global carbon cycle. Agricultural practices that conserve soil and increase productivity while improving soil quality also increase the

carbon content in soils, thereby removing carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere.

There is excellent potential for carbon sequestration in all managed soils. Promising lines of research are evolving that could lead

to an improved understanding of soil carbon dynamics and the subsequent development of superior carbon sequestration methods.

Among these are understanding the mechanisms of carbon stabilization, landscape effects on carbon sequestration, biotechnology

to enhance plant productivity and favor carbon sequestration, and

a better understanding of the environmental effects of soil carbon

sequestration on erosion, nutrient leaching, and emissions of other

greenhouse gases.

A few comments about monitoring. Rapid and accurate monitoring and verification systems are a limitation at present. We do

have the technology to accurate measure carbon changes in the

soil. Improved and more cost-effective methods of monitoring

changes in soil carbon likely will come from geographical information systems—GIS—and modeling, application of high-resolution

remote sensing, and continuous direct measurements of carbon dioxide exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems.

It will take a combination of instrumentation to effectively monitor

and verify results. These would range from the in-field carbon

probes to verifiable simulation model extrapolation using high-resolution remote sensing and GIS to aggregate larger regional areas

with time.

9

On April 6th and 7th, I participated in the first of a three-part

series of workshops entitled ‘‘Global Climate Change Issues for Agriculture.’’ These series of workshops, as the former speaker Keith

Collins mentioned, were sponsored by the United States Department of Agriculture, facilitated by the Meridian Institute, and the

first was hosted at the American Farm Bureau Offices in Washington, DC. These workshops are comprised primarily of scientists

sharing their knowledge of global climate issues with grower and

farm organizations. Representatives from Federal agencies, congressional staff, the White House, and other interested parties are

observers to the roundtable discussions. I do commend the USDA

for sponsoring these workshops and, in particular, the many and

diverse farm organizations that attend to learn, discuss, and share

their views on the impacts that various actions will have on the agriculture sector.

The farm community has many legitimate concerns: Is global

warming real? Does agriculture contribute and, if so, how much?

Can agriculture be a solution? What are the implications of temperature and moisture shifts?

Today, agriculture through the use of best management practices

contributes substantially to carbon sequestration in soils. The sequestration of carbon in soils enhances soil quality and helps offset

some of the emissions produced by agriculture today, which was

often described as a win-win situation by several presenters at the

workshop.

As a person who interfaces with many scientists and producer

groups, I want to commend the establishment of the workshops involving producer groups and scientists. I strongly believe that both

groups need to collaborate with policy decisionmakers to include

science-based solutions in all future policies.

In summary, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I believe in agriculture there are two approaches to lessening the CO2

and greenhouse gases, and both these are through expanded research and adoption of new technologies. Research directed toward

improved sequestration of carbon in soils and plants and research

directed toward new technology and improved emission efficiencies

and the cropping practices that rely less on the fossil fuels are

needed. Using good management techniques that include rebuilding soil organic matter, practicing less tillage rather than more, developing and using biofuels, and practicing good environmental

stewardship will be important contributions by the agricultural

community.

We do need to recognize the valuable service of the American

farmers who provide abundant low-cost and high-quality food. We

should assist the American farmer by providing research opportunities to develop new technologies. Placing the primary burden of

reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions on agriculture without addressing other entities, both on a national and

on a global scale, that contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions

will be self-defeating. The greenhouse gas emissions is a global

problem. With new technology yet to be discovered, agriculture will

become even more benign and productive. We owe it to our society

to make it so.

10

Lastly, I thank you very much for allowing me to present this

testimony on behalf of the CAST membership.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stuckey can be found in the appendix on page 71.]

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Dr. Stuckey.

We have been joined now by the distinguished Ranking Member

of the Subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.

Would you like to make a statement, Sir?

Senator KERREY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. ROBERT KERREY, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEBRASKA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PRODUCTION AND PRICE COMPETITIVENESS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

Senator KERREY. First, thank you very much for holding the

hearing, and I think we are dealing with a subject here that—Dr.

Stuckey used the phrase ‘‘win-win.’’ There may actually be more

than just two wins in this.

The CHAIRMAN. I had five in my opening statement.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have five? Wow. Five wins.

Dr. STUCKEY. I had to keep it to 5-minutes, or I tried to.

The CHAIRMAN. That is more than he used to get in an entire

year.

[Laughter.]

Yes. I am very happy you can remember over a decade ago.

[Laughter.]

Senator KERREY. I recently noted a long story on the subject of

drought connected to soil and the decreased risk of soil loss as a

consequence of tremendous soil conservation efforts that have occurred on private land over the last 70-years since the last time

that a drought did tremendous damage to the soil of this country.

I noted in this story that the heart of it was how dependent farmers are upon weather. It is still, it seems to me, one of the most

important things to remind the non-agriculture community as to

why we spend so much time worrying about this one business and

we don’t worry about other businesses nearly so much. In addition

to producing a vital product, it is also producing a product and environment that is different than any other business in our economy, which is you are producing something outside. And as a consequence, you are really vulnerable to changes in the weather.

I noted in this story, in fact, that the 1988 drought produced $40

billion worth of damage versus Hurricane Andrew that produced

about $28 to $33 billion and versus the 1993 Mississippi flood,

which was the most destructive in terms of property damage in

current dollars, of $25 billion. So not only is there a lot at stake

at the micro level, there is a lot at stake at the macro level as we

watch these changes in the weather and try to analyze whether or

not there is a change in the climate that is occurring as a consequence of our need to produce not just food, but other things that

we oftentimes both need and take for granted.

What I saw down in Argentina when we went down there for the

follow-on to Kyoto was a willingness to allow something that farmVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:47 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 069743 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 69743.TXT SAGRI1 PsN: SAGRI1
11

ers in Nebraska and Kansas and South Dakota and throughout the

United States were already doing as a consequence both of a desire

to save soil and the desire to reduce their energy consumption and

to make their operations more efficient. So it seems to me that we

have an opportunity here with our policy to not only encourage carbon sequestration, which my prediction is will be shown to be a

vital part of mitigating the potential damages to the environment

through climate change, but at the same time produce income to

the farmer. I don’t know what your other three were, but you are

going to be saving soil and you are going to be making the farm

more efficient. That is four. What was your fifth?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we had clean water, clean air, saving soil,

conservation, and——

Senator KERREY. We need an acronym.

[Laughter.]

We will go to work on that after this hearing.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your calling this

hearing to get this policy right. I think we could do a lot of good

with one simultaneous action, and I look forward to the rest of the

testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I thank the Senator for his

leadership.

David, Dr. Hofmann, return with me now to the thrilling days

of 1998 when the plane from New Zealand arrived with Chairman

Stevens, and you all stood at parade rest before the Chairman of

the Appropriations Committee at the South Pole, and we discussed

climate change. I would say for my subcommittee colleagues and

the audience that we were warned before we left the plane—we

had several layers of clothing, to say the least—not to exert ourselves and not to drink hot coffee, and that was about, what, 9,300

feet. I think that is about right, most of it ice. And so I did precisely that. I was pretty excited, and I ran around there and went

inside for some of the briefings, and the first thing I did was have

a hot cup of coffee. And then I couldn’t figure out why I thought

we were having an earthquake in the South Pole. You get a little

woozy up there with the altitude and everything else.

But the person who really got my attention was you, Dr.

Hofmann, and if there is a God prince in this effort in regard to

the research bill I have introduced, and in many bills that are now

being considered—Senator Brownback has a bill; others have

bills—I think largely you have been a real catalyst factor in that

determination.

And I asked you, I just said point-blank, here we are in agriculture worried to death, where we have proposals under the Kyoto

treaty that we have to go back to 1990 energy levels. We can’t do

that. Minus 7-percent, my Lord, we can’t do that. Or at least I

don’t think we can do that. And then we looked at some of the proposed—I don’t want to call them regulations yet, but they are proposals that are involved in the treaty. The Senate voted 95–0 in regards to saying, wait a minute, we are not too sure this is the right

approach unless everybody joins the effort and unless we can prove

there is no serious economic harm not only to agriculture but to the

business community as well.

12

And I said, What do you think about that? And, of course, Dr.

Hofmann was a little hesitant to get into that debate. But I said,

How can we do this? And, obviously, he had all of the research in

regards to the ice cores there. And so I said, you know, what is

your suggestion? If we went with the Kyoto treaty, after 100-years

how much carbon do we get out of the atmosphere? And I can’t recall what you said, Dr. Hofmann, but it really wasn’t very much.

And then I said, Over 50-years, if we went through best management practices and also encouraging industry and a whole series

of other things, and you indicated it would be much more salutary,

or at least in terms of practical progress, it might work a lot better.

Now, I am putting a lot of words in your mouth. I hope that is

your recollection of it. And I was quite interested in your research,

and I thought you made one heck of a lot of sense. And the thing

that I will never forget—and the staff even wrote it down for me.

You said, well, you know, between 1988 and 1992, the North American continent was a carbon sink to the extent we took more out

of the atmosphere than we put back in, in regards to fossil fuel

emission. And that just knocked my socks off—well, not there it

didn’t knock my socks off, but that really impressed me. From the

standpoint that a lot of people in this debate over global warming

and what we do and accepting our responsibilities, I came back and

I informed the entire ag community that I have contact with, hey,

we can be a partner in this effort. We have just got to find out why.

We desperately need the research, and I said, well, what happened from 1992 on? Because I thought that was a startling thing

that you said. Well, we really didn’t have the means to go ahead

and continue the monitoring. I think that is incredible, I would say

to my Senate colleagues.

So after that rather long-winded dissertation, I guess, asserting

to you what you said, what advice do you have for the Senate on

this issue? Sort of like if the rest of the Senators ask what I asked

you back in 1998.

Dr. HOFMANN. Well, first of all, I think I made 18-trips to the

South Pole thus far, and while they are all rewarding, I think I remember that one in 1998 the best. We dedicated a new building

there, a new atmospheric sampling building. Dr. Baker, the Administrator of NOAA, came and I knew that 6 Senators were coming

shortly, and Dr. Baker left because he had to get back to Washington. But I decided I wanted to stay on and talk to these folks when

they came in, which I did. And I personally found it extremely

gratifying that you took the interest that you did in what we were

doing down there.

One could ask why would you want to measure greenhouse gases

at the South Pole. That is farthest away from the source of this

pollution. And the point is that we at NOAA measure all over the

world, and it is places like Barrow, Alaska, where we have an observatory, the South Pole, that kind of anchors the network. That

is what holds it firm. And then all this stuff is going on in between,

and by making measurements all over the globe, that is how we

get the data that we can build these bar charts that I showed earlier about the sources and sinks.

13

So the fact that we are here today because of the interest you

took in what we were doing there and what it could lead to is extremely gratifying.

Now, on the other issue, as we all know, climate change is an

important issue, and I think in NOAA, as scientists, we take pride

in the fact that the data that we collect, the science that we do,

is done completely independently of other things that may be going

on in the world. We collect data. We analyze it. We say this is our

best estimate of what is happening here. And we hope that this information provides the kind of information that policymakers need

in order to make the right choices when it comes to some of the

choices that will have to be made.

As far as my own personal feelings, I don’t think they amount

to much as far as these things go, and I would like to keep the

science in focus, and whenever this question comes up, I just want

to say let us do the work that we need to do, and we can provide

the information that you will need to make those decisions.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to paraphrase your remarks anymore other than that we are not going to ask you how you would

vote on the Kyoto treaty, but—— Dr. HOFMANN. I don’t know how to spell Kyoto.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. It is called trouble, t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

I see that the distinguished Senator from Iowa has joined us, and

I was wondering if he would want to make a statement at this

point before we proceed with any questions. Would the distinguished Senator have anything to say at this point?

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM IOWA

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes, I am going to do my statement partly.

I acknowledge Dr. Stuckey being here. His leadership in this not

only in the State of Iowa but through the Council on Agricultural

Sciences and Technology, his leadership at the St. Michaels, Maryland, with the Department of Energy’s issue of how to deal with

carbon sequestration.

The conclusions that I have that I would like to discuss for two

pages deal with those of us who are interested in improving the environment and promoting the well-being of the agricultural community obviously see carbon sequestration holding limitless potential.

The idea of trading carbon credits between large international entities and the family farmer is very appealing. In fact, it is appealing

enough now that it is appearing in the articles in all of the farm

magazines that I subscribe to. And so it is out there for farmers

to consider.

You are probably aware of the headline on the Wichita Eagle’s

website to see that this is happening as we sit here today. The

headline reads: ‘‘Farmer Enlisted to Help Fight Carbon Dioxide

Emissions.’’ The stories refer to the Canadian energy companies

which are willing to pay American farmers to quit plowing so that

carbon is trapped in the soil.

One of my constituents from West Des Moines, Steve Griffin, of

CQUEST, Ltd., states in the story that he has signed farmers up

to reduce plowing by 2.5-million acres, mostly in my home State,

14

under this Canadian offer, and right now Griffin expects to pay

farmers a couple of dollars-a-year-per-acre.

The problem I see with this is that no one yet has determined

the true value due to the fact that science lags in this area. And

so, consequently, very important that we get these panels together

to get as much information as we can and to make real advancements in this way of bettering our environment and also at the

same time helping the family farmer.

I ask permission to put my entire statement in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered, and I want to

thank the Senator for his long-time interest and his long-time leadership in this whole subject area.

David, the ARS—there is the acronym. The Agricultural Research Service has been working to build a U.S. trace gas network

at Fort Collins, and considering your office’s very close proximity

to the research, would NOAA be willing to work with ARS and obviously try to draw both of the agencies’ expertise to perfect this

research? Is there any reason why we can’t do that?

Dr. HOFMANN. Mr. Chairman, no. I don’t believe there are.

Speaking for my laboratory and scientists that work with me, we

in general welcome any collaborative arrangement that will provide

more information, will further the research goals, and now we have

a U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan which specifically talks about collaborations between people who make measurements on a very

small scale to the very large scale. And also in your bill you pointed

out the importance of having interagency collaboration, and that is,

I think, the basis of the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that working a lot better now? I know when

we talked about it 2-years ago, we had some concerns that the left

hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing, you know, the

classic status. In regards to the outside entities and all the agencies involved, do you think we are doing better? You know, what

is your perspective on it?

Dr. HOFMANN. I think the Carbon Cycle Science Plan clearly

shows that this is what has to be done, and in terms of this particular possible collaboration with Fort Collins, it turns out that we

actually are making small aircraft sampling flights in northeastern

Colorado. It is one of the few sites that we can afford to make these

measurements, and we would be happy to have a scientific collaboration. If somebody is working on the ground, we would like to be

making measurements up above them so we can couple these together and get a lot more for the money that we are spending. And

I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t work with the folks at Fort

Collins and the Agricultural Research Service and tell them what

we are doing, and perhaps we could even arrange some interactive

collaboration.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a good suggestion. We will get in

touch with Secretary Glickman.

What are you requesting in 2001 in the budget to help NOAA

make some progress in carbon cycle science?

Dr. HOFMANN. NOAA has a new initiative in 2001 that is called

‘‘Climate Observations and Services.’’ It is a new line item. We feel

that in the long run this is what we are going to have to do. We

are going to have to bring climate observations into a line itself.

15

The total bill is asking for about $28 million. In it is support for

the baseline observatories that you are now familiar with. There

are requests for ocean observations, for dealing with all the data

that is coming in, and a lot of that would directly affect carbon

cycle research. So this is an extremely important initiative. We

have been working on it for a long time, and we will continue to

work on it until we finally are able to make the kinds of measurements that we need to extend the range from this micro scale to

the macro scale.

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to do the ag approps bill here fairly

quickly. Do you think that is enough money for you, or could you

stand a little plus-up? Within the budget limitations we must live

with, you know, I must say that. I can’t think of anything—well,

I don’t want to say that, but—— Dr. HOFMANN. I think stressing collaborative research between

the agricultural groups and some of the things we do would be a

first step.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say to Senator Kerrey and Senator

Grassley, we both know that when we are in the gauntlet of trying

to write a new farm bill next year, this is going to be a premier

item in that consideration. And the faster that we get the proper

kind of research and the criteria so that we can figure out where

we are on this, the faster we are able to get to a section of the farm

bill to try to encourage more best management practices. And I

think down the road, after a series of years, that is going to be a

very significant part of the farm bill. So in terms of appropriations,

what we can do to speed this up—and I know you don’t want to

just expedite it in terms of the time schedule. You have to do it

right. You have to do it from a sound science standpoint. But I

would certainly be willing to listen to anybody from NOAA and to

smother our friends on the Appropriations Committee with the

milk of positive, I guess, suggestions. So if you have any suggestions along that line, I would appreciate it.

Let me get to—let’s see here. Keith, as we speak, the State Department is in an international conference in Montreal discussing

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the IPCC.

That is the summary for policymakers on land use and land-use

change and forestry. The summary for policymakers outlines some

very critical issues for the agriculture community. Some issues include statements about North America again being a net carbon

sink, the accurate definitions of reforestation, deforestation, and

the role of agriculture in emission reductions.

How has the Department coordinated with the State Department

to ensure that our agriculture voice is being clearly heard in this

international setting? And who from the USDA is attending these

meetings?

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, that report that you just described

is the summary for policymakers of a special report being done by

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the request of

the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That report

has been in construction for the past year, and the people who have

drafted that report, in fact, include USDA people as well as university researchers around the country, as well as people from other

Federal agencies.

16

That report, after it was drafted by the scientists, went through

a technical review of other scientists from all around the world.

And then after the technical review, it went through a governmental review, and it was at that point that USDA, besides being

involved in writing it and in the technical review, also participated

in the Government review.

In fact, the State Department asked USDA to coordinate the

Government-wide review of that report. That was coordinated

through my office, and every agency of the Federal Government

participated in that, including the Department of Defense, and we

prepared 200-pages of comments for the report that went back to

the IPCC.

What is going on in Montreal this week is now that they have

incorporated those comments in this summary of the report, which

is a 95-paragraph summary, it is being gone through line by line

by the countries of the world. The U.S. Government delegation is

headed by the State Department. It does include—it is a very large

delegation. It includes other Federal agencies.

USDA has two people on the delegation: someone from my office

who is a technical expert and someone from the Forest Service who

is a technical expert. And they are in contact every day with other

experts at the USDA, in fact, around the country. I spoke this

morning with one of our delegates who said that, since Monday— and we are now Thursday—they have gotten through about 35- of

the 95-paragraphs. They are going line by line to try to reach an

agreement on this report.

I want to point out on this report—and I think it will be interesting for all of us to read. It has nothing to do with policy. This is

a scientific document. It is to present the state of knowledge on

carbon sequestration related to land use, land-use change, and forestry. And it is being done to provide the scientific basis for the scientific body that advises the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That is called the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and

Technological Advice. So this report goes to them. They use this report to advise the Framework Convention.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the reason I ask that, you know, other than

the obvious reason, is that last year Senator Kerrey and Senator

Baucus and myself were joined by all of the major farm groups, all

of the Commodity Organizations, and it was Senator Kerrey’s leadership, really, that got the meeting together. And we were all concerned—and we had the Secretary there, Secretary Glickman. We

were concerned that ag’s voice was not being heard in the climate

change debate. And then the Meridian Institute, as you recall, was

asked to organize a series of workshops, and they have been ongoing.

I am basically asking, I guess, Senator Kerrey’s question, so your

response to this is encouraging. We will pore over with staff the 95-

paragraphs and see how that can work.

Now, I think you are aware that the Department of Agriculture

made a statement on its own economic analysis of the Kyoto treaty,

and I am quoting here, if as a result of implementing the Protocol

foreign producers face lower costs from achieving their targets relative to U.S. producers, our commodities will become less competitive, and U.S. export demand would fall. In addition, there have

17

been quite a few analyses in regards to what would happen if the

Protocol were ratified and put into effect. One, I think it is by the

Farm Bureau; I am not sure about that, but there have been several. All of them around the 20- to 21-billion range.

The reason I brought that up is that I have a pamphlet here put

out by the NRCS, and basically one of the conclusions is that we

should go ahead with the Protocol. And I don’t see the economic

analysis in there, and I just think that we are putting the cart before the horse.

I don’t know if you would have any comment about that, but you

being the chief economist, I think that if you could put a little addendum in there or a footnote at the bottom of this, it would have

been most helpful. I am not really pleased with this at all, as you

can tell by my questions. I agree with the attention. I agree with

all of the things up to the conclusion that says we ought to go

ahead and approve this. And I would remind you there was a 95–

0 vote before we could get a handle on this.

Any comment?

Mr. COLLINS. Probably plenty. First of all, on the economic analysis, we did at USDA do an economic analysis of the Kyoto Protocol.

We did publish that. It is some 80-pages long. It uses the best objective economic models that we have at the Department. It did

look at a price of carbon that was estimated by the Council of Economic Advisers ranging from $14 to $23 a ton under implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. We also had sensitivity analysis in that

report that looked at other carbon prices as well. And we found a

very, very modest impact on American agriculture with the $14 to

$23 a ton price. The Farm Bureau and other studies that you mentioned simply used much, much higher prices of carbon. So it all

depends on where you think the price of carbon is going to come

out in this world.

Senator Grassley a moment ago talked about emissions trading.

One of the things that studies have found, including the secondgeneration model at Stanford University, is the difference in the

price of carbon between having global emissions trading and not

having global emissions trading is 50-percent. You can lower the

cost of meeting an emissions reduction target by 50-percent with

trading compared to not having trading because you get low-cost

ways of reducing carbon with trading.

So I don’t know what the price of carbon is going to be, but I

would say that it very much depends on the assumptions you make

going into the model that you use. We thought we made a fairly

reasonable set of assumptions, and we have provided some alternatives and did not come out with real large effects.

Regarding the brochure, I have read that brochure, and I don’t

believe it endorses the Kyoto Protocol. It mentions the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe it would have been better not to mention it in that brochure. But I think it is—I hope you would agree that the purpose

of the brochure is to respond to the concerns that you, Senator

Kerrey, and others had that the Department of Agriculture was not

visible enough in communicating with the agriculture and rural

communities about the whole issue of carbon sequestration. And so

that was one attempt to do that.

18

I might say that we have got many other attempts, which I hope

I can send you some of those as well—— The CHAIRMAN. Well, you know, let’s get Bob Kerrey and I together when you have the proofs there, and we will just write the

last paragraph.

Mr. COLLINS. All right. Let me mention something about that.

That brochure went through several drafts, and the NRCS actually

provided drafts of that brochure to all of the commodity groups and

to the farm organizations and received comments from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the environmental groups and so on.

They were all invited to help cosponsor it to cover the costs because

we have limited resources for this kind of thing. We have a fairly

small budget.

Most of them did not choose to share the cost, but they all had

an opportunity to review it, and many revisions were made in response to their comments.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. I think you know where I am

coming from.

Mr. COLLINS. I absolutely do.

The CHAIRMAN. And the concern that we have. Where is the onestop location where farmers can go to find out all the information

they need in regard to what is going on at the Department, other

agencies, or elsewhere? In other words, sort of a clearinghouse for

information, sort of a, you know, USDA global climate change office, or maybe have a leading university like Iowa State or the University of Nebraska or even Kansas State running a website with

access to the clearinghouse.

Mr. COLLINS. I am empathetic to the concern behind that question.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there are many, many producers—now,

this is a hot-button item. I don’t know if that is the right way to

describe it, but I tell you, more and more people are understanding

what carbon sequestration is. We need a better acronym and a better title, I would say to Senator Kerrey. But a lot of information

out there, and we need sort of a one-stop information——

Mr. COLLINS. I couldn’t agree with you more on this. I have been

frustrated myself in getting information. I asked a member of my

staff to give me key websites where I could get carbon sequestration information, and I got 3-pages of about 50- or 60-websites. And

if you start going to those, you very quickly can get very confused.

That is one of the things that we are trying to do at USDA, is

provide a better job of bringing our data, our information, our analysis online in a coherent way.

Where is the one-stop shopping? We don’t have one-stop shopping

in terms of a website at this point. We are trying to have one-stop

shopping as a place where people can go to ask questions, and then

we would try to answer those questions. We do have a global

change program office. That office reports to me, and we do coordinate the activities of USDA with respect to climate change.

Now, a lot of that effort has simply been in trying to develop

budgets and trying to make sure the right hand knows what the

left hand is doing. But we have to go to the next step. We have

to be able to organize our internal information resources and make

them better available to the public.

19

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your response.

Dr. Stuckey, as I indicated last year, Senator Kerrey really got

us together, and I am talking about the ag community, and we

were concerned that our voice was not being heard in the debate.

As a result, the Meridian Institute was asked to organize a series

of workshops. And I think you just participated in the first of three.

Is that not correct?

Dr. STUCKEY. Correct.

The CHAIRMAN. There are six of them?

Senator KERREY. No, April 6th.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, April 6th. Do you want to just tell us very

briefly that the recent discussion session that the institute held in

conjunction with the Department, in your opinion—here is the

question. Was the first working group meeting worthwhile?

Dr. STUCKEY. I definitely think it was worthwhile because it

brought together a number of scientists, it brought together a diversity of farm organizations. A number are in this room that attended that session. I was able to participate and attend on the

first day. It was a day-and-a-half session.

It is important that we can communicate a little better. I would

constructively criticize the format that we had, in that, as scientists we often try to give the whole ball of wax, lecture too long.

And so I think instead of an hour presentation followed by discussions, I personally tried to keep my comments rather brief so we

could enter into some discussions. Scientists have a lot of data, a

lot of information in this area, and they are eager to share that

with them.

But I think it was successful from the standpoint that scientists

could hear some of the grower representatives that were there in

attendance, their concerns, and so for the two to get together and

openly discuss those concerns and see where the science is, where

it is not, I think was beneficial. And I heartily endorse the continuation of those remaining two sessions.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask you the Dr. Hofmann question

in terms of organization with all Federal agencies. What agency do

you think is the lead agency in this regard? How well are we working together? That is the Dr. Hofmann question I asked him. I am

now asking the same question of you.

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, from looking in on the outside, we see a number of agencies involved in this area, certainly NOAA; I think DOE

has been a large player in this. USDA did help provide support for

our original publication back in 1992. I am encouraged that they

have an office of global climate change. EPA is another organization that has been involved in supporting a fair amount of research

as well.

As far as the interagency cooperation among this group, I probably don’t have enough, really, insight to comment. I would just say

that more communication would be desirable from what I would

see.

The CHAIRMAN. How does biotech fit into the carbon cycle picture? And that leads into another question. What other new technologies can agriculture utilize to help in this regard?

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, biotechnology can play a number of very important roles. One is through the structure of the plant, trying to

20

genetically create plants that will sequester more carbon. Carbon

can be sequestered in the soil as well as in the plant material in

terms of the structure of the root and storing of carbon.

But from a broader perspective, biotechnology can cut down on

some of the emissions through farming practices. By utilizing biotechnology, for example, it makes possible more no-till in terms of

pest control. If you are able to put that resistance to weeds and insects and diseases into the plants, it requires less travel, less applications of pesticides over the soil. And so in terms of cutting down

on some of the emissions that we utilize in farming today, it has

a tremendous potential.

Another technology that I am very excited about that is really in

its infancy is the area of nanotechnology. It is coming. It is going

to be one of the next really bright spots, in particular, in cutting

some of the emissions that we currently have.

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Would you just describe that very briefly?

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, perhaps for the audience maybe the easiest

analogy is to look at the electronics industry, the computers. We

have computers. We went to the microchips and—the chips and the

microchips, and now we are going down to even a more basic level.

And it is really creating some of the technologies by putting atoms

and molecules and beginning at that base. That is a very elemental

base.

I had the privilege in early April just prior to the Meridian Institute of attending a briefing held by some of your colleagues here

in the Senate that brought in some professors and others dealing

with the nanotechnology. And one of the things that they demonstrated was a 24-volt battery that wasn’t more than the size of

my little finger. It had all the capacity and the power of that.

And so I think in terms of what is there on the horizon through

the development of some of these technologies we can really enhance the reduction in emissions and the way we farm today. We

can think of tractors, other equipment and so forth, as being much

more powerful, smaller, utilization of less fuels.

The CHAIRMAN. How long could agriculture soils potentially offset further increases in the atmospheric CO2? Each year our croplands have the potential to sequester a lot of carbon every year. Is

there a way you could give a projection on that?

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, I am sure some of the researchers that work

in this area could give perhaps a more qualified answer. What I

have learned in interacting with some of those researchers is that

it is something that we shouldn’t look at as a fix for the long term,

but it is something that has the potential there to help mitigate

substantially, for say the next 25- to 50-years, something like that

time frame. And what that does is buy us a lot of time, in other

words, for some of these new technologies to be evolved so we can

incorporate those.

It is, in essence, a buying of time. But even though we do that,

there are those other four or five win-wins that you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that have been very beneficial when we sequester carbon. So we should do it just for——

The CHAIRMAN. Right, it is good to do, anyway.

Senator Kerrey.

21

Senator KERREY. Dr. Hofmann, let me ask you, first of all,

whether or not you see a causative relationship between these increases in CO2 levels and climate change itself. I apologize I was

not here for your verbal testimony, and I didn’t get all of your testimony read. So I don’t know whether you view these trend lines

which, as you indicated—I did read them in your testimony. You

see them varying from year to year, and there are a lot of variables

that we are still trying to answer. But do you see these increases

to be causative or correlative with changes in temperature?

Dr. HOFMANN. Once again climate modeling is not my field. I am

a physicist. I have studied the basic phenomenon of molecules

intercepting heat from the earth and re-radiating out to space. So,

based on the theory of greenhouse gases, yes, they are capable of

trapping heat in the atmosphere.

In fact, this planet would be a cold 5-degrees Fahrenheit if we

did not have any greenhouse gases, water vapor, regular, normal

carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. So, we are very thankful for

greenhouse gases.

And we can calculate how much—— Senator KERREY. So, your answer is, you do not know? Is that

what this is—this is coming to a theater near you, the physicist

saying he does not know?

Dr. HOFMANN. The connection between the greenhouse gases we

are putting in now and climate change, again, I do not know, no.

Senator KERREY. You do not know if it is correlative or causative

with increases in temperature?

Dr. HOFMANN. I only know that the theory predicts that increased greenhouse gases should warm the atmosphere. I would

again say that the best that—— Senator KERREY. Are you—let me ask it differently—are you,

does this change bother you? Are you alarmed—as a human being

who hopes to leave the planet in better shape than what you found

it, which I presume even a physicist wants to do, does it bother

you? Do you think this is something we ought to be worried about?

Should we be concerned about it?

Dr. HOFMANN. I think we really do need to keep track of it, to

measure as much as we can and try to find out what is controlling

it so that we can provide the information that you guys will need

to make these decisions.

Senator KERREY. Well, I must say I think we have come a long

way since both the vote that the Chairman referenced as well as

Kyoto. Kyoto, and you are actually against Kyoto, in the political

environment, at least in Washington, on Capitol Hill, climate

change hardly ever comes up any more. If you think we ought to

pay attention to it you better tell us because we are not. We are

coming at this thing from a completely different direction. I see a

real disconnect, frankly.

What I said earlier was a drought produced $40 billion of economic loss in 1988, a drought. Neither Hurricane Andrew nor the

floods on the Mississippi River in 1993 approached that level of

economic damage. So, it is true there could be, if all I do is look

at it narrowly and do not accommodate the possible gains through

sequestration and other activities, it is true there may be some

costs attached to changing my behavior. But if the behavior that

22

I have is producing something bad, I should stop it, it seems to me.

It seems to me the definition of insanity is to repeat something

over and over and over even though I know what I am doing is producing something wrong.

Dr. HOFMANN. Yes.

Senator KERREY. We depend upon those of you who are looking

at this thing in an environment where I must tell you right now

people are almost afraid of climate change as they are of Social Security. We are not teeing this thing up as you can see from the well

attended hearing that we have got here this afternoon.

So, I hear you are saying from your scientific evaluation of this

you have not reached a conclusion as to whether or not there is either a causative or a correlative relationship with increased carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere and the climate on the planet.

Dr. HOFMANN. Yes. If the models were perfect then perhaps then

we could make all sorts of projections. What we know is that if you

warm the planet you will put more water into the atmosphere, it

will become more energetic, and, so, you can draw a lot of conclusions. Well, there might be more storms. But the models cannot yet

predict those things. We are trying to get the information.

Senator KERREY. Well, only Cindy Crawford is about perfect as

a model. I do not expect scientific models to be perfect.

[Laughter.]

But I do expect scientists to be able to say just as human beings,

I do not need much more information other than to extend this

chart out, that is a pretty reliable chart. That thing is going up to

the right.

Dr. HOFMANN. That is right.

Senator KERREY. All right. So, tell me what if it hits 500 parts

per million?

Dr. HOFMANN. Well, the model suggests that when it doubles

about the year 2100 under business as usual, that depending on

which model you are look at, there will be a temperature increase

on the order of 1 to 3.5-degrees.

Senator KERREY. And what happens then?

What happens to corn farmers in Nebraska with 3-degrees of increase in temperature?

Dr. HOFMANN. That is a problem because the models cannot predict on a regional basis.

Senator KERREY. Dr. Collins, can you convert to a problem in dollars?

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, we can. In fact, I would point you to an activity that we are just completing called the National Assessment on

Climate Change which has been done under the auspices of the

U.S. Global Change Research Program. USDA had responsibility

for two sections: the section on agriculture, and the section on forests. We will publish the section on agriculture in June. And it

takes a look at all these climate change models.

It looks at the different scenarios that they are putting out and

we go from that to regional yields in the United States for crops,

effects on prices, effects on farm income and so on. And, so, we are

going to translate that into dollars.

Senator KERREY. But your presumption is, yourself as an economist, then as somebody has evaluated this is what? What is your

23

presumptions? Is this something that we ought to be paying attention to?

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, my presumption is that I do not have to know

categorically zero or one, whether it is causative or a correlation.

I am a probabilistic man. I think the evidence suggests that the

probability is increasing that there is going to be temperature, precipitation changes which are going to affect humankind and agricultural. So, it is a probabilistic thing. And, as long as it is a probabilistic thing people behave based on probability.

Senator KERREY. You should write lyrics, Dr. Collins, that would

be a wonderful song. I am a probabilistic man.

[Laughter.]

You have got me rocking and rolling.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a comment that I think is pertinent to

your line of questioning and I do not want to interrupt you because

I want to know if there are any more song titles.

Senator KERREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Ag Approps Committee this morning put this language in the Ag Approps bill: ‘‘The

Committee does not include funds for global climate change, biomass products initiatives or the Community Federal Information

Partnerships as requested in the budget. These programs do not

support the current level of on-the-ground conservation technical

assistance. Hereafter, no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol,

including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emission trading

schemes and the clean development mechanisms that are found

solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere else in the laws of the

United States.’’ I mean that is what the House Appropriations Committee did

this morning at 10 o’clock. And I do not know if the Senate Ag

Approps is going to do that. Let me just ask you, Dr. Hofmann, do

you think that is advisable to do that?

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, he is not in charge of that, Senator. I mean

we already made that point.

Senator KERREY. I am not in charge of it either, but you could

ask me my opinion as to whether or not I think it is a good idea

and that is what I am asking Dr. Hofmann. Do you think it is a

good idea?

Dr. STUCKEY. Well, I know but you are beating up on my scientist.

[Laughter.]

And that is not fair because, you know, were you here at the

opening and I do not mean to connote that you have been but I am

just saying he pointed out in this graph—— Senator KERREY. Dr. Hofmann, do you feel like you are being

beat up on here this afternoon?

Dr. HOFMANN. No. Not at all. No. I can respond to that. I think

if I do not—this is the first I have heard about this response, and

if it mentions that we should not be spending money on research

in the carbon cycle, then I would be really against it.

Senator KERREY. The language is this: The Committee does not

include funds for global climate change, biomass products initiatives or the Community Federal Information Partnership as requested in the budget. That is House Agriculture Approps as of

this morning.

24

The CHAIRMAN. I have never been much of a fan of the appropriators in there.

[Laughter.]

Senator KERREY. Look, we are here to have a good time and, we

are here, as well, to try to figure out what to do. My observation

on climate change is that after Kyoto—and I was in the 95—I was

not absent that day—I voted in the 95 because I was concerned

that the Administration was heading in the direction of essentially

command and control regulatory structure, imposing high energy

taxes that I think would have been enormously disruptive and not

likely to solve the problem. But since that time we have developed

a trading regimen. Since that time we have gotten some agreement, some indication that we might be able to persuade the rest

of the world to go along with trading regimens that are much more

market oriented and much more likely to produce a win for production agriculture.

But Dr. Stuckey, you tell me what was the April 6th meeting

like? Is there still skeptics out there?

Dr. STUCKEY. I was not there for the close of it but I suspect

there is but hopefully there is better understanding. I mean I

would comment back that, you know, whatever we do here in the

States, this is a global problem and we can try to make some adjustments and so forth here in the States. If we target agricultural,

in the whole realm of the global warming, will make very little difference if we do not have cooperation elsewhere.

Senator KERREY. Well, you can say that about nuclear weapons,

and it is absolutely true, but we are the largest economy, the most

powerful military, most capable democracy and the most skilled

diplomats. I mean so, you know, the hand is dealt and we are leading. I do not mind that personally but that means we got to do

something.

That means we do not wait for Bangladesh to tell us what to do.

So, it falls to the United States of America and we are consuming

a fair amount of hydrocarbons. I am not going to put the hair shirt

on here. I am perfectly appreciative of the benefits that I enjoy as

the consequence of a highly productive economy and we have really

gotten a lot of new efficiencies just for economic reasons. And that

is really what we are talking about here, looking for a way to do

a program that will enable farmers to say, this makes sense for me

economically. I get some income off of it, and I get soil conservation, I save energy, I reduce my costs, this makes sense. But notill is going down, is it not, Dr. Collins?

Mr. COLLINS. Stable.

Senator KERREY. Meaning what?

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, 100-million acres or so. It is stable throughout

the last couple of years.

Conservation tillage overall has——

Senator KERREY. You think it is——

Mr. COLLINS. I think it is pretty stable the last few years. It

went up dramatically for a long period of time and it is no longer

doing that.

Senator KERREY. So, it is stable? I mean the word I heard it was

actually going down. Nationwide it is approximately the same

amount of acres it was last year and the year before?

25

Mr. COLLINS. That is my recollection. I could be wrong but I do

not think that there has been a major change.

Senator KERREY. Wow. You could be wrong.

[Laughter.]

Mr. COLLINS. I rarely submit to that but I would say about conservation tillage one of the important things with respect to climate

change is that an awful lot of conservation tillage as practiced in

this country involves tearing up the soil every third or fourth or

fifth year and that does not sequester carbon. So, we have got a

lot of work to do on conservation tillage. We are getting climate— or we are getting carbon sequestration benefits really on only about

one-third of what is in conservation tillage.

Senator KERREY. Yes, but the idea for me is that whether it is

the Chairmans’ bill which I support or Senator Brownbeck’s bill

which I support or other conservation efforts, the ideal is that we

begin to alter our behavior for economic reasons and we discover

that it produces benefits for the environment as well, and we participate in a trading regimen, I hope, that at some point is implemented presuming that the majority of scientists who do think

study this thing and have reached a conclusion that there is a

causative relationship.

If there is a causative relationship here, and I survive 30-years

more, I could survive to the point where somebody is going to say

to me, you know, I know it was not very politically popular back

in 1999 and 2000 but, my God, you looked at the chart and it was

going up, why did you not do something about it? And I said, well,

I did not want to ask anybody to change their behavior.

I mean it seems to me that we are going to accumulate additional research here that leads us to the conclusion that this kind

of effort, done for economic and for environmental reasons by individual farmers could become a part of an overall strategy that has

us saying that whether it is just for the United States or worldwide—and I fully acknowledge, you know, we got to get India, we

got to get China, we got to get the rest of the world participating—

that we are going to be part of a solution that produces income as

well as benefits for us locally to a larger problem.

You are back for more friendly questions, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. No. I think you made a good point. And the point

that I was trying to make before is that I went down to the South

Pole in 1998 and first met Dr. Hofmann. And it was as a result

of meeting with him and listening to him and seeing the evidence

from the ice cores that I changed my mind. Up to that point, I had

indicated my public position was, in regards to Kyoto and to agriculture, was that we, you know, it should be demonstrated that we

have a very clearly defined problem. There is no question in my

mind over the last several decades we have had an aberration in

regards to global warming. The temperatures have increased. And

there is no question in my mind that if it continues for the next

decade or two that we are going to experience a lot of big-time

problems in regards to the ability of our producers to produce

enough food for this country and a very troubled and hungry world.

So, we have to change in terms of behavior. I think the Senator

is exactly right. How we change? It seems to me we could do it a

26

lot better with carrots than by embracing an idea—and I, you

know, have taken a hard look at all the emission trading schemes

and that is about the best word for it—and people who have an

agenda who think it is the right to do simply because they think

it is the right thing to do. It has to make sense in regards to economics.

And what Dr. Hofmann did point out to me was that over 50-

years time you could either do it the regulatory process or you can

do it through things like the planning that we hope to achieve to

change best management practices because of the five wins that we

are involved in.

And, so, I came back and I was trying to tell agriculture, hey,

you cannot sit back on the sidelines any more, we can be partners

in this effort and by being partners in the effort I think we can

really achieve something. And that is what we are trying to do. We

are trying to get all the agencies involved, the best science involved, and all the producers involved who want to do the right

thing. After all it is their land, it is their wherewithal, it is their

future. And I think we can get this done, but I do not think we can

get it done with an agenda that simply is an agenda from the

standpoint of using—I mean we all know what the design is of the

treaty. You are supposed to go back to 1990 energy levels. That is

not right, it is not possible. Minus 7-percent by the way.

Now, of course, that has been, you know, debated I guess back

and forth but it was Dr. Hofmann who pointed out to me and I

tried to put him on the griddle a little bit, you know, before, I said

is this accurate on the 50-years? And at the end of 50-years, you

know, where are we with the regulatory scheme? And he said, basically he does not know because we do not know.

The reason that we do not know is that we have not really committed enough funds like he did in 1990-to–1992 to say that the

North American continent took more or at least as much carbon

out of the atmosphere than we put in, in regards to fossil fuel emission. That has not been stated to America. When I say that before

farm groups, even the ones that are interested in this, they do not

realize that. I think that is an amazing fact and that we ought to

find out why? And when we say why, we do not have the research

or the capability to determine why.

So, if, you know, if that is a fact and it was at that particular

time, we have got to find out on a regional basis why this is happening. Once you figure out why it is happening, we can address

what on earth it is that we are going to do. And that was the position by Dr. Hofmann. He changed my mind on this entirely, that

is why we are having the panel.

That was what I was trying to say.

Senator KERREY. Oh, I can understand that now.

The CHAIRMAN. OK.

[Laughter.]

Senator KERREY. Dr. Collins, let me ask you—— The CHAIRMAN. Here is the chart by the way if you want to look

at that.

Senator KERREY. What would you, in terms of incentives, as an

economist, for farmers—and one of the most important things as I

have tried to figure out what to do is that we are doing this work

27

on private land. I mean whether it is conservation work or whatever, it is private land. So, you are trying to provide, it seems to

me an incentive of some kind, for best management practices. And

I wonder if you have an opinion on whether or not tax credit or

direct payments or other mechanisms that you have thought of we

ought to be looking at to accomplish that objective?

Mr. COLLINS. Well, what you want here is a demand for carbon.

Where is it going to come from? In one instance, it could come from

people being altruistic or speculative like the Canadian utilities

that are coming in and presumably buying carbon in Iowa. So, that

is one form in which farmers are responding to undertake best

management practices in response to a private sector determined

incentive.

A second way of generating the demand would be for the Government to look at carbon the way it looks at erosion, you know, as

a market failure. There is an externality. There is a public good aspect to going out and using taxpayer dollars to provide an incentive

payment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In that case, the Chairman’s win to the N’th power, you would

bring carbon sequestration together with the other kinds of environmental benefits that are highly connected and correlated and

intertwined with carbon sequestration like water quality, air quality, soil quality and you would put that all into one program.

I mean on a very naive level you can see something like what

we do with the conservation reserve program. We have an environmental benefits index. We weigh a bunch of factors. We give them

a score. And then the highest score relative to the bid price on the

land, we take into the program and pay $50 a month for 10- or 15-

years.

You could think of adding, a carbon sequestration dimension to

the environmental benefits index. I mean that is one simple thing,

if that was the social value.

Other things, we do other things in our EQUIP program. We

have talked here a lot about carbon sequestration. The other side

of this is greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture is not an insignificant emitter. We emit 7-percent of the total annual emissions in

the U.S. They are all methane and nitrous oxide. Under the EQUIP

program, for example, we have nutrient management plans. Nutrient management plans can effectively reduce nitrous oxide emissions.

So, you could conceive of putting more money into the EQUIP

program in some of the activities that are funded in that that

would reduce emissions or sequester carbon.

Beyond that then you are talking about different kinds of tools

that we have not really looked at very much.

Senator KERREY. Can I ask you, in general, though is it more efficient to put direct payments out as opposed to using tax credits?

Mr. COLLINS. I do not know that there is a great difference.

Senator KERREY. I admit to a slight prejudice just from the

standpoint of the complexity of the Tax Code. But I am thinking

of situations where somebody says I am not eligible because I do

not have a sufficient amount of income or my accountant did not

figure it out. But from an economist’s standpoint you are saying,

28

you seem to be saying that there is no real difference between the

two?

Mr. COLLINS. I do not think there is a great difference between

the two. What economists look at is the cost of using tax dollars

to do something and whether it is tax dollars because we are giving

up less revenue to the Treasury or whether it is tax dollars because

USDA’s appropriation is going up, I do not know that it makes that

much difference in terms of efficiency losses to our economy.

Senator KERREY. Well, it is a shame that we cannot get a bit

more comprehensive approach to this, not just on the Executive

Branch but often on our side. I mean I guess it was last year or

the year before last we were about that close to getting the Endangered Species Act reauthorized and though it may not seem directly related, it ends up being very much related because we were

trying and had at least up until the bill got pulled, language in

there that would have allowed the ESA to be administered inside

the context of a State conservation plan.

Oftentimes states. I know that Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa

and I suspect South Dakota does as well, invest a fair amount of

money, State dollars as well as local dollars, in conservation efforts

and they will have a conservation plan. One of the ways that I

think that you can get the skepticism out of the minds of individuals that are addressing this climate change problem is to bring

the problem solving more and more back down to the local level.

Some of the things you were saying in there about the CRP, especially, I hear more—and I am not sure that is what you were saying—but I hear more top-down Federal regulations and the more

it can be incorporated into State conservation plans and the more

people can feel like they are part of it, whether it is a local conservation district or in our State, resource districts, the more likely

it is, it seems to me, that the skepticism comes out of it because

then they say, you are going to let me decide what best management practices are. You tell me what the goal is, what your carbon

goals are, what your water quality goals are, what your soil conservation goals are, and let me be one of the little entrepreneurs

out here that figures out how best to accomplish it. It is more likely

that we will have that kind of, I think, constructive flexibility as

opposed to me saying flexibility means I just do not want to do it.

Mr. COLLINS. I think that is a good observation and I would say

with respect to the conservation reserve program we have moved

a step in that direction with our State conservation reserve enhancement programs, where the states are offering up 25-percent

of the incentive payments we are making producers and we are letting the States decide what the conservation priorities are in implementing those plans. And it is not inconceivable that a State could

decide that carbon sequestration is an issue that they want to deal

with in a conservation reserve enhancement program.

Senator KERREY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank all the panelists. We have had

a very—— Senator KERREY. Especially Dr. Hofmann.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we should both go down to the South

Pole, it is cold down there, and see Dr. Hofmann again.

29

[Laughter.]

I will share a cup of coffee with you.

[Laughter.]

Senator KERREY. Do you want me to go first?

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. We would like now to welcome the second panel.

I am going to make a suggestion that panel three simply come up

as well. We have four chairs here. So, that is going to be Dr.

Charles W. Rice, who is the Soil Microbiology Professor at Kansas

State University; John M. Kimble, who is the Research Soil Scientist at the United States Department of Agriculture, in Lincoln;

and William Richards, the former Chief of the Soil Conservation

Service, who now resides in Circleville, Ohio; and an old-time

friend of mine, John Haas, from Larned, Kansas.

Dr. Rice, will you, please, proceed and let me advise the witnesses, we have a vote at 5 o’clock but I would hope that maybe

we could certainly conclude by that time.

So, if you could keep your remarks within the 5-minute time period we would appreciate it.

Please, proceed, Dr. Rice.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. RICE, SOIL MICROBIOLOGY PROFESSOR, KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF

AGRONOMY, MANHATTAN, KANSAS

Dr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Subcommittee. I am Dr. Chuck Rice, Professor of Soil Microbiology in

the Department of Agronomy at Kansas State University. I am also

a member of the Soil Science Society of America and a Fellow of

the American Society of Agronomy. I personally have been involved

or became involved in soil organic matter and carbon research, and

no-tillage research during my Ph.D. training starting in 1980.

I am pleased to be invited to testify on the role of agriculture

soils in carbon cycling and mitigating greenhouse gases.

As was noted earlier, since the late 1800s, carbon dioxide has

been increasing in the atmosphere at an extremely rapid rate and

with much of this increase in the last 50-years or so due to the

burning of fossil fuels. Ultimately we need to reduce our carbon

emissions into the atmosphere, however, also, as mentioned earlier,

it is going to take time to develop energy technologies and make

them economically feasible. Plants and soils can buy us some of

that time.

Recent models suggest that plants and soils can reduce the increase of atmospheric CO2. How does this occur? Carbon sequestration by soils occurs primarily through the plants first. Plants convert the carbon dioxide into the plant tissue through photosynthesis, and then as those plants decompose, primarily by soil microorganisms, some of that carbon is turned into soil organic matter

or humus. This humus can persist in soils on the order of hundreds

to thousands of years, so, therefore, it represents a long term storage.

The estimated amount of carbon stored in the world’s soils is

about twice that in the plant vegetation, itself, or in the atmosphere. Hence, even a relatively small change in the soil carbon

30

storage can represent a big impact on the carbon balance, the global carbon balance.

Agriculture has always played a key role in carbon cycling. Much

of the central U.S. and Canada that is now producing our abundant

food supply, as you know, was once a vast prairie. And these carbon-rich soils have their carbon levels due depleted or reduced to

plowing and soil erosion. They have been reduced by about 50-percent.

However, this loss of soil carbon can be reversed and modern agriculture now represents the potential for storage of carbon in the

soil. We now have and we need to develop technologies and information needed to conserve carbon that is put into the soil. I have

provided a list in the written testimony of carbon conserving practices, but just some examples include conservation tillage or no-tillage, proper fertilizer management, elimination of summer fallow—

that is important in the Great Plains, Colorado, Nebraska and

Kansas—crop selection, including perennial crops, and vegetative

buffer strips.

I would like to use no-till as one example. Research at Kansas

State University and other land-grant universities have shown that

no-tillage can sequester an average of a 10th to two 10ths of a tonper-acre-per-year. What does that mean? In Kansas, if we had a

million-acres converted over to no-till, that would be storing enough

carbon equivalent to burning of 85-million gallons of gasoline each

year.

Another example, elimination of summer fallow would have similar gains in Western Kansas and the Great Plains.

Range lands is often forgotten and it also absorbs carbon. Some

of the research by Dr. Clinton Owensby and myself has shown that

carbon under elevated CO2 is increased, soil carbon is increased on

the order of 2-tons-per-acre over an 8-year period.

Economic analysis suggests that soil carbon sequestration is

among the most beneficial and cost-effective options available for

reducing greenhouse gases, particularly over the next 30- to 50-

years until we build up or develop those alternative energy sources.

At Kansas State University we have a team of research and extension faculty to conduct basic and applied research on agricultural practices to sequester soil carbon. Also as part of our mission,

since we are a land grant university, our desire is to extend that

information to the land managers and policy makers in Kansas.

In addition, Kansas State research and extension team has

joined up with a national Consortium for Agricultural Practices to

Mitigate Greenhouse Gases pronounced ‘‘casms.’’

This consortium includes eight land grant universities and a Department of Energy laboratory as well. This CASMGS team is

made up of internationally recognized researchers and institutions

in the field of carbon dynamics, soil erosion, greenhouse gases, agricultural resource economics and integrated assessments.

If you permit, the overall goal of CASMGS is to provide the tools

and information needed to successfully implement the soil carbon

sequestration programs so that we may lower the accumulation of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while providing income and

incentives to producers in improving soil quality.

31

To achieve this goal, we need to further conduct basic and applied research, develop the models for assessment, and provide economic analysis for a better understanding in adoption of carbon sequestration practices. And then we need to take this information

and provide the education and demonstrations for the producers to

adopt that technology.

I also would like to remind the Committee that in addition to reducing carbon in the air, many of these practices have other benefits and I will just quickly mention four here.

One is that by increasing soil carbon restores and sustains our

natural resource base which part of this country was founded upon.

Second, increasing soil carbon improves the soil quality including

the biodiversity of the soil, soil microorganisms, and the chemical

and physical properties of the soil. Many of these practices that increase soil carbon also improve water and air quality.

Finally, agriculture soils become more productive, often with

fewer inputs and, thus, increase the profitability for the producer.

Thus, my four wins is for agriculture, the environment, the U.S.

citizen and the producer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rice can be found in the appendix on page 74.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Dr. Kimble, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KIMBLE, RESEARCH SOIL SCIENTIST,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

Dr. KIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am

a Research Soil Scientist at NRCS in Lincoln, Nebraska, and it is

a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the issues of carbon cycle

research and the role of agriculture in helping to mitigate the

greenhouse gases. For the last 10-years I have worked with issues

related to soil organic carbon and the role that agriculture can play

in sequestration of carbon in the soil.

There is a strong linkage of the carbon cycle to the nitrogen and

phosphorus cycles and all three need to be considered together.

Many of the problems we have with animal wastes are related to

phosphorus and nitrogen, yet, the organic matter in the waste is

needed for building soil carbon. In addition, both nitrogen and

phosphorus are required for photosynthesis.

We also need to consider the emissions of methane and where

this fits in the overall carbon cycle. Methane is produced by ruminant livestock during feed digestion, in wetlands, rice paddies, and

animal waste storage facilities.

We know that soils can sequester carbon. The average sequestration potential for cropland is about 8-percent of the total annual

U.S. emissions and for grazing lands about 5-percent of annual

U.S. emissions. So, it is a very large amount.

Sequestration can significantly reduce atmospheric CO2 and at

the same time improve soil quality. We have heard this many

times, the win-wins. The increased carbon leads to improved soil

fertility—maybe I will get more than four—reduce soil erosion, restoration of degraded lands, improve water quality and improve

wildlife habitat. This is a win-win scenario——

32

[Laughter.]

I will lose my thought here—to agriculture as well as to society

in general. I think the major benefit is society in general. So, that

is one of the major winners is society.

The knowledge gaps that have been identified which require future research are the development of global data bases, information

exchange, we need to understand wetland processes better, carbon

sequestration in the subsoil, soil erosion and carbon dynamics— what happens to it when we erode it, do we lose it or not—plant

nutrients and their interactions with soil carbon, soil structure, soil

quality. We need to improve our methods for soil organic matter assessment. We need to understand tropical ecosystems, and frozen

soils, what happens to them if we have warming.

Assessment of the value of carbon per ton needs to be determined

and we need to look at policy options to encourage farmers and

land managers to adopt recommended management practices. We

know the value of conservation tillage but still need to look at the

potential benefits of different types of tillage systems from simple

no-till to the less more conventional strip tillage in some of these

and different agro-ecological zones with different crops and different crop rotations on different soils. This research requires longtime experiments.

CRP has helped to improve highly erodible soils but the question

is, have we gotten the maximum benefit from these lands? Do we

need some sort of management to improve their rates of sequestration. Research is needed to determine how fertility testing information can be used to help us understand changes in soil carbon levels. We take over 2-million samples a year for this, yet, we are not

using these numbers right now to relate to soil carbon changes.

Research is needed to determine why practices that are shown to

work to increase carbon sequestration are not being adopted. Integrated research is needed to ascertain the value of soil carbon in

terms of the effect on production and on other societal values, some

of the material that Keith Collins mentioned. What is the cost-benefit of carbon sequestration?

How can we use remote sensing to observe land use changes, to

improve management practices, and to enhance carbon sequestration? We need to see the effects of irrigation on carbon sequestration since irrigation is being used more and more and can affect

both soil organic carbon and soil inorganic carbon.

We need to look at the effects of bioenergy on soil carbon and the

crops grown and how they affect the carbon. We need research to

look at crops that maintain or have increased yields but at the

same time increase the amount of below-ground biomass or changing the lignin content so the carbon stays around longer.

We need to improve our ability to monitor and verify carbon

stocks using direct measurements coupled with process models that

will allow us to scale point data to field and whole farms and eventually to larger geographic regions.

The future understanding of the global carbon cycle depends on

the development and implementation of a research program that is

interdisciplinary. It must link policy makers to soil scientists,

agronomists, economists, plant breeders and other scientists. We

have worked alone many times, we need to work together.

33

We need to take the research from the laboratory and experimental fields to whole-farm operations and see how we do it on

them.

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kimble can be found in the appendix on page 83.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Kimble.

Mr. Richards.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RICHARDS, FARMER AND FORMER

CHIEF OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,

CIRCLEVILLE, OHIO

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Committee for the opportunity to testify. I am going to read the

short version and submit the balance for your consideration and remarks.

I will focus on how conservation tillage will sequester carbon,

and may be the best solution, surely the easiest solution, to our

CO2 concerns.

I am Bill Richards, a farmer from Ohio, representing myself and

our family farm. I bring the experience of 45-years of conservation

farming and two-and-a-half years as Chief of the Soil Conservation

Service, and the two of you will readily remember that I was on

the hot seat at the height of the 1985 farm bill implementation.

Conservation tillage or no-till or what was best described as direct seeding has really been my life. We have land that has not

been plowed for 40-years and we have been complete no-till for

more than 20. Our soil quality is improving each year. Every

spring planting gets easier and easier. We are using the same

planters for the last 25-years, so, we know that it is getting easier.

Direct seeding has really kept our farm competitive, expanding and

profitable, all these years. It also sent me to Washington when Secretary Yeutter wanted a farmer to address the producer hostilities

from the erosion requirements of the 1985 farm bill.

My background in no-till and direct seeding and with the help of

the chemical and machinery industries, the farm press and other

USDA agencies, we were able to sell conservation tillage as the

best practice to meet the erosion requirements. And for the most

part, we were successful. Erosion dropped to sustainable levels in

many regions of the country and conservation tillage peaked out at

roughly 40-percent of planted acres, then things changed.

The agenda switched from the real measurable problem of soil

erosion to the perceived of herbicide dependence. Conservation tillage has levelled out nationally. It is gaining in cotton, wheat, and

soybeans but losing in the corn belt, especially in highly erodible

Iowa.

The U.S. is unlike our competitors, Canada, Argentina and

Brazil, who have all passed us in the percent of cropland direct

seeded. I am concerned as one of those who started this conservation tillage revolution that we have unleashed a monster because

around the world millions of acres of new lands are coming into

production that would be too fragile or unprofitable without conservation tillage.

34

I feel and hope that future conservation programs will be separate, voluntary and incentive based. I hope that we have learned

our lessons on cross compliance. From my experience as a farmer

and past SCS Chief, I am convinced that we get conservation on

the land and behavioral change with incentives and education not

requirements and regulations.

We have always known and understood the immediate fuel, labor

and machine savings of conservation tillage. We also captured the

management opportunity of spreading our talent over more and

more acres. Then come the erosion and conservation benefits that

become political after the 1985 farm bill. But only recently have we

understood the long-term soil quality, water quality, and wildlife

benefits accruing from continuous direct seeding.

The opportunity to increase organic matter, that is soil carbon,

will first increase productivity or land value, and second, sequester

carbon for a world concerned with climate change from greenhouse

gases.

The Ag Research Service has found that as much as 1- to 2-percent organic matter increase in 10- to 20-years of continuous notill. It has been said earlier. The bad news is that we have tilled

away or eroded 50-percent of the organic matter from our soils in

the last 100-years. But the good news is that we have the technology, the machinery and science to put it back.

Others gave a lot of statistics. I will just skip to the point that

we should encourage our farmers and ranchers to do whatever is

recommended to achieve these potentials. I feel that science has

documented the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I do not feel

we know why or if man has anything to do with it, however, if the

world is going to throw money at global climate change, then agriculture could, can and should earn some of that money and I might

say, we will put it to good use.

I hope that in the near future we will have the opportunity to

put in place a comprehensive conservation incentive program to reward producers for stewardship. We offer a solution to the global

climate change, greenhouse gas problems that is a win-win for all

concerned.

Whether the problems are real or perceived, public funding for

increased organic matter, improve soil quality, better water quality, less erosion, all leading to higher productivity, is a good investment for our people, and the whole world.

A conservation bill would focus agriculture’s importance to the

environment. A conservation bill would move money to the countryside at a time when it is badly needed. But more importantly, help

production agriculture address the concerns of the environmental

community and avoid the temptation to regulate.

If we could get in place a freedom to conserve with a good insurance package we could avoid the temptation many have to change

freedom to farm. I hope we give it time. It has our foreign competition worried and we producers enjoy the freedom to manage and

compete.

Enforcement of the Clean Air Act is starting and carbon will be

valuable. I am told $20 per ton is a reasonable price. The EPA and

most environmentalists favor carbon trading so industry, especially

utilities, will finance the carbon reduction. I think the issue for agVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:47 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 069743 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 69743.TXT SAGRI1 PsN: SAGRI1
35

riculture producers is whether we trade our payments, our carbon

sequestering potential on the market or do we get our rewards

through stewardship payments?

I am out of time and I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richards can be found in the appendix on page 89.]

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, you made sense in 1985 and I think you

made a great deal of sense then and I appreciate you coming and

I appreciate your perspective from an individual producer but more

especially from your experience as the head of SCS, which I still

call it, by the way, SCS.

Mr. RICHARDS. Me, too.

The CHAIRMAN. John.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. HAAS, FARMER, LARNED, KANSAS

Mr. HAAS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Kerrey, it is a pleasure to be

here and appear before you this afternoon.

My name is John Haas and I live in Larned, Kansas. I am a nonirrigator farmer and I am probably a true family farmer. We farm

about 4,000-acres, of which my wife and my daughter-in-law provide the combine help in the summer time. I do about 90-percent

of the rest of the work.

We basically are 100-percent no-till operation. Have been for a

number of years. Started into it about 1979, 1980. Some of the

things that I see that have affected it—and I think there are a lot

of wins, and I do not think that we can even go about numbering

them all—but I will tell you what, as long as we can go 11 and 0,

that is the kind of wins that we like to go with.

You know, one of the things that has happened—— The CHAIRMAN. It is a shame we did not go 12 and 0 ‘‘referring

to K-State football.’’ [Laughter.]

Mr. HAAS. It is very difficult with Senator Kerrey there to talk

about that. You know, having watched and participated in this type

of thing NP. It is very interesting to me to see what has happened

to the soil. Our soil today is in better shape under no-till than it

has ever been since we probably broke it out.

It has a better ability to absorb moisture. We just recently have

been blessed with abundant rains in my area and it was interesting to me to observe what was happening to those soil, those fields

that had been no-tilled and those that had been tilled. And we see

a great difference in the runoff and the percolation of the water

and how that affects the soils, themselves, but in turn, it will affect

the crops down the line.

With the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996, it allowed our farm to

go from a wheat, milo farm, to now we grow wheat, milo, alfalfa,

corn, soybeans, canola, and sunflowers. We are in an area that we

get about 23-inches-of-rain. We get enough rain to raise a crop if

we can hold that moisture where it falls for the times when we

need it. And the only way that I can see that we can do that is

under a no-till situation.

Earlier somebody talked about how do we increase the amount

of organic matter on the soil to be able to not only take up that

carbon but to also decrease wind erosion, water erosion, and those

36

type of things? Well, in no-till I found the answer to it, and it is

another one of those wins.

It is raising crops. As we raise more productive crops, we have

more organic matter left on that soil, and that becomes one of the

things that we have to deal with in planting. It is hard to plant

no-till into 100 bushel-an-acre wheat stubble that has been left.

But it is possible.

I think one of the biggest draw backs I see in fact of getting

farmers involved in the no-till conservation type tillage, is that it

takes more management. You have to be more timely. It is more

difficult. You are dealing with things that you have never had to

deal with, and most of them are up here in your head. Because, you

know, my grandfather and my father farmed in a clean tillage type

of situation, why should I change.

It is very difficult for me, having grown up under that kind of

an atmosphere, to be able to go back and lay the fields in what

would look like a very terrible situation, only there is nothing

growing there, and to me they are beautiful. But let me assure you,

your neighbors will not tell you that. And there is a psychological

problem definitely in no-till circumstance.

The question that came up earlier today is how would we go

about paying for this. Do we give tax credits or do we look at dollars? I would like to address that in the fact that if you want the

farmers to participate I think that you look at the direct dollars not

in the tax consequences. Farmers will do things for dollars.

I think this carbon sequestration is real. I think we have the

ability to solve some of that and help not only our country but the

world in general. I think farmers are historically the original environmentalists. They are dealing with their livelihood on that piece

of ground that they farm. And no matter what people say they are

dealing with what is going to happen to them, and their generations in the future. And I think, you know, as I look back and see

some of the things that have happened, we have increased our

wildlife habitat with no-till. Today, we have got tremendous quantities of deer, wild turkey, bobcats, quail, pheasants we did not use

to have 30- or 40-years ago.

We are doing a lot of things in the country, I do not believe, that

people in general really understand and see what is going on out

in the country. I think that the opportunity that you have presented to me to be able to come and present some of this to you—

I have varied a little bit from my written testimony but I know

that that will be in the record—and it is a privilege to be here. I

want to tell you that it is possible.

We do need leadership from Washington in part of it, but another way to look at how do we get the farmers to participate in

this program, and I think it is very, very important, is the fact that

we must involve our land grant universities and our cooperative extension services, because let us look at the GMO situation today.

That came through private enterprise. Farmers bought into it and

now we are starting to look at that and question that because of

the adverse publicity that is out there.

The land grant system and cooperative extension has the reliability that we, as producers, will look and we like that. And, so, I just

really encourage you that as this research comes about that we do

37

not put it in different areas but that we keep it in the USDA and

channel that through our land grant system and get that message

out to the farmers through the extension service.

There is not another agency up here that has the ability to get

to the people that the extension service does and I use them greatly.

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haas can be found in the appendix on page 95.]

The CHAIRMAN. OK. We thank you, John.

Dr. Rice, as you indicated while Kansas State is part of a consortium, who makes up that consortium now?

Dr. RICE. The consortium is made up of 8 land grant universities,

including Colorado State, Iowa State, Kansas State, of course,

Michigan State, Montana State, Ohio State, Texas A&M and University of Nebraska and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The CHAIRMAN. That is called CASMGS?

Dr. RICE. Yes, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN. CASMGS?

Dr. RICE. Hmm-hmm.

The CHAIRMAN. And the ‘‘G’’ is silent, obviously.

Dr. RICE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, did the USDA provide grants or other funding to the group?

Dr. RICE. To the group, no. We have an initial appropriation from EPA that was originally for $350,000. That got cut to $332,000 for

this year. Individual researchers have some competitive grants for

USDA but not as a group.

The CHAIRMAN. But what funding would you need for next year

and if that is forthcoming, how would it be spent?

Dr. RICE. The proposal that the group has put together is around

$10 million a year, and that will be used for continuing the applied

research, to develop the inventories for greenhouse gases, the economic analysis to help both the producers and inform the policy

makers.

The CHAIRMAN. John just indicated that it would be absolutely

essential to work with through the extension service and our land

grant universities. What is Kansas State doing to assist producers?

Dr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate at Kansas State that

we have a good research extension team. We have just produced a

no-till handbook as an example. And 7,500 copies were produced

and I think we are running out. So, we are looking at a second version or even maybe putting it on the Web. We have an extensive

network of field sites that provide opportunities for field days.

County agent training, I have helped train county agents that, of

course, outreach then to the individual producer.

Even my time Committment has been increased in the last several months here communicating to government agencies, nongovernmental agencies around the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Kimble, you have got a book out that you

helped edit, ‘‘The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon

and to Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect’’ and you made the point

that bio-fuels could help sequester anywhere from 35- to 63-millionVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:47 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 069743 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 69743.TXT SAGRI1 PsN: SAGRI1
38

metric-tons-of-carbon per year. Explain to me how bio-fuels relate

to carbon sequestration.

Dr. KIMBLE. You get two benefits from the bio-fuels. One is you

are offsetting the use of nonrenewable resources by doing this but

bio-fuels, switch grass, rapidly growing willow trees or whatever,

also have an extensive root system. You are taking nonproductive

land, maybe highly eroded land, and putting it into productive use.

So, your putting a lot more carbon into the ground by using, growing these crops.

So, you are getting the benefit of, you know, replacing nonrenewable resources and you are also getting the benefit of increasing the

soil carbon by increasing the amount of carbon input into the

ground. It is not just removing the bio-fuels where they make them

into ethanol or other fuels but it is also the carbon into the ground.

The CHAIRMAN. You have got some testimony about remote sensing and that really got my attention. We have a group of researchers at the University of Kansas and that is the remote sensing center for the region in regards to NASA.

Last year, let me point out, that these researchers developed a

remote sensing model that was 95-percent accurate in predicting

the Iowa corn harvest—I am sorry that Senator Bradley had to

leave—by 2-months in advance of the actual harvest. The USDA

did not get their final numbers until after harvest, obviously. So,

my question to you is how important us remote sensing to your research and do you foresee remote sensing being a bigger part of

yours and others in regard to soil science?

Dr. KIMBLE. Yes. Remote sensing is a very important tool. We

can look at land use change and we can see how much areas are

going into no-till, are we having an increase or decrease in conservation tillage. We use it in NRCS—which you call, SCS, which

I do, too, but I am not supposed to; I work for them so I have more

restraints, I guess—but we use it in our mapping to develop the

data bases.

The CHAIRMAN. You should hear what farmers call them. Go

ahead.

[Laughter.]

Dr. KIMBLE. Remote sensing is, you know, it is how we gather

a lot of our data to go into the data bases we need. It is a very

important tool. It can help us look at drought. You know, predict

when we may have droughts, looking at, you know, they are developing sensors with NASA to look at moisture in the ground so we

can get earlier predictions of what is going on. It is, to me, it is

part of the future.

If I go onto a farm I can look at a small area but with remote

sensing I can integrate over a whole watershed which we have to

do. So, to me, it is a really powerful tool that we need to keep using

and increasing its use of.

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, tell me, you made the comment that farm

land values increase as the level of organic materials like carbon

in the soil increases and that crop yields increase. Do you have any

tangible numbers there or, you know, just a guess?

Mr. RICHARDS. Just by looking at farm sales and looking at values around me, when that organic matter goes up, in other words,

between a Brookston soil, which is our best, and a Crosby, there

39

is about a 2-percent difference. Now, there are other things there,

but that is a good $500 or more.

You can also come at it the other way that 2-percent organic

matter would probably add about 20-bushels-an-acre to that corn

yield, at $2 a bushel, 8-percent, that comes back to that $500. So,

it is for real.

The CHAIRMAN. It is significant.

How would you compare information transmitted from the Department of Agriculture versus the Conservation Technology Information Center and Extension, etc., and here is the obvious question: Would a more consolidated approach to information transmission be useful to you as a producer?

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, as a producer, I did not realize there was

a problem NRCS and USDA does the measuring, CTIC merely reports those figures. I should say I am on the CTIC Board but, you

know, to me it is a good example of public/private partnership. And

we hope it is working.

The CHAIRMAN. John, you have been a good friend to Kansas

State, obviously, down through the years and a key member of

something called the Council for Agricultural Research Extension

and Teaching—that is CARET—over the years. And you have also

been a participant in the University’s test plots for canola for that

research and then through your own personal experience the question is, should the University and other land grant institutions be

involved in this research? Why should producers take a proactive

role in assisting this research?

This is a softball question to you, but go ahead.

Mr. HAAS. Oh, yeah. That has an easy answer to it. I really enjoy

having demonstration plots and test plots on our farm because

when those plots are there then I can see what they are doing

under my conditions. Right now, we have the canola breeder at

Kansas State, Charlie Rife who has an experimental plot there on

the farm. Last year, we had a little over 10-percent of the State’s

canola growing on our farm.

Unfortunately, it was destroyed in a hail storm just prior to harvest. But I think what it shows is possible as people go by——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you will benefit a lot more once we pass

the Kerrey-Roberts crop protection amendment.

Mr. HAAS. I am looking forward to it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HAAS. But, you know, there is nothing better to draw farmer’s attention than to see some, farmer out there doing something

different that nobody else not doing, and then they start watching

that. And you just hope that if it is good that it is on the popular

road and if it is bad, it is on the back 40.

But the University really puts its best foot forward when they

come out and evaluate. Next month or at the end of this month,

I guess the 24th of May, Charlie is going to come out and we are

going to have a field day at that canola plot. We are going to talk

about the different variety that he has planted. What he sees in

the future for canola. I am sure that we will have a great participation from the area.

There is a lot of trust in the land grant system in production agriculture. We look to the extension service for information. That is

40

nonbiased information. A lot of times if we get it out of private industry, there is a reason for what we are getting. But the University works very hard at having nonbiased information and we appreciate that and it is very valuable to us.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, just quickly for a final comment. Would you

go down your cropping pattern changes again and this is just for

the benefit of Senator Kerrey and others, in that Kansas used to

be known as sort of a mono-agriculture State, more especially in

the old big first district, now 66-counties. Very similar to the district represented by Bill Barrett. And that has changed absolutely

dramatically.

And you went down a list on your farm. You want to do that

again?

Mr. HAAS. Sure, I would be very happy to. We historically were

a wheat farm. And in the 1950s milo was brought in to it and then

when we saw the hybrids come, we were split somewhat between

50-percent wheat, 50-percent milo. Well, really, a third wheat, a

third milo, third fallow.

Today, because of the ability that we have to pick those crops

that we see have the best economic return and through no-till having the moisture available to grow some of these crops, today wheat

has become a minor crop for us. We grow alfalfa, corn, soybeans,

sunflowers, and canola. And if there was something else, I would

try it, too.

But I will tell you what, our economic stability has become very

solid in the adaptation to the different crops versus one or two. I

do not worry about one particular market. I do not worry about one

particular hail storm.

You know, last year we lost 50-percent of our wheat to a hail

storm but, yet, we had a very good year. Now, that is adding into

the government payments and so forth that came from Washington. And let me assure you that economically in production agriculture if those payments were not there, it would have been a disastrous year across-the-board in agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. You can move a little south and a little bit east

and there are about 35,000-acres-of-cotton production in Kansas.

The most efficient cotton that is now produced in the United States

because it is so cold it kills the bugs.

Mr. HAAS. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. We would have never thought that when Stephen Foster wrote the song, ‘‘Those Old Cotton Fields Back Home’’

he was talking about Kansas.

Mr. HAAS. You know, another thing to interject in that, Mr.

Chairman, is the fact that with the biotechnology that we see available to us in crops, we are reducing our uses, particularly insecticides. If we can grow a bt corn and save from spraying that corn

with an insecticide that kills everything, all the insects around it,

it is better.

We have got a lot of things going for production agriculture today

and I think the carbon sequestration that we are looking at is just

another positive and I think it has a place to play in the role.

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize for Senator Kerrey who had to leave

and I guess we got to visiting too much, John, in regards to our

41

mutual prejudice which, you know, obviously, makes us both very

smart.

[Laughter.]

But I want to thank all of the witnesses and the previous witnesses. This has been the first hearing of this subcommittee in

quite a bit of time. I think we focused on the right topic and I want

to thank the witnesses.

We are going to see if we cannot work with the appropriators to

see if we can have a greater investment in regards to carbon sequestration. We are going to be working with the Department to

make sure that they maintain a very strong voice and that we try

to do a better job of consolidating and having that clearinghouse

that our producers really want and should have.

I think this is a very exciting topic. As I have said, again, I think

that this is part of the answer, a big answer to global warming,

and it is a positive answer aside from all the debate we are having

as to whether that is the proper—whether the Kyoto Treaty would

be the proper role or not.

So, I thank the witnesses and the Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(43)

A P P E N D I X

MAY 4, 2000

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

(101)

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MAY 4, 2000

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116