AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia, Chairman 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

SAM FARR, California 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTIN DELGADO, TOM O’BRIEN, BETSY BINA, and ANDREW COOPER, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 4 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Research, Education and Economics 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
PART 4—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 

DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia, Chairman 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

SAM FARR, California 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

MARTIN DELGADO, TOM O’BRIEN, BETSY BINA, and ANDREW COOPER, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 4 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Research, Education and Economics 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

66–430 WASHINGTON : 2011 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

WITNESSES 

CATHERINE E. WOTEKI, UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS 

EDWARD B. KNIPLING, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE 

KATHERINE R. SMITH, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE 

CYNTHIA CLARK, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE 

ROGER BEACHY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 

MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. The committee will come to order. 

And I would like to welcome back Dr. Catherine Woteki, who is 

a veteran of speaking to this committee on all things agriculture, 

good and evil and political. 

And Dr. Knipling is back with us again, and we will try to come 

up with some hard questions for you and make you feel at home. 

We want you to have that. 

Dr. Katherine Smith is with us and Dr. Cynthia Clark and Dr. 

Roger Beachy. So, Mr. Young, that leaves you the only one without 

a Ph.D. on the panel, but you know where all of the money is. 

But we are glad to have you guys with us, and your testimony 

has been submitted. So you are welcome to read it verbatim or 

summarize it. Mr. Farr and I probably have a preference, and I bet 

you can guess which one, but you do whatever you feel comfortable 

with because actually I do know bouncing around this is very difficult. 

And with that, Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. This is an area that is very keen and important to me 

and certainly the State of California and the Nation and my district. I really look forward to some interactive discussion here 

today. 

Mr. KING. Dr. Woteki. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
2 

OPENING STATEMENT

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, thank you, Chairman Kingston, Congressman 

Farr. 

We have provided written testimony from all four of the agencies 

as well as my testimony, and we appreciate your putting that into 

the record. 

I will summarize briefly my testimony. 

The team of scientists that are sitting before you really do represent the expertise that we have within the Department, as well 

as the dedication of this administration to invest in science to keep 

our nation and our economy healthy. 

From providing nutritious food for children and families and supporting the productivity of our farmers, to helping to use our natural resources to create jobs and to mitigate the effects of climate 

change, the work that the Research, Education and Economics Mission Area does improves the lives of the American people and also 

has an impact that is felt around the world. 

USDA has a very long history in supporting research and providing for education, and since we’re testifying about the 2012 

budget request, I would like to bring to your attention that 2012 

actually marks the 150th anniversary both of the establishment of 

the Department of Agriculture and also Congress’ enacting the 

Morrill Act that created the very historic partnership between the 

Federal Government and the States in support of the land grant 

universities. 

Since that time, our State colleges and universities have graduated more than 20 million students, produced countless scientific 

breakthroughs, pursued solutions to problems shared across society. They have vastly increased agricultural productivity and improved the lives of people everywhere. 

Today, however, there is a growing recognition that agriculture 

and natural resources really sit at the heart of the world’s most 

critical problems: increasing sustainable food production, providing 

clean and abundant water, responding to climate change, developing renewable energy, and improving human health. And the 

challenges that are facing agriculture, human as well as animal 

health, natural resources and conservation are immense, and they 

need to be faced with the most robust research enterprise that we 

can muster. 

This anniversary year in 2012, however, is going to come at a 

time of very difficult financial challenges for the entire Federal 

Government, including the Department of Agriculture and the research agencies. To be able to make the strategic investments in 

the food and the agricultural sector and our economy in the long 

term, we recognize that we have to make some cuts to programs 

that we care about, and the President’s budget for this mission 

area, Research, Education and Economics, proposes reductions in 

programs and terminations of projects because these tough budget 

times call for very difficult choices to be made, focusing the budget 

on the highest priority and our most productive programs. 

The food and agriculture sectors of the economy have proven to 

be very strong. Focusing on and enhancing the high priority programs in the budget is critical to keeping them strong and conVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:58 May 31, 2011 Jkt 066430 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A430P2.XXX A430P2

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
3 

tinuing their contributions to the future economic well-being of our 

country. The food and agriculture economy is a huge engine for our 

country’s economy. It contributes jobs. It contributes also to the 

positive balance sheet for our country when it comes to international trade. 

Last year in 2010 that positive trade balance for agriculture re- lated to a total of $33.9 billion, and agriculture has maintained a 

surplus since 1960. 

In maintaining this advantage, we must never take for granted 

the scientific insights needed to combat the next animal disease or 

plant disease that may emerge or the next weather anomaly that 

can impact these important commodities and products. 

In keeping with the President’s commitment to start the country on a path to eliminating the deficit, the budget requests $2.6 billion 

for the four REE agencies, or a reduction overall of $244 million 

in discretionary funding. Within the total, a request for increases 

in programs addressing some of the greatest challenges to the 

country, including nutrition and obesity, renewable energy, climate 

change, food safety, as well as maintaining the very important scientific collections. 

It also proposes to develop the capacity to use a new analytical 

tool, behavioral economics, to provide valuable insights to policy development and program design, and also to enhance the department’s flagship competitive grants program, the Agriculture and 

Food Research Initiative, which goes by the acronym AFRI. 

These increases are offset by the elimination of congressionally 

designated projects and decreases or terminations of lower priority 

programs. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I are happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
4 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 7 here 66430P4A.001
5 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 8 here 66430P4A.002
6 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 9 here 66430P4A.003
7 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 10 here 66430P4A.004
8 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 11 here 66430P4A.005
9 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 12 here 66430P4A.006
10 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 13 here 66430P4A.007
11 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 14 here 66430P4A.008
12 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 15 here 66430P4A.009
13 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 16 here 66430P4A.010
14 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 17 here 66430P4A.011
15 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 18 here 66430P4A.012
16 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 19 here 66430P4A.013
17 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 20 here 66430P4A.014
18 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 21 here 66430P4A.015
19 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 22 here 66430P4A.016
20 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 23 here 66430P4A.017
21 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 24 here 66430P4A.018
22 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 25 here 66430P4A.019
23 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 26 here 66430P4A.020
24 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 27 here 66430P4A.021
25 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 28 here 66430P4A.022
26 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 29 here 66430P4A.023
27 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 30 here 66430P4A.024
28 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 31 here 66430P4A.025
29 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 32 here 66430P4A.026
30 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 33 here 66430P4A.027
31 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 34 here 66430P4A.028
32 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 35 here 66430P4A.029
33 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 36 here 66430P4A.030
34 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 37 here 66430P4A.031
35 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 38 here 66430P4A.032
36 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 39 here 66430P4A.033
37 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 40 here 66430P4A.034
38 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 41 here 66430P4A.035
39 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 42 here 66430P4A.036
40 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 43 here 66430P4A.037
41 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 44 here 66430P4A.038
42 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 45 here 66430P4A.039
43 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 46 here 66430P4A.040
44 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 47 here 66430P4A.041
45 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 48 here 66430P4A.042
46 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 49 here 66430P4A.043
47 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 50 here 66430P4A.044
48 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 51 here 66430P4A.045
49 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 52 here 66430P4A.046
50 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 53 here 66430P4A.047
51 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 54 here 66430P4A.048
52 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 55 here 66430P4A.049
53 

APPLIED VERSUS GENERAL RESEARCH

Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to ask you a question. This is opening 

up to really any of the scientists on your board, in terms of applied 

versus general research. Because one of the questions that I have 

is, well, general research kind of does not lead to things necessarily 

that are on a fast pace. Applied research, you come out and you 

say, ‘‘Okay. This is what we figured out.’’ 

But then applied research approaches corporate welfare, and 

along that line a lot of scientists now, particularly in the medical 

field, go to universities, not so much to USDA, but to a lot of your 

university partners, and they say, ‘‘Willing to relocate. Here are my 

requirements. You know, I want the lab to look like this. I want 

to have the following associates, and then I want ownership of 

some of the things we discover.’’ 

I just wanted to ask a general question on that. How do you guys 

see that? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, Mr. Chairman, the research agencies in this 

mission area support a range of research from very fundamental 

inquiries through to applications, development of tools of use to 

farmers in making decisions, as well as in providing technologies 

that can be then further developed by the private sector into real 

products. 

So the approach that we take is, it is important to do that investment in some fundamental areas of inquiry because that long term 

is going to pay off in insights that are going to actually develop approaches that are going to be—— 

APPLIED RESEARCH AND CORPORATE WELFARE

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I understand the philosophy. I am just saying how do you as scientists who see this in the next lab over, you 

might say, how do you feel about it? Where do you see, okay, this 

is now entered into corporate welfare or enrichment of somebody 

who actually works for a State university and suddenly they have 

got a side deal that is going to make them a lot of money? 

And I am not saying it is necessarily a bad thing, but I also say 

it seems like it can be one of those things that you have to control. 

And I am not holding you responsible for controlling it necessarily either. I am just throwing this out. 

Dr. WOTEKI. We do not view the research that we sponsor either 

in universities or that is conducted in our intramural agencies as 

being corporate welfare. The vast majority of the research that is 

supported by research, education, and economics—REE—falls into 

two areas. One is what would be considered to be pre-competitive 

research. So it is the kind of research that private companies are 

not going to support. It is the kind of research that farmer organizations are not going to be able to support either. So it is very important research. It is more fundamental. It is long term. 

The second category of research that we do is research that has 

applications in many different areas, but it is also research, again, 

that farmers are not going to be able to support through their associations, or it is for sectors of the agricultural industry that are relatively small and also are not going to be able to pull it together. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
54 

These research agencies also provide an infrastructure for research. The Agricultural Research Service, for example, has a very 

important function in maintaining collections of germ plasm that 

are of importance to agriculture. It is those germ plasm collections, 

plants and animal species that provide to the research community 

and to the private sector the possibility for identifying genes that 

are going to have traits that will protect against pests, protect 

against disease when they are then bred or using the new genetic 

technologies introduced into plants and into animals. 

The other aspect of our research is that it is inherently governmental. There are responsibilities that we have for providing support to the action agencies within the department, the science base 

for their program and policy decisions. So we view that as being 

our large second role, as providing this infrastructure as well as 

scientific evidence base for the other agencies within USDA and 

also beyond USDA. The Food and Drug Administration, for example, looks to the research agencies here to provide answers to their 

questions that form then the basis for their program and policy decisions. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I am out of time, and I would like to explore 

this further with you when we get back, when the time comes back. 

Mr. Farr. 

IMPACT OF BUDGET REDUCTIONS

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Doctor, for being here and your very competent staff. I appreciate your service at a time when people are very critical of all of 

us in this service. And I think it is a need to kind of re-educate 

the public as to what the value of our services are. 

The H.R. 1 bill that passed, which was this $60 billion cut to 

have to be taken before the end of the year, it was not successful 

in the Senate, but it certainly drew the line in the sand because 

it came out of this committee as to what the game plan was here 

on out. 

And I think we need to look at that and realize that that is a 

goal that if you cannot achieve it in the first instance, you may 

achieve it, and now we are going to be passing another or we have 

passed another CR that if you add it all up, it has been about $2 

billion a week, and with 30 weeks left, that adds up to $60 billion 

if we keep going this way, and that is exactly what H.R. 1 did. 

So I am very interested, and I think other members are of trying 

to figure out what is the trickle down effect of that cut. In that bill 

there was a rescission of $585 million in the Agriculture Department. That cut unobligated balances. 

Within NIFA have you determined what those accounts are that 

have unobligated balances and what would be the impact if the 

Secretary’s knife were to cut those provisions? Specifically, are they 

ongoing research awards and projects that would be stopped midterm? 

What is going to be the impact of these cuts? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Mr. Farr, we recognize that in order to reduce the 

deficit and to address the debt issues that there are some very 

hard choices that are being made. We do believe that in order to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
55 

be responsible in the way that we are approaching our budgets, 

that we really have to make some very hard choices. 

At the same time, we have to be also focusing on making the investments that are going to bring the economy back to life and—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, we had hoped that all of the research is investments, but I mean, what about the cuts? You cannot avoid them. 

Dr. WOTEKI. That is true, and the—— 

Mr. FARR. So where are the impacts going to be? 

Dr. WOTEKI. The 2012 budget actually did make the proposals to 

eliminate earmarks, and my understanding is that that is included. 

Mr. FARR. But that is not my question. My question is we have 

ordered these cuts. If they come to your department and it is unobligated, you are going to have to offer up something. And what is 

going to be the impact? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, I can tell you that the immediate impacts are 

going to be largely felt by universities; that the funding that would 

not be allowed would be funding that goes to support research and 

various other activities that have traditionally been earmarks in 

our budget. 

Mr. FARR. So the priority is earmarks first. They go first. 

EARMARK TERMINATIONS

Dr. WOTEKI. Correct. 

Mr. FARR. How many earmarks were in your budget? 

Dr. WOTEKI. In total it adds up to about $141 million in NIFA 

and $42 million in the Agriculture Research Service. 

Mr. FARR. And how many research projects is that? 

Dr. WOTEKI. I would have to get back to you with an absolute 

accounting of how many research projects are involved. 

Mr. FARR. Well, do you have any guesstimate? Does it affect 

every State? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, I can tell you within the ARS budget, about 

a third of that is passed through to universities, and for NIFA, all 

of it is. 

Mr. FARR. do the universities know that? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yes, they are acutely aware. 

Mr. FARR. They are on alert? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. Well, they certainly have not been here. I really would 

appreciate if you could give the Committee the list of eligible victims. 

Dr. WOTEKI. And we will be happy to provide that to the Committee. 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
56 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 63 here 66430P4A.050
57 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 64 here 66430P4A.051
58 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 65 here 66430P4A.052
59 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 66 here 66430P4A.053
60 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 67 here 66430P4A.054
61 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 68 here 66430P4A.055
62 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 69 here 66430P4A.056
63 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 70 here 66430P4A.057
64 

Mr. FARR. For example, and I wanted to just see how you handled these because one of our very successful competitive grant programs has been the Viticulture Consortium, which has been out in 

California. It is a, you know, modest investment on an annual 

basis. Approximately $2 million has leveraged over $5 million in industry investment in research. The funds have employed scientists, 

technical staff, graduate students working on improving the efficiency and sustainability of specialty crop industries, which is developing in every State in the Union, and improving much of the 

vitality of many rural areas, which the Secretary has been very 

keen on trying to sustain because rural America is really at risk. 

And I wondered what solutions you are going to offer to continuing important work like that. You know, this is a very valuable, successful project. It has got a lot of private sector investment. How do you make your priority decisions? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, the Viticulture work that you have cited is a 

successful project. There are quite a number of them that have 

been successful and long-term projects that have been supported 

through earmarks. 

And as I indicated in my summary of my testimony, by zeroing 

out earmarks there are some very good programs that will be affected. What we are proposing is that the university communities 

that are being affected, that they compete under the competitive 

grants program, provide a proposal to AFRI, and if it is meritorious, it will compete well and has a chance of getting funding 

within that competitive grants program. 

Mr. FARR. Well, in the next round, I would like to follow up on 

that. Let me just set the stage here. You have and I think this committee believes, but maybe it is not true, that over time a lot of traditional research projects have been funded by the department. I 

have always heard that some of those projects are not even relevant anymore, but they come out of formula funding or come out 

of anything. 

I am very interested in how you use the best professional decision making and what is the relevance of these research projects 

to really dealing with today’s problems. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time has expired, but we are, I 

think, moving toward the same subject. First of all, I want to say 

we actually do have a list of those earmarks so that we can save 

the Under Secretary time, and we will submit them for the record. 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
65 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 74 here 66430P4A.058
66 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 75 here 66430P4A.059
67 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 76 here 66430P4A.060
68 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 77 here 66430P4A.061
69 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 78 here 66430P4A.062
70 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 79 here 66430P4A.063
71 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 80 here 66430P4A.064
72 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 81 here 66430P4A.065
73 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 82 here 66430P4A.066
74 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 83 here 66430P4A.067
75 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 84 here 66430P4A.068
76 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 85 here 66430P4A.069
77 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 86 here 66430P4A.070
78 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 87 here 66430P4A.071
79 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 88 here 66430P4A.072
80 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 89 here 66430P4A.073
81 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 90 here 66430P4A.074
82 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 91 here 66430P4A.075
83 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 92 here 66430P4A.076
84 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 93 here 66430P4A.077
85 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 94 here 66430P4A.078
86 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 95 here 66430P4A.079
87 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 96 here 66430P4A.080
88 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 97 here 66430P4A.081
89 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 98 here 66430P4A.082
90 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 99 here 66430P4A.083
91 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 100 here 66430P4A.084
92 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 101 here 66430P4A.085
93 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 102 here 66430P4A.086
94 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 103 here 66430P4A.087
95 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 104 here 66430P4A.088
96 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 105 here 66430P4A.089
97 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 106 here 66430P4A.090
98 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 107 here 66430P4A.091
99 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 108 here 66430P4A.092
100 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 109 here 66430P4A.093
101 

FORMULA VS. COMPETITIVE PROGRAMS

But what I am concerned about is that on research, where does 

it become corporate welfare in that you have a small group that is 

going to benefit the most and profit from that research. And in 

terms of competitive grants, how does that play into it? 

I do know that the Council for Agriculture and Science Technology has released a report on this. So the question is going to be, 

and I will read this, but competitive versus formula grants. How 

do you make a decision and what is the philosophy on it? 

But what the Council for Agriculture and Science Technology report said is they made a case for public investment in agriculture 

because it does help the output, but they also have said in there 

that funding should be taken from the competitive grant programs 

and allocated to the formula funds. 

So just talk to us about formula versus competitive. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Sure. I am happy to do that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I do want to know also, getting back to the 

first round in terms of when you are looking at research, when 

does it become something that you do not feel that the public 

should be funding? 

Dr. WOTEKI. As I started to say, I am happy to do that, Mr. 

Chairman. And I can comment both from the perspective of being 

a former dean as well as now administering these research programs. 

The way that funding of agriculture research at universities has 

traditionally been done has been through a combination of formula 

funds, which also leverage a State match that goes to the agricultural experiment stations within the States. 

In more recent years, the department has also had a competitive 

grants program. For many years it was called the National Research Initiative. Now it has been renamed to AFRI that I referred 

to earlier, and the competitive funding approach reflects the thinking that is largely post World War II about what is the best way 

to go about stimulating science that is going to lead to new insights 

and innovation. 

So we continue to support research through the formula to 

States. As a former dean, I used those funds really to focus on 

what the issues were that were mostly very much local, were problems that were facing Iowa farmers, and for which using those 

funds, we could provide, you know, really site specific research and 

solutions for in my case Iowa farmers, and also the funds helped 

to support the link between the extension program and the research that was going on on campus so we could get the word out 

to farmers as quickly as possible. 

The competitive funding approach is really looking to identify the 

most innovative, most cutting edge scientific aspects towards really 

fundamental questions. And what we have done within the AFRI 

Program, and I would like to ask Dr. Beachy to give you a bit more 

background on the approach that we have been taking within 

AFRI, is to try to link up that fundamental kind of research with 

higher education as well as extension in new ways so that those 

insights that are coming out of the laboratory are going to get into 

extension and into the farmers’ hands as quickly as possible. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
102 

So that is the approach that we have taken on formula and competitive funds. And we believe that the competitive research in the 

agricultural sciences really has been severely under funded, and 

our budget proposes an increase of about 23, 24 percent to bring 

the total in the AFRI Program up to $325 million. 

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE

So, Dr. Beachy, would you like to talk about the approach that 

you are taking? 

Dr. BEACHY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Dr. Beachy. 

Dr. BEACHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Maybe the best way to do this would be to give an example of 

one of the programs that is being started. We spent the last—over 

the last five to ten years we have funded projects in wheat and barley because wheat and barley were not be approached by the large 

companies, and the investments led to a better understanding of 

genes and the genomics of wheat and barley, but it did not get us 

a product. 

So this year we asked that team to come together and work 

across 20 different States to address all of the genetic variation in 

all of the wheat and barley, and put that information with the genetic information to develop varieties that could then be grown by 

those farmers in that region or could be then licensed out to seed 

companies. 

Well, the challenge here is that those are very complex organisms and the United States has a pretty wide range of growing 

conditions, different diseases, different insects, and different soil 

types. And this group has come together in a way that includes the 

researchers and the geneticists, coupled with extension agents and 

with teachers and are going to be training plant breeders at the 

same time they are doing the development of varieties that would 

then be useful in those regions. 

And that is something that the private sector would not have 

done. So we are taking our prior investments and current investments to develop products that then would be licensed outward. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH RESULTS

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Let me ask you. If I was to say what were 

the five best research projects that you did last year, would you be 

able to rattle them off quickly? 

Dr. BEACHY. Well, the issue is how long—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. And I am going to ask Dr. Knipling. I am just 

putting him on notice. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. BEACHY. And I guess my usual response is that between the 

research that we do in the laboratory and when it makes a product 

is between 10 and 15 years. So that the research that we would 

have sponsored in wheat and barley earlier and what we are doing 

now will in 5 to 8 years develop those varieties that would go outward. So we are looking at that window of 10 to 15 years. 

And, again, we provided the information that a private sector 

then could take on their shorter term and develop what they would 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
103 

like. But research really is a long-term investment, and if we did 

not invest, we would be subject to—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, one of the things that the folks at NASA 

always have been decent about is, okay, Space Station, maybe you 

do not like the idea of space shuttles and, you know, that sort of 

thing, but you know, we brought you the calculator or Tang. I am 

not sure that was an advancement in the cause, but you know, 

things like that that says, okay, here are some of the by products 

of our research. 

I think agriculture need to be in that position. 

Dr. BEACHY. I think it is. The advances that have led to the higher yields in corn that we are seeing now is an investment that we 

made 10 to 15 years ago. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What was the yield and what is it now because 

of that? 

Dr. BEACHY. Well, when I was a kid it was 40 bushels an acre, 

and about 8 or 10 years ago it was 160 on average, and this year 

the average was someplace north of 240. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, think about it this way. We are writing 

your obituary, and you know, we want to put some bragging point 

in it on great things, and the reason why this is important to all 

of us is because I as a Member, public servant, you, too, we need 

to be able to go out in public and say, ‘‘This is the difference we 

made. This is some of the stuff that we did.’’ 

Dr. BEACHY. I think if we did not point—— 

Dr. KINGSTON. She is writing your obituary. What did you put 

on it? ‘‘Great guy.’’ 

Dr. BEACHY. She wrote what I said earlier, and that is we result 

in higher productivity, which at the end of the day is what leads 

us to the economy that we have in agriculture. Whether that is better application or knowing how to apply fertilizer more effectively 

with less runoff or whether it is a better variety that does not succumb to the leaf disease in wheat or the corn blight that hit us 30 

or 40 years ago, those were big milestones. 

What we are seeing now are the annual increments, and we are 

challenged now because the annual increments of improvements or 

what we call total factor productivity is not on the same trajectory 

as it needs to be to meet the world’s needs. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that that is one of the things that 

we do need to talk about, is the production per acre and the fact, 

as your testimony stated, that we have not just a net surplus in 

agriculture exports, but a hugh, and you also said that there is no 

prediction that that will change in the future either, and that is 

one of the things that we should talk about. 

My time has expired. I look forward to hearing what Dr. 

Knipling is going to tell me in terms of—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KINGSTON. You know, I like to hear what the bugs are up 

to and all kinds of other things. 

So, Mr. Farr. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
104 

RESEARCH FUNDING MECHANISMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. this is a dialogue we are both having, and I think it is essentially a learning 

process for us. 

But what I have found, and I am sure it is true, that when universities do research, if there is some value to come out of it of, you 

know, a product to be sold, universities and I hope the Federal 

Government also protects themselves so that have the patent or 

the copyright on it so that when there is a return on that investment, that it insures to the public benefit as well. 

That is typical in all universities. I mean, that is how Stanford 

gets so rich, with the genome project and things that they were 

doing, and the biochemical that came out of a lot of the laboratories 

there that I am sure somewhere in the background had public support as well. 

But you essentially manage, as you said, three programs. You 

have a competitive grants program, a formula program, and an earmark program or have had an earmark program. Which of those 

drives it? 

I mean, you are the smart scientists. We hire you to make these 

decisions. Taking all of the world crises and each State crisis and 

every kind of invasive species that is coming in, and trying to make 

a decision as to what of these pressures for research are really relevant and important, and you have got three pots to pull from, but 

two of them are totally driven. 

I mean, the formula, it just goes out and there is really no quality control with that, it seems to me. The earmarks, they come 

from us, not from you. Competitive grant sounds like the most 

marketplace driven. I am sure there is some politics in that, too, 

but if we do not have earmarks, is it smart to continue the formula 

grants? Should we just have one? Should it all be competitive? 

I know, Jack, it would be interesting because I do not think we 

could ever get the political support because for some of these universities, this is a cash cow to them, and they are not going to give 

it up. They are in that formula 

What I am just interested in is your perspective of sitting on 

high of all three of these systems, and frankly, I think earmarks 

in many cases are relevant. I know in the things I have gotten involved in relevance because we have had a breakout. There is no 

way of getting money there fast. It is sort of emergency money, and 

we need to kill this pest or figure out how to eradicate it or keep 

it under control, and that is where the earmarks have been. You 

know, it is going to be tragic when we do not have them. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, Congressman, we have been doing two things 

to address the underlying concerns in your question. Since I have 

joined the department 5 months ago, I have been working with the 

administrators here, as well as with many different stakeholder 

groups, to come up with a plan that involves the expertise that all 

of the agencies bring, along with the university community, to addressing these really big challenges that are facing agriculture. 

We call it an action plan, and it essentially identifies what the 

role is going to be for the REE agencies and the funding mechanisms that we are going to use for addressing these, whether it is 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
105 

going to be through an intramural program at NASS or ERS or 

ARS, or whether we are going to seek the answers in the university 

community. 

So I would be happy to spend some time, you know, talking with 

you about that action plan and how we envision that working. 

Mr. FARR. When do you think that plan will be out? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, actually we have it now available for comment. We are seeking comment and would very much, as I said, 

like to sit down with you and go through it. 

Mr. FARR. Well, does it essentially move the formula program 

into a competitive grant program? Is that what itDr. WOTEKI. No. It recognizes that we continued to have in law 

the responsibilities for providing funding to the agriculture experiment stations and to extension through allocation of formula. But 

it does recognize that there are, because of these different funding 

streams, different ways of accomplishing our research agenda, and 

it recognizes that the intramural agencies provide infrastructure, 

and part of that inherently governmental function that I talked 

about earlier, and also recognizes that the experiment stations and 

extension have specific expertise that they can bring. 

And then on top of that, the competitive grants program provides 

us the opportunity to be more agile in addressing emerging problems and in the planning cycles for the agencies, we are trying, in 

all the meetings that we are having with our various constituent 

groups, to identify where is the best place; which of these mechanisms is the most appropriate for funding research. 

EARMARKS

Mr. FARR. Now, that sounds like a lot of process. What I am interested in, I guess, the bottom line here is all of these earmarks 

that we just wiped out, how many of them are really relevant and 

really should continue to be funded. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, as I had indicated earlier, some of them are 

very meritorious, but because they were earmarked—— 

Mr. FARR. Yes, we are throwing the baby out with the bath 

water. 

Dr. WOTEKI [continuing]. In that category that we are proposing 

to be eliminated. 

And the investigators can apply through the competitive grants 

program for funding. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I want to 

continue on that same vein. Because my question is, and I see Dr. 

Beachy wants to say something, but in your comments, if an earmark has been, say, even though they are one year at a time, a 

lot of them have been going on for 2 to 3, maybe 4 or 5 years. Does 

the grantor or grantee have to reapply through the competitive 

process? 

If you are kind of halfway through the stream, would they get 

more favorable treatment in order to continue, particularly the 

ones you feel are meritorious? 

Dr. WOTEKI. My understanding of the way that this will work is 

that if in the appropriations the earmarks are zeroed out, we will 

be notifying the universities to that effect, that there are no funds 

to continue further support of that work. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
106 

Mr. KINGSTON. But on some of the stuff that is meritorious, will 

you be in a position of telling us, hey, this is, as Mr. Farr has just 

said, throwing out the baby with the bath water; are you going to 

be in the position of saying, ‘‘Here are some of the priorities we 

have, and it would be a good idea if these were continued, and we 

want to have an open communication with Congress on some of 

these matters’’? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, we will certainly be investigating other options, but my understanding is if we do not have an appropriation 

to support them, we do not have the funds to support them. We 

would encourage the investigators, who have been supported 

through earmarks, to take advantage of the next cycle of the competitive grants funding and to apply through that program. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Is there enough money in it? 

Dr. WOTEKI. We are proposing an increase that would bring the 

total up to $325 million. 

Mr. KINGSTON. How much are the earmarks total? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, as we have talked about, the amount in NIFA 

is $141 million. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Dr. Knipling, I wanted to hear what are your five 

favorite accomplishments that you guys have had. 

Dr. WOTEKI. He has had a lot of time to think about it. 

Mr. KINGSTON. He has had more time than he deserves, I think. 

[Laughter.] 

ARS RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Mr. KNIPLING. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Coincidentally, we often describe the total ARS program as five 

major components: natural resources, crop production and protection, livestock production and protection, food science, food technology, and human nutrition. And, in fact, I think I can cite an example in each of those five areas that is very current and contemporary. 

I would just say quickly if we look historically, many of the consumer products that we are all very familiar with have been derived from previous USDA research that, although developed in the 

pre-commercial phase, have gone on to be adopted by the private 

sector to develop consumer products. Orange juice, cotton fabrics, 

clothing that we are wearing every day, food products in the grocery store, there is a science story behind every one of those. 

But more contemporary, if I were to cite an example in the natural resources area, we have supported other agencies of USDA, 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and incidentally, that 

is one of our mandates, is to serve the other agencies of USDA. 

They are one of our major customers, but the past several Farm 

Bills have tasked USDA to definitively define the outcomes in support of conservation investments, and we have done the research 

through the so-called Conservation Effects Assessment Program to 

show that these conservation programs do, in fact, save soil erosion, improve water quality, contribute to the wellness of the environment. 

In the plant science area, I would quote some of the fundamental 

genomics work that we have done in partnership with other agenVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:58 May 31, 2011 Jkt 066430 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A430P2.XXX A430P2

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
107 

cies that have laid the foundation for advancements by other scientists in the private sector, the corn genome, the maize genome. 

In the plant health area, a very successful program that is continuing after about ten years is control scab disease in wheat, Fusarium. We have diminished the impact of that disease and also 

the toxins that are associated with that disease, which has both 

food, human health, and animal health implications. 

Right now we are working actively on this so-called UG–99, the 

wheat stem rust. We do not have this problem, but it is an international threat, and I think our success will be measured by the 

avoidance of a problem that never reaches the United States. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, thank you. 

My time has expired, and I actually did have a question on UG– 

99, but, Mr. Latham, your turn. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome. It is good to see you. I guess my first question 

would be representing Iowa State, which obviously you are very familiar with, and I have heard a lot from my brother, as you well 

know. 

Dr. WOTEKI. I imagine so. 

HATCH ACT REDUCTIONS

Mr. LATHAM. He is very interested in agriculture research, certainly the dean and everybody, the president. With the Hatch Act 

cuts of about $11 million, and with Mac-Stennis cuts doing away 

with the ability of any Member to provide funding for research programs, certainly with extension being cut about $15 million; what 

am I supposed to tell the people at Iowa State with the ongoing research that is going to be eliminated? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, I think that you recognize that the budget 

that we are proposing in 2012 is designed to address both the deficit and needed debt reduction. We have had in preparation of this 

budget to make what are really some very hard and I know painful 

choices. And the best advice that we can give to people in universities who are being affected by these proposals is to prepare proposals and submit them into the competitive grants program, for 

which we are requesting an increase, a significant increase in the 

2012 budget. 

Mr. LATHAM. But what about the ongoing, long-term, basic research at the universities? You are keenly aware of how important 

that is for agriculture. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yes. Most keenly aware. The very fundamental research, a lot of that—most of it, actually—is being supported 

through the competitive grants program. So again we would encourage people with that outlook to prepare proposals and to submit them. 

We recognize that the universities, through the experiment stations, make very good use of their Hatch Funds. And under the 

budget constraints that we’re facing, though, we’ve recognized that 

we have to make some cuts, as much as we might not want to do 

so. 

Mr. LATHAM. Didn’t we used to team up to stop the kind of cuts 

that you’re talking about today? 

[Laughter.] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
108 

Dr. WOTEKI. We would certainly like to do that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, I think it’s obviously a real concern with anyone, with ongoing long-term research, what the effect is going to 

have. 

COMPETITIVE GRANTS

And you know very well that with the competitive grants, you’re 

not going to have continuity; you’re not able to hire people; you’re 

not able to keep the known funding levels there, so that you can 

have the kind of basic research that we need in agriculture, that 

the private sector, you know, will not invest in, or can’t afford to. 

And you know, I obviously have real concerns about that. 

And also, I guess the whole priority the Secretary was in—was 

that a week or so ago—and the priority issues are now: Child obesity, climate change, global food security, food safety, energy, and 

biofuels. 

I just don’t see where the basic kind of research that we need is 

anywhere in the priority list. Where is it on the list? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, first of all, to address your question about the 

model of using competitive grants to support long-term fundamental research, if you look outside agriculture, at the other fields 

of science, whether it’s biomedical research or physics or chemistry, 

I mean, that’s the approach that other Federal agencies have used 

to fund research that’s largely performed at universities or other 

research organizations outside of government. 

In agriculture, we have had the experience now with the National Research Initiative, and now named AFRI, and with a major 

emphasis on trying to increase that funding. 

We think the model will actually work well with agriculture, and 

are encouraging faculty to apply for competitive grants for those 

projects that were earmarks in the past. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I don’t know, am I out of time? 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Farr. 

RESEARCH FUNDING MECHANISMS

Mr. FARR. Thank you. 

I just got a breakdown: The formula grants are about 42 percent, 

the competitive grants are 40 percent, the earmarks were about 

15.6 percent, and administrative grants about 2 percent, 2.3. 

We have wiped out the earmarks, so now, I mean, the formula 

is the biggest release of money. And that formula—and formulas 

always have windfalls and wipe-outs—I mean, people who were 

there at the time the formula was written usually get protected. 

And the newest or latest concerns don’t get into the formula funding. 

And I understand what you’ve said so far is that a lot of this in 

formulas were there to protect the colleges who were around in 

1862. The Hatch Act was 1887 it was written. So this is a pretty 

old law. 

And it does other things. It protects Black colleges, and so on. 

And I think the question is that if we’re going have a limited 

amount of research dollars, whatever that amount is, that we realVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:58 May 31, 2011 Jkt 066430 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A430P2.XXX A430P2

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
109 

ly out to make them more competitive. And I can see, you know, 

Mr. Latham, he’s right about the continuity. 

But at same time I hear from my universities that they’d much 

rather be in a competitive process than in a formula process, or in 

an earmark process. 

And, you know, for the leading—these are University of California statements, with big Ag universities, they think they’ll get 

their fair share in a competitive process. It seems to me, if indeed 

this earmark’s going to be, if we’re going to ban them and not have 

them again, and the only way we can get access to new money is 

going to be in a competitive grant, then we’ve got to start checking 

on whether this formula process, which is almost 50 percent of all 

the money going out. 

And if it’s a formula, you don’t have to prove anything. You’re 

on that list, you get your money. You just get a check. There’s no 

competition, there’s no relevancies, essentially. 

How serious are you looking at what we could do? It could be a 

huge blow-back politically, because to a lot of the universities, this 

is a check they don’t want to give up. 

ACCOUNTABILITY OF FORMULA FUNDING

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, first of all, let me address the question of accountability within the formula funds. Each of the universities that 

receives funds through a formula is required to put together a plan 

that is approved by NIFA. 

Mr. FARR. Can you veto it? Have you ever vetoed—once they 

have the plan, is it kind of measurable for quality, or anything? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Let me ask Dr. Beachy to describe to you how they 

review the plans, and the kind of interaction that goes on with the 

universities. 

Dr. BEACHY. Thank you, Congressman. Each of the funds that 

would go to a State is broken down to individual projects. Those, 

then, come in as individuals through a Grants.gov process. 

They are then reviewed by a national program leader—an NPL. 

There’s a lot that we can’t say, but if it’s a bad project, we simply 

send it back and say that’s not an appropriate use. 

So there is some monitoring, but it is not nearly to the extent 

that it would be in a competitive grant. You’re correct in that—— 

Mr. FARR. The reason I’m doing this line of questioning is that 

it really got down to—I mean, when when I first came on this committee, I was told that there’s just an awful lot of money flowing 

out there to do irrelevant research. 

And I think Mr. Kingston’s raised that also. And I mean, if we 

have a limited amount of funds, we don’t want to spend it on irrelevant research, when there’s really cutting edge research that we 

ought to be doing. We’re in a competitive world. We got to get 

outproduct to market. 

America’s greatest economic asset is its seed corn of creativity, 

it’s intellectual capacity. Nobody’s been able to rob that from us 

yet. They maybe build what we invent somewhere else, but we invent it. 

And so this is so cutting, I mean, in agriculture still being a huge 

part of our economy, if we’re going to stay ahead of the world, we’re 

going to have to put a lot of money up front, right where you are. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
110 

And if we’re going to limit that money, we got to make sure that 

that money is going to the most worthwhile or essential research. 

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Dr. BEACHY. We believe that that’s what AFRI does. AFRI receives input from stakeholders, and they help us to identify what 

the key priorities are. 

And then we formulate our RFAs, or our calls for proposals. And 

then the competition starts. 

And we do keep this clear of as much politics as possible. We try 

to rate the best grants, and then award those to those that are 

most deserving. 

And it’s our ability to identify the important needs, whether it’s 

in a viticulture genomics, or it’s in aquaculture or another area of 

high priority, we want to be able to put those out to bid to the best 

scientist. 

And so by growing AFRI and identifying the important components, those things that are important for the success of American 

economy and agriculture, we then can put these calls out for the 

best to compete. 

And we find that that brings out the greatest creativity, it brings 

out the best teamship that we could possibly find between sciences 

and different disciplines, where the economist talks to the bench 

scientist, and he talks to the field scientist, and they come up with 

a project that solves a problem for American agriculture in regional 

ways that these other funds don’t. 

That said—— 

Mr. FARR. The other funds, this is competitive grants that you’re 

talking about? 

Dr. BEACHY. Competitive grants. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time is expired. And now that 

we have more members here, we’re going to have to get back a little more formally to the five-minute rule. So. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, all of you. I 

apologize for being late. 

Let me follow up on this discussion of research. And it is very 

frustrating for all of us who represent ag districts, to see that the 

NIH spends $170 for every one dollar spent by USDI and competitive fundamental research. 

And I mean, it’s pretty lopsided funding, if you ask me. And certainly, given the fact that the very essence of life science begins 

with the food we eat, this is a problem. 

But that being said, let me follow up, Dr. Beachy, with what Mr. 

Farr was asking you. What’s the total amount of research grant applications received by AFRI for last year? Or total amount you’ve 

gotten—— 

Dr. BEACHY. Congresswoman Emerson, it’s nice to see you again. 

The amount that we received this year end for AFRI funding was 

$4 billion in requests, from 500 research institutions. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So you had 500 research institutions apply? 

Dr. BEACHY. Yes. Including our land grant colleges and universities. These are from medical schools, and from research institutions that are private, and that are public. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
111 

It’s an enormous degree of interest of scientists around the country in all of our institutes, who want to solve these problems of obesity, of fertility of our crops, and productivity of lands. 

It’s an amazing interest. 

And so we had $4 billion of requests, and our award level would be something around $250 million. 

AGRICULTURE-RELATED SCIENCE AND AFRI

Mrs. EMERSON. And what percentage of that was spent on agriculture-related science and—I mean, because I consider obesity to 

be—I mean, questioning as to whether I would say it’s agricultureapplied science. 

But you know, we used to do soybeans and nematode research, 

and you know, snail-darter research, or whatever. I’m being a little 

facetious about snail darters. But seriously. 

So how much is spent on just good ag research as it applies to 

making crops more resistant, I mean, to actually coming up with 

seed varieties that would be more tolerable in a dry climate and 

those things, versus obesity and other things? 

Dr. BEACHY. Now see, I’d have to get back with the exact numbers. The amount that would be in our Institute for Food Production and Sustainability, compared to those that would be in the 

area of climate, which includes new drought tolerance work—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. 

Dr. BEACHY. So a lot of the drought tolerance work that would 

be in that institute would also feed over into the Food Production 

Institute. 

I don’t have—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, if you can get me that information. 

Dr. BEACHY. I’d be glad to. 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
112 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 136 here 66430P4A.094
113 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I’d love to see just a breakdown of all of the 

money that was given out to each institution. 

Dr. Woteki. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yeah. We’re happy to supply that. But I would respond that all of the research that’s sponsored under AFRI does fit 

within the mission of the Department of Agriculture. 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
114 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 138 here 66430P4A.095
115 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 139 here 66430P4A.096
116 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 140 here 66430P4A.097
117 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 141 here 66430P4A.098
118 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 142 here 66430P4A.099
119 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 143 here 66430P4A.100
120 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 144 here 66430P4A.101
121 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 145 here 66430P4A.102
122 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 146 here 66430P4A.103
123 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 147 here 66430P4A.104
124 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 148 here 66430P4A.105
125 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 149 here 66430P4A.106
126 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 150 here 66430P4A.107
127 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 151 here 66430P4A.108
128 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 152 here 66430P4A.109
129 

HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH

We have from well over a hundred years supported human nutrition research. A lot of the identification of essential nutrients for 

human health has come out of research that was funded by the Department of Agriculture. 

And our mission is to identify what aspects of nutrition are necessary for maintaining good health. And NIH’s responsibility is to 

fund research that really focuses on the role of nutrition in disease. 

So we have, you know, identified a very appropriate role for the 

research that we fund in human nutrition. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, and I’m not—I think it refers back to what 

some of our land grant colleges were doing. And so we just want 

to be sure that they’re getting their fair share. 

Can you tell me currently how much of the aggregate U.S. investment in agriculture research is made by the private sector, in 

comparison to the public sector, both federal and state governments? And in your opinion, why is it important to make sure the 

federal investment in Ag research, particularly competitivelyawarded research, is strong? 

You know, why don’t we rely exclusively on the private sector? 

PRIVATE SECTOR VERSUS PUBLIC SECTOR RESEARCH FUNDING

Dr. WOTEKI. Yeah. 

Well, the private sector does fund over half of the food and agriculture research. The best figures that I have are from 2006, when 

the Economic Research Service did an in-depth analysis of private 

sector food and agriculture research and government research. And 

at that time, the private sector’s contribution was about $6.8 billion, the Federal contribution was about $3 billion, and the states’ 

$1.3 billion. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

To follow up on the line of questioning from Mrs. Emerson, isn’t 

it true that quite often the Federal Government partners with the 

private sector, where specifically identified needs are ascertained 

with regard to research? 

The research may be too expensive for the private sector to do 

it alone, and try to look after their bottom line. 

And it also is driven by identified needs that the private sector 

has, in terms of better food and nutrition products, for example. 

And so there’s a combination of both that, in working together. 

For example, the peanut industry works very closely with various 

land grant universities, Baylor University, even on the issue of nutrition and obesity. The Peanut Institute has worked very closely 

for a number of years with Baylor University on obesity research, 

which has been very, very promising. 

I was going to ask you about your proposal, which includes $7.5 

million of research on nutrition and health, which includes obesity. 

And of course, obesity is one of the number one health threats, 

that triggers a plethora of diseases, including diabetes, heart, kidney, and other diseases; but can be prevented with proper nutrition 

and a healthy lifestyle. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
130 

Can you share with us whether ARS is involved with the First 

Lady’s initiative on obesity? And are there other government initiatives in this area? And what impacts will the reductions that were 

contained in HR 1 have on the agency’s obesity research? 

Because our kids are growing too fat to fight. And that’s becoming a national security issue. And of course, the Department of Agriculture has always, in fact, started the school lunch program, to 

make sure that our youngsters would be fit to fight, if necessary. 

HUMAN NUTRITION RESEARCH

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, I think you’ve asked two different lines of 

questions. 

With respect to the work that’s being done by the Agricultural 

Research Service, and the Let’s Move campaign of the First Lady, 

there’s a lot of research that’s done, that supports not only the understanding what the nutrient requirements are for children during growth, but also that supports the dietary guidelines for Americans, which is the best synthesis that we have of the research 

that’s supported, not only by USDA agencies, but also by the National Institutes of Health. 

The increase that is requested in the President’s budget for ARS 

in human nutrition is specifically to identify what the barriers are 

for the public in achieving those dietary guidelines. 

So that is, I think, going to provide us with a lot of insight, so 

we’re going to help the First Lady and the Let’s Move campaign to 

be more effective in helping parents in managing the nutrition of 

their children, as well as the activity levels, so that they maintain 

a health-supporting diet, and a healthful weight. 

So the budget request does specifically include that in it. 

EARMARKS

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for that answer. 

I’m very, very frustrated by the loss of earmarks, because a number of rural communities, 1890’s, 1860 land grant universities have 

historically continued the valuable research with the use of earmarks. And Mr. Farr pointed out that it will eliminate quite a bit. 

And I’m looking at the research now with competitive grants, 

which is going to place the 1890s at a very, very competitive disadvantage, because they have been historically underfunded over 

the years. 

And we’ve just gotten to the point, through earmarks and 

through some cooperation, that has allowed them to start participating. 

Now with the cutback and going to the competitives, you’re going 

to undo what was a process to remedy the effects of past discrimination. 

So I’m very concerned with that. And I’m hoping that you can, 

through USDA’s leadership, offer some kind of incentives for the 

major 1860s and 1890s to work together cooperatively on some of 

the research projects that are funded, and that you’d look favorably 

on that. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And the gentleman’s time has expired. So you’ll 

need to respond in writing, or on the next round. 

Mrs. Lummis. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
131 

BRUCELLOSIS RESEARCH

Mrs. . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman just teed up my 

remark. So thank you. 

My question is about Brucellosis funding. You know, I’m from 

Wyoming. And APHIS recently implemented this interim rule on 

Brucellosis regulations. So it’s refocusing Agency researchers to the 

area of prevention and control of the disease in the Greater Yellowstone area. 

Now I did a little stint on the GYIBC, the Greater Yellowstone 

Interagency Brucellosis Committee, representing my state, Wyoming. And we knew 15 years ago, when I was on the GYIBC, how 

to control and manage its temporal and spacial separation of bison 

and elk from cattle. 

But the real issue that we need is an effective vaccine. Because 

we all vaccinate our heifers for Brucellosis. But it’s not an efficacious vaccine, especially when it comes to the transmission from 

elk and bison to cattle. 

So we need a better vaccine. 

What authority do you need from Congress to expand the efforts 

to get a better vaccine? What are you doing now to develop a better 

vaccine? 

And then I want to follow up with a question about the formula 

funding versus the competitive grants that follow on the line of 

questioning of the gentleman. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, with respect to the formula, and the earlier 

question, we have taken steps in our budget proposal to essentially 

protect the 1890s colleges and the 1994s—the tribal colleges. 

So the formula allocation to those entities remains flat constant. 

And in the case of the tribal colleges, there’s a slight uptick. Because we recognize that they’re very important. I could just say 

parenthetically that actually the 1890s have been competing very 

well within AFRI. 

To the question of Brucellosis in the development of an effective 

vaccine, the Ag Research Service has worked many, many years 

with APHIS on research on Brucellosis for the purpose of developing a more effective vaccine. 

And I’d like Dr. Knipling to comment on that work. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes. Brucellosis, as you’ve already acknowledged, 

is a very old but still very important continuing problem. 

The vaccine development actually goes back more than 15 years, 

probably 25. It’s very effective on cattle. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mm-hmm. 

Dr. KNIPLING. It’s called RB51, as you may know. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Very effective on cattle. But the challenge is the 

wildlife interface with bison and elk. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Dr. KNIPLING. It is also effective on bison. But the delivery problem is difficult. It actually takes two inoculations for bison, even if 

we could effectively deliver it. 

It is not effective on elk. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Right. 

Dr. KNIPLING. They have a different immunology system. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
132 

But anyway, we do have a continuing research program to support the cattle and swine industry, also the wildlife interface, and 

of course, technical support for APHIS. 

This work is carried out at Ames, Iowa, at the National Animal 

Disease Center, where we’re investing about $3.5 million per year. 

It is focused on understanding the interaction of the vaccine with 

the immunology of the wildlife species. 

ANIMAL HEALTH AND DISEASE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Dr. Knipling. A followup question. Do you 

expect if funding goes for the Animal Health and Disease Research 

program, and becomes competitive versus formula-funded, do you 

think it will go under an existing account in NIFA? And would 

Brucellosis vaccine research be eligible to compete for grants under 

that account? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Perhaps I could answer that. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yes, the Animal Health and Disease Research is a 

candidate for funding in the competitive grants program. And just 

to illustrate that it is included already in AFRI, this week, there 

is a request for applications that has been announced from NIFA. 

And within that, Brucellosis research towards improved vaccines is 

included. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Great. Well, we’ve noticed that a lot of these 

grants have been awarded for dairy cow diseases, like tuberculosis 

and mastitis and pneumonia. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Mm-hmm. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. But this remains a huge problem in the Rocky 

Mountain area. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Nunnelee. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. No questions. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Farr. 

FORMULA FUNDING ALLOCATION

Mr. FARR. Let me get back to—I really want to know if we’re 

shaping some new policy. I mean, the formula grants, the responsibility for your department is—well, it’s essentially research. Right? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Research, education, economics, yes. 

Mr. FARR. So I guess the question really goes down to: What is 

the value of the formula of funding in today’s competitive world? 

Because the formula funding essentially gets 20 percent to each 

state, equally. Not less than 52 percent of the states as follows: 

One-half in the amount proportionate to the relative rural population of each state, to the total rural population of all states; and 

one-half in the amount proportionate to the relative farm population of each state, and to the total farm population of all states; 

Not less than 25 percent for multi-state, multi-disciplinary, 

multi-institutional research activities to solve problems concerning 

more than one state; and three percent for the administration of 

the Act. 

I mean, I’m not going—but it’s not based on what’s the fire that 

needs to be put out today? 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
133 

Dr. WOTEKI. From a national perspective? That may not be the 

case. But from the state perspective, the formula—and again, I’m 

speaking as a former dean, as well as an administrator of formula 

funds now in my present capacity. 

Mr. FARR. What state were you a dean in? 

Dr. WOTEKI. In Iowa. 

Mr. FARR. Iowa? Okay. 

Dr. WOTEKI. And—— 

Mr. FARR. Third largest Ag production state in the country. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Right. And so the formula funds played a very important role in providing the infrastructure for the research that 

we did, that was very specific to the needs of farmers in Iowa. 

The additional requirement that you mentioned that related to 

multi-state research, was actually very important in bringing together the land-grant universities not only in a specific region, but 

also across the country, to address some common problems. 

So dairy science, for example. A lot of research that supports 

finding solutions for the dairy industry is not so site-specific. But 

under that requirement for the formula, it has encouraged the 

dairy science departments in the land grant colleges to work collaboratively. 

Mr. FARR. So for the infrastructure to be maintained, which is 

important for academic reasons, then you need to have some of this 

grant money. 

But on the other hand, I mean, I’m from California, I’m not from 

Iowa. California produces three times more agriculture than Iowa. 

We produce twice as much as the number two state, called Texas. 

And yet in the formula funding, Iowa gets more money than 

California. So I see where you would be very supportive of formula 

funding. 

But from a fairness standpoint and from a critical issue on productive agriculture, why should it be that way? Why should we 

grandfather in a formula? 

I mean, first of all, we’ve taken away our only flexible tool, which 

is earmarks. And I’m a big defender of earmarks. I tell people, ‘‘If 

you don’t like earmarks, the next time you write a check, just leave 

it blank. Put the money in, sign the bottom, and send the check 

in.’’ They’ll figure out how to cash it. 

‘‘Well, I can’t do that. I don’t trust where it will go to.’’ I said, 

‘‘Well, that’s what earmarks are. We put the name on the check.’’ 

So and I’m trying to find out if we follow through, and we’re not 

going to have any more earmarks, then all this committee is going 

to do is be able to decide how much money we put into the formula 

account, and how much money we put in the competitive grant account. 

And I think we’re in a lot of hurt, if we don’t figure out how to 

do this a little bit more relevant to modern times. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman has 30 seconds, if you want to respond in that time. 

Dr. WOTEKI. I think it was a rhetorical—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Oh, it wasn’t rhetorical. But it was a statement. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I’m interested in finding the intellect that’s 

going to come out of the USDA on these challenges. I’m asking this 

big—— 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
134 

Dr. WOTEKI. And as I’ve said earlier, the formula funds provide 

a very valuable infrastructure within states, that allows them—— 

Mr. FARR. But are they fair? 

Dr. WOTEKI. They have—— 

Mr. FARR. Is it fair that Iowa gets more money than California? 

Mr. LATHAM. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WOTEKI. I would very politely like to point out that the formula is actually determined in our legislation. So it’s not an issue 

that I can opine on at this point; but we would certainly like to 

look forward to a dialogue about the future funding of agricultural 

science. 

Mr. FARR. There’s no Harkin in that formula? 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time is expired. But on that line 

of questioning, I would like you to submit for the record how some 

of these institutions which did not get a reduction, how they are 

contributing to the research? 

I’d like to know if this is a political decision not to reduce certain 

funding flows, or if it’s a scientific decision. And it looks to me that 

it could be political. 

[The information from USDA follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
135 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 166 here 66430P4A.110
136 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 167 here 66430P4A.111
137 

I wanted to ask Dr. Smith a question. You’ve researched the various agriculture programs, correct? 

Dr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And would that be crop programs included? 

Dr. SMITH. Yes, sir. We’re looking across the board at marketing 

programs, programs that support production, and conservation programs. Yeah, the whole gamut. 

FARM PROGRAMS

Mr. KINGSTON. As we go into Farm Bill, it would be very helpful 

for us to know how you rate certain programs. Because often, our 

testimony comes from people who are the users of it, who think it 

works great. 

And you know, there’s nothing remarkable about free money. It 

always works for the recipient. 

Dr. SMITH. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And that’s how often programs are presented to 

us. ‘‘Oh, this is a really good program.’’ 

Farm programs particularly, do some come to your mind that are 

probably marginal and some are great? 

Dr. SMITH. I’m not prepared to rate them right now. But what 

we do attempt to do is look at variations on a theme. What are different alternative ways of achieving a particular goal? 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mm-hmm. 

Dr. SMITH. And provide information on effectiveness and cost for 

a variety of options, and let the raters—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, you would look at, say, the Peanut Program 

or the Dairy Program. Correct? 

Dr. SMITH. Correct. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And you would be in a position to say, ‘‘Some of 

this is great, some of this is not so great’’? 

Dr. SMITH. We can talk in terms of the consequences of the program. Whether they’re good or bad I think is in the judgment of 

the person who’s—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, for the dollar spent and the dollar returned, 

and whatever impact, I think that would be very important. 

What do you think of the Market Access Program? 

Dr. SMITH. I don’t have an opinion on the Market—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. It does come under you, though, right? 

Dr. SMITH. No. I mean, it doesn’t come under—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. That’s not one you look at? 

Dr. SMITH. Actually, I believe we do look at that, yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. I don’t expect a specific answer right now. But I 

think if you could submit something to the record, and help us 

make some determinations. 

Also CRP comes under you? 

Dr. SMITH. Well, it’s an FSA program, but yes, we do examine—— 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL

Mr. KINGSTON. I think we would be interested in looking at some 

of this. 

You know, there’s something, and I can’t remember what it’s 

called—somebody might know—that rates government agencies— 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
138 

it’s like BEST? Or the PERC Program? Or something like that? 

PARK, PARK. You’re familiar with PARK? 

Dr. SMITH. No. No, sir. 

Mr. KINGSTON. What does PARK stand for? I can’t remember. 

Dr. SMITH. Oh, PART, oh, yes. Yes, I am familiar with—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. I don’t know why when I say ‘‘K,’’ you know, I 

mean a T. But do you have a PART-type rating that—— 

Dr. SMITH. No, typically the agencies that conduct the programs 

do their own assessment of performance and results. But we are 

likely informing their assessment through the work we do on the 

implications of different alternatives. 

But I can certainly provide for the record—— 

[The information follows:] 

ERS research on farm programs can show the economic implications of alternative 

ways of achieving a policy goal. For example, conservation programs such as the 

Conservation Research Program (CRP), Wetland Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) produce a variety of environmental benefits—they reduce cropland erosion—leaving our air and waters cleaner and soils 

healthier. While these non-market environmental impacts are difficult to monetize, 

we estimate that reductions in soil erosion by the CRP are provide more than $380 

million in water quality benefits, $68 million in air quality benefits, and $120 million in soil productivity benefits, annually. The CRP’s annual wildlife-related benefits exceed $720 million. ERS would be happy to provide you and your staff with 

a briefing on questions concerning the economic evaluation of USDA programs. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Is there an assessment of these programs in 

terms of dollars spent, which ones are good and which ones aren’t 

so good? 

Dr. SMITH. Not in terms of good and bad. But—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Can you help us get to where we need to be? 

Dr. SMITH. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Because really when we go into the farm programs and all these things are under scrutiny, some of them do 

work better than others. And I think if you can help shed some 

light on that, it would be enormously helpful for this committee, 

because every time we go to the House floor, there is somebody 

who wants to eliminate a program, and then suddenly we’re in this 

position of trying to defend something that, you know, we weren’t 

ready for that debate. 

Now I know this isn’t a program, but the WTO found the USA 

in violation for subsidizing cotton. And part of the settlement was 

$147 million a year to Brazil. And if not, they would have slapped 

on over $800 million in tariffs to us. 

But one of the critics of the program on the House floor said, 

‘‘Okay, I understand this now. What we’re doing is we’re bribing 

the farmers in Brazil, in order to continue subsidizing farmers in 

America.’’ 

And those of us, trying to defend the expenditure, we’re kind of 

out there on a limb—you know, somebody has a little clever slogan 

like that, and we get caught off base. 

And so it would be very helpful, before this bill goes to the floor, 

to have some of your ideas, and know what we should fight for and 

what we should not fight for. 

Dr. SMITH. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to inform the whole 

Farm Bill process, with respect to programs. And we’ll do whatever 

we can to do that. And I invite you and members to request 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
139 

through the USDA any particular kinds of programs on which you 

have economic questions. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, thank you. Mr. Latham. Or Mrs. Emerson? 

No, it is Latham, excuse me. It’s going by looks. No, I’m going to 

go by subsidies, and you go first. By research dollars, Mr. Latham 

is granted one hour. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Farr, you’re welcome to move to Iowa. That’s 

fine. But—— 

Mr. FARR. Without subsidies? 

Mr. LATHAM. Sure. 

Mr. FARR. It wouldn’t be a state. 

Mr. LATHAM. What else could I have done this morning? 

Something, anyway. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Would it be a good time to talk ethanol? I don’t 

know. 

ANTIBIOTIC USE AND PATHOGEN RESISTANCE

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Just for the gentlewoman from Wyoming. 

There is elimination of university funding for animal disease. And 

it’s a small amount, but you do get some funding at the University 

of Wyoming that’s into their budget proposal, which should be 

eliminated. 

But the big issue in livestock production, mostly with hogs, is the 

use of antibiotics as far as keeping animals healthy, and so we 

have safe, healthy animal food and have a healthy food supply. And the Department, I think is you’re asking for $10 million increase for food safety research. Some of this money is to be used 

to address and evaluate alternatives to antibiotics in food animals. 

I don’t know who wants this, whether it’s ARS or as far as what 

the intent is, what are the priorities, what are you trying to find 

out? 

Whoever wants it. 

Dr. WOTEKI. So the Department does participate and our research agencies do participate with the National Institutes of 

Health, Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, in a taskforce that is focused on appropriate antibiotic use, 

both in animal as well as in human health. 

And I’d like to ask Dr. Knipling to address the specific role that 

ARS has in this. 

Mr. LATHAM. Good. And give the purpose of the research. Are 

you trying to eliminate antibiotics? Or what are you charged with? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Okay. 

Yes. Of course, antibiotics, as you say, are used to prevent infectious diseases, or prevent pathogens that would cause food safety 

concerns. And of course, the issue is the fairly widespread use of 

this is then leading to resistance of these pathogens, which also 

then have implications for human health. 

So that’s the basic issue. 

We have dual approaches. Actually the USDA is participating 

with CDC and APHIS, and even the private sector, to actually 

monitor this activity, particularly in swine. 

This work is really centered at Athens, Georgia. But it certainly 

has national application. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
140 

But in terms of the proposed budget enhancement that’s in the 

fiscal year 2012 budget—to look at alternatives—and it basically 

would focus not only on the monitoring of the trends, but also to 

support some of the more traditional food safety prevention technologies, the animal health infectious disease prevention technology, so that the antibiotics would not have to be used to the extent they are now. 

Mr. LATHAM. And are you taking into consideration I guess the 

economics, but also the fact as far as having a safe food supply, of 

allowing animals to get sick, and then treating them? Or is there 

an equation that says: Having healthy animals to begin with is 

going to be much better as far as safe food supply for humans, 

rather than to wait until they get sick and then really load them 

up? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes. Very much so. The focus would be on prevention or avoidance of the problem in the first place. Other forms of 

nutrition supplements, probiotics, and so forth would be another 

approach to the alternatives to the antibiotics themselves. 

By all means, the approach is on prevention and avoidance. 

Mr. LATHAM. So when will we have results? When will we know 

if there is an equation or a comparison? Or what the benefit is? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Well, the monitoring that’s been underway for 

some time, already there are significant results coming out of that 

work. And we could provide some of that information. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Dr. KNIPLING. It does suggest that yes, in some cases, there are 

problems and concerns. But also that data shows that this is not 

as severe an issue as it might be otherwise portrayed. 

In terms of—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you want to say that again? Would you repeat 

that again, that this is—— 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yeah. Some of that data and trends show that the 

resistance is not developing to the extent as otherwise might be 

portrayed. In other instances, yes. 

It depends on the antibiotics themselves, the type, and the animal and the whole combination of factors. 

In terms of the new initiative, of course, any new research initiative is a fairly long-term investment. So we won’t suggest instant 

gratification. But it’s important to invest in this line of work—— 

Mr. LATHAM. We don’t get much of that around here anyway, 

so—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. LATHAM. If I can, I am going to have to leave. I am going 

to be submitting questions for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Do you yield your time to Mr. Farr permanently? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATHAM. Not the money. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Bishop. 

BUDGET CUTS AND PRIORITIES

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

I note that the Research Education and Extension Programs are 

funded at a total of $2.274 billion in the proposed budget for fiscal 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
141 

year 2012, which is $472 million less than fiscal year 2010 or 16.6 

percent less. H.R. 1 reduces the research area by a total of $415 

million. The President’s budget reduces ARS in 2012 by $113 million or 9 percent; the Institute of Food and Agriculture by $141 

million or 10 percent; and ERS gets a bump up by about $4 million, 

approximately 5 percent. 

Do you really think that you will be able to do what is necessary 

to keep the United States on the cutting edge of producing the 

highest quality, the safest and most abundant food and fiber and 

fuel now in the industrialized world, and the most economical, if 

you have the cutbacks, if as we go into the farm bill the Economic 

Research Service has not had the adequate funding to inform us 

for the policy decisions that we have to make going forward to 

make sure that we are competitive in the global marketplace, given 

the WTO and given all of the other restraints we have in supporting our research as compared to our competitors? 

Do you really feel like you have what you need, or are you really 

restrained by having to just cut back because you have a mandate 

to cut the budget? 

I mean are we cutting back essential research as opposed to just 

optional varieties of research that we really do not need to do to 

remain competitive? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Congressman Bishop, we recognize that we are 

being asked to contribute to helping with the deficit as well as with 

the debt. In putting together this budget we have identified the 

areas that we believe are of the highest priority to keep American 

agriculture competitive and to meet the needs of farmers, as well 

as consumers, in the United States. 

So we have proposed shifting some funds into these higher priority areas, and we at the same time, as we have been talking earlier through this hearing, have proposed one of the ways to make 

some savings is to eliminate earmarks that are currently in the 

budget for this mission area. 

So that is the approach that we have taken, and we, like other 

research agencies, are being called on to make some very hard decisions about what our priorities are. 

EARMARKS

Mr. BISHOP. Well, the truth of the matter is that what we are 

doing is rather than having congressionally directed funding, we 

are now having agency directed funding because the agency will 

decide what the earmarks are, as opposed to the Members of Congress. 

And I feel Mr. Farr’s pain, and perhaps you are not quite as sensitive to that pain being from Iowa, but that is where—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will be glad to yield to the Chairman. 

Mr. KINGSTON. It may be of interest to the people on our side of 

the aisle that the administration may make some decisions that tilt 

blue State politics rather than red State politics, and I do not know 

that people have quite grasped that as much. 

Mr. BISHOP. Reclaiming my time, I thank you. 

I also am sensitive to the fact that much of the policy on agriculture is driven by the politics of the region as opposed the red/ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
142 

blue States. The southeastern region has peculiar needs and difficulties with the portfolio of crops that are grown there, which are 

quite different from the Midwest and the West. Of course, the earmark process allows the Members of Congress who come from 

those areas that have unique needs to address those, when those 

are the major policy makers on the executive branch side may or 

may not be sensitive or even knowledgeable of the peculiar needs 

of the particular region’s agriculture. 

And that troubles me very much with regard to the research 

funding and the other funding. 

Dr. WOTEKI. Congressman, in developing the priorities that informed our budget, we have done a lot of consultation. The agencies that are represented in front of you meet frequently with the 

different commodity organizations. They hold listening sessions 

where they bring together from across the country representatives 

of not only the farmers groups, but also the industries that are part 

of the wonderful agricultural economy that we have in this country. 

So the planning that went into these budget priorities was informed by a lot of consultation with stakeholders. 

Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Smith, my question goes to you with regard to the Healthy 

Food Financing Initiative. And as one who has a very rural district 

that would have any number of what you would consider to be food 

deserts, this is very much of interest to me. 

But I am a little confused. So perhaps you can clarify things. Your all’s budget included a request for $2 million for ERS to support the initiative, and I think in your testimony you state that the 

additional funding would be used to gather and analyze data about 

communities and help answer questions about how the development of local food sources would affect food choice and diet, quality, 

et cetera, and that would then supplement the information that 

you already have on the Food Environment Atlas, which has 168, 

yes, indicators of communities’ food environment. 

So this information is being gathered to technically support the 

initiative for which the administration requested $400 million last 

year, of which $50 million more or less goes to the USDA, $275 to 

the Treasury Department, and the rest to HHS. 

So since you did not get the money or no monies were spent at 

least on Healthy Food Initiative, I was worried that you all had, 

in fact, spent money on something and now you are gathering information after you have already spent money. So explain to me 

how this is going. 

Because there was a request last year, but this year you are requesting money for more research, I suppose. Why would you ask 

for money for something or why would the department ask for 

money for something if you did not have the information or data 

necessary to implement a policy? 

Dr. SMITH. What we are doing is working closely with the Department of the Treasury and HHS to use the knowledge we have 

about the food environment to develop metrics, indicators that 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
143 

could be used to judge the success of a healthy food financing initiative or any other initiative to improve food access within a region. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So the research that you would do would be not 

only for USDA, but for Treasury and HHS at the same time. 

Dr. SMITH. Yes, we are working collaboratively. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. And after looking through all of the criteria or the different indicators, if you will, is it possible that at 

any point in time anyone in administration at the university—it 

does not matter who it is—could actually have so much data available that they can manipulate it to produce any results they want? 

Dr. SMITH. I would find that unlikely that the data could be manipulated. They are public data. They are all well grounded. If individuals went to pick and choose indicators, I suppose that could 

present a different picture than picking other indicators. 

But they are all there to inform local governments, county governments, and sub-county areas actually about the state of their 

area. 

FOOD DESERTS

Mrs. EMERSON. So with all of the indicators that you have, 168, 

do you know how many counties do not show some indication of 

being in a food desert? 

Dr. SMITH. I am sure I could get you that information. I do not 

know that off the top of my head though. 

[The information follows:] 

Eight of the 168 indicators in the Food Environment Atlas are measures of grocery store access and proximity. These indicators—which are from the ERS food 

desert report to Congress—provide count and percentage numbers of the households 

in a county that live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store 

(for urban areas and urban clusters) or more than 10 miles from a grocery store 

(for rural areas) and do not own a car. 

Based on these indicators, USDA estimates that there are 6,500 census tracts that 

are food deserts—low-income census tracts where a substantial share of residents 

has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. There are 1,851 counties 

in the U.S. that contain at least one of these food desert census tracts, so 1,290 

counties (41.1 percent of all U.S. counties) do not have at least one food desert census tract. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I would appreciate it because, I mean, you 

have got a million ideas, some of which are important. I mean, I 

would grant you that, but it is interesting that only one among the 

168 indicators indicates persistent poverty counties, and I have 14 

of those out of 28 in my district, and I would think that that would 

be far, far bigger, should carry much more weight, I guess, than 

some of the things that you have already got on here, like the number of fast food restaurants and/or full service restaurants. 

Dr. SMITH. We also have employment rates and other indicators 

of the health of the area. 

Mrs. EMERSON. But if a county is a persistent poverty county—— 

Dr. SMITH. It is a big deal. 

Mrs. EMERSON [continuing]. Then to me that is an indicator in 

and of itself. 

Dr. SMITH. Agreed. 

Mrs. EMERSON. All right. I would like to get some more information if you would not mind. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
144 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have other questions to submit for the 

record. 

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DUPLICATION OF STATISTICAL DATA COLLECTIONS

I am concerned about the duplication of statistical collections. Is 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service the exclusive data collection agency for USDA, or does the Risk Management Agency collect data, or the Farm Service Agency? Do they collect data independently? 

Dr. CLARK. Those agencies that you mentioned collect information as part of program participation. Our data is collected to provide statistical information, and we use their data to the extent 

that it is possible in producing estimates and forecasts. 

Much of our data is produced as forecasts, which is ahead of the 

time in which the program participation data is available. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. So are you suggesting there is really no overlap? 

Dr. CLARK. Not in terms of the data that is used for producing 

statistics between those agencies that you have mentioned. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Are there terms where there is overlap? 

Dr. CLARK. We are working very closely to use their data to the 

extent possible to minimize the respondent burden on our respondents, the farm operators and producers, so that we do not have to 

ask questions and ask for information that we can get from alternative sources. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Good, good. That is good to hear. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Now, switching to this Healthy Food Financing Initiative, the administration has proposed an over $400 million initiative, and we 

have been talking about this, and it looks like you are planning the 

research to justify the initiative after it is already begun. So my 

question is: why weren’t these studies conducted beforehand? 

Dr. SMITH. Well, some studies were conducted beforehand that 

did inform that. For example, the Economic Research Service did 

the first study of and made a definition for areas with low food access, food deserts. So that was done prior to this. 

And what we are doing now is linking food access in food deserts 

and elsewhere with health and nutrition of the people in those 

areas. 

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Mrs. LUMMIS. One more question now going back to this competitive funding versus formula funding. Fiscal year 2012 budget, that 

proposes funding of $325 million for AFRI. So that is a 24 percent 

increase of $62 million. How much of the increase in the AFRI Initiative can be attributed to the transfer of funding from other budget lines, and how much will go to increase the number of AFRI 

awards? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Would you like to address that, Dr. Beachy? 

Dr. BEACHY. Thanks. It is a good question. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
145 

In fact, much of the increase, if you look at the higher education, 

the graduate fellowships and institution challenge grants are up in 

AFRI so that they can enhance and will grow our education portfolio. So there are roll-ups of several programs like that to put 

them in a competitive end or a competitive initiative. 

It will result in additional grant awards, of course, as the 

amount of funding in that category goes up. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And do we know how much of the increase in the 

AFRI Initiative is attributed to the transfer of funding. 

Dr. BEACHY. Well, there is some roll-up that came from the consolidation of some of the formula funds—I mean, I am sorry, some 

of the earmarked funds—so that we could initiate new programs in 

AFRI. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. When you use the term ‘‘earmark funds,’’ is that 

synonymous with formula funds? 

Dr. BEACHY. No. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. 

Dr. BEACHY. There are some authorities that are designated in 

what is called Section 406 authorities. These are sections in water 

quality, food safety and pest management, and so some of those 

have also been rolled up into AFRI and then will be awarded 

through the AFRI Programs as designations in those topic areas or 

will be covered in those topic areas. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And what was the goal of rolling them together? 

Dr. BEACHY. To simplify the process of management. We know 

that these are very important programs because stakeholders have 

told us that, and so we know we want to maintain them. Each of 

these grant awards requires a management by an individual. They 

cost money; they cost management fees, and by combining them, it 

gives better management oversight, but it gives also a greater opportunity in the competitive process, as Congressman Farr mentioned, as a way to select the awardees and then make those grants 

available. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Beachy. 

WORLD HUNGER

Mr. KINGSTON. Dr. Clark, I want to ask you a question that you 

may be able to answer or you might be able to point me in the 

right direction. You did some international work in the U.K., and 

so you have a good background on this. I was wondering if there 

is any information on food supply in a country and the form of government in the country, hunger versus form of government. 

Is there anything like that out there that you know of or can you 

point me in the right direction? 

Dr. CLARK. If there were, it probably would be available through 

the Food and Agriculture Organization that is part of the U.N. I 

do not know specifically of information on that, but there is currently a United Nations initiative to improve statistics, agriculture 

and rural statistics throughout the world, and they are trying to 

get comparable data. It is more extensive than what you would 

consider production agriculture, but it is extending into other data 

items. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
146 

But I do not recognize that hunger was one of the data items 

that is being looked at. The World Bank also would have information. 

ARS LOCATION CLOSURES

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Dr. Woteki, you have a number of lab and 

facility closures listed. Can you put a dollar amount on those, the 

total, and tell us what your timeframe is? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Those are all within the Agricultural Research Service, and I would like to ask Dr. Knipling to 

provide that information. 

Dr. KNIPLING. The program reduction—it is ten locations and entire programs—totals $38 million in terms of their annual budget. 

Mr. KINGSTON. And will they be closed this year? Because some 

of these like have been out there. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes, of course, they are proposed for—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. They look like trial balloons more than definite 

decisions. 

Dr. KNIPLING. No, they are intended to be definite proposals. Of 

course, if those are concurred with in the budget process, we would 

then implement or initiate the closure of those in fiscal year 2012 

in terms of stopping and terminating the program. 

The actual disposal of the real property is a fairly lengthy process and would probably take at least a year to actually do that, but 

in terms of the staffing and the research activity underway, we 

would stop that on October 1st, at the beginning of the fiscal year. 

HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING INITIATIVE

Mr. KINGSTON. Okay. Dr. Woteki, let me ask you this. In terms 

of some of this research question that I asked earlier and the answer being that it took 10 to 15 years to get the results from it, 

which I certainly understand, but how is it when it comes to 

healthy food we could develop metrics in a year’s period of time? 

Dr. WOTEKI. I think the Healthy Food Financing Initiative is actually taking advantage of research that has been going on for a 

number of years to identify what are the indicators of need. So it 

is essentially drawing on the past experience and research findings 

to develop metrics. 

Mr. KINGSTON. But you would have that also on research dollars. 

Because you have a snapshot and then you have a moving picture, 

a developing picture, if you will, and it seems odd to me that you 

can say, okay, this is what is going on with Healthy Food Initiatives right now, but on agriculture it is a little bit more nebulous, 

that, well, it is developing; it is a work in progress. 

EVALUATING RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Dr. WOTEKI. Well, we actually do use a variety of different measures to evaluate our research programs, and we would be happy to 

share those metrics with you. 

We also are very actively engaged with other science agencies 

within the Federal Government in trying to identify what are the 

metrics that have a good evidence base that indicate that they really are good at evaluating scientific research programs. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
147 

So it is actually a field of inquiry in and of itself. What are the 

best ways to evaluate research programs? 

[The information follows:] 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
148 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 194 here 66430P4A.112
149 

RESEARCH FUNDING MECHANISMS

Mr. KINGSTON. And I think we are all interested in this because 

with the earmark and the formula versus competitive, I think all 

of this is going to be extremely important to us. 

I am going to give you an example. Under the Hatch Act, scientists in North Dakota have developed three barley cultivars and 

have recommended for malting and brewing by the American Malt 

and Barley Association, and I was wondering if that would come 

close to corporate welfare in your opinion because it is for a specific 

group, the American Malt and Barley Association. I assume these 

are beer creator of some sort. 

Dr. WOTEKI. But the research actually goes to support the farmers who are the ones who are producing the barley that will then 

feed into the industry. There are a lot of areas in which we do provide research. I think Dr. Beachy earlier in responding to one of 

the questions talked about the competitive grants program that is 

in support of wheat and other grains. 

So there is a lot that we support that—— 

Mr. KINGSTON. Well, it resulted in more money for farmers. I understand that, but that is still corporate welfare. I mean, farmers 

are making money from it. It specifically benefitted a small group 

of farmers and specifically benefitted a particular industry association, as opposed to the general application of, well, we all are better 

off from that. 

Dr. WOTEKI. As I testified earlier, a lot of the research that we 

support is in the what we call pre-competitive area. It is in research that the farmer organizations are not able to fund because 

it is a relatively small group, and that also though is over the long 

term a public good, and it is what has provided for incredible increases in agricultural productivity across the board, many, many 

different crops, some of them big ones, some of them small ones, 

and it has had a benefit, as well, for the American consumer. 

You know, the food prices that we pay are actually at this point 

less than 10 percent of income. So it is an incredible amount of food 

security that we have in this country that is largely a result of this 

investment in agriculture research. 

Mr. KINGSTON. My time has expired, and I thank you. 

Mr. Farr. 

AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT VS. RESEARCH FUNDING

Mr. FARR. I want to ask Dr. Clark, who is the scorekeeper here, 

of agriculture receipts, where does the State of Georgia rank? 

Dr. CLARK. Oh, I will probably have to ask. It is around tenth 

I would guess, but I can get back to you on the actual place where 

it ranks. 

Mr. FARR. What about the State of Ohio? 

Dr. CLARK. I do not know those rankings off my head. I can get 

that information for you. 

Mr. FARR. Do you know in Pennsylvania? 

Dr. CLARK. No. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I Googled it. So I am at an advantage. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FARR. You are pretty good. Georgia is 12th, not 10th. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
150 

Dr. CLARK. Okay. Tenth was not too bad then. 

Mr. FARR. But number 28 is New York. Number 32 is Tennessee. 

Number 22 is Michigan. Number 20 is Pennsylvania, and number 

17 is Ohio, all of them way behind Georgia. 

Dr. CLARK. Right. 

Mr. FARR. And all of them get a lot more formula money than 

Georgia gets. 

Dr. CLARK. I do not allocate formula money. That is totally out 

of my—— 

Mr. FARR. Well, shouldn’t formula money be related to agricultural output? 

Dr. CLARK. That is probably a question for my colleagues here. 

Mr. FARR. Where does California rank? 

Dr. CLARK. Oh, I think it is either 1 or 2. 

Mr. FARR. It is number 1. Do you know how many crops California produces? 

Dr. CLARK. A huge number. 

Mr. FARR. You do not have a number? 

Dr. CLARK. I do not; 100 and something. 

Mr. FARR. You have got to get a better scorekeeper. 

Dr. CLARK. Maybe so. 

Mr. FARR. do you know how many crops Texas produces? 

Dr. CLARK. Less than California. 

Mr. FARR. Far less, and yet Texas gets a lot more money. 

The point is if you go through these rankings of states by agricultural output, by diversity of crop, then you go through the formula 

funding; it does not match. 

That is the whole point of this last hour or so. If we are left with 

only 2 choices of how we are going to fund agricultural research, 

formula and competitive grant, it is interesting because the states 

that actually are big production states do much better in the competitive grant category. 

So I would be moving more of my—if I was administering this 

and trying to bank it; the trouble is this formula, Mr. Chairman. 

These formulas were written back in the last century. 

Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentleman will yield, I am wondering if this 

comes to Dr. Smith’s category. Do you have some thoughts on that 

because you evaluate these things. 

Dr. SMITH. What I was just writing down was it would be interesting to look at how the allocation among states would change 

given different criteria for judging that, just for information. 

Mr. KINGSTON. That would be helpful. 

Mr. FARR. But see, I think if you were going to write a new farm 

bill, and that is where they authorize these formulas, then obviously those who have got some are going to be there to protect it. 

But if we are going to go into a new era of essentially disbursing 

Federal tax dollars for the purposes which you are in charge of, it 

seems to me that we want to argue some equity that ought to be 

related to need, to need of this country to remain in a competitive 

global climate. 

ARS LOCATION CLOSURES

I think you answered the question, but I have another one. In 

your testimony you said that you have reductions and terminations 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
151 

totaling over $100 million in funding and 182 staff-years. It includes terminations in research projects at dozens of locations 

across the country and wholesale closure of 10 research universities. 

We never approved those things when they came before in the 

past, but this year we are facing a different situation and a great 

deal of uncertainty. How do you determine those termination? Do 

you have a plan for it? Is it orderly? what goes first? How long 

would it take to close them? Is there funding asked for for the closing process? 

Dr. WOTEKI. Mr. Farr, those relate to the Agricultural Research 

Service, and there is a very rigorous set of criteria that were used 

to identify which programs were going to be stopped and which facilities would be closed. 

And as to the process that would be used, I would like to ask Dr. 

Knipling to describe what ARS will have to do. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes, as I mentioned earlier in response to another 

question, the annual savings from the research program itself is an 

aggregate of $38 million. Once we start to implement the closure, 

we encounter two types of expenses. One is the disposition of the 

real property, and then the other is relocation of personnel or severance of personnel. In each case, that would take the better part 

of a year, and we estimate that those costs would be on the order 

of about $25 million in that first year. 

And, no, we are not requesting funding for that. That would be 

a cost that we would have to absorb elsewhere throughout the 

agency. 

About half of those costs are personnel relocation or severance 

costs, and about half of it is disposition of the real property. 

ARS FACILITIES STUDY

Mr. FARR. How long is it going to take you to do your study on 

facilities, the needed facilities to be expanded or new ones to be 

built? 

Dr. KNIPLING. That is underway now. We would hope to have a 

product by the end of this fiscal year, calendar year for sure. 

We did request in the fiscal year 2011 budget funding to support 

that as an external professional outside study. Those monies not 

forthcoming, we are initiating that with in-house resources, personnel and staff. So that is, in part, underway already. 

Mr. FARR. So you would expect that the decisions made after you 

have made this priority list, that you would have recommendations 

to Congress for appropriations when, next year? The next fiscal 

year? The next President’s budget? 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes, we would assume for the fiscal year 2013 

budget that the results of that study would be available. As to how 

that would actually translate into funding proposals, we do not 

know yet, but we would have the agency-wide assessment of our 

entire portfolio of facilities, over 100 different locations and, of 

course, multiple facilities at many of those locations. 

Mr. FARR. Could you share with us? I do not have to do it here 

on the time of the Committee, but I would like to see the criteria 

you are using and how you will be making your judgments. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
152 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes. We have outlined an approach and criteria, 

and of course, in simple terms, it would be both a facility assessment in terms of condition of the facility, as well as linked to the 

program priority not only now, but for the investment for the future, what programs those facilities would provide the capacity to 

undertake on a sustained basis 

Mr. FARR. Yes, I would be really keen on that because I have an 

interest in a joint facility with FDA and maybe Homeland Security. 

Dr. KNIPLING. Yes. 

Mr. FARR. All right. Well, I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. I thought this was a very good hearing. 

I think it opens up more questions than we got answers for, but 

so is this entire fiscal process we are going through. So you have 

a big burden on writing your bill. 

Mr. KINGSTON. We will get there. 

Dr. Woteki and members of the panel, thank you for being here, 

and this meeting stands adjourned. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601
153 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 204 here 66430P4A.113
154 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 205 here 66430P4A.114
155 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 206 here 66430P4A.115
156 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 207 here 66430P4A.116
157 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 208 here 66430P4A.117
158 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 209 here 66430P4A.118
159 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 210 here 66430P4A.119
160 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 211 here 66430P4A.120
161 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 212 here 66430P4A.121
162 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 213 here 66430P4A.122
163 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 214 here 66430P4A.123
164 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 215 here 66430P4A.124
165 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 216 here 66430P4A.125
166 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 217 here 66430P4A.126
167 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 218 here 66430P4A.127
168 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 219 here 66430P4A.128
169 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 220 here 66430P4A.129
170 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 221 here 66430P4A.130
171 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 222 here 66430P4A.131
172 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 223 here 66430P4A.132
173 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 224 here 66430P4A.133
174 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 225 here 66430P4A.134
175 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 226 here 66430P4A.135
176 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 227 here 66430P4A.136
177 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 228 here 66430P4A.137
178 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 229 here 66430P4A.138
179 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 230 here 66430P4A.139
180 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 231 here 66430P4A.140
181 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 232 here 66430P4A.141
182 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 233 here 66430P4A.142
183 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 234 here 66430P4A.143
184 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 235 here 66430P4A.144
185 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 236 here 66430P4A.145
186 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 237 here 66430P4A.146
187 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 238 here 66430P4A.147
188 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 239 here 66430P4A.148
189 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 240 here 66430P4A.149
190 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 241 here 66430P4A.150
191 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 242 here 66430P4A.151
192 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 243 here 66430P4A.152
193 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 244 here 66430P4A.153
194 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 245 here 66430P4A.154
195 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 246 here 66430P4A.155
196 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 247 here 66430P4A.156
197 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 248 here 66430P4A.157
198 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 249 here 66430P4A.158
199 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 250 here 66430P4A.159
200 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 251 here 66430P4A.160
201 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 252 here 66430P4A.161
202 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 253 here 66430P4A.162
203 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 254 here 66430P4A.163
204 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 255 here 66430P4A.164
205 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 256 here 66430P4A.165
206 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 257 here 66430P4A.166
207 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 258 here 66430P4A.167
208 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 259 here 66430P4A.168
209 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 260 here 66430P4A.169
210 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 261 here 66430P4A.170
211 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 262 here 66430P4A.171
212 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 263 here 66430P4A.172
213 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 264 here 66430P4A.173
214 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 265 here 66430P4A.174
215 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 266 here 66430P4A.175
216 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 267 here 66430P4A.176
217 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 268 here 66430P4A.177
218 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 269 here 66430P4A.178
219 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 270 here 66430P4A.179
220 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 271 here 66430P4A.180
221 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 272 here 66430P4A.181
222 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 273 here 66430P4A.182
223 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 274 here 66430P4A.183
224 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 275 here 66430P4A.184
225 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 276 here 66430P4A.185
226 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 277 here 66430P4A.186
227 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 278 here 66430P4A.187
228 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 279 here 66430P4A.188
229 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 280 here 66430P4A.189
230 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 281 here 66430P4A.190
231 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 282 here 66430P4A.191
232 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 283 here 66430P4A.192
233 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 284 here 66430P4A.193
234 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 285 here 66430P4A.194
235 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 286 here 66430P4A.195
236 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 287 here 66430P4A.196
237 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 288 here 66430P4A.197
238 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 289 here 66430P4A.198
239 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 290 here 66430P4A.199
240 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 291 here 66430P4A.200
241 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 292 here 66430P4A.201
242 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 293 here 66430P4A.202
243 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 294 here 66430P4A.203
244 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 295 here 66430P4A.204
245 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 296 here 66430P4A.205
246 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 297 here 66430P4A.206
247 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 298 here 66430P4A.207
248 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 299 here 66430P4A.208
249 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 300 here 66430P4A.209
250 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 301 here 66430P4A.210
251 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 302 here 66430P4A.211
252 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 303 here 66430P4A.212
253 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 304 here 66430P4A.213
254 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 305 here 66430P4A.214
255 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 306 here 66430P4A.215
256 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 307 here 66430P4A.216
257 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 308 here 66430P4A.217
258 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 309 here 66430P4A.218
259 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 310 here 66430P4A.219
260 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 311 here 66430P4A.220
261 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 312 here 66430P4A.221
262 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 313 here 66430P4A.222
263 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 314 here 66430P4A.223
264 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 315 here 66430P4A.224
265 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 316 here 66430P4A.225
266 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 317 here 66430P4A.226
267 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 318 here 66430P4A.227
268 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 319 here 66430P4A.228
269 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 320 here 66430P4A.229
270 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 321 here 66430P4A.230
271 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 322 here 66430P4A.231
272 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 323 here 66430P4A.232
273 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 324 here 66430P4A.233
274 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 325 here 66430P4A.234
275 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 326 here 66430P4A.235
276 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 327 here 66430P4A.236
277 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 328 here 66430P4A.237
278 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 329 here 66430P4A.238
279 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 330 here 66430P4A.239
280 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 331 here 66430P4A.240
281 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 332 here 66430P4A.241
282 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 333 here 66430P4A.242
283 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 334 here 66430P4A.243
284 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 335 here 66430P4A.244
285 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 336 here 66430P4A.245
286 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 337 here 66430P4A.246
287 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 338 here 66430P4A.247
288 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 339 here 66430P4A.248
289 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 340 here 66430P4A.249
290 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 341 here 66430P4A.250
291 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 342 here 66430P4A.251
292 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 343 here 66430P4A.252
293 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 344 here 66430P4A.253
294 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 345 here 66430P4A.254
295 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 346 here 66430P4A.255
296 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 347 here 66430P4A.256
297 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 348 here 66430P4A.257
298 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 349 here 66430P4A.258
299 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 350 here 66430P4A.259
300 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 351 here 66430P4A.260
301 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 352 here 66430P4A.261
302 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 353 here 66430P4A.262
303 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 354 here 66430P4A.263
304 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 355 here 66430P4A.264
305 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 356 here 66430P4A.265
306 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 357 here 66430P4A.266
307 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 358 here 66430P4A.267
308 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 359 here 66430P4A.268
309 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 360 here 66430P4A.269
310 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 361 here 66430P4A.270
311 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 362 here 66430P4A.271
312 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 363 here 66430P4A.272
313 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 364 here 66430P4A.273
314 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 365 here 66430P4A.274
315 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 366 here 66430P4A.275
316 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 367 here 66430P4A.276
317 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 368 here 66430P4A.277
318 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 369 here 66430P4A.278
319 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 370 here 66430P4A.279
320 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 371 here 66430P4A.280
321 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 372 here 66430P4A.281
322 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 373 here 66430P4A.282
323 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 374 here 66430P4A.283
324 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 375 here 66430P4A.284
325 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 376 here 66430P4A.285
326 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 377 here 66430P4A.286
327 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 378 here 66430P4A.287
328 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 379 here 66430P4A.288
329 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 380 here 66430P4A.289
330 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 381 here 66430P4A.290
331 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 382 here 66430P4A.291
332 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 383 here 66430P4A.292
333 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 384 here 66430P4A.293
334 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 385 here 66430P4A.294
335 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 386 here 66430P4A.295
336 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 387 here 66430P4A.296
337 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 388 here 66430P4A.297
338 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 389 here 66430P4A.298
339 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 390 here 66430P4A.299
340 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 391 here 66430P4A.300
341 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 392 here 66430P4A.301
342 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 393 here 66430P4A.302
343 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 394 here 66430P4A.303
344 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 395 here 66430P4A.304
345 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 396 here 66430P4A.305
346 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 397 here 66430P4A.306
347 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 398 here 66430P4A.307
348 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 399 here 66430P4A.308
349 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 400 here 66430P4A.309
350 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 401 here 66430P4A.310
351 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 402 here 66430P4A.311
352 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 403 here 66430P4A.312
353 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 404 here 66430P4A.313
354 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 405 here 66430P4A.314
355 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 406 here 66430P4A.315
356 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 407 here 66430P4A.316
357 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 408 here 66430P4A.317
358 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 409 here 66430P4A.318
359 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 410 here 66430P4A.319
360 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 411 here 66430P4A.320
361 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with HROC6601Insert offset folio 412/600 here 66430P4A.321