ERIC ED401063: The Evaluation of Federal Programs in Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture. House of Representatives, One Hundred

368 Pages·1996·5.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
RC 020 759
ED 401 063
The Evaluation of Federal Programs in Agricultural
TITLE
Research, Education, and Extension. Hearings before
the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research,
and Forestry of the Committee on Agriculture. House
of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress,
Second Sessibn (March 27, May 14, July 17, 1996).
INSTITUTION
Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. House
Committee on Agriculture.
REPORT NO
ISBN-0-16-053414-3
PUB DATE
96
365p.; Serial No. 104-27.
NOTE
U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of
AVAILABLE FROM
Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402.
Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC15 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Agricultural Education; Biotechnology; Federal Aid;
Federal Legislation; *Federal Programs; Government
Role; Hearings; Higher Education; Information
Dissemination; Land Grant Universities; Needs
Assessment; *Public Policy; *Research and
Development; Research Projects; *Rural Extension
Agricultural Sciences; Congress 104th; Cooperative
IDENTIFIERS
Extension Service; Farm Policy; *Research
Priorities
ABSTRACT
Three House of Representatives' subcommittee hearings
were held in March, May, and July 1996 to evaluate the goals,
priority setting, and advisory mechanisms of federal programs in
agricultural research, education, and extension. To become
Competitive in global markets, farmers will need to rely on the
research community to provide up-to-date technology and market
information. The purpose of the hearings was to establish research
priorities for the 21st century, improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the federal research investment, and improve
accountability through the establishment of a coordinated advisory
and priority setting mechanism. Testimony was received from U.S.
Senators and Representatives; Under-Secretaries from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA); and spokespersons for agribusiness
associations, agricultural science associations, research
institutions, land grant universities, and the Extension Service. The
following topics were discussed: the role of the National Center for
Agricultural Utilization and Research (Peoria, Illinois) in
commercialization of agricultural products; financial and political
threats to the federal government's role in agricultural research and
education; research priorities related to human nutrition, new
agricultural and livestock pests and diseases, food safety, and
farming's environmental issues; replacing petrochemical ingredients
in industrial products with agriculture-based ingredients; proposed
participants and processes in setting research priorities for
government funding; importance of sustainable agriculture; the needs
of rural families and communities that are not usually well supported
in USDA budgets and extension programs; worldwide research on
consumer food preferences; structure and funding of federally funded
agricultural research programs conducted by land grant universities,
the USDA Agricultural Research Service, and the agribusiness
industry; and the role and methods of the Cooperative Extension
Service in disseminating research-based information to farmers.
(Sv)
THE EVALUATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
EXTENSION
rrl
HEARINGS
.CD
c)
BEFORE THE
C)
1"
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCE CONSERVATION,
Q
RESEARCH, AND FORESTRY
i-T-i
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 27, MAY 14, JULY 17, 1996
Serial No. 104-27
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
letInis
document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating
0 Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction Quality.
Points of wow or opinions stated in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent official
OERI posdion or policy.
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-053 CC
WASHINGTON : 1996
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-053414-3
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
26-053 96
1
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Kansas, Chairman
PAT ROBERTS,
E (KIKA) DE LA GARZA, Texas,
BILL EMERSON, Missouri,
Ranking Minority Member
Vice Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
LARRY COMBEST, Texas
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
GARY A. CONDIT, California
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
NICK SMITH, Michigan
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
SANFORD D.'BISHOP, JR., Georgia
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
KEN CALVERT, California
SAM FARR, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
ED PASTOR, Arizona
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
WES COOLEY, Oregon
MARK ADAM FOLEY, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
RAY LAHOOD, Illinois
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
GARY R. MITCHELL, Chief of Staff
JOHN E. HOGAN, Chief Counsel
VERNIE HUBERT, Minority Staff Director /Counsel
JACKIE COTTRELL, Press Secretary
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCE CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND FORESTRY
Colorado, Chairman
WAYNE ALLARD,
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
Vice Chairman
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR,Caalifornia
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
GARY A. CONDIT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
NICK SMITH, Michigan
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
RAY LAHOOD, Illinois
CONTENTS
Page
MARCH 27, 1996
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado,
opening statement
1
Barret, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska,
opening statement
3
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Idaho, prepared statement
7
Clayton, Hon. Eva M., a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Carolina, prepared statement
6
Johnson, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of South
Dakota, prepared statement
5
LaHood, Hon. Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois,
prepared statement
4
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Dakota, prepared statement
6
Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement
5
WITNESSES
Abernathy, John, past president, Weed Science Society of America
47
Prepared statement
122
Anderson, Joe, first vice president, U.S. Canola Association
49
Prepared statement
129
Apple, Martin, executive director, Council of Scientific Society Presidents
30
Prepared statement
73
Baumgardt, Bill, representing the Federation of American Societies of Food
Animal Science
32
Prepared statement
80
Herrett, Richard, executive director, Agricultural Research Institute
35
Prepared statement
95
Marler, Ron, president, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
42
Prepared statement
109
Merrigan, Kathleen, Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture
34
Prepared statement
84
Stauber, Karl, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, De-
partment of Agriculture
7
Prepared statement
60
Stowe, Barbara S., past chair, NASULGC, Board on Human Services
44
Prepared statement
118
Zeikus, Gregory, Michigan Biotechnology Institute
26
Prepared statement
105
SUBMITTED MATERIAL
Godown, Richard D., Biotechnology Industry, statement
133
Suitor, Daniel R., Purdue University, statement
144
MAY 14, 1996
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado,
opening statement
145
IV
Page
Crapo Hon. Michael D., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Idaho, opening statement
146
Johnson, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of South
Dakota, prepared statement
148
WITNESSES
president, Consortium of Social Science Association
195
Barry,
259
Prepared statement
Coffey Joseph D., chairman, Council for Agricultural Research, Extension,
183
and 'Teaching
227
Prepared statement
Helgesen, Robert G., National Association of State Universities and Land
177
Grant Colleges
213
Prepared statement
Lechtenberg, Victor L., president, Council for Agricultural Science and Tech-
175
nology
209
Prepared statement
Nelson, C. Jerry, on behalf of American Society of Agronomy; Crop Science
189
Society of America; and Soil Science Society of America
237
Prepared statement
Owens, Elizabeth, on behalf of National Research Council, Board of Agri-
179
culture, National Academy of Sciences
221
Prepared statement
Rasmussen, H. Paul, chairman, Experiment Station Committee on Organiza-
181
tion and Policy
216
Prepared statement
191
Rissler, Jane, Union of Concerned Scientists
245
Prepared statement
187
Swanson, Barry G., Institute of Food Technologists
223
Prepared statement
Thompson, William F., on behalf of American Society of Plant Physiologists
193
Prepared statement
254
Woteki, Catherine, Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
148
Economics, Department of Agriculture
200
Prepared statement
Zimbelman, Robert G., chairman, Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research
173
Missions
Prepared statement
206
SUBMITTED MATERIAL
Smith, C. Michael, Kansas State University, submitted statement
264
JULY 17, 1996
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado,
271
opening statement
Crapo Hon. Michael D., a Representative in Congress from the State of
273
Idaho, opening statement
Johnson, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of South
273
Dakota, opening statement
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of North
280
Dakota, prepared statement
WITNESSES
288
Avery, Dennis, director, global issues, Hudson Institute
323
Prepared statement
293
Donald, Sam, regional director, 1890 Programs
Guthrie, Tom, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
285
Prepared statement
318
Luft, Leroy, chairman, Committee on Organization and Policy
284
Prepared statement
312
Robinson, Bob, administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education and
276
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prepared statement
307
V
Page
Rose, Kenneth, vice president, research and education, National Grain Sor-
ghum Producers
292
Prepared statement
339
Urmston, Dean, executive vice president, American Seed Trade Association
295
Prepared statement
347
Weber, Gary, Animal Agriculture Coalition
290
Prepared statement
336
Woteki, Catherine, Acting Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Exten-
sion, U.S. Department of Agriculture
274
Prepared statement
305
SUBMITTED MATERIAL
Anderson, Sharon, director, North Dakota State University Extension Service,
submitted statement
357
Armbruster, Art, Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics,
submitted statement
360
THE EVALUATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
IN
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
EXTENSION PROGRAMS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1996
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESOURCE CONSERVATION,
RESEARCH, AND FORESTRY,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:12 a.m., in room
1300, Longworth House Office building, Hon. Wayne Allard [chair-
man of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gunderson, Barrett, Smith, Lucas,
Lewis, Crapo, Chenoweth, La Hood, Johnson, Stenholm, Peterson,
Clayton, and Pomeroy.
Staff Present: Doug Benevento, subcommittee director; John
Goldberg, professional staff; Curt Mann, staff assistant; Anne Sim-
mons, minority consultant; Wanda Worsham, committee hearing
clerk; and Cal lista Bisek, assistant hearing clerk/scheduler.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLO-
RADO
Mr. ALLARD. The House Subcommittee on Resource Conserva-
tion, Research, and Forestry will please come to order.
These are going to be hearings in regard to the evaluation of the
goals, priority setting, and advisory mechanisms of Federal pro-
grams in agricultural research, education, and extension. As most
of you know, House and Senate conferees have recently completed
work on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of
1996, now referred to as FAIR.
It is the opinion of this subcommittee that while some progress
was made in Federal agricultural research programs, there is still
a substantial amount of work to be done. As a result, the con-
ference committee agreed to a 2-year authorization for research,
education, and extension programs in order to give the Congres-
sional Agriculture Committees time to complete our review and de-
velop comprehensive reform legislation.
In this regard, I would like to welcome all of you to the first in
a series of hearings this subcommittee will hold in order to review
Federal programs in agricultural research, education, and exten-
sion.
(1)
7
2
Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the House Agri-
culture Committee has been engaged in a comprehensive review of
agriculture research programs. This review has consisted of an ex-
tensive survey of researchers and research users, a thorough ac-
counting of research programs conducted by the General Account-
ing Office, and now these hearings.
The United States is the world leader in the production of food
and fiber. Our ability to feed and clothe our Nation and much of
the world is the direct result of the priority we have placed on agri-
cultural research, education, and extension programs conducted
with public and private funding.
There is no doubt that researchers and educators within the
United States Department of Agriculture and our Land Grant uni-
versities have responded well to the needs of production agriculture
in the past. Under freedom to farm, farmers will for the first time
in over 60 years be given the opportunity to compete in a global
market. This dramatic change in the Federal agriculture policy cre-
ates new challenges and opportunities for the research sector.
To become competitive, farmers will need to rely on the research
community to provide up-to-date technology and market informa-
tion. In the past, when money seemed unlimited, we simply added
new programs to the old and continued on. While I doubt it would
bother anyone in this room if we simply increased Federal invest-
ments in research and development, this simply is not an option.
To respond to the new and evolving needs of production agri-
culture, Federal research programs will also have to evolve to meet
the needs of the investors. This means promoting greater linkages,
coordination, efficiency, and accountability.
This new role for agriculture research requires that we all evalu-
ate the policies that govern research, education, and extension. Our
challenge in crafting legislation will be to determine ways to im-
prove the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal research in-
vestment.
The purpose of these hearings is to give us the opportunity to
focus our attention on establishing research policies for the 21st
century, the ultimate goal being to insure that the money is spent
wisely. Probably the most important objective in reaching this goal
is to improve accountability through the establishment of a coordi-
nated advisory and priority setting mechanism.
During this hearing, the subcommittee would like to discuss cur-
rent research goals, priority setting mechanisms, and advisory
mechanisms. In this context, we would like the witnesses to confine
their remarks to discussing how best the research community, as
well as producers, processors, retailers, and consumers, can work
together with the department to insure that priorities are ad-
dressed.
With this goal in mind, we would like to review models and con-
cepts that might be used by the department's Research Advisory
Board. For instance, I am aware of a priority setting model known
as FAIR '95, Food, Animal Integrated Research for 1995, which we
will hear about today from a couple of our witnesses. This model
was developed by the animal science and veterinary science com-
munity in order to insure stakeholder involvement in developing an
action agenda for publicly and privately funded research. While the
3
results of the FAIR '95 process may not apply to all interest
groups, I believe that the model has merit and should be pursued.
Today with the help of our witnesses, it is our job to review and
develop a model or models for priority setting mechanisms that can
be applied to all of our research, education, and extension pro-
grams.
Again, I welcome all of our panelists and guests and now yield
to the distinguished Ranking Minority Member, who is not here
yet, and since he is not here, I will ask for any comments on the
Majority side, and then when Mr. Johnson is here, we will give him
an opportunity to insert his comments in the record.
So do we have any members from the Majority side who would
like to make a brief statement? The gentleman from Nebraska.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL BARRETT, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. BARRETT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will make a very brief
statement in order to help bail you out with the time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BARRETT. I appreciate very much your calling this hearing
today. I think it is particularly timely, especially on the heels of a
brand new farm bill. It seems to me that the primary intent per-
haps of this hearing is to remind all of us that the new farm bill
is not an expansion of authority. I think that is very critical for ev-
eryone, not only the Under Secretary and his department, but
Members of Congress as well.
As you suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is a 2-year reauthorization
with limited new authority. I think the Advisory Board to improve
the research coordination is the only new authority that we have
in the new farm bill.
So I hope the hearing will focus on the goals of agriculture re-
search, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, and also some priority
setting. I think it is very important at this time. It will give us
some advanced time to plan for that time two years hence when
we do make some major changes, if that is, in fact, the case.
So thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony
from our witnesses.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
And for the benefit of those of you in this room who have not
been at previous hearings, usually we do limit our remarks at the
beginning of the hearing, but if there are any other comments from
Members of this committee, we would welcome those at this time.
Mr. La Hood.
Mr. LAHooD. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I would
like to enter into the record and also welcome Dr. Stauber and ac-
knowledge the fact that I have the National Center for Agricultural
Utilization and Research, more commonly known in my district as
the Peoria Agriculture. Lab, and we are grateful for that wonderful
facility and the work that goes on there and look forward to having
an opportunity to have a dialogue with Dr. Stauber and others re-
garding what we are doing there and other information they may
have for us.
So thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope my statement
can be made a part of the record.
4
[The prepared statements of Messrs. La Hood, Stenholm, John-
son, Pomeroy, Mrs. Clayton and Mrs. Chenoweth follow:]
STATEMENT OF HON. RAY LAHOOD
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding these hearings on a very important subject.
Research is vital to American agriculture if it is to remain competitive and ready
to meet the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st Century. Additionally, I welcome
Dr. Stauber, the Under Secretary for Research at USDA, and thank him for making
himself available to us today.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to proceed with a full review of research
and extension programs by the Subcommittee. As a Member of this Subcommittee,
I am keenly aware that research will play an even larger role than it does today.
Additionally, as one might expect, I am interested in forwarding the progress and
development of the Peoria lab, not only for the city, but for corn and soybean pro-
ducers around the Nation.
Founded by Congressional Act in 1938, the lab was created to provide American
agriculture with continued new uses for American-grown crops. That effort has been
tremendously successful and, far and away, a wise investment of precious taxpayer
funds.
The Peoria lab is a shining example of what government can do to provide a grow-
ing world with a safe and ample supply of food, at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
The Peoria lab, called the National Center for Agricultural Utilization and Research
(NACAUR), is a major ARS research facility. Work at NACAUR focuses on commer-
cialization of products and uses for agricultural commodities and encompasses three
areas: finding new market opportunities for commodities, securing environmental
quality and compatibility, and ensuring food safety. Additionally, since American ag-
riculture will get less of its income from the Federal government, and more from
the marketplace, we must now, more than ever, provide agriculture with the tools
to get more of its income from the marketplace and not from Washington.
One tool in the arsenal of technology is the Peoria lab. The lab is the flagship
facility for corn and soybean research in the world. It has attracted national and
international attention for its research conclusions. For instance, Mr. Chairman, es-
sential discoveries made at the Peoria facility enabled mass production of the life-
saving drug penicillin. This all happened in a relatively short period of time from
its original beginning in 1938.
But, as global technology competition increases, the continued development of new
innovative scientific knowledge becomes increasingly important. The enabling tech-
nical information provides the foundation for continued joint technology develop-
ment work leading to increased demand for the farmer's crop and new jobs in the
manufacturing economy. A balance of fundamental and applied research will be
vital for continued success in the future. A vibrant public research center, like the
Peoria lab, is ideally suited to conducting interdisciplinary scientific research di-
rected to solving technical problems through the discovery of new knowledge.
Additionally, in 1986, my predecessor, Congressman Robert Michel, was instru-
mental in forwarding the growth of the Peoria lab with passage of the Federal Tech-
nology Transfer Act of 1986 (PL 99-502). The Act has had a significant impact on
enhancing its ability to commercialize new technology leading to new uses and mar-
kets of agriculture commodities. They now routinely partner with the private sector
for the final development of new products and processes. For instance, the Peoria
applied an already secured patent using oil and adapted it fur use on industrial
equipment manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc., a Peoria-based company.
Specifically, they, developed a variety of environmentally friendly lubricants and
functional fluids from renewable vegetable oil which can be used on heavy equip-
ment. Through this partnership, new uses for agricultural material can be developed
with built-in market pull, that is Caterpillar went to the lab with their specific
needs, thus speeding the movement of technology from the laboratory to the market-
place.
The Peoria lab is doing tremendous work with soybean oil inks, which, in addition
to being totally biodegradable, represents a tremendous potential market for Amer-
ican agriculture. The lab's current patented process for newspaper inks alone would
increase demand for soy oil by an additional 500 million pounds, not to mention the
potential for the use of soy ink in magazines, books and other special printing
needs. In each case, this represents more income from the market for farmers; and
less from the taxpayer. I support that, and would hope that you would.
10