[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama, Chairman
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
SAM FARR, California
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Tom O'Brien, Pam Miller, Andrew Cooper,
and Elizabeth King,
Staff Assistants
___________
PART 5B
Page
USDA Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service (cont'd) 1601
USDA Research, Education, and Economics............ 2751
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-154 WASHINGTON : 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
KAY GRANGER, Texas
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
SAM FARR, California
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BARBARA LEE, California
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A.DUTCHRUPPERSBERGER,Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DEREK KILMER, Washington
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
W I T N E S S E S
__________
Page
Page
Bohman, Dr. Mary................................................. 2751
Jacobs-Young, Dr. Chavonda....................................... 2751
Ramaswamy, Dr. Sonny............................................. 2751
Reilly, Joseph................................................... 2751
Woteki, Dr. C. E................................................. 2751
Young, Michael................................................... 2751
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 24, 2015.
USDA RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS
WITNESSES
DR. CATHERINE E. WOTEKI, UNDER SECRETARY, RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND
ECONOMICS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DR. CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DR. SONNY RAMASWAMY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE
DR. MARY BOHMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
JOSEPH REILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE
MICHAEL YOUNG, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Introduction of Witnesses
Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning. The Subcommittee will
come to order.
I know Mr. Farr will be here shortly. And, hopefully, by
the time we get to the end of my opening statement, he'll have
a chance to make his remarks as we are on schedule. But we do
want to get started. I will go ahead and make my opening
remarks.
I just wanted to welcome each of you here this morning, and
thank you for being here.
As I mentioned before, the Subcommittee is focusing on the
themes of management, targeting, and promotion this year. We
want to ensure that research funds are targeted the most
important programs and problems and that, through research, we
are promoting a productive agricultural sector and a safe food
supply. We are reviewing the requests with these in mind as we
go through the USDA's fiscal year 2016 budget request for
research agencies.
I would like to welcome our panel this morning.
First of all, Dr. Cathy Woteki, Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics and Chief Scientist for the
U.S. Department of Ag, to the Subcommittee.
So welcome, Dr. Woteki, for being here.
Also, we are equally happy to have Dr. Chavonda Jacobs-
Young, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service.
Glad to have you here.
Welcome back, Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy, Director of the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Dr. Mary Bohman, Administrator for the Economic Research
Service.
Welcome. Good to have you here.
Mr. Joe Reilly, Administrator of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service.
Welcome. Good to have you here.
And welcome back again, Mr. Mike Young, Director of the
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
On behalf of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank all of
you and your staff for your hard work on agricultural research.
You are the scientists. You are the professionals. You are the
leaders that look at sort of the scientific questions that we
have regarding agriculture.
Opening Statement--Mr. Aderholt
USDA is proposing a $467-million increase over the fiscal
year 2015 enacted levels for its research programs. This
includes significant research increases of $206 million for ARS
buildings and facilities, $125 million for the Agriculture and
Food Research Initiative, $80 million to create two new
innovation institutes, and $20 million for a new competitive
grant program for land-grant colleges and universities. There
is a myriad of other increases, decreases, closures, and
transfers to the request as well.
This hearing will allow the Subcommittee to thoroughly
examine these and help us determine whether USDA is effectively
administering its programs and meeting the Nation's needs as it
comes to agricultural research.
Given the sizable increase proposed by the budget request,
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we are operating
in a very constrained funding environment, which we usually
are, but this year as much as ever.
We are bound by the spending caps under the existing law.
And, of course, we will do our best to address the highest
priorities and needs as we see best. But any increases most
likely will have to be offset against other accounts and other
programs that are in the bill.
Before I close, I want to alert the Subcommittee that Mr.
Farr and I are going to begin the question-and-answer period
with a discussion on the New York Times article regarding the
U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, which is referred to as MARC,
in Clay Center, Nebraska.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, our questions may
take a few more minutes than usual. There are a number of
important issues that we need to discuss and clarify for the
record. So I ask for your patience on that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Aderholt. So at this point let me ask our Ranking
Member, Mr. Farr, if he has any opening remarks.
Opening Remarks--Mr. Farr
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I do want to join with you in an intensive questioning
on MARC. But, first of all, I would like to thank all the
research staff for their service.
And I am interested in the increases that you have asked
for, particularly in the priorities for this sustainable small
farms and the pollinator health and Colony Collapse Disorder.
I never thought being elected to Congress would make me so
interested in beekeepers until I tried to realize why none of
the fruit trees on my property were germinating. And then I got
my cousin, who is a beekeeper, to put beehives in there, and it
really makes a difference. And he has lectured me all about the
collapse of the colonies, and it is really a crisis. And so I
am glad that you were looking at that.
And as far as the Chairman's comment on caps, I find the
thing is the Congress that puts those caps on can be the
Congress that takes those caps off. It is in our hands. And we
don't need to hide behind the law, but we are sometimes are
reluctant to change it.
But I also want to join with the chair in saying how the
allegations in the New York Times story in January really did
sort of hit the fan here. What really bothers me is I have been
so fond of the agency and its ability to be responsive to my
questions. But, in this case, what I get from my staff and the
Committee staff is that you have been really extremely
unresponsive to our efforts to get information about that
story.
I know that our staff had two unproductive meetings with
officials of USDA. At the second meeting, they were told that
they had to ask questions to get answers, nothing would be
volunteered.
So the staff sent out a long list of questions for the USDA
about 10 days ago, and the Chairman and I got back a letter
yesterday saying you would not answer the staff's questions. I
don't know why you object so much to responding to the
allegations in that story, and I hope that we can get to the
bottom of it.
It appears to me--and it is strange because that is not the
way the Secretary has been in the past--that you are really
trying to hide this story, to bury it.
And, you know, this Committee doesn't like that, and we
will make sure that we get to the bottom of this, no matter
what. So this is something both the Chairman and I are very
concerned about, and I hope that you will be responsive to our
questions today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Farr.
Dr. Woteki, we will now turn to you for your opening
statement. Of course, your full statement will be included in
the record. But we will ask you now to proceed with that, and
then we will go forward with questions.
Opening Statement--Dr. Woteki
Ms. Woteki. Well, thank you, Chairman Aderholt. Good
morning, Mr. Farr, and members of the Committee. My colleagues
and I are pleased to be appearing before you again, and we
request that our written testimony be entered into the record.
I am going to very briefly summarize that testimony.
When the Secretary appeared before the Committee several
weeks ago, he underscored this Administration's unwavering
commitment to strengthening the middle class and helping
America's families get ahead.
This mission area of Research, Education, and Economics
(REE) helps accomplish this by supporting the critical research
our country needs to keep our food supply safe, secure, and
abundant, to improve nutrition for life-long health, to address
climate and energy needs, and to ensure the sustainable use of
our natural resources.
For example, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) works
to enhance and protect agriculture and to transfer research
results to the marketplace, where they serve the needs of a
wide range of users.
By funding research at land-grant universities as well as
at other universities and research institutions, the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) integrates research,
education, and extension to ensure the groundbreaking
discoveries go beyond the laboratory and make their way to the
farms, ranches, classrooms, and communities across the country,
where Americans put that knowledge into practice to improve
their lives and their livelihoods.
The economic research and analysis work of the Economic
Research Service (ERS) guides policy throughout the Department
as well as across the government and provides vital information
to consumers, to researchers, and to the marketplace.
And each year the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) conducts surveys and produces accurate, timely, and
useful statistical data on commodities comprising 97 percent of
U.S. agricultural cash receipts.
Farmers and ranchers, governments, commodity markets,
businesses, as well as the research community, are among those
who depend on these statistics to make informed decisions.
With the enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill, the REE agencies,
particularly NIFA, have focused a significant part of this past
year to implementing reauthorized programs as well as
initiating new programs and policies.
Several of the new Farm Bill provisions enable USDA to
partner with its stakeholders and to foster increased
collaboration between research scientists and academia in
government and the private sector. There are specific examples
that in the question-and-answer period we would be happy to
discuss with you of this additional partnering.
Codifying the public-private partnerships, as the 2014 Farm
Bill has done, ensures that more public funds are being
leveraged with private sector dollars to make the most of the
taxpayers' investment.
Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2016 budget
requests a total of $3.2 billion in discretionary funds for
USDA's scientific research and statistical agencies, $1.5
billion for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
$1.4 billion for the intramural programs of the Agricultural
Research Service.
And these two agencies together really represent the lion's
share of that request. The President's budget also requests $86
million for our premiere agricultural economics research
agency, the ERS, and $180 million for NASS, whose mission
focuses on comprehensive data collection in the food and
agricultural sectors.
Mr. Chairman, our written testimony provides examples of
accomplishments over this past year and highlights the many
activities within the mission-area agencies that we are
proposing to conduct in fiscal year 2016.
And, in closing, I would like to highlight one very special
event this year, in 2015, and that is that we are marking the
125th anniversary of the second Morrill Act that established
historically Black land-grant colleges and universities as part
of the family of land-grant universities.
Our enduring partnerships with these 1890 institutions has
served as a catalyst for economic development in
underrepresented communities across the country, particularly
in rural communities, and it has provided access to higher
education as well as the dissemination of the latest strategies
and technologies based on agricultural research through
cooperative extension.
Mr. Chairman, the REE agencies are looking forward to
working with you and the other members of this Subcommittee on
these many challenges that are facing agriculture as well as
the opportunities that lie before us in the coming months.
We are happy to answer any questions that you and members
of the Committee might have for us today.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you for your testimony.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Aderholt. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we want
to start with the New York Times article about MARC in Clay
Center, Nebraska.
I have had a chance to see the article, to read it, to
reread, to highlight, to look at different aspects of it. It is
a difficult read in many ways because you are talking about
living beings. I know that I have to step back and recognize
the value of animal research.
The article raised some serious questions. And, as Chairman
of the Subcommittee overseeing the agency, you know, they are
concerning. And that should go without saying.
I understand that, when researchers mimic real-life
situations, some animals may die unintentionally and even
unexpectedly. But let me state and be very clear that we expect
all animals to be treated humanely and that no type of abuse or
mistreatment would be tolerated. Further, we expect the risk of
premature death to be limited whenever possible.
I believe ARS holds all of its animal research to a very
high standard, especially in the care and handling of its
animals. As such, the allegations in this article seem to be
inconsistent with what I know of USDA's research in the past.
Regardless, we have a number of questions about the article and
the review Secretary Vilsack ordered, as well as the
Department's next steps as we want to inquire about.
Dr. Woteki and Dr. Jacobs-Young, we ask you to keep your
answers brief when we ask this so that we can get through a
number of questions so that we can have time to go through the
extensive list.
But I guess my first question would be: Were the animals
abused or mistreated at MARC?
Ms. Woteki. Mr. Aderholt, I can tell you that I share your
concern about humane treatment of animals and also expect that
everybody who is conducting research with animals in the animal
research service, our intramural agency, or that we support in
universities adheres to humane treatment of those animals that
are in their care.
We do not agree with the way that the New York Times
characterized the animal research that is conducted at the Meat
Animal Research Center in Clay Center. And the recently
released report of the panel of experts in veterinary medicine
and humane treatment of animals--their report, after having
done a site visit at MARC, clearly states that animals are
being treated well, that they found no evidence of abuse and--
--
Mr. Aderholt. Have you investigated the specific instance
of the animal abuse that is mentioned in the article?
Ms. Woteki. There are two processes that we have set in
place to do that investigation.
The first is of this expert panel that I have just
mentioned that is investigating and has issued its initial
report about the policies that ARS has as well as the current
status of animals at the Meat Animal Research Center.
The second process is one that is going to be addressing
those specific allegations, and that is an investigation, an
audit, by the Inspector General of USDA, a very independent
arm, as you know. So that investigation is specifically going
to address those allegations.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, the Department began receiving
questions from the New York Times more than a year ago, back
in--if my notes are right--February of 2014. And as far as we
know, the Department didn't take any action until the article
was published in January of 2015.
So the question is: Why did the Department wait so long to
look into animal care and what happened there at MARC?
Ms. Woteki. Well, as we have shared with the Committee, we
have shared with you the specific information that was provided
to the New York Times in response to their questions. The
policies that are in place for treatment of animals in research
adhere to the principles that are in the Animal Welfare Act.
The Administrator, Dr. Jacobs-Young, who is appearing with
me today, over the course of this past year while those
questions were coming in from the reporter, did look into
specific questions to determine what the agency's responses
were.
So she has been maintaining----
Mr. Aderholt. At what point did that occur?
Ms. Woteki. That occurred through the course of the year as
those questions were being addressed.
Mr. Aderholt. So you are saying before January of 2015 you
started looking into that?
Ms. Woteki. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, why did the Department wait to appoint
an ombudsman for the animal welfare, wait so long about that?
Ms. Woteki. Well, that was a new step that the
Administrator undertook. I think it is a very positive one. And
it does provide employees yet another route if they feel that
there have been instances of abuse in which they can report
them and they can do it confidentially.
Mr. Aderholt. What role does the Department play when an
agency such as ARS receives a large information request from
some kind of news service?
Ms. Woteki. If you are asking what internal mechanisms are
brought into play, certainly our Office of Communications
within the agency--each agency has an Office of
Communications--begins addressing the questions, trying to find
the appropriate people within the agency. And there are
communications as well with the Office of Communications at the
departmental level.
MARC EXPERT PANEL REVIEW
Mr. Aderholt. Is the Department conducting a review of its
management of this issue?
Ms. Woteki. I think that we are in the fact that we have
established an expert panel to review the situation at MARC and
to continue its work in evaluating at least--well, at five
other--three to five other facilities within the Agricultural
Research Service to determine how well they are complying with
the agency's policies.
Mr. Aderholt. Based on what you know, do you think changes
need to be made so there will be more transparency in the
future?
Ms. Woteki. Yes. And we are undertaking some of those
steps. The expert panel that I referred to already in its
report made some specific recommendations about steps to be
undertaken, and we are moving quickly to implement them.
Mr. Aderholt. What are the next steps for the Animal Care
and Wellbeing Committee?
Ms. Woteki. Well, the expert panel made four
recommendations related to the Animal Care and Use Committee.
So far, I have issued instructions to the agency that they
reconstitute the committee--they have done so already--that the
committee be appropriately trained--that training has begun--
and that, as first order of business, that they take up
research protocols that will rescue lambs as well as in the
calving operation that run into difficulties.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, as you know, Representative Farr and I
had asked the Inspector General to review the allegations made
in the article.
How are ARS and the Department working with the Inspector
General's Office on this?
Ms. Woteki. Well, the Inspector General has already begun
the investigation. They have had their entrance interview with
Dr. Jacobs-Young and staff and ARS. And I have also asked the
Inspector General to put a high priority on this audit.
I understand that it takes about 300 days for an Inspector
General audit. We would like for that audit to be completed on
a much shorter time scale, but that is a decision of the
Inspector General to make.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, you know, certainly we expect you to
cooperate with the Inspector General's review and to respond to
recommendations that they may make.
And so I just want to, you know, ask you, are you committed
to doing that?
Ms. Woteki. Most definitely, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Farr.
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT
Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Woteki, you just stated in your remarks to the Chair
that you follow the principles of the Animal Welfare Act.
Why not just adopt it?
Ms. Woteki. Well, at this point in time, we do have in
place everything that the Animal Welfare Act requires with the
exception of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) oversight and visits.
Mr. Farr. What would be wrong with doing it that way? All
the university labs have to abide it.
Ms. Woteki. We actually think it would be a good idea. And
Dr. Jacobs-Young has been in discussions with APHIS about that
role.
Mr. Farr. So that will be a recommendation that you will
bring to Congress?
Ms. Woteki. We could. At this point, though, we feel that
we are voluntarily complying with the Animal Welfare Act. And
with this addition----
Mr. Farr. But the problem is----
Ms. Woteki [continuing]. We will be able as well.
Mr. Farr. Look, I think the difficulty we are having and
the reason we are asking these questions is the Department just
seems to be not admitting that there was a real screw-up here
and mistakes were made, people weren't adequately trained or
documented they were trained or certified.
The review team that came in gave you a month and some time
before they came, saying, ``We are coming,'' essentially,
``Clean up your act because, when we get there, we are going to
review it.'' I mean, that is not the way we think that reviews
ought to be done.
And I think there is just sort of this--it appears as if it
is denial on part of the Department rather than--look, there is
some problems when you have got a lot of territory out there.
That is a huge piece of property. What, 50 square miles? I
don't even think we have any ranches in California as big as
what you have at that research facility. It is, what, 30,000
acres?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. 37,000 acres.
Mr. Farr. 37,000 acres. That is bigger than almost any
military base in the United States.
And I understand that, you know, it is in animal research.
So you are going to look at all kinds of animals and--but
these--you know, the reports on how--the research going on with
the lambs and so on, I don't know why you just say, ``Look, we
have got to clean this up and we are going to have to clean it
up.'' I mean, you ought to abide by the same standards that
university research labs have to do, which are under the Animal
Welfare Act and do get inspected by the APHIS.
It might be much more confidence-building if we had that
checks and balances rather than, ``We are doing all that we
can.'' And I just--I think we are going to--and then why the
response to our staff's letter that, ``We are not going to
respond to you''? What was that all about? I mean, we were
really shocked to get that letter yesterday.
Ms. Woteki. Well, I feel, first of all, to your first line
of questions, that the Agricultural Research Service has
voluntarily adopted the Animal Welfare Act requirements. It has
in place a constituted Animal Care and Use Committee, as the
expert panel has confirmed.
Mr. Farr. But that didn't work.
Ms. Woteki. And we are in discussions with APHIS about
implementing their site visits as well.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. And I believe that there is a
disagreement on whether it was working effectively or not. The
panel came in and they had an opportunity to visit Clay Center,
as you suggested. It was within a month. But as most animal
researchers will know, you cannot undo damage to animals that
has been done.
And what they saw when they visited that site was that
those animals have been well cared for, and that is not
something that can turn on a dime. And so they were impressed
by the animal welfare that they saw at the MARC center.
Mr. Farr. Yeah. I am not talking about the site visit, per
se. I am just talking about the fact that the process seems
very awkward.
I mean, the animal welfare strategy, has that been updated?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So what the panel found is that our
policies and procedures are best practice, according to
standard and industry standards. What happened at MARC is that
they were not following the policies and procedures to the T.
Mr. Farr. Exactly. Can't you just say that?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. But it is about administrative procedures
and not about animal welfare, that they took very good care of
the animals. And that is documented. And so that is not the
question.
It is whether they did informal minutes or formal minutes
and whether they filled out the correct paperwork around
training. Those were the questions that the panel had. They saw
over and over again how well the animals had been cared for.
EASYCARE SHEEP EXPERIMENT
Mr. Farr. And you are defending the Easycare sheep
experiment?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. The Easycare sheep experiment is
representative of 51 percent of the sheep industry. They
pasture their sheep. Our job in research is to mimic those
production practices so we can minimize the mortality. That is
part of the research process.
Mr. Farr. Yeah.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. And I will just state that, if one were
to go and Google ``pastured sheep,'' you would find the level
of data around mortality. Predation, starvation, abandonment,
that is a phenomena that is found in pasturing sheep.
Mr. Farr. Well, I can understand, you know, that may be
common practice in the private sector, which, obviously, this
is why you have Animal Welfare Act-type things.
But for the Federal Government with taxpayer money to go
out and invest and do this, you know, cruel and inhumane
treatment of animals in order to help the private sector get a
better understanding of it, I mean, this is appalling. Nobody
reads that story and wants to put any taxpayer money into that.
Ms. Woteki. And, Mr. Farr, when we read the story, we
responded the same way.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. The same way.
Ms. Woteki. We felt that it was not, though, an accurate
representation of the research that is being conducted. The
whole purpose on the Easycare sheep research is to improve the
lot of pasture lambs and sheep.
Mr. Farr. So now that you have read it and you were
appalled by it, when are you going to end it?
Ms. Woteki. Well, one of the things that I have already
described to you is that we are implementing a way to rescue
lambs that become in distress.
So one of the first protocols when the newly instituted
Animal Care and Use Committee begins to consider new research
is specifically to do that.
Mr. Farr. When does it end? Research projects have a
beginning and an ending.
Ms. Woteki. Yes, they do. And the research that ARS
conducts is on a 5-year cycle of planning and evaluation. The
sheep research will be evaluated at the point in time that that
5-year plan comes up for review.
It is also done in consultation with the sheep growers of
this country who identify what the priorities are that they
would like ARS to be addressing, what are the problems that
they are having.
Mr. Farr. Do you think, if the Animal Welfare Act was
applied and you were inspected by APHIS, they would allow that
experiment to continue?
Ms. Woteki. Well, I think that is something that has been
approved by an Animal Care and Use Committee, appropriately
constituted, as the expert panel says, and that----
Mr. Farr. Well, I wouldn't be asking about the Animal
Welfare Act if I thought that that committee was effective. I
think they are totally ineffective, and I think this article
brought it out, that they missed the mark on this.
My time is expired. Thank you.
MARC RESEARCH OVERSIGHT
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Yoder.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just listening to the testimony this morning, it is very
disturbing. We are reading this article, reviewing it again
over here. It is hard to read. And if the allegations in this
are correct, it is a really sad testament to the programs that
are being authorized by Congress.
Did Congress order these programs or are these programs
that the USDA moved forward with based upon their own latitude,
given their directives, or are these specific programs that
Congress asked USDA to engage in?
Ms. Woteki. Well, Mr. Yoder, I think you make a very
appropriate point in your opening to the question in referring
to these as allegations.
At this point, the Inspector General is going to be doing
an audit and will confirm whether or not there is any truth to
them.
Mr. Yoder. And I think we need to get to the bottom of
that.
Ms. Woteki. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. And I appreciate the fact that we are all in
agreement with the investigation.
The question that I asked: Were these programs authorized
by Congress or are these programs that the USDA moved forward
with based upon their own directives that they have the
authority to engage in?
Ms. Woteki. Under the authorities granted to the Department
by Congress, animal research, particularly in support of
American agriculture----
Mr. Yoder. Uh-huh.
Ms. Woteki [continuing]. Is a priority.
Mr. Yoder. But the means of how that is carried out, that
is sort of left to the USDA to determine. These specific
programs weren't ordered by Congress. I am just trying----
Ms. Woteki. No.
Mr. Yoder [continuing]. To figure out who decided to do
these projects.
Ms. Woteki. And the research is planned in consultation
with the appropriate segment of animal agriculture that will
highlight for ARS what the problems are that they are having.
ARS designs the research programs, again, on a 5-year basis
of planning and review. They do a consultation as well with the
scientific community in developing those plans.
And then the national plan is assigned out to a variety of
different sites across the country, and at each of those sites
the scientists then put together the specific plans, the
questions that they are going to address at that site.
GRAIN RESEARCH
Mr. Yoder. Well, it sounds like Congress needs to be more
engaged in this and maybe be more direct about what the public
expects to happen with their tax dollars and particularly the
livestock industries themselves. I can't imagine that they are
fully consulted on all of this either.
So I look forward to engaging in an investigation and an
understanding of the facts, and I know that is hopefully what
the USDA wants as well. And we will get to the truth at some
point.
I come from Kansas. And I grew up on my family's farm that
we have owned for generations. Kansas is a pretty big wheat
producer, number one in the country.
I am interested in our investment in wheat quality labs
and, in particular, what the future holds for grain research.
Kansas also produces corn and beans and many other grains.
And we also have a water challenge, as many parts of the
country do, and I am interested in how research into grain can
help resolve some of those concerns long term.
Ms. Woteki. Well, we have the agency administrators for the
two agencies that are really the ones that are going to be
conducting that research.
We have been working over these last several years to much
more closely coordinate the intramural research that ARS does
with the extramural research that NIFA sponsors.
And you can see in our budget request that there are
several crosscutting initiatives, including in the plant
sciences, specifically to your request about grain production.
And I might ask Dr. Jacobs-Young and Dr. Ramaswamy to talk
specifically within this budget request the new things related
to grain research.
Mr. Yoder. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Congressman Yoder, so one of the things
that you already know is that in Manhattan, Kansas, we have one
of our wheat quality laboratories. And we have three others
located across the country.
And we have been working very closely with the Wheat and
Barley Scab Initiative, and we have already seen some
significant improvements in the reduction of mycotoxins in
wheat with this group working together.
In fiscal year 2014, we had 131 projects in more than 27
States. And so, once again, we have a lot of people coming
together to work on some of these issues.
In terms of the falling number test, we talked about that a
little bit last year, but I am happy to report that this year
that they found a brand new methodology that provides some
consistency in the falling number test, which is an 80-year-old
test, but also has great impact on our wheat prices. And so the
ARS scientists have found a way to do this and reduce some of
the inconsistency and variability in that testing.
Mr. Ramaswamy. Good morning, Congressman Yoder. Good to see
you again this year.
Mr. Yoder. Good K-Stater there.
Mr. Ramaswamy. Indeed. Thanks so much.
In regard to NIFA's investments along with the ARS
investments, we are really supporting new discoveries in the
area of genetics, you know, improving the traits, the
characteristics that wheat plants and other grain crops have
that can resist the impact of pathogens, for example, scab or
other pathogens that you might have.
In addition to that, you know, we are also providing
funding to develop varieties that are much more drought-
tolerant. So, you know, we have seen the persistent droughts
here for the last few years. And so there is improved varieties
that are coming along that would be part of the landscape that
you would be seeing in Kansas and other parts of the country as
well.
And last, but not least, in regard to water itself, we are
proposing to invest almost $25 million in water in 2016. We
started in 2014. And, in fact, Congressman Farr had asked me
some questions last year as well. So we are continuing to make
investments in the area of water, particularly as it relates
to, at the watershed level, what is happening to our water
resources, improve the irrigation capacities, et cetera. Those
are some of the things that we are doing as well.
Mr. Yoder. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Bishop.
ATHENS POULTRY LABORATORY
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
And let me once again welcome the panel.
Dr. Woteki, Dr. Jacobs-Young, I was very pleased to see
that the President's budget for fiscal year 2016 included an
investment of $113.7 million for the new Agricultural Research
Service Poultry Laboratory in Athens, Georgia, and it continues
to be the Department's number one ARS priority again this year.
As you may or may not know, I am the cochair of the
Congressional Chicken Caucus, that Georgia is the number one
producer and exporter of poultry products in the Nation.
So can you give us a quick update on the current status of
the Athens lab, what has been obligated thus far for the
project, including how much has been obligated thus far, and
what are the projected total costs, and when you expect the
project to be completed.
Ms. Woteki. Well, with the continuing challenge that Avian
Influenza is posing, the importance of having an up-to-the-date
research facility for our poultry infectious disease research
is really high priority for us.
I am going to be visiting the Southeast Poultry Research
Lab (SEPRL) in a few weeks. It has been several years since I
have been there. I am told that nothing has changed. So it is
in very great need of a replacement.
[The information follows:]
In FY 2015, ARS allocated all $45 million of the funds
appropriated within its Buildings and Facilities account toward
the planning and design of the entire poultry lab facility and
construction of a BSL-3 animal building/laboratory, waste
treatment facility, and utility infrastructure. To date no
funding has yet been obligated; however, ABS expects to issue a
contract and obligate funds for facility design this summer.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, anything you would like to add?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. So, Congressman Bishop, just to give
you an update, I don't have the dollars that have been
obligated. We can follow up with that after the hearing.
But with the $45 million--thank you all so much for
providing us with that in fiscal year 2015--we will complete
the planning and design of the entire 143,000-square-foot
biocontainment facility. We will construct a BSL-3 facility
with this $45 million, the waste, treatment, and utility
infrastructure that will support the entire facility.
Now, this part under the $45 million is scheduled to be
completed in 2018. And with the request for 2016 for the
balance of the funding, we will complete the remainder of the
project, including the construction of a BSL-2 containment
facility and modernization of some of the 10 small buildings
that are there, and demolish 24 buildings. So we hope to have
that all completed by 2022.
BYRON, GEORGIA FACILITY
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
As you know, we have another ARS facility in Georgia, which
just happens to be in my district in Byron, Georgia. The ARS
Byron facility has been one of ARS's most successful areas of
public-private partnership in agriculture and has been
invaluable in the growth and expansion not only just of the
pecan industry, but peaches and other fruits and vegetables,
which are critical in the southeast.
Unfortunately, the Byron facility has really seen better
days and it is now just sort of limping along. And, frankly, it
is in somewhat of a state of disrepair. Can you share with us
ARS's plans for the Byron facility.
And given the presence of our 1890 Fort Valley State
University, which is almost next door, I think that there could
be numerous opportunities for ARS and NIFA to work together to
improve and expand the capacity of the Byron ARS facility.
That facility has the world's greatest bank of pecan plants
anywhere in the world, and it is a shame for it not to be
maximized. Georgia, of course, leads the country in pecans,
also. And, of course, we are beginning to export tremendous
amounts of that.
Can you talk about that just briefly.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So yes. So, in 2012, ARS completed a
capital investment strategy for our building and facilities
infrastructure.
And, as you are aware, in fiscal year 2015, we had an
opportunity to address our highest priority concern, which was
SEPRL. And we have in the upcoming budget five facilities. And
so, as we are able to fund those facilities coming down the
list, we will have an opportunity to address more and more.
But, in the interim--because I know you don't want to wait
until we get all the way to Byron on the list--we have a
request in fiscal year 2016 to increase our Repair and
Maintenance (R&M) funding.
Because we find that, if we can go in and address some of
the major systems in the buildings and do some of the upkeep
that is required for maintenance, that we won't have our
buildings falling in such disrepair as they are waiting for
their turn to come up on the list. So we requested an
additional $20 million in our budget for R&M across ARS.
ATHENS RESEARCH FUNDING
Mr. Bishop. Very quickly, I notice that the fiscal year
2016 budget proposes a decrease of $2.8 million for two
research projects that are currently being performed in Athens:
molecular approaches for the characterization of food-borne
pathogens and poultry and pre-harvest interventions for
application during poultry production to reduce food-borne
bacterial pathogens.
Can you share with us the current status of these two
projects and if there are sufficient funds available in fiscal
year 2015 to complete them. Are the reductions that are
proposed essentially in those two projects?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So, for Athens, in 2016, we have some
projects that have been redirected. And so we have--we are part
of the President's CARB initiative, the combating antimicrobial
resistance bacteria initiative.
And so one of the things that is happening is that Athens
is receiving--so while they are receiving a reduction, they are
receiving sort of a redirection. They are being redirected into
our antimicrobial resistance bacteria initiative.
Mr. Bishop. In Athens?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. In Athens. At Athens.
So as the Chairman mentioned earlier, you know, we have to
often find straight cuts. And sometimes we have an opportunity
to redirect into specific initiatives. And so, in this case, it
is a redirection.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Young.
PORCINE EPIDEMIC DIARRHEA VIRUS--PEDV
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Folks, thanks for coming before us today, and thank you for
your service.
The viral hog disease, the PED virus that is out there,
diagnosed about 2 years ago in 31 States, resulting in
significant piglet loss, low sow productivity, so you have
reduced pork production, higher prices. It is just really
devastating, not just financially to Iowa farmers and hog
farmers, but a really emotional toll that is being taken on
folks, as you know. I thank goodness that it is not affecting
food safety and human health.
But the USDA has conditionally approved two companies to
market vaccines against PEDV. How successful have these
vaccines been? How high of a priority is this research in the
ongoing research that you are doing?
I want to hear, of course, that it is a high priority, but
talk a little bit about the vaccines--how they are doing, the
priority of the research, and where it is going.
Ms. Woteki. Well, certainly, PEDV has been a high priority
for us. It has also, as you have indicated, been a very high
priority for hog farmers, which reflects how we set our
priorities as well.
I don't know that we are able to specifically address your
question today about the vaccine effectiveness. We would be
happy to provide additional information on that question for
the record.
But, Dr. Jacobs-Young, would you like to talk specifically
about the directions that the ARS research on PEDV is going?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Yes. So in fiscal year 2015, we were able
to support $900,000 toward PEDV. I think we had an opportunity
to talk about it for the first time at the last hearing last
year, because it is really new, since 2013.
And so we have been working collaboratively with APHIS and
industry to first develop a model that we can use to test the
vaccines. What we found is, some of the vaccines, the efficacy
was not as optimum as the scientists would have hoped.
And so they have been working with those industries and
APHIS to, first, help develop vaccines and, second, test the
ones that are currently on the market. And that work is
happening in Ames, Iowa.
Mr. Young. How long do you think it takes to determine how
the vaccines are doing? You don't have that information right
now. But how long do you think it takes?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Well, it is difficult to say because what
we are finding with the PEDV, which is the coronavirus, is that
it has different strains and different levels of virulence.
And one of the things that we found in the interim through
the animal research is that the management practices are also
very helpful as we find opportunities to address this with
better vaccines and treatments.
And so one of the things is: How is the disease carried
from one animal to the next? Is it through the boots or on the
gloves? And there is this feedback loop that they do. And I
don't want to talk about what that entails, but it can impart
some immunity in young piglets.
And so there are some interim steps that are in place, but
it is difficult to determine how long it will take until we
have the optimum vaccine.
Ms. Woteki. We have also been supporting some researchers
in university settings who are also investigating this, and Dr.
Ramaswamy can speak to that.
Mr. Ramaswamy. Yeah. So in the very recent past, NIFA has
provided funding to a consortium of universities and private
enterprise that is in the process of developing newer vaccines
to PEDV. It is led by Ohio State University, but Iowa State and
others are partners in that as well.
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE RESEARCH
Mr. Young. Appreciate your ongoing research on this and
your commitment to this. As you know, this is very important.
Antimicrobial resistance. You know, antibiotics have been
helping farmers to treat sick animals, prevent diseases. The
farmers are trying to provide these at the lowest possible
levels and doses, of course. Yet, there are groups out there
who don't want to see any use of antibiotics due to concerns of
resistance.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, your written testimony highlights the
President's budget request for antibiotic and antimicrobial
resistance research. The justification points out that more
research is needed to understand the root causes behind
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
If these causes are not fully understood, why has the
President requested $10 million to develop alternatives to
antibiotics? Wouldn't it be more prudent first to identify the
causes before trying to develop a solution?
Ms. Woteki. Well, let me take a first crack at responding
to you, Mr. Young.
It is prudent for us to be continuing to conduct research
to understand the underlying mechanisms and, at the same time,
while the Food and Drug Administration is moving forward in its
labeling proposals that will reduce medically important
antibiotics use in farm animals, that our research also be
supporting the development of effective alternatives for
producers.
So we think that that is just a prudent way to proceed,
continue some basic research, but, very importantly, provide
research that is going to develop useful alternative methods
for farmers who are producing very important livestock for
meat, milk, and other purposes.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. I yield back, if I
had any left.
Mr. Aderholt. You don't have any left.
Ms. Pingree.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the panel for being here today.
I want to ask a little bit about integrated pest management
and some concerns I have about the funding there. Obviously,
that is an important part of the research that you do.
It gives farmers important data and provides innovative
solutions. There is a lot of wonderful things that come out of
it, and it has certainly been a good collaborative approach.
I want to mention the benefits to my State, besides
agricultural. The Northeast Region IPM Center at Cornell has
been a really important resource for some of the researchers in
our State who are trying to understand some of the challenges
we have through the incredible increase in tick-borne diseases:
Lyme diseases, Powassan, and ticks I can't even pronounce the
name of.
But they are increasingly a problem and a huge challenge
for us in the Northeast and other parts of the country where
they hit hardest in our summer season. They are dangerous to
children, adults, and tourists.
They are just a big problem. And we don't know a lot about
them, about the control of them and how to handle them. So the
research dollars that have been available to us have been very
important.
So I just want to express my concerns that since this is a
critical program and we are always looking for information
about ever-expanding pests and diseases, that there is no
increase in the budget. How we are going to handle no increases
in funding in something that is just such a critical problem?
Ms. Woteki. Well, you are absolutely right that integrated
pest management is an enormously important tool, and the
programmatic activities are largely within the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture. We are very privileged to
have a card-carrying entomologist as the director, Dr.
Ramaswamy.
So do you want to address the IPM issues in the budget?
Mr. Ramaswamy. Indeed. Thanks so much, Dr. Woteki.
And, Congresswoman Pingree, good to see you again here this
morning.
And you are absolutely correct that integrated pest
management is a critical need that we have got, particularly in
the context of the variability in the climate that we are
seeing and changes in the varieties of crops that we are
growing and on and on. There is a whole series of things that
are happening.
And so we need to be really focused on investing
intellectual and monetary resources. And so, within NIFA's
portfolio funding, we have the crop protection and pest
management line of funding that is approximately about $17
million.
In addition to that, funding is also provided through the
experiment stations and extension service through the Hatch Act
and the Smith-Lever Act. And our competitive grants programs,
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and the Specialty Crop
Research Initiative, are also funding opportunities that are
provided. And the people at the University of Maine as well as
the Northeastern IPM Center at Cornell have been very
successful at receiving funding.
And we are continuing to keep our eye on it and we hope--
and, in addition to that, by the way, there is the IR-4, the
Inter-Regional 4 Program, which is about minor crops, in
quotes, for which we need to have tools available as well.
So there are several different parts of our budget that is,
you know, trying to address these questions, whether it is the
new pest that we are seeing--insect pest that we are seeing or
pathogens or weeds that we are seeing, and trying to come up
with the tools and technologies to make sure that we can deal
with those.
Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you.
ORGANIC RESEARCH
And I just want to reiterate my concern about making sure
it is adequately funded. It is certainly one of the ways where
people who aren't necessarily directly involved in agriculture
or farming see the benefit of the research that you do. And, as
you say, these problems are increasing and certainly as some of
our weather changes.
One other question--I think I have time--a little bit about
organic research. We can all debate this, you know, here or
anywhere else about the demand for organic products, but the
fact is, in the marketplace demand is just soaring, people's
interest in pursuing purchasing organic products, finding more
available. And the last thing we want to have is more of those
products having to be produced outside of the United States.
It is a place where we are falling behind. The National
Organic Standards Board released a list of unmet organic
research priorities, everything from curing mastitis in cows
without the use of antibiotics or how to deal with pesticide
residue in compost. It just seems that these are important
questions for organic farmers. They are important for
conventional farmers.
So can you talk a little bit--I don't have a lot of time
left--but about the role that it plays. And perhaps offline you
could give me for the record an accounting of how much organic
research has been done through the AFRI program in the last 5
years. I know you can't get all of that in a limited time, but
I just want to emphasize the critical importance of it.
Ms. Woteki. Well, organic research is also an area in which
actually all four of the agencies that are here have been
playing a role. The Organic Research and Extension Initiative
that is administered, a competitive program within NIFA, is a
good example. We are really pleased that Congress reauthorized
that in the Farm Bill.
ARS has been increasingly devoting its program to organic
farming methods as well and the research to undergird those.
ERS has done some very important groundbreaking research from
the economic perspective on organic farmers. And NASS has been
conducting surveys and collecting data and information that
helps to inform the programs and policies.
So we are happy to consolidate all of that and provide it
to you.
Ms. Pingree. Great. I am out of time, but I would really
appreciate being able to kind of look across all sectors and
see what we are doing and not getting done.
Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Rooney.
MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Rooney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question doesn't revolve around this New York Times
article, but I wanted to just comment on it. Obviously, you
know, I have one of the largest beef-producing districts in the
State of Florida and on the east coast.
And I can tell you one of my issues with this article isn't
so much that--you know, obviously, it sounds like it was a
house of horrors, what was going on there.
And that there is an Inspector General (IG) report--I can
get that and I am glad about that. I don't know that maybe--you
know, that there should be a suspension of operations there
pending the IG report's outcome, but it sure sounds like
something of that magnitude may be warranted here.
And some of the things that they were doing--here is what
really concerns me, is that my beef producers and my cowboys
and all the people that work in that industry in my district
are some of the best people that I have ever met.
And some of the practices that they are doing here at this
facility is something that would be so foreign to them that
they would clearly find egregious, especially with regard to
breeding twins and triplets and what have you.
That is something that I don't think that I have ever heard
of any rancher that I work with actually wanting. And they
actually allude to that in this article, that, ``Well, we are
not doing anything that the ranchers didn't want.'' That is
bull you know what.
And so I just think that one of the unintended consequences
that I am really worried that may come out of this report might
actually go to punish these producers that are in my district
for the sins that were committed in Nebraska.
And so I just hope, as this IG investigation goes forward,
that even though there may be some bad actors out there in the
countryside, that what is happening by our U.S. taxpayer-funded
dollars at this facility is not necessarily--or should not be
reflected on the actual beef producers that are in our
districts, I hope. That wasn't really a question. That was just
a request.
CITRUS GREENING
But on a completely different note, the other major
industry in my district deals with citrus. And with the
establishment of the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and
Extension Program, your agency has done good work in finding a
long-term solution to the horrific effects of greening. And I
thank you.
And I am also happy that my alma mater, the University of
Florida, received funds to get our research working on four of
the seven projects funded in this first year. I understand the
challenges associated with starting the entire program from
scratch, and I am hopeful that we will see good results when
the project is selected for funding.
My question is: With the implementation of the two-step
review, one industry relevance and the other scientific, what
weight is there on industry concern? And were all of the
proposals considered by the science panel regardless of their
industry ranking? And then, finally, was the industry ranking
communicated to the science panel reviewers?
Thank you.
Ms. Woteki. Mr. Rooney, I would like to have Dr. Ramaswamy
respond to you in detail about the process that NIFA has used
in implementing the research program on citrus greening within
the Specialty Crop Research Initiative.
I think the important point to make is that the farm bill
did designate that the priorities for the program be developed
by that special committee that is representative of the three
States where this is such a large problem: Florida, Texas, and
California. So the citrus industry representatives on that
committee are setting the priorities for the program.
And Dr. Ramaswamy can speak specifically to the procedures
that they used.
Mr. Ramaswamy. Indeed. Thanks very much, Dr. Woteki.
And good morning, Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Good morning.
Mr. Ramaswamy. And appreciate your vote of confidence, as
it were, in the first round that we did. Indeed, University of
Florida did quite well in getting some of those grants as well.
And we hope that the discoveries being made will indeed
help our citrus producers in America, particularly in Florida,
have a crop because we have got over 75 percent of the crop now
infected.
And so we need some tools very, very quickly. And so that
is the intent, is over the long term that there will be the
sustainable tools that are available to support our citrus
producers.
Very specifically, in regards to your question and the two-
step process, the first round is the industry relevance review,
was that information made available to the second round--this
is the scientific merit review--the answer is yes.
Indeed, the written comments were provided. And, also,
there was a reminder to the panel that this sort of a two-step
process is happening. It was also very clearly articulated in
the request for applications that went out as well. So
everybody knew that this was going to happen.
After the first round was done, we provided a report to the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and the
Economics Advisory Board, the NAREEE board, which has a
subcommittee of specialty crops and then the citrus disease
subcommittee. We provided a report.
They have looked at the process that we used, and they have
provided us some feedback and, also, the priorities for the
next year, this upcoming year, the new request for applications
that come out. And we have incorporated all of that verbatim
into how we undertake the process this next go-around.
Ms. Woteki. And we did have one really significant
accomplishment last year with respect to citrus greening. ARS
released an orange rootstock that is tolerant to citrus
greening. So that is a major step forward.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Valadao.
LISTERIA RESEARCH
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Under Secretary, for spending some time with us
this morning.
I want to associate myself with the comments that Mr.
Rooney made about some of our cattle producers. I, too,
represent and happen to be someone who is very much involved in
animal agriculture myself. Some of the things that were there
were very much in opposition to anything that--I was raised as
a farmer--what I have seen as practices that actually benefit
the animal and animal production. So, to me, it was just mind-
boggling.
But to my question, recently the apple industry experienced
a multiple multi-state outbreak of listeria, which was linked
to commercially produced and prepacked caramel apples. As you
know, listeria can cause serious life-threatening illnesses.
Dr. Jacobs-Young, are there any current or proposed
research studies at ARS that focus on the prevention and/or
treatment of listeria outbreaks within the commercial food
industry?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Mr. Valadao, thank you for your question.
Don't have the answer to that question specifically
concerning listeria in apples, but we do have a lot of food
safety work that is underway. The Meat Animal Research Center
that we have been talking about this morning conducts a lot of
that very important food safety work.
For example, they have done the studies that show how--the
distance which a feedlot should be located from fresh fruit and
vegetable production. And so some of the work that we have
underway I am sure can address that issue, and we can follow up
with you after today.
And I just wanted to also comment that, if you were to meet
the MARC employees--the animal handlers and the scientists
there, you would find the same group of passionate people about
animals.
[The information follows:]
The ARS Food Safety Research Program has a long history in
developing pathogen decontamination technologies for fresh
fruits and vegetables. Researchers at the Eastern Regional
Research Center in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania developed industrial
level decontamination systems and technologies for a variety of
fruits, especially apples and melons. These technologies were
developed in collaboration with the industry and have been
implemented by various fruit and vegetable producers.
In addition, ARS researchers in Beltsville, Maryland, in
association with industry partners, have developed and patented
pathogen decontamination/washing procedures for leafy greens.
The sensitive nature of leafy greens requires very specialized
decontamination processes. The most well-known is SmartWash
which is considered the single, most effective tool in
eliminating outbreaks of food-borne illness in produce.
Contaminated produce is considered one of the most critical
aspects of the ARS Food Safety Program. To ensure that
developed technologies have impact, the program has close
associations with industry, industry related commodity
organizations such as United Fresh, and the Food and Drug
Administration which regulates produce. Further, the ARS Food
Safety Program ensures that representatives from industry and
the FDA are part of the formal 5-year project review process.
Annual reporting of accomplishments is also sent to industry,
and State and Federal regulatory agencies for updates.
ARS research activity related to Listeria in fiscal year
2015 is estimated at $4.7 million.
Mr. Valadao. When these situations occur, a solution is
needed quickly. As everyone knows, research and investigation
responses do not happen overnight.
Can you provide your thoughts on how quickly research
regarding these issues can begin to assist industries that need
immediate assistance.
Ms. Woteki. Well, in planning our research programs,
particularly with respect to food-borne pathogens, we work
closely with the regulatory agencies, Food and Drug
Administration, and Food Safety and Inspection Service in
setting the priorities.
Listeria has been a priority pathogen for our programs for
several years. We then make a decision whether it is most
appropriate for that research to be conducted in the intramural
program. Do we have the right people? Do we have the right
facilities or is it more appropriate to be handled through
university-based research?'', in which case those priorities
are built into the grants programs that NIFA manages.
So, again, listeria has been a priority pathogen for many
years. I can't speak--I don't know whether Dr. Ramaswamy would
be prepared today also to speak specifically about listeria in
apples, because this was a relatively new occurrence of that
pairing.
But are you up to it today?
Mr. Ramaswamy. No. And we will have to get you that
information, whether indeed we are investing very specifically
in apples.
But, in general, listeria is a critically important food
safety consideration. So we are investing significant resources
in addressing listeria issues, including developing sensors and
other approaches for diagnostics as well.
[The information follows:]
In 2014, an outbreak of listeriosis occurred in
commercially produced, prepackaged caramel apples made from
Bidart Bros. apples in Bakersfield, California. Listeriorsis is
a very severe foodborne illness; 34 people were hospitalized
and at least 3 people died.
NIFA is not funding any specific activities to identify the
risk of listeria on caramel apples. However, this work may
compete for funds under the Critical Agricultural Research and
Extension program or possibly the Exploratory Research program
within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).
NIFA supported $0.5 million for research on novel methods
for disinfection of apples to inactivate Listeria monocytogenes
and other pathogens, and the agency is funding many projects to
improve the understanding and control of Listeria monocytogenes
in various foods. The findings may be applicable to controlling
Listeria on apples. Using FY 2013 NIFA-funded capacity funds,
about $1.4 million was provided to support listeria-related
research at 1890 and 1862 land grant institutions. In addition,
NIFA supported about $2.3 million in competitive grants. Newly
funded projects for approximately $2 million under the AFRI
program include studies using essential oils or other natural
compounds to reduce or inactivate Listeria in foods; detection
methods for Listeria virulence genes; and novel processing
technologies using pulsed light to inactivate Listeria. These
techniques may be successful on apples.
LISTERIA RESEARCH
Mr. Valadao. All right. As I understand, the U.S. is the
only country that has a zero-tolerance policy regarding
listeria contamination.
What is going on with these other countries? Have you
looked into any of the research that they are doing,
conducting, for an outbreak and how they handle the situation?
How do they get away with this? Are we considering any type of
harmonization between countries just to get a better
understanding of how it works for them and how it doesn't work
for us?
Ms. Woteki. Well, the questions about harmonization really
go to the regulatory agencies as opposed to the research
agencies. We certainly are in consultation with them, provide
evidence from our research to help to inform their program and
policy decisions.
Those questions about harmonizing approaches between
regulatory agencies and different countries for produce should
be addressed to the Food and Drug Administration.
Mr. Valadao. Well, I am specifically asking--have you look
into any of the research they use to base this? If we are the
only one that is zero-tolerant and they are not, have you
looked into the research they have used to make the decisions
for their agencies?
Ms. Woteki. Well, the scientists who are planning our
research program certainly are up to date on the research that
is being conducted in other countries.
You know, with different legal approaches towards food
safety in different countries, that might be part of the reason
why they are coming to different regulatory decisions based on
the same scientific evidence.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Ms. DeLauro.
MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To, I guess, Dr. Jacobs-Young or Dr. Woteki, I share
similar concerns as my colleagues have expressed about the
neglect and abuse of the Animal Research Center in Nebraska.
My understanding is Subcommittee staff has met several
times with all of you and several times has not received
substantive responses in this area. Obviously, we find it
unacceptable. The findings of ARS Animal Handling and Welfare
Review Panel raised red flags, and at least it is the view that
we haven't been able to get real answers.
Let me just try to ask a couple of questions, if I might,
in this regard. You have asked the review panel, the Vilsack
panel, to look at three to five additional ARS facilities that
do livestock research.
How many ARS facilities handle animals?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Approximately 50.
Ms. DeLauro. What do you know about similar failures at
the--is it IACUC, the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee?--at other ARS animal research facilities? Have you
looked into similar failures at that effort?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Congresswoman DeLauro, in response to the
New York Times article and the actions that were taken inside
of ARS, we have developed a brand-new action plan. And what the
panel did find is that our policies and procedures are up to
date and they are adequate.
But we need to ensure that each one of our locations is
following those policies and procedures. And so I am hiring an
individual that their sole job is to work with the animal
research locations to ensure that they are following the
policies and procedures, and I have named an ombudsman so that,
if anyone has any concerns about anything that they have seen
or heard in ARS, that they can come to that independent person.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, let me just say, do we have access to
this plan of action? I thought I heard you say that there is
now a new plan of action, but there was a determination that
the procedures and the policies were okay, that they were fine.
So this plan of action then is, what, to verify that the
procedures and policies are fine?
I mean, my question is: Have you looked into this other--
this IACUC, which has a responsibility at other ARS animal
research facilities? Are there similar failures that have been
reported with regard to other efforts here? How are you going
to determine the status of these IACUCs at each ARS facility
that handles animals if the review panel is only looking at
three to five facilities? You talked about 50 facilities. What
are we going to find out from three to five facilities here?
Ms. Woteki. You have asked a number of questions.
The Secretary, when he requested the expert panel to do the
review at MARC, also requested that ARS develop an action plan
to respond to their recommendations, which is what Dr. Jacobs-
Young just referred to.
Ms. DeLauro. But----
Ms. Woteki. Your second question--set of questions about
the Institutional Care and Use Committees (IACUC)----
Ms. DeLauro. Right.
Ms. Woteki [continuing]. At the remaining facilities, all
of them are required to have Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committees in place to review the research that is being
proposed at all of those locations. So there----
Ms. DeLauro. Well, but we identified that that was true of
MARC. I have to do that because I have to be back at Labor HHS
in about 2 or 3 minutes, where I am the Ranking Member.
But, you know, MARC was in the same situation here, but we
found real problems there. And I also understand that the
review panel said that--and I quote--``There was no evidence of
former review or approval of the proposed research by IACUC
members. Furthermore, there is no evidence of regularly
convened meetings of the IACUC.''
So we don't have any information about any of these,
whether or not there is similar difficulties with this process
in terms of the facilities.
Ms. Woteki. Yes. And we are taking two steps to respond to
that. One is, as Dr. Jacobs-Young has said, in this plan that
she's putting together to----
Ms. DeLauro. So there isn't a plan yet?
Ms. Woteki. There is a plan that is going to the Secretary
by the end of this week, responding specifically to the
recommendations of the Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee.
Ms. DeLauro. Can this Committee get a copy of that
document?
Ms. Woteki. We certainly first have to submit it to the
Secretary.
Ms. DeLauro. No. I understand that.
But after Secretary Vilsack gets it, which you said it
would be at the end of the week--that is Friday, 3 days from
now--at the same time, can we get a copy of that report?
Ms. Woteki. And we will certainly discuss that with the
Secretary about his sharing it with you.
Ms. DeLauro. So we are not sure that this Committee can get
a copy of it?
Ms. Woteki. I think that we would be happy to come and talk
with you about what is in it. After I have consulted with the
Secretary, I am sure that he will be wanting to also share
information with you.
[The information follows:]
In response to recent allegations concerning the
mistreatment of animals at the US Meat Animal Research Center
(USMARC), Secretary Vilsack convened an independent review
panel under the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board to conduct a
thorough review of animal handling protocols and procedures at
USMARC, report its findings, and make recommendations where
necessary to improve current oversight mechanisms.
The panel issued a preliminary report on March 9, 2015,
that found no evidence of animal cruelty or mistreatment at
USMARC and included seven recommendations. The recommendations
primarily focused on improving the processes used by the
Center's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee to provide
oversight of the Center's research program. On March 18 the
review panel convened a public teleconference to present its
findings and accept public comments. The panel will review all
comments received as it finalizes its report and provides it to
the NAREEE Advisory Board. The NAREEE Board will then hold a
public teleconference on April 14, to share their review of the
expert panel report, offer their comments, and listen to public
input. The final report by the independent panel is expected to
be revised based on comments received through the
teleconference.
ARS has developed an action plan to address the independent
review panel's recommendations with the goal of completing
implementation by the end of April. As soon as the plan is
finalized, ARS will provide an update to the Subcommittee.
Ms. DeLauro. Uh-huh.
Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one quick follow-up before I
jump out?
Mr. Aderholt. Sure.
ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION OF LABORATORY ANIMAL CARE
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
The Times asked why MARC is not a member of the Association
for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care
(AAALAC). It is an organization that provides voluntary
accreditation of 925 public and private labs in 40 countries
that do research involving animals.
In response, you said you were aware of the work that
AAALAC does with non-Federal facilities. You also suggested
that membership by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln,
which, to quote you, ``owns a fraction of the animals at MARC''
would help MARC.
Are you aware that AAALAC does, in fact, have Federal
members, including the ARS Beltsville Research Center? Why is
MARC not an accredited member? And, you know, I don't really
want to hear that membership by UNL is sufficient. And why are
other ARS facilities that have animals not accredited members?
Ms. Woteki. Well, the organization we call for short
``AAALAC.'' It is easier.
Ms. DeLauro. ``AAALAC.'' Yes. Right.
Ms. Woteki. The facility that you mentioned, ARS facility,
is one in which the experimental animals are small laboratory
animals. And so that is the one that I am familiar with and the
one that you mention that does have AAALAC accreditation.
It is certainly among the things that we are considering.
But at this point in time MARC and the other large animal
facilities are not under AAALAC accreditation.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, that is my question, is why.
Ms. Woteki. Well, primarily, the AAALAC accreditation has
been focused on laboratory--not exclusively, but it has
primarily been focused on small laboratory animals. They do
have accreditation programs as well for larger animals. And we
are----
Ms. DeLauro. Well, they do livestock.
Ms. Woteki. Yes.
Ms. Jacobs-Young. We are actually meeting with the
leadership of AAALAC next week. We are also working
collaboratively with APHIS. And we are working to shore up, to
fortify, the system we have inside of ARS to provide our
internal structure.
Ms. DeLauro. I think we have got some serious issues here,
my friends, and I hope it would be transparent in whatever
plans of action, whatever that you are doing to make it
available and accessible to this committee.
That was a devastating article. And to not have any real
responses and action plans and the determination of where we
are going from here and to--in fact, I will just use the word
``stonewall'' staff in terms of getting responses, I think is
pretty irresponsible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
SNAP FOOD CHOICES
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, everyone, for being here. I apologize. I am also
over at the HHS hearing as well.
But let me go ahead and ask some questions just about the
Economic Research Service. Because I read through the
testimony. There is some interesting things.
On page 2 of the testimony, it says, ``Our research
moreover touches on those who depend on SNAP and development
program''.
Let me go to page 4. ``Ongoing research will inform
strategies to encourage healthy food choices for other food and
nutrition assistance programs such as SNAP.''
And I have got to ask--because I asked when the Director of
SNAP was here the other day, can you place any restrictions on
the food purchased with SNAP, and the answer is no, it is all
in statute.
So exactly how do you encourage healthy food choices when
you can't actually say you can't buy a certain type of food
product because it is not a healthy food choice in the SNAP
program?
Ms. Bohman. So the Economic Research Service looks at
dietary choices by all Americans with a focus on low-income
Americans who participate in USDA's nutrition programs.
And through understanding what they eat and how they use
SNAP, we can better identify what are the key problems and gaps
in dietary choices and, also, what initiatives could be
undertaken by the public and private sector.
So we have funded research in behavioral economics, which
looks at how people make food choices, and we have new work
underway with retailers that we are funding.
Dr. Harris. No. I understand that.
But do you actually make recommendations about healthy food
choices for the SNAP program? Could you advise Congress, ``Gee,
are there changes we could make in statute that would make it a
healthier food program?''
Ms. Bohman. Well, we don't make recommendations, but our
research, I believe, would be very valuable for Congress----
Dr. Harris. Could inform that. Sure.
Ms. Bohman [continuing]. In terms of decisions. And we are
funding research that----
MENU LABELING
Dr. Harris. Thank you. That is fine. That is all I need to
know about the SNAP program. That is what I thought. I thought
that it wasn't going to be able to guide food choices.
Under the menu labeling, it mentions that you have done a
recent study that basically said--and I will quote from this--
``Results show that some simple rules of thumb are fairly
reliable predictors of actual calorie content.'' And then the
next sentence says, ``Nonetheless, menu labeling, as the FDA
proposes.''
So let me get it straight. Your research basically shows
that, with a few simple rules of thumb, you can kind of make
educated guesses about what a caloric content is going to be
when you go into an establishment. Is that right?
Ms. Bohman. Our----
Dr. Harris. It is a pretty good predictor, using simple
rules of thumb?
Ms. Bohman. Our research shows that applying simple rules
of thumb to foods on menus provides reasonably good guidance
about their dietary content.
Dr. Harris. So the implication of that would seem to mean
that putting these huge regulations--and, again, I get visits
from small food store owners in my district who might have a
lunch buffet set out, saying, ``Look, I mean, we change a
product. We have got to do menu labels that has got the exact
calories. Who knows how big a portion the customer takes?'', et
cetera, et cetera.
What you are saying is, basically, some simple rules of
thumb like you go into a pizza parlor and you say, ``You know,
pepperoni and sausage probably are bad in terms of adding
calories. You know, I am not sure I need an exact calorie
count. And mushrooms and green peppers are probably good.''
Is that what you mean by simple rules of thumb, basically,
what kind of food groups are high in fat, low in fat, high in
calorie, low in calorie, as opposed to being very specific, as
the FDA labeling apparently is going to require?
Ms. Bohman. So you described a great deal, that we applied
these kinds of common rules and then looked at a sample of
menus and came up with the result that you quote.
SNAP DISTRIBUTION TIMING
Dr. Harris. Thank you. That is what I imagined. I imagine
it could be much simpler than the FDA proposal.
One thing that came up--you know, I have some stores in my
district that are in areas where a high percentage of the
people are on SNAP. And one complaint they have is, first of
all, it is hard to make a decision to move into that area
because those are usually the economically challenged areas.
But what they find is that the problem is that all the SNAP
benefits are front-loaded at the beginning of the month.
So they have a tremendous influx of customers in the first
few days of the month, but they have to staff the store for the
entire month, and have said, ``Look, wouldn't it make sense to
just divide it, you know, the first half of the alphabet gets
their benefits the 1st of the month, the second half of the
alphabet the 16th of the month, so that we can smooth the
economic activity in our stores and more providers will
actually look at it as potentially profitable to come into
those areas, which some people call food deserts? I mean, that
is because stores don't want to come in.
Is it really that difficult to do? My understanding is that
it has been proposed a couple times in the past. But, I mean,
would the ERS be the one to show that, in fact, yes, that
actually has a positive economic impact on the profitability of
a store that chooses to site in one of those locations?
Ms. Bohman. So the economic research sort of sets its
research agenda around issues with SNAP through meeting
regularly. We have scheduled quarterly meetings and more
frequent consultations with the Food and Nutrition Service. And
I believe in the past we have looked at some timing issues
around distribution, and I can follow up with more specifics.
We can take on board your proposal and discuss with the Food
and Nutrition Service.
They also conduct some analysis that is very targeted
towards program specifics using their program analysis division
through work with consultants. And we will bring this issue up
and see if it has any opportunity.
Dr. Harris. Thank you. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, is there going to be a second round? I have
one additional question. And I will leave it to the Chairman's
choice.
Mr. Aderholt. What is your question?
Dr. Harris. I have just one additional question. Will there
be a second round or should I go ahead with it and make it
really brief?
Mr. Aderholt. We will go into a second round.
Dr. Harris. You are going to have a second round. Then, I
will be patient. Thank you.
MEAT ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER
Mr. Aderholt. Let me go back.
We could probably spend the whole morning on the New York
Times article. But, just lastly, I wanted to close with this:
Congressman Farr had asked a question about the response from
USDA from the Subcommittee's questions that we sent over, and I
don't think you really answered the question as to why USDA
didn't answer the question.
Could you let me know? Because we got the response back,
and it is basically just a recap of the New York Times article,
and just a response to that. So we had asked some very specific
questions on that and just want an answer to why you didn't
answer the question that was posed to you.
Ms. Woteki. We have provided to you the responses that we
provided to the New York Times. The questions that were raised
relate to programs that ended many years ago, allegations that
are at this point under audit by the Inspector General.
And we, on advice of counsel and consultation within the
Department, sent you a letter with a great amount of
information about the situation currently, which indicates from
the expert panel as well as our own review that there is no
abuse of animals occurring at the Meat Animal Research Center
currently. And to those allegations of things that happened
years ago, the Inspector General will be looking into that.
Mr. Aderholt. So your attorneys advised you not to answer
the questions that we had sent directly?
Ms. Woteki. We had an internal consultation involving
General Counsel, our Office of Communications, our Office of
Congressional Relations, the usual consultations process that
we go through internally in preparing and clearing documents
that we send to the Congress.
SHEEP EXPERIMENT STATION
Mr. Aderholt. Let me move on to the sheep experiment
station.
ARS brought a request proposal to close the sheep
experiment station in Idaho. Funding would be transferred from
the closed facility to three other ARS labs in the State.
Last year the Committee denied the agency's reprogramming
request to close that facility. And then last year the sheep
industry and related research community came together to
develop a plan to refocus the sheep experiment station.
Did ARS take this plan into account when it developed the
fiscal year 2016 budget request?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. So after the denial of the reprogramming,
we had an opportunity to--well, we talked to the University of
Idaho prior to the denial. We talked to the sheep industry.
And we had an opportunity to talk with--we had some public
listening sessions with many people who were interested in the
sheep station on both sides, both on keeping it open and on
closing. So we have two very strong communities that are
involved.
As the new Administrator--I have been onboard about a
year--I have not seen the plan that has been proposed. I look
forward to seeing it and having conversations about their ideas
about how we could go forward with the sheep station. As it
currently stands, it is not viable.
Mr. Aderholt. I am sorry. It is not what?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Is not viable.
Mr. Aderholt. So you say you have not actually had a chance
to see the plan?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. I have not seen the plan.
Mr. Aderholt. So you don't have an opinion on the plan at
this point?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. No.
Mr. Aderholt. So did ARS participate in the development of
it?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Aderholt. Why is the ARS requiring the station to cover
the litigation costs related to its grazing leases?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. That is typically how it is funded, at
the location. And what is not possible to be funded at the
location, it comes from headquarters. And those are--
Mr. Aderholt. Does ARS require other labs to cover
litigation costs related to their research?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. What they are covering is environmental
studies, environmental assessments. And yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Are you aware that the sheep experiment
station has nearly 50 years of research on the sage-grouse?
Ms. Jacobs-Young. I am. I have had two meetings in the last
week with stakeholders on the topic of sage-grouse.
INNOVATIONS INSTITUTES
Mr. Aderholt. I think what needs to be said is the research
is very important, as 11 western States and the community
farmers and ranchers industry and our Federal agencies are
trying to avoid the listing of the sage-grouse under the
Endangered Species Act.
Let me quickly go to one more question and propose this to
Dr. Ramaswamy. The budget proposed $80 million in new funding
to create two new innovation institutes, as I had mentioned in
my opening remarks, the Biomanufacturing Institute and the
Nanocellulosics Institute.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request, NIFA proposed creating
three new innovation institutes for pollinators, bioenergy
manufacturing, and antimicrobial resistance.
What would a Biomanufacturing Institute and a
Nanocellulosics Institute accomplish?
Mr. Ramaswamy. Thanks very much, Congressman Aderholt, for
that question.
In line with the Revitalizing American Manufacturing and
Innovation Act that was passed last year and in line with the
2014 Farm Bill itself, the idea behind these innovation
institutes is to bring together public-private partnerships.
And in this public-private partnership, the intent is not
just, you know, the private enterprise bringing their money,
but the expectation is that they also bring their intellectual
resources as well.
So the intent is for academia, government labs, the private
sector, nongovernmental organizations, all to be working
together to develop the knowledge that can result in--there is
a hand-off that takes place and new economic enterprises are
going to be resulting from that.
And so we believe that the bio economy, the
biomanufacturing piece of it, is a huge opportunity for the
United States to continue to maintain its global preeminence.
And that is why we have the request in the 2016 budget for
these two particular areas.
Mr. Aderholt. How will the funding be allocated and
awarded?
Mr. Ramaswamy. The funding is going to be offered
competitively, and we are going to develop the rules of the
competition and make it available.
There is going to be an expectation that the, in quotes,
``competitors'' are going to bring together this partnership of
the public-private, nongovernmental, academic, government labs,
et cetera.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. My time is up.
Mr. Farr.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
I am not going to dwell anymore on MARC. I just want to
point out that you want crisis, believe it or not, because that
is the only way Congress pays attention to anything anymore.
When I came here, we used to do Farm Bills and talk about
long-range planning. We did the Reauthorization of the Primary
and Secondary School Act. We used to do those things. But that
is not the way Congress operates anymore. We only respond to
crisis.
And, frankly, I think that the--you know, the Chinese
describe crisis as not only an opportunity of problems, but it
is also a time for opportunity.
And I think that that is what MARC does for you, is you can
go start looking at something. And what it really paid
attention to is there is a lot of people now knowing that the
Department of Agriculture has its own farms, its own sort of
operational basis called these animal--or these research
facilities.
And 50 of them, you said, are dealing with animal research.
I mean, there is a lot of real estate there. There is a lot of
interest here.
And what I find difficult in this Committee is that we are
essentially fighting silos in the modern time when we are
trying to look at whole of government and the attitude here is
there is too much government, we got to cut, squeeze, and trim,
when we know that the silos that that whole of government
operate are really effective, but they are all limited in the
amount of money they can have.
And what really concerns me is that, in the funding that we
gave you--and I think Congress wants competitive grants. They
like the idea that the best minds in this country can go and
look into research to solve these difficult specific problems.
And we have divided those into NIFA research and AFRI
research. And, yet, of the money we appropriate, only 13
percent of the applications submitted can get in NIFA, and only
6 percent. Now, I am more interested in AFRI because it is sort
of the specialty crop agriculture that Ms. Pingree talked
about. This is tragic. And we are sort of leaving behind all
this incredible talent out there.
And so what I would just--and this is--I am just sort of
making a suggestion because I know you are dealing with--you
know, you are going to look at the whole of animal research
now, figure out protocols and procedures that are going to be
much more transparent and renewable and recordable and things
like that. And, hopefully, you find an answer to that.
But I would suggest that at the same time taking a look--
and, Dr. Ramaswamy, you know, here is the dilemma I am at. I
represent and Mr. Valadao represents California. Our number one
industry is agriculture, believe it or not. We grow--I don't
know--almost 100 crops that no other States grow.
Nobody knows that all the pistachios come from California
or all the almonds come from California. I think all the
walnuts come from California. I mean, that is why they call it
the land of fruits and nuts. Not just the politicians, but the
actual crops.
And we are 36 million people, this big urban interface,
encroachment on agriculture everywhere you go. Agriculture
needs a lot of water. We can't give water to agriculture now
because we need it for people. We have a huge fight going on.
Why not try to use more--if we can only present 6 percent
of our applications, why not use your resources to look at the
whole of a State in what you are trying to do, what the
President and the Secretary is trying to do, with the White
House Rural Council, called the Rural Strategy?
Why not start using also your research money for those
States that are trying to answer these problems? Integrated
pest management. We have got to find alternatives to pesticides
and herbicides because our communities surround the ag fields
and they don't want their kids being in schools that are being
affected by drift and so on. Huge problem. And the list goes on
and on.
So IPM, organic, all these things which are sort of merging
technologies, the question is: Why not use your investment
award to invest those that are taking the chance, that are
going meet you halfway, not just competitive grants, that we
have got something and somebody else is going to do it, but
looking at that whole of government? What is this kind of
research also going to do for the sustainability of agriculture
in California or other urban States and get more bang for your
buck?
And, actually, with your research facilities, where can
those things be expanded? We can't afford the luxury--I mean,
you have got, what, 48,000 acres there. I mean, that is huge.
You know, that is huge. And if it was a military base, you
would start talking about base realignment, BRAC. If somebody
is going to call upon--if they want to shrink government, maybe
we ought to shrink the real estate we own.
So I think that there is a lot of challenges out there and
this crisis allows you to kind of think outside the box and
suggest, ``We are just not going to keep doing everything in
silo form because we have got a get a better bang for the
limited dollar.'' And I think every Member of Congress on this
panel has been talking about that. So I hope that you can do
that.
Ms. Woteki. Well, Mr. Farr, we certainly agree with the
point that you are making, and in this budget you can actually
see many examples of us taking that approach. Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD).
There are within the four agencies' budgets specific
requests that relate to what the intramural and the extramural
programs can do in addressing Colony Collapse Disorder.
The plant genetics, plant genomics, that are important to
agriculture are also reflected in coordinated budget requests.
The combating antibiotic-resistant bacteria, another one.
So you can see within the way that we have built this
budget we are thinking exactly along the lines that you have
described.
Mr. Farr. Well, I hope to see more of it in being able to
get more people involved rather than just 6 percent of the
entire applications that are filed.
Mr. Ramaswamy. And we are addressing it, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, very quickly. So Winston Churchill is supposed to
have said, ``Crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'' And we are
using that sort of an approach in thinking of how do we deploy
the resources.
And, like you, we are deeply interested in ensuring that we
bring together the best brains to address these challenges. We
are concerned as well, and we hope that you collectively would
see the value in investing resources--the commensurate
resources that we need for addressing these sorts of global
challenges.
Mr. Aderholt. Dr. Harris.
MENU LABELING
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for a second round.
Let me just follow up with one question about that menu-
labeling study, if I can, with Dr. Bohman.
Did you find in your study that there are just some people
who just don't care about calories? I mean, no matter what is
on that board, they are going to eat what they want?
Ms. Bohman. Well, in our research and other research, we
see that Americans, in general, do not follow dietary and
nutrition advice, but it comes at a great cost to society.
And so we are investigating different strategies and what
would be the outcomes of strategies, such as taxes on poor-
quality foods, such as nutrition education, and other
strategies to improve the dietary quality in Americans.
Dr. Harris. But does your study suggest that, in those type
of people that putting up the calories just doesn't make a
difference, I mean, they just disregard it--I mean, I remember
walking into a pizza restaurant in New York and it was kind of
confusing because I thought it was the prices for a second. You
know, it had the calories.
Ms. Bohman. Our study did not look at how people responded.
We looked at these rules of thumb and to what extent they
covered the dietary advice.
ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE RESEARCH
Dr. Harris. Sure. Now, the antibiotic use, all of you are
doing the antibiotics.
Ms. Woteki. Right.
Dr. Harris. Good. Okay.
Because I have got to ask a question. Because this is an
ongoing question in my State, actually. In Maryland, we have a
huge poultry industry. It is a big issue. And, you know, the
legislature even this week is considering its own, you know,
antibiotic-use bill.
But the fact that you are all still looking at it would
imply to me that the final answer really isn't known about what
the effect is and what the best way to balance the economic
cost with the potential health cost.
Is that a good assessment? Do we have the answer to, how we
are going to solve this problem? Because in my State, I think
the legislature is about to think they do, but I find that a
little hard to believe.
Ms. Woteki. Well, we do know that, under FDA guidance, that
we are phasing out as a country the use of medically important
antibiotics in agricultural use.
Dr. Harris. And that is important to be done really
nationwide, not in one State or another. I mean, just as a
physician, I would think it is best applied across the entire
spectrum of product. And that is what I imagine.
Now, I just have one comment. Look, I am glad you all are
rehabilitating Building 307 in Beltsville. I think it will be a
good facility. I am glad to see it is in the budget.
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Let me just ask--and I think this is also with the ERS
because there was reference made to the Chesapeake Bay. And, as
you know, there are huge controversies in the Bay.
I mean, the last election was allegedly about our rain tax,
which was a direct result of the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP) programs and the implementations that had to do
with modeling of how we are going to help solve the problems in
the Chesapeake Bay.
When I first came to Congress in 2011, I believe the USDA
at that time had just published a study--it may have been
within the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)--that
was kind of the Department of Agriculture approach, and then
the EPA had their approach.
And what the Farm Bureau told me was, ``If you look at
these two models, they are very different models. They come to
very different conclusions.''
And, yet, we are about to institute regulations that affect
real people's lives, in my district, mostly farmers, because
the EPA modeling would suggest that that is where you are going
to have to put most of the burden.
What has been done since 2011 to reconcile those modeling
differences between the USDA and the EPA?
Ms. Bohman. Dr. Harris, I will have to follow up with the
exact answer to your specific question. But ERS undertook its
research because there is a gap in knowledge on the best
strategies for dealing with the Chesapeake Bay and farmers'
participation in improving water quality. And we----
Dr. Harris. If I could just interrupt, do you think that
gap in knowledge still exists?
Ms. Bohman. I think we have made a contribution to
improving the knowledge base for strategy by identifying ways
to target the strategy by looking at alternatives, such as
trading. So we have added to that. I believe it is an area
there is still a need for more research, but it is one where we
have made a contribution.
Dr. Harris. And thank you for your honesty in that. Because
what I really worry about is we are implementing--as you know,
we had a phosphorous management tool that was going to be
implemented, and, fortunately, the new governor stopped it.
We are implementing strategies that literally will put our
farmers out of business if they are not done carefully and
thoughtfully and with, I hope, some of the expertise that you
can bring to the table about balancing an economic cost, which
is tremendous of something like a phosphorous management tool,
with the--as you say, with the benefit for which there might be
a gap in knowledge that still exists.
So thank you very much for looking into that.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Ms. Pingree.
ANTIBIOTIC USE IN ANIMAL FEED
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one relatively simple question. But I will just
say--because it has come up a few times in our questions today
on the issues around antibiotics used in animal feed,
especially antibiotics that are critically, medically
important--it just seems like today there is an awful lot of
research out there and an enormous amount of concern about the
diminishing availability of antibiotics that are available to
hospitals, doctors, those that critically use them.
It seems to me really beneficial that an emphasis is being
placed on this in the President's budget and the Department is
looking into it. And I think, in the long run, it will be very
helpful to our agricultural producers.
We can think sometimes on this Committee or other
Committees, Agriculture, that we write the policy, but in the
end, it has a lot to do with consumer demand.
And, as I have mentioned earlier, you know, the recent
announcement by McDonald's that they want to buy antibiotic-
free chicken is going to change the marketplace tremendously,
and chicken producers are already worrying about how to deal
with that.
Having that critical research about how to make the
transition, what will happen in the poultry industry, to me,
seems very critical. In the end, it sort of doesn't matter what
we think up here because, in the end, that is what the consumer
is saying, and they make the ultimate decision.
And I am pleased to see that the consumer has been reading
the newspaper and worrying about it and wants to do the right
thing for their kids. So thank you for keeping an emphasis on
that.
AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM
My relatively minor question is about Agriculture in the
Classroom, a program that is funded at only $552,000. When we
talk about the raising age of farmers there is a lot of concern
about who will be the next generation of farmers in our
country. And, at the same time, there is a lot of interest on
the part of young people at seeing agriculture in a different
way, getting involved in agriculture, taking over the family
farm or a whole variety of things.
So I know the President's not funding this in the USDA
budget. It is being moved into the Department of Education and
sort of under all STEM programs. I am a huge STEM fan. But now
it is going to be kind of combined with engineering, NASA, you
know, everything out there. And I just want to express some
concerns that this has been a beneficial program. It is
relatively minor funding.
And if we really want to give young people the opportunity
to understand future careers and the tools to go into it, I
just want to raise some concern that, while there might be some
efficiencies here in putting it under STEM and putting it in
the Department of Education, I am just worried it is going to
get lost.
Ms. Woteki. Well, thank you very much for expressing that
concern. We also think it is very important that students be
exposed to information about where their food comes and that
this be part of the curriculum in schools, elementary as well
as high schools.
So in the transfer, if it does occur, if it is approved, we
would certainly be engaging, as we have already, with the
Department of Education to emphasize how important integrating
agricultural education is in the school curriculum and would
want to see a continued emphasis on ag in the classroom.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Pingree.
Well, thanks to the panel for being here today. Glad we
could have this discussion today on all the issues, but
especially regarding MARC.
I appreciate the steps that ARS and the Department has
taken, but I think we would all like to see things handled
differently. There is still a lot of unanswered questions out
there.
As you know, the Subcommittee must be able to confidently
and fully justify all of its funding recommendations, including
the recommendations for ARS. And let me just say at this point
I am not sure we are at the point where we can do that.
But, as such, we will be sending a formal request for
information, and I look forward to going through this as we go
forward and get a prompt reply to those questions for
information.
I do want to note that Betsy Bina is leaving us. She is
actually not going far. That is the good news. But she has been
responsible for a lot of the issues we have worked with on this
Subcommittee and, in particular, research is one of the many
things that we have relied on her expertise over the years.
So she is going to just be moving to another position in
the Appropriations Committee. But we appreciate her hard work
here over the past 4 years on this Subcommittee and wish her
well. But, like I said, the good thing is, hopefully, we will
be seeing her because she's not going far.
But, Betsy, we wish you the best. [Applause].
And, with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]